Sleeping with Jon Venables. Although I wouldn't be happy about my daughter being an 'escort' either.
Personally, I can't see why a criminal who has served his time, no matter how dreadful the crime, is not entitled to a legal sex life once they have been released into society.
Personally, I can't see why a criminal who has served his time, no matter how dreadful the crime, is not entitled to a legal sex life once they have been released into society.
Nobody said he wasn't legally allowed. Would you like to shag Myra Hindley?
Nobody said he wasn't legally allowed. Would you like to shag Myra Hindley?
I never fancied Myra Hindley, and she's a bit too dead for me now anyway.
But the point really is that once he was free, Venables and his mate Thompson were always likely to have sex with someone. It's what people tend to do. Apparently, one of the staff at his secure unit had sex with Venables while he was still inside. It sounds like he has quite an effect on women, and why wouldn't he? Just because he committed an awful crime when he was ten doesn't mean that he didn't grow up into a good-looking, charming guy, does it?
Like I said before, when a girl goes to a club and takes a guy home, she doesn't know anything about his background. He could be a rapist, a child molester, a murderer, a wife beater. She doesn't know. People are attracted to other people on face value and lots of women out there have had a fling with a bloke who's a bit of a bad 'un. Should that be held against all those women? Should all those women feel bad about themselves?
I never fancied Myra Hindley, and she's a bit too dead for me now anyway.
But the point really is that once he was free, Venables and his mate Thompson were always likely to have sex with someone. It's what people tend to do. Apparently, one of the staff at his secure unit had sex with Venables while he was still inside. It sounds like he has quite an effect on women, and why wouldn't he? Just because he committed an awful crime when he was ten doesn't mean that he didn't grow up into a good-looking, charming guy, does it?
Like I said before, when a girl goes to a club and takes a guy home, she doesn't know anything about his background. He could be a rapist, a child molester, a murderer, a wife beater. She doesn't know. People are attracted to other people on face value and lots of women out there have had a fling with a bloke who's a bit of a bad 'un. Should that be held against all those women? Should all those women feel bad about themselves?
If I found out I'd had sex with a child killer it would sicken me.
Would you knowingly have gone with Myra H (while she was alive and if she'd have been your cup of tea), or would the fact she was a killer of children have put you off? I don't think looks make up for a twisted psyche.
If I found out I'd had sex with a child killer it would sicken me.
Would you knowingly have gone with Myra H (while she was alive and if she'd have been your cup of tea), or would the fact she was a killer of children have put you off? I don't think looks make up for a twisted psyche.
But CJM did not knowingly sleep with Jon Venables, (if indeed she even did). So its a bit harsh to blame her for it even if she did.
If I found out I'd had sex with a child killer it would sicken me.
Would you knowingly have gone with Myra H (while she was alive and if she'd have been your cup of tea), or would the fact she was a killer of children have put you off? I don't think looks make up for a twisted psyche.
That's a good question. I think it depends on whether you believe a person who did something terrible can truly be redeemed, and that's quite a deep issue. Let's not forget, Thompson is out there somewhere, probably in a relationship with somebody. They, or their family, may not even know who he really is. It's the deception aspect of their release, a deception by the state on the public, that I have a problem with.
That's a good question. I think it depends on whether you believe a person who did something terrible can truly be redeemed, and that's quite a deep issue. Let's not forget, Thompson is out there somewhere, probably in a relationship with somebody. They, or their family, may not even know who he really is. It's the deception aspect of their release, a deception by the state on the public, that I have a problem with.
Do you have the same problem with Mary Bell? She's also married, and both a mother and a grandmother at this stage. Bell's own daughter didn't find out her history till her daughter was 14.
Do you have the same problem with Mary Bell? She's also married, and both a mother and a grandmother at this stage. Bell's own daughter didn't find out her history till her daughter was 14.
Yes. I have a problem with any instance of the state deliberately deceiving the public under any circumstances.
Yes. I have a problem with any instance of the state deliberately deceiving the public under any circumstances.
