James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Alan_P

dolliemix wrote: »

While I agree with the rest of your post - this suggestion is just as bad as the tabloid stuff.

It would be hugely insensitive towards Jamie Bulger's mother and father to do such a thing.

James Bolger. Jamie was a tabloid creation,his mother has expressed displeasure at the tabloid's overriding her choice of name for her son.

Jesus Wept

Alan_P wrote: »

James Bolger. Jamie was a tabloid creation,his mother has expressed displeasure at the tabloid's overriding her choice of name for her son.

So bizarre.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Alan_P wrote: »

I'm actually very grown to a suggestion a barrister friend of mine made:- Venables is not in jail at all. His wife found a letter, and had a doubt, and a fake press release was the cheapest way to resolve it. If Venables is in jail, he's clearly not your husband.

Your barrister friend is obviously away with the fairy's, saner people have been locked up for their own protection.

I see there was an injuction brought against The Sun newspaper on Friday to prevent them releasing details of Venables alleged crimes, so I'm guessing The Sun must have something pretty close to the truth.

Even after the convictions and protected release of these two animals they won't allow poor Jamie to rest in peace.

Alan_P

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

Your barrister friend is obviously away with the fairy's, saner people have been locked up for their own protection.

I see there was an injuction brought against The Sun newspaper on Friday to prevent them releasing details of Venables alleged crimes, so I'm guessing The Sun must have something pretty close to the truth.

Even after the convictions and protected release of these two animals they won't allow poor Jamie to rest in peace.

And how would the Sun have access to the truth ? Please explain to me the provenace of their story.

Of course they're going to bring random injuctions against the papers :- they will never acknowledge any of this. Put yourself in their place.. they will bring injunctions against random false stories. The story they bring injunctions against is furthest from the truth.

Alan_P

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

Your barrister friend is obviously away with the fairy's, saner people have been locked up for their own protection.

I see there was an injuction brought against The Sun newspaper on Friday to prevent them releasing details of Venables alleged crimes, so I'm guessing The Sun must have something pretty close to the truth.

Even after the convictions and protected release of these two animals they won't allow poor Jamie to rest in peace.

The 5 or 6 people who are actually aware of the details relating to this case are very senior civil servants who are covered by the Official Secrets Act, and are are licensed to lie to everyone about these guys. These are the UK civil servants who can create "fake" offficial passports, remember.

They will in no circumstances talk to journalists, and they're legally entitled to lie to ministers. If a UK journalist even found out one of their names, and contacted them, that journalist would probably be jailed as an exemplar.

Would you mind disputing some of this, by the way ?

Alan_P

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

Yo Jamie to rest in peace.

James Bolger. Jamie was a tabloid creation,his mother has expressed displeasure at the tabloid's overriding her choice of name for her son.

dolliemix

Alan_P wrote: »

The 5 or 6 people who are actually aware of the details relating to this case are very senior civil servants who are covered by the Official Secrets Act, and are are licensed to lie to everyone about these guys. These are the UK civil servants who can create "fake" offficial passports, remember.

They will in no circumstances talk to journalists, and they're legally entitled to lie to ministers. If a UK journalist even found out one of their names, and contacted them, that journalist would probably be jailed as an exemplar.

Would you mind disputing some of this, by the way ?

Hey you don't know any of this for sure either! Nor does your barrister friend.

This is a discussion and nobody here is saying that the tabloids are gospel.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Alan_P wrote: »

The 5 or 6 people who are actually aware of the details relating to this case are very senior civil servants who are covered by the Official Secrets Act, and are are licensed to lie to everyone about these guys. These are the UK civil servants who can create "fake" offficial passports, remember.

They will in no circumstances talk to journalists, and they're legally entitled to lie to ministers. If a UK journalist even found out one of their names, and contacted them, that journalist would probably be jailed as an exemplar.

Would you mind disputing some of this, by the way ?

You go first.

Your barrister friend maybe?.

AARRRRGH

dolliemix wrote: »

Hey you don't know any of this for sure either! Nor does your barrister friend.

This is a discussion and nobody here is saying that the tabloids are gospel.

Maybe we could agree that there is a 99% chance that what the tabloids are printing is wrong and that any injunction does not necessarily mean that the tabloid has the correct info.

AARRRRGH

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

You go first.

Your barrister friend maybe?.

You're njot doing your own argument any favors there.

