[maurice45]

Originally Posted by The Prumeister

One of the most nonsensical statements I have ever read on the internet, ever.

I concur. What an absolute joke.

I don't for a second buy that "studying criminology" statement either.

[bryemycaz]

Originally Posted by Declan_Khan

I do not wish to discuss all the details but my upbringing involved abusive alcoholics, absent parents, social workers, racist bullying, being abused and ignored out of spite despite my achievements scholastically to gain affection and recognition for my efforts, as well as other unpleasant issues. So a broken home or abusive childhood is not really an excuse in my mind as I have grown into a fairly prudent, responsible person who contributes in a meaningful way that helps and benefits others. I do not try and blame my upbringing or lack thereof for any lack of sanity, morality or civil duty. Now, I am not stating any of this to receive any pity but I am trying to speak on my personal viewpoint based on my own personal experiences. I realise we are all different and react differently to different situations but I don't think anyone by the age of 10, unless they are suffering severe learning impediments or disabilities, lacks the ability to tell the difference between good or bad or life and death. Being abused as a youth is not an excuse to kill a child or I'd have a body count myself.

As others have said well done for taking the right path in life. It is not easy for everyone, I know of two siblings who had the same upbringing as you. one has like yourself turned her back on her upbringing and refused to let it ruin her life. Her Brother though has been in trouble with the police from a young age and has been to prison for drugs offences, burglary and partner abuse.

[paralax]

I don't think, from what I have read that these two were ever punished, they had private education, and all the comforts that they would not have had in their homes, the message of consequences was never given. In addition I don't think they were viewed as potentially dangerous in the future, and given that there was a strong element of sexual abuse to their crime and now that Venbales is in jail for downloading sexual images of children he certainly remains dangerous. I agree with Denise Bulger that he is a ticking time bomb. The monitoring of both of them was very poor. By protecting their identity the powers that be are failing to protect children that might cross their paths.

Of course the lynch mob mentality in some is the reason for protecting them rather than possible future victims and it is wrong. I don't think they should be regarded as children who's crimes were due to disfunctional backgrounds, more psyciatric evaluation is needed with these cases with the emphasis on protecting the public before their future release and monitoring is decided, I don't think that happened here.

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by paralax

I don't think, from what I have read that these two were ever punished, they had private education, and all the comforts that they would not have had in their homes, the message of consequences was never given

The "private education" was likely the exact same educational opportunities afforded to the other people in the same facility - bog standard schooling I suspect.

And "all the comforts would not have had in their homes" wouldn't have had to have been much, considering the abuse they both suffered in their own homes.