But why does the public need to know where Mary Bell is living or under what name? As long as she tells her husband, what business is it of yours or mine?
Same for Robert Thompson. As long as he tells whoever he is in a relationship with, why does anybody else need to know?
But why does the public need to know where Mary Bell is living or under what name? As long as she tells her husband, what business is it of yours or mine?
Same for Robert Thompson. As long as he tells whoever he is in a relationship with, why does anybody else need to know?
I don't think the state should be protecting the identities of criminals. If what they did was so terrible that their true identities would mean they were not safe to be released into society, they should not have been released. IMHO.
Also, it leads to the horrendous possibilty of mistaken identity - people who are not Venables or Thompson being mistaken for them and then being put at risk for their own safety. That's too dreadful to even contemplate and it's something the state would have enabled to happen through its deception.
As it happens, Venables was - for a while - a free man, free to have sex with who he wanted, visit escorts as he wished and he was under no obligation to tell them who he actually was. Except, in his case, he found the deception too much to handle himself and apparently regularly revealed his identity. Which I can fully understand. What a lie to have to live with!
So the state should be forced to throw away the key on two ten year olds, (three if you count Mary Bell), because there was a threat of vigilantism? Is that not a bit like caving in to terrorists?
Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't.
I think in many lines of work you have no idea who your client could be, the guy who claimed to be venables was no different to any other, I never felt in danger so it doesn't really matter if it was him.
So the state should be forced to throw away the key on two ten year olds, (three if you count Mary Bell), because there was a threat of vigilantism? Is that not a bit like caving in to terrorists?
Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't.
I don't believe in lies.
In that case why don't we change the identities of all criminals when they have served their sentence in case someone with a grudge tracks them down? Isn't everyone who has served their time entitled to a fresh start?
I don't think the state should be protecting the identities of criminals. If what they did was so terrible that their true identities would mean they were not safe to be released into society, they should not have been released. IMHO.
Also, it leads to the horrendous possibilty of mistaken identity - people who are not Venables or Thompson being mistaken for them and then being put at risk for their own safety. That's too dreadful to even contemplate and it's something the state would have enabled to happen through its deception.
As it happens, Venables was - for a while - a free man, free to have sex with who he wanted, visit escorts as he wished and he was under no obligation to tell them who he actually was. Except, in his case, he found the deception too much to handle himself and apparently regularly revealed his identity. Which I can fully understand. What a lie to have to live with!
The state wouldn't have had to protect their identities if their names and photographs had never been released. If they had remained the anonymous boy A and Boy B there would never have been the level of interest/demonising that went on. The crime would have always been remembered but the 'names and faces' of two young boys and all the background stories and information released ensure notoriety. I really don't understand why the judge decided to release that information at the end of the trial - it served no purpose IMO - it just inflamed an already angry public.
She shouldn't be. Anyone who lets strangers into their house to peform sexual acts for money can't get too hung up about who they might be and what they might have done in the past, otherwise they are in the wrong job.
So the state should be forced to throw away the key on two ten year olds, (three if you count Mary Bell), because there was a threat of vigilantism? Is that not a bit like caving in to terrorists?
Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't.
In that case why don't we change the identities of all criminals when they have served their sentence in case someone with a grudge tracks them down? Isn't everyone who has served their time entitled to a fresh start?
Yes, everyone is entitled to a fresh start, but do you really think Thompson, Venables, and Bell would have had the same chance for a fresh start as any random ex con whose crime had never been reported beyond their local paper?
The anonymity was needed because of the crowd whipping engaged in by the tabloid press, just as it was for Maxine Carr. Its completely obtuse to pretend that these people were singled out for special treatment by the state, when it should be obvious that the state was forced to give them special treatment because they were singled out by the media.
The state wouldn't have had to protect their identities if their names and photographs had never been released. If they had remained the anonymous boy A and Boy B there would never have been the level of interest/demonising that went on. The crime would have always been remembered but the 'names and faces' of two young boys and all the background stories and information released ensure notoriety. I really don't understand why the judge decided to release that information at the end of the trial - it served no purpose IMO - it just inflamed an already angry public.