And i think you've picked up the meaning of his barrister friends statement wrong.
I think he was using it to illustrate that simple truth that it could be "anything at all that happened", and not that his friend was saying they actually believe that that was what happened.

dolliemix

Alan_P wrote: »

James Bolger. Jamie was a tabloid creation,his mother has expressed displeasure at the tabloid's overriding her choice of name for her son.

Alan_P wrote: »

James Bolger. Jamie was a tabloid creation,his mother has expressed displeasure at the tabloid's overriding her choice of name for her son.

AARRRRGH wrote: »

You're njot doing your own argument any favors there.

And i think you've picked up the meaning of his barrister friends statement wrong.
I think he was using it to illustrate that simple truth that it could be "anything at all that happened", and not that his friend was saying they actually believe that that was what happened.

I think it's the way the poster is reacting to other people's posts that is giving people the impression that he's preaching and not just discussing.

AARRRRGH

dolliemix wrote: »

I think it's the way the poster is reacting to other people's posts that is giving people the impression that he's preaching and not just discussing.

Doesnt seem that way to me. I think you are just taking it personally.

arybvtcw0eolkf

AARRRRGH wrote: »

And i think you've picked up the meaning of his barrister friends statement wrong.
I think he was using it to illustrate that simple truth that it could be "anything at all that happened", and not that his friend was saying they actually believe that that was what happened.

Honestly, I think he wanted to impress us with a friend who's a ''barrister'' when in fact I suspect this ''barrister friend'' is purely a figment of his imagination but real to him.

I also suspect someone is answering very serious questions in the UK as to why they found this fiend suitable for early release.

AARRRRGH

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

Honestly, I think he wanted to impress us with a friend who's a ''barrister'' when in fact I suspect this ''barrister friend'' is purely a figment of his imagination but real to him.

I also suspect someone is answering very serious questions in the UK as to why they found this fiend suitable for early release.

He didnt impress me. I took his statement for what it was.... An example, and well illustrated, i thought.
He really didnt deserve to get attacked for it.

dolliemix

AARRRRGH wrote: »

Doesnt seem that way to me. I think you are just taking it personally.

I'm out of this thread. The poster claimed that the tabloids were pubbish unsubstantiated stories which I agreed with. He then gave his 'barrister' friend's pretty irresponsible, imo, 'thought' on what might have been happening.

I called James Bulger, Jamie, not out of disrespect, but clearly, wasn't aware his name was James. He corrected me. Fine. Somebody else made the same mistake. And he repeated his post. Condescending came to mind.

This discussion is about John Veneables. I'm not getting sucked into anything else.

AARRRRGH

dolliemix wrote: »

I'm out of this thread. The poster claimed that the tabloids were pubbish unsubstantiated stories which I agreed with. He then gave his 'barrister' friend's pretty irresponsible, imo, 'thought' on what might have been happening.

I called James Bulger, Jamie, not out of disrespect, but clearly, wasn't aware his name was James. He corrected me. Fine. Somebody else made the same mistake. And he repeated his post. Condescending came to mind.

This discussion is about John Veneables. I'm not getting sucked into anything else.

Thats probably best. If you cant see his post for what it was, then how can you really comment on it anymore.

dolliemix

AARRRRGH wrote: »

Thats probably best. If you cant see his post for what it was, then how can you really comment on it anymore.

...As another made up highly imaginative story about a highly sensitive real life situation......well yes then, maybe!!! :rolleyes:

We could all make up creative versions of what 'might' be happening and then say our 'barrister' friend came to that conclusion just to give our stories credibility.

I don't think you're getting my point.

It's irresponsible to create versions of what could have happened, and at the same time rubbish the tabloids), when nobody here knows truly what happened.

iguana

AARRRRGH wrote: »

I think it could be as simple as this

He told somebody who he really is.

For some reason that sounds most likely to me, but the simple truth at this point is that only a handful of people know what actually happened. My husband works freelance for different news networks when he's between jobs and he spent Wednesday and Thursday nights in Sky News and no-one there had the slightest clue why Venables is back in custody.

This is different to normal cases where there in an injunction in place. Normally whatever the injunction is in place about is a huge open secret. Everyone knows whatever the story is and they all discuss it and make plans as to how to deal with it when they are able to report on it, or just idly gossip about how the **** will hit the fan. In this case if anyone does know anything concrete they are keeping their mouths tightly shut.

AARRRRGH

dolliemix wrote: »

...As another made up highly imaginative story about a highly sensitive real life situation......well yes then, maybe!!! :rolleyes:

We could all make up creative versions of what 'might' be happening and then say our 'barrister' friend came to that conclusion just to give our stories credibility.

