I wonder if all the bleeding hearts on here...who claim these two have had their punishment...would allow them to babysit one of their children..
Doubt it very much.
There are very few people I'd leave my kids with .............and for the record I'm not a bleeding heart. Blatantly obvious you take what you want from peoples posts who happen to disagree.
IMO - it's pure ignorance to say .........I'm not interested in understanding - lock them up and throw away the key they're obviously just evil.
I have stated that I do not lack in sympathy for the Bulger family. I have not come down on the side of the murderers over the victim. Being interested in what made these boys (or anyone for that matter) murder doesn't make me a bleeding heart.
Except neither one has shown any inclination to kill again (even Venables who reoffended). You cannot say they have 'all the evil traits' of Brady and Hindley - neither child was diagnosed a psychopath.
So that is a crassly ridiculous statement.
Yet.
And would they with such a close eye on them?
No, it isn't crass or ridiculous.
Yes - they have to inform anyone they are in a close relationship with about their true identity. It is more dishonesty to claim they could have girlfriends who 'know nothing'. It is simply a lie.
You can't say they haven't got the make up of a psychopath . You don't know. You haven't spoken to them.
As for saying they aren't diagnosed with psychopathy, there is no test for it that determines a person definitely is anyway.
As for saying they haven't killed anyone else, they haven't been given the chance., for the close eye kept on them.Thankfully.
No it wasn't. It was proved that Jon Venables couldn't be trusted. They are not the same person.
Also, it is also impossible that they have girlfriends/boyfriends who know nothing of their past. It is part of their licence conditions that they be honest about their past with anyone they form close relationships with.
Because Thompson hasn't been mentioned, it does not mean he is squeeky clean. My understanding, I could be wrong though is that Venables identity was on the verge of being made public by someone who realised who he actually was by what he had said.
As for coming clean to partners, I doubt it very much. They couldn't take the risk of that partner going ballistic and spilling the beans so to speak. Would you want to sleep in the same bed as someone who had committed such an horrific crime.? You have to consider if any children arrive from the relationship too. I wouldn't leave my dog with one of those two.
Because Thompson hasn't been mentioned, it does not mean he is squeeky clean. My understanding, I could be wrong though is that Venables identity was on the verge of being made public by someone who realised who he actually was by what he had said.
As for coming clean to partners, I doubt it very much. They couldn't take the risk of that partner going ballistic and spilling the beans so to speak. Would you want to sleep in the same bed as someone who had committed such an horrific crime.? You have to consider if any children arrive from the relationship too. I wouldn't leave my dog with one of those two.
Well quite.
Saying the pair need to let close people know their history, according to conditions and actually doing so is hardly the same.
So basically, you think they should be locked up permanently because of something you think they MIGHT do at some stage. Better lock up all men then (because they are responsible for 90% of all crime). We know from past cases that killers (adults or children) rarely kill again (1% I believe). Of children who kill, the percentage is less. (As I said before, I know of only one cases where a child who killed as a child killed again and that was in the last century - and I have done a fair amount of work on the subject).
Do you think Mary Bell should have received a whole life sentence?
Yes and she got out far too early as well. At least she served some time in an adult prison....but I wouldn't have trusted her to be around children ever again..let alone give birth.
Because Thompson hasn't been mentioned, it does not mean he is squeeky clean. My understanding, I could be wrong though is that Venables identity was on the verge of being made public by someone who realised who he actually was by what he had said.
As for coming clean to partners, I doubt it very much. They couldn't take the risk of that partner going ballistic and spilling the beans so to speak. Would you want to sleep in the same bed as someone who had committed such an horrific crime.? You have to consider if any children arrive from the relationship too. I wouldn't leave my dog with one of those two.
There is nothing to doubt, it is part of the licence conditions. They have to do it. They go back to prison or break off the relationship if they don't.
Innocent until proven guilty. Anything else is unfair.
On psychopathy - there IS a test (the Hare test) - neither one was diagnosed. Now it is true I have met neither man but that goes for everyone on this discussion. However, I have read the opinion of highly regarded professionals who HAVE met (and treated) the two.
And it is a necessary feature of their license that any partner must be informed. This was made clear when Jon Venables was convicted again - that if they form any close relationship, they must disclose their real identity.
There are very few people I'd leave my kids with .............and for the record I'm not a bleeding heart. Blatantly obvious you take what you want from peoples posts who happen to disagree.
IMO - it's pure ignorance to say .........I'm not interested in understanding - lock them up and throw away the key they're obviously just evil.