There really wasn't the need to release them at all
Or to release JV had re offended
Or even to reveAl when they were released
The general public seem to be self proclaimed experts in rehabilitation- they are not
Mary Bell was pretty much forgotten after the publicity with the book about her
Tracey Connolly will soon be released
Karen Mathews has adapted to normal life it seems- as has Tracie Andrews.
Seems JV and RT are the Hindley and Brady of their day- except out on license.
There really wasn't the need to release them at all
Or to release JV had re offended
Or even to reveAl when they were released
The general public seem to be self proclaimed experts in rehabilitation- they are not
Mary Bell was pretty much forgotten after the publicity with the book about her
Tracey Connolly will soon be released
Karen Mathews has adapted to normal life it seems- as has Tracie Andrews.
Seems JV and RT are the Hindley and Brady of their day- except out on license.
Yes there was the need to release them. In this country, we have very very few people who will never be released from prison (around the 60 mark I think). As far as I am concerned, any state which thinks that incarcerating ten year olds for life is reasonable is a state I do not wish to reside in. I cannot think of another civilised nation in the world that does that.
The anonymity order was also requested by the police (as well as the boys' legal teams) because they had clear information that there was an immediate risk to their lives.
Yes there was the need to release them. In this country, we have very very few people who will never be released from prison (around the 60 mark I think). As far as I am concerned, any state which thinks that incarcerating ten year olds for life is reasonable is a state I do not wish to reside in. I cannot think of another civilised nation in the world that does that.
The anonymity order was also requested by the police (as well as the boys' legal teams) because they had clear information that there was an immediate risk to their lives.
I think shmisk was talking about the names, rather than the boys.
Ah OK - sorry. I agree with that. It was a stupid move by the judge and one which I am sure he immediately regretted once he saw the front pages of the tabloids the next day. His rationale was that he hoped by releasing their identities, a discussion about family background and its relationship to the crime might occur (their backgrounds never formed part of the trial and could not be used in mitigation). Basically, he did the wrong thing for the right reason, apparently having an overly naive view of the British media.
It caused immense problems and children involved in serious crimes this young have never been named since (the two involved in the Edlington case a few years ago have all but been forgotten now). And children that young HAVE killed since the Bulger killing. The Omand report actually mentions this and states quite strongly that naming children this young should never happen again.
Comments
Being an escort or sleeping with Jon Venables?
Sleeping with Jon Venables. Although I wouldn't be happy about my daughter being an 'escort' either.
Personally, I can't see why a criminal who has served his time, no matter how dreadful the crime, is not entitled to a legal sex life once they have been released into society.
Nobody said he wasn't legally allowed. Would you like to shag Myra Hindley?
I never fancied Myra Hindley, and she's a bit too dead for me now anyway.
But the point really is that once he was free, Venables and his mate Thompson were always likely to have sex with someone. It's what people tend to do. Apparently, one of the staff at his secure unit had sex with Venables while he was still inside. It sounds like he has quite an effect on women, and why wouldn't he? Just because he committed an awful crime when he was ten doesn't mean that he didn't grow up into a good-looking, charming guy, does it?
Like I said before, when a girl goes to a club and takes a guy home, she doesn't know anything about his background. He could be a rapist, a child molester, a murderer, a wife beater. She doesn't know. People are attracted to other people on face value and lots of women out there have had a fling with a bloke who's a bit of a bad 'un. Should that be held against all those women? Should all those women feel bad about themselves?
If I found out I'd had sex with a child killer it would sicken me.
Would you knowingly have gone with Myra H (while she was alive and if she'd have been your cup of tea), or would the fact she was a killer of children have put you off? I don't think looks make up for a twisted psyche.
But CJM did not knowingly sleep with Jon Venables, (if indeed she even did). So its a bit harsh to blame her for it even if she did.