I don't think you're getting my point.

It's irresponsible to create versions of what could have happened, and at the same time rubbish the tabloids), when nobody here knows truly what happened.

But that was the point the guy was making too. Yet you took offense to it

dolliemix

AARRRRGH wrote: »

But that was the point the guy was making too. Yet you took offense to it

No I didn't take personal offense to it.

I just argued that I don't think it's right to throw made-up stories out there when the nobody knows for sure what happened.

I've no idea why you got involved and decide to tell me whether I should or should not continue to post based on my opinion.

I'm sure Alan P is well able to get back and answer for himself. You're actually arguing on behalf of another poster - based on how you interpreted what he said. Myself and another poster interpreted what he said differently. Alan P hasn't posted since, so unless you actually are Alan P, you can't really be answering for him. Can you?

AARRRRGH

dolliemix wrote: »

No I didn't take personal offense to it.

I just argued that I don't think it's right to throw made-up stories out there when the nobody knows for sure what happened.

I've no idea why you got involved and decide to tell me whether I should or should not continue to post based on my opinion.

I'm sure Alan P is well able to get back and answer for himself. You're actually arguing on behalf of another poster - based on how you interpreted what he said. Myself and another poster interpreted what he said differently. Alan P hasn't posted since, so unless you actually are Alan P, you can't really be answering for him. Can you?

You did act unreasonably. I was just pointing that out and now you want to argue with me. Look through the last few posts. You are the one derailing the thread. Probably best w just drop it. People can draw their own conclusions as whether your interpretation of his post was over the top.
I thought you were leaving the thread anyway.

Sharpshooter

iguana wrote: »

For some reason that sounds most likely to me, but the simple truth at this point is that only a handful of people know what actually happened. My husband works freelance for different news networks when he's between jobs and he spent Wednesday and Thursday nights in Sky News and no-one there had the slightest clue why Venables is back in custody.

This is different to normal cases where there in an injunction in place. Normally whatever the injunction is in place about is a huge open secret. Everyone knows whatever the story is and they all discuss it and make plans as to how to deal with it when they are able to report on it, or just idly gossip about how the **** will hit the fan. In this case if anyone does know anything concrete they are keeping their mouths tightly shut.

Sky News and UTV News are both saying today that he was brought in for child pornography and that he broke his own anonymity.

I wonder if it's true.

Sharpshooter

dolliemix wrote: »

No I didn't take personal offense to it.

I just argued that I don't think it's right to throw made-up stories out there when the nobody knows for sure what happened.

I've no idea why you got involved and decide to tell me whether I should or should not continue to post based on my opinion.

I'm sure Alan P is well able to get back and answer for himself. You're actually arguing on behalf of another poster - based on how you interpreted what he said. Myself and another poster interpreted what he said differently. Alan P hasn't posted since, so unless you actually are Alan P, you can't really be answering for him. Can you?

dolliemix

Leave it alone now please.

AARRRRGH wrote: »

You did act unreasonably. I was just pointing that out and now you want to argue with me. Look through the last few posts. You are the one derailing the thread. Probably best w just drop it. People can draw their own conclusions as whether your interpretation of his post was over the top.
I thought you were leaving the thread anyway.

In fairness pointing it out was going to lead to dolliemix replying and therefore going off topic.

So I'm asking you to also leave it there please.

BroomBurner

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Sky News and UTV News are both saying today that he was brought in for child pornography and that he broke his own anonymity.

I wonder if it's true.

The Guardian are stating also that he has broken down, psychologically, and has been revealing his identity for a while, causing him to get in to fights, etc.

If the child pornography charge is correct, then it's even more important that his identity is kept under wraps. Noone will want him to walk on a mistrial for something like that.

arybvtcw0eolkf

BroomBurner wrote: »

If the child pornography charge is correct, then it's even more important that his identity is kept under wraps. Noone will want him to walk on a mistrial for something like that.

I'd argue that if he is still a predator then its very important to lock him up and let his identity be known too.

I wonder as part of his T&C was his new identity put on the sex offenders register?.

IrishManSaipan

Why is this oxygen thief still breathing?

dolliemix

Sharpshooter wrote: »

dolliemix

Leave it alone now please.



In fairness pointing it out was going to lead to dolliemix replying and therefore going off topic.

So I'm asking you to also leave it there please.

Ok apologies!

annabellee77

BroomBurner wrote: »

If the child pornography charge is correct, then it's even more important that his identity is kept under wraps. Noone will want him to walk on a mistrial for something like that.