I have stated that I do not lack in sympathy for the Bulger family. I have not come down on the side of the murderers over the victim. Being interested in what made these boys (or anyone for that matter) murder doesn't make me a bleeding heart.
As I have already said....I believe they should be studied...but in prison.
On psychopathy - there IS a test (the Hare test) - neither one was diagnosed. Now it is true I have met neither man but that goes for everyone on this discussion. However, I have read the opinion of highly regarded professionals who HAVE met (and treated) the two.
And it is a necessary feature of their license that any partner must be informed. This was made clear when Jon Venables was convicted again - that if they form any close relationship, they must disclose their real identity.
Any claims otherwise are outright lies.
So tax payers money is being thrown at these two to keep them out of the public eye and under the radar yet they meet someone, get a bit close and then say, "hey, guess what I did when I was 10 and who I really am" come on now, I'm not buying that. .
msdaisychain - whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant. They HAVE to inform partners as part of their license conditions. If you persist in claiming otherwise, you are being disingenuous and dishonest.
'In the latest case, involving the downloading of indecent images of children, while Venables was living in Cheshire, the court heard he had experienced difficulties in forming relationships with women because it was a condition of his licence that he had to disclose his true identity to anyone with whom he was in a close relationship.'
So tax payers money is being thrown at these two to keep them out of the public eye and under the radar yet they meet someone, get a bit close and then say, "hey, guess what I did when I was 10 and who I really am" come on now, I'm not buying that. .
they are constantly monitored - do you believe they could have a proper full blown relationship without their parole officers/social workers knowing? It's obviously not a condition that they tell everyone (that would be a bit pointless in having a new identity) but as far as relationships go - it's part of the deal.
So they are being watched 24 hours....don't be so dumb.
I'm not the one making assumptions based on nothing but knee-jerk reactions. You have no evidential basis for your points whatsoever - just 'what ifs'.
msdaisychain - whether you choose to believe it or not is irrelevant. They HAVE to inform partners as part of their license conditions. If you persist in claiming otherwise, you are being disingenuous and dishonest.
'In the latest case, involving the downloading of indecent images of children, while Venables was living in Cheshire, the court heard he had experienced difficulties in forming relationships with women because it was a condition of his licence that he had to disclose his true identity to anyone with whom he was in a close relationship.'
That's what they want you to believe, it does not mean it does happen. I honestly can't see how it can. The money spent securing his identity could all be for nothing.
Anyway, I have learnt after all the phone hacking etc with the press involvement, not to believe everything that has been spun in the press and media ingeneral.
I would be horrified if I thought my daughter was mixing with one of those. It could happen to any parent. Imagine bringing up your daughter to be respectful, caring and considerate to others then she get's involved with a murderer?
On psychopathy - there IS a test (the Hare test) - neither one was diagnosed. Now it is true I have met neither man but that goes for everyone on this discussion. However, I have read the opinion of highly regarded professionals who HAVE met (and treated) the two.
And it is a necessary feature of their license that any partner must be informed. This was made clear when Jon Venables was convicted again - that if they form any close relationship, they must disclose their real identity.
Any claims otherwise are outright lies.
They can disclose what they wish on the Hare test?
That's not conclusive is it.
Outright lies wouldn't be that unusual for this pair.
They can disclose what they wish on the Hare test?
That's not conclusive is it.
Outright lies wouldn't be that unusual for this pair.
So two ten year old boys would be able to outwit a scientifically designed test that will have been devised to allow for lies etc? I' m not being difficult or deliberately awkward but I don;t think even the brightest of ten year olds would be able to second guess a test like this. And for the record I don't think they were that bright TBH.
That's what they want you to believe, it does not mean it does happen.
Oh for gods sake. How do you think they'd be able to explain the presence of a probation officer in their house every few months?
And it is interesting that exactly the same words were used by The Sun (the publication we KNOW was stalking Thompson for years along with NOTW and hacking his phone) when it revealed he was gay - that he told his partner of his real identity in order to fulfil the license requirements which state that he must reveal his identity to anyone he formed a close relationship with.
Persisting in these claims is, as I say, dishonest.
So two ten year old boys would be able to outwit a scientifically designed test that will have been devised to allow for lies etc? I' m not being difficult or deliberately awkward but I don;t think even the brightest of ten year olds would be able to second guess a test like this. And for the record I don't think they were that bright TBH.
I certainly think Venables is stupid. Thompson appears to be more intelligent but they were both uneducated. Certainly neither could have understood the subtleties of the Hare test which is extremely difficult to get round.