That's a good question. I think it depends on whether you believe a person who did something terrible can truly be redeemed, and that's quite a deep issue. Let's not forget, Thompson is out there somewhere, probably in a relationship with somebody. They, or their family, may not even know who he really is. It's the deception aspect of their release, a deception by the state on the public, that I have a problem with.
Indeed. She just provided a service to a horny guy, who she claims was perfectly respectful towards her during their encounter and paid up.
Do you have the same problem with Mary Bell? She's also married, and both a mother and a grandmother at this stage. Bell's own daughter didn't find out her history till her daughter was 14.
Yes. I have a problem with any instance of the state deliberately deceiving the public under any circumstances.
But why does the public need to know where Mary Bell is living or under what name? As long as she tells her husband, what business is it of yours or mine?
Same for Robert Thompson. As long as he tells whoever he is in a relationship with, why does anybody else need to know?
I don't think the state should be protecting the identities of criminals. If what they did was so terrible that their true identities would mean they were not safe to be released into society, they should not have been released. IMHO.
Also, it leads to the horrendous possibilty of mistaken identity - people who are not Venables or Thompson being mistaken for them and then being put at risk for their own safety. That's too dreadful to even contemplate and it's something the state would have enabled to happen through its deception.
As it happens, Venables was - for a while - a free man, free to have sex with who he wanted, visit escorts as he wished and he was under no obligation to tell them who he actually was. Except, in his case, he found the deception too much to handle himself and apparently regularly revealed his identity. Which I can fully understand. What a lie to have to live with!
Either you believe in the rule of law, or you don't.
She doesn't sound too fussed.
I don't believe in lies.
In that case why don't we change the identities of all criminals when they have served their sentence in case someone with a grudge tracks them down? Isn't everyone who has served their time entitled to a fresh start?
The state wouldn't have had to protect their identities if their names and photographs had never been released. If they had remained the anonymous boy A and Boy B there would never have been the level of interest/demonising that went on. The crime would have always been remembered but the 'names and faces' of two young boys and all the background stories and information released ensure notoriety. I really don't understand why the judge decided to release that information at the end of the trial - it served no purpose IMO - it just inflamed an already angry public.
She shouldn't be. Anyone who lets strangers into their house to peform sexual acts for money can't get too hung up about who they might be and what they might have done in the past, otherwise they are in the wrong job.
Hasn't he re-offended as an adult?
Yes, everyone is entitled to a fresh start, but do you really think Thompson, Venables, and Bell would have had the same chance for a fresh start as any random ex con whose crime had never been reported beyond their local paper?
The anonymity was needed because of the crowd whipping engaged in by the tabloid press, just as it was for Maxine Carr. Its completely obtuse to pretend that these people were singled out for special treatment by the state, when it should be obvious that the state was forced to give them special treatment because they were singled out by the media.
There really wasn't the need to release them at all
Or to release JV had re offended
Or even to reveAl when they were released
The general public seem to be self proclaimed experts in rehabilitation- they are not
Mary Bell was pretty much forgotten after the publicity with the book about her
Tracey Connolly will soon be released
Karen Mathews has adapted to normal life it seems- as has Tracie Andrews.
Seems JV and RT are the Hindley and Brady of their day- except out on license.
Yes there was the need to release them. In this country, we have very very few people who will never be released from prison (around the 60 mark I think). As far as I am concerned, any state which thinks that incarcerating ten year olds for life is reasonable is a state I do not wish to reside in. I cannot think of another civilised nation in the world that does that.
The anonymity order was also requested by the police (as well as the boys' legal teams) because they had clear information that there was an immediate risk to their lives.
I think shmisk was talking about the names, rather than the boys.
It caused immense problems and children involved in serious crimes this young have never been named since (the two involved in the Edlington case a few years ago have all but been forgotten now). And children that young HAVE killed since the Bulger killing. The Omand report actually mentions this and states quite strongly that naming children this young should never happen again.