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

I'd argue that if he is still a predator then its very important to lock him up and let his identity be known too.

Yes it is utmost importance that his identity remains concealed until new case is over. If it gets out now I would put a lot of money on it he will get off. (Am assuming you mean that too Tiana Odd Starvation?)

After that though......no harm if it gets out....especially if it is child porn this time!

Darksaga87

If what the tabloids say is even remotley true, he should be named, and his picture realesed.

I presume this would comprimise the ID of his fellow scumbag partner?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Tiana Odd Starvation wrote: »

I'd argue that if he is still a predator then its very important to lock him up and let his identity be known too.

I wonder as part of his T&C was his new identity put on the sex offenders register?.

Did they commit a sexual offence against Bulger? I don't see what this would achieve, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) he's probably already under surveilance.

dolliemix

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Did they commit a sexual offence against Bulger? I don't see what this would achieve, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) he's probably already under surveilance.

No they weren't charged with a sexual offence as there was no evidence. I read somewhere that anytime the investigators brought up anything about a sexual attack with the boys at the time, they went hysterical, so the investigators didn't pursue it. I'll try and find where I read that now....

AARRRRGH

dolliemix wrote: »

No they weren't charged with a sexual offence as there was no evidence. I read somewhere that anytime the investigators brought up anything about a sexual attack with the boys at the time, they went hysterical, so the investigators didn't pursue it. I'll try and find where I read that now....

This is the problem with people repeating anything they read somewhere without checking first.
Just because you read it doesnt make it true.
That was in an article linked to in this thread. It turned out that that was all made up.

The chief officer on the case gave a tv interview where he rubbished these claims. Im sure you can find it on youtube if you search.

Sharpshooter

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Did they commit a sexual offence against Bulger? I don't see what this would achieve, assuming (perhaps incorrectly) he's probably already under surveilance.

They stripped him from the waist down and shoved batteries in his bottom.
I'd call that a sexual offence, I don't know about you.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Sharpshooter wrote: »

They stripped him from the waist down and shoved batteries in his bottom.
I'd call that a sexual offence, I don't know about you.

Ow. Did not know that. That would do it. Was this fact or speculation?

If they never persued the charge though, they can't convict him and can't put him on the register.

dolliemix

Sharpshooter wrote: »

They stripped him from the waist down and shoved batteries in his bottom.
I'd call that a sexual offence, I don't know about you.

That was later said to not be true. The batteries were found in his mouth

dolliemix

AARRRRGH wrote: »

Just because you read it doesnt make it true.

.

Thank you. I know that. Can I post on this thread without you commenting and trying to undermine everything I say?

Sharpshooter

AARRRRGH wrote: »

This is the problem with people repeating anything they read somewhere without checking first.
Just because you read it doesnt make it true.
That was in an article linked to in this thread. It turned out that that was all made up.

The chief officer on the case gave a tv interview where he rubbished these claims. Im sure you can find it on youtube if you search.

dolliemix wrote: »

Thank you. I know that. Can I post on this thread without you commenting and trying to undermine everything I say?

I asked both of you to leave it.

AARRRRGH

Sharpshooter wrote: »

I asked both of you to leave it.

All i did here was correct a lie.
I would have corrected it no matter who posted it.
I would correct your own repeating of lies too, only others have done it already.
There is far too much massaging of the facts and repeating of false info going on for such a serious subject.

Truley

Sharpshooter wrote: »

They stripped him from the waist down and shoved batteries in his bottom.
I'd call that a sexual offence, I don't know about you.

That is completely false actually.

iguana

Sharpshooter wrote: »

Sky News and UTV News are both saying today that he was brought in for child pornography and that he broke his own anonymity.

As far as I can see they are reporting that the Mirror is saying that, not that that is what happened.

dolliemix

There is a detailed report on this website.

I'm not saying it's true. Infact I don't think anybody, except Jon Veneables and Robert Thompson know what happened.

I read some articles to remind me of what happened. It's over 18 years since the poor child was murdered.

At the time of the trial Jon Veneables was the more remorseful of the two. It's been reported that Jon Veneables was telling people his real identity in recent months. If that is the case, it sounds to me like he just can't handle his past. He is surely aware of the hatred towards him and the crime he committed. It's almost suicidal to be going around telling people of his real identity.

This is so tragic, thats James Bulgers family have to go through all of this again. It would have been his 21st birthday the week after next.