Comments
There are very few people I'd leave my kids with .............and for the record I'm not a bleeding heart. Blatantly obvious you take what you want from peoples posts who happen to disagree.
IMO - it's pure ignorance to say .........I'm not interested in understanding - lock them up and throw away the key they're obviously just evil.
I have stated that I do not lack in sympathy for the Bulger family. I have not come down on the side of the murderers over the victim. Being interested in what made these boys (or anyone for that matter) murder doesn't make me a bleeding heart.
Yet.
And would they with such a close eye on them?
No, it isn't crass or ridiculous.
No, it isn't crass or ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
Yes it is - both crass and ridiculous.
As for saying they aren't diagnosed with psychopathy, there is no test for it that determines a person definitely is anyway.
As for saying they haven't killed anyone else, they haven't been given the chance., for the close eye kept on them.Thankfully.
Because Thompson hasn't been mentioned, it does not mean he is squeeky clean. My understanding, I could be wrong though is that Venables identity was on the verge of being made public by someone who realised who he actually was by what he had said.
As for coming clean to partners, I doubt it very much. They couldn't take the risk of that partner going ballistic and spilling the beans so to speak. Would you want to sleep in the same bed as someone who had committed such an horrific crime.? You have to consider if any children arrive from the relationship too. I wouldn't leave my dog with one of those two.
Well quite.
Saying the pair need to let close people know their history, according to conditions and actually doing so is hardly the same.
Yes and she got out far too early as well. At least she served some time in an adult prison....but I wouldn't have trusted her to be around children ever again..let alone give birth.
There is nothing to doubt, it is part of the licence conditions. They have to do it. They go back to prison or break off the relationship if they don't.
Innocent until proven guilty. Anything else is unfair.
And it is a necessary feature of their license that any partner must be informed. This was made clear when Jon Venables was convicted again - that if they form any close relationship, they must disclose their real identity.
Any claims otherwise are outright lies.
Why is it a purlie comment. You state they have served the punishment and should be released into a community filled with children.
They are required to tell the partner while their offender manager is present so they know for sure it has been done.
Another puerile comment. This doesn't mean I think they should have unsupervised access to young children/
As I have already said....I believe they should be studied...but in prison.
So tax payers money is being thrown at these two to keep them out of the public eye and under the radar yet they meet someone, get a bit close and then say, "hey, guess what I did when I was 10 and who I really am" come on now, I'm not buying that. .
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10742019
'In the latest case, involving the downloading of indecent images of children, while Venables was living in Cheshire, the court heard he had experienced difficulties in forming relationships with women because it was a condition of his licence that he had to disclose his true identity to anyone with whom he was in a close relationship.'
So they are being watched 24 hours....don't be so dumb.
they are constantly monitored - do you believe they could have a proper full blown relationship without their parole officers/social workers knowing? It's obviously not a condition that they tell everyone (that would be a bit pointless in having a new identity) but as far as relationships go - it's part of the deal.
I'm not the one making assumptions based on nothing but knee-jerk reactions. You have no evidential basis for your points whatsoever - just 'what ifs'.
That's what they want you to believe, it does not mean it does happen. I honestly can't see how it can. The money spent securing his identity could all be for nothing.
Anyway, I have learnt after all the phone hacking etc with the press involvement, not to believe everything that has been spun in the press and media ingeneral.
I would be horrified if I thought my daughter was mixing with one of those. It could happen to any parent. Imagine bringing up your daughter to be respectful, caring and considerate to others then she get's involved with a murderer?
They can disclose what they wish on the Hare test?
That's not conclusive is it.
Outright lies wouldn't be that unusual for this pair.
I think you need to speak to a forensic psychiatrist who performs these tests. They are more clued up than you think.
So two ten year old boys would be able to outwit a scientifically designed test that will have been devised to allow for lies etc? I' m not being difficult or deliberately awkward but I don;t think even the brightest of ten year olds would be able to second guess a test like this. And for the record I don't think they were that bright TBH.
Oh for gods sake. How do you think they'd be able to explain the presence of a probation officer in their house every few months?
And it is interesting that exactly the same words were used by The Sun (the publication we KNOW was stalking Thompson for years along with NOTW and hacking his phone) when it revealed he was gay - that he told his partner of his real identity in order to fulfil the license requirements which state that he must reveal his identity to anyone he formed a close relationship with.
Persisting in these claims is, as I say, dishonest.
I certainly think Venables is stupid. Thompson appears to be more intelligent but they were both uneducated. Certainly neither could have understood the subtleties of the Hare test which is extremely difficult to get round.