Sharpshooter

dolliemix wrote: »

That was later said to not be true. The batteries were found in his mouth

Truley wrote: »

That is completely false actually.

It was already pointed out by the user above and thanked by me.

Darlughda

Wow this is turning out to be a really divisive subject on boards.
Reminds me a bit of the 'x' case where people literally had YES or NO plastered across their windows and wouldn't talk to certain people from opposing sides.

Did anybody see the film Boy A that was on Channel 4 a while back?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_A

Although on loosely based on the James Bolger case, from reading through this thread elements of the story really seem to resonate with what is going on with Venables atm.

iguana

dolliemix wrote: »

At the time of the trial Jon Veneables was the more remorseful of the two.

I think that was still the case in later years. Venables was remorseful throughout his teens and into his early adulthood and Thompson wasn't.

AARRRRGH

Darlughda wrote: »

Wow this is turning out to be a really divisive subject on boards.
Reminds me a bit of the 'x' case where people literally had YES or NO plastered across their windows and wouldn't talk to certain people from opposing sides.

Did anybody see the film Boy A that was on Channel 4 a while back?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_A

Although on loosely based on the James Bolger case, from reading through this thread elements of the story really seem to resonate with what is going on with Venables atm.

Boy A is really an excellent book and movie.

I think its divisive here, probably because people dont inform themselves about the case.
I dont know how anyone can come to any conclusions based on false reports that they have read. Depending on what side they are on they seem ready to take as Gospel what they read on the internet, or in the papers. Generally its the "hang em high" people who seem to want to believe the worst possible lies that are around the internet though.

Im undecided myself though. One part of me would like to have them executed. The other half wonders if a child becomes an adult, does growing up mean they also grow out of whatever caused them to commit this terrible crime.

dolliemix

iguana wrote: »

I think that was still the case in later years. Venables was remorseful throughout his teens and into his early adulthood and Thompson wasn't.

Its kind of crazy then, that Thompson, is still free!

Jon Venables had mental problems anyway. He had self-harmed even before the murder of James Bulger. He showed remorse and obviously is unable to cope outside of institution life.

Thompson, on the other hand, showed no remorse and is getting on with his life. His social worker while he was in detention centre said they started bringing him to shopping centres and getting him used to public life leading up to his release. Apparently, he wasn't nervous at all on these trips. Whereas Venables was extremely anxious of anybody recognising him. It's ironic!

iguana

dolliemix wrote: »

Thompson, on the other hand, showed no remorse and is getting on with his life. His social worker while he was in detention centre said they started bringing him to shopping centres and getting him used to public life leading up to his release. Apparently, he wasn't nervous at all on these trips.

There's a report on the release here. Thompson obviously showed some signs of remorse but not in the same way as Venables. Venables was immediately seen to be remorseful and always remained that way. It took much longer with Thompson.

Extract from Guardian wrote:

The panel was asked to use five tests of the suitability of the teenagers for release. First, was the key issue of remorse. For Venables, who had wept throughout the trial and immediately told the authorities to apologise to James Bulger's mother, this was never in doubt.

But Thompson would find it far more difficult to convince his inquisitors. He was seen as the dominant member of the partnership during the murder, had shown no signs of guilt during the trial and only accepted full responsibility for the crime a few years ago.

The pair were also assessed on how well they had responded to treatment programmes, how well they were likely to co-operate with the rehabilitation scheme designed for them. In addition, the panel was obliged to take into account the views of the victims and, in a final assessment carried out with the help of a Home Office computer, what risk the killers posed to the public. It always seemed likely that Venables would be released. But if there was a shred of doubt that Thompson, who had been in trouble at some of his secure units, would reoffend, he would be denied parole. The real test came with Thompson's spoken testimony.

The panel first put him at ease with some light general questions. But the pace soon picked up. The grilling began. 'He was given a good going over,' said one witness. Thompson was asked to talk about the crime, persuade them of his remorse and explain how he had reacted to the intensive therapy he had received while in care. The session went on into early evening. Thompson did not flinch under the questions and held his ground, answering calmly and quietly. 'It went well, very smoothly,' said the witness. Thompson had passed the test.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/jun/24/bulger.paulharris

aDeener

I wonder if he is anything to Terry

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

aDeener wrote: »

I wonder if he is anything to Terry

John Terry? I don't think so. They spell and pronounce their names completely differently, sir.

aDeener

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

John Terry? I don't think so. They spell and pronounce their names completely differently, sir.

My uncle spells his surname different to me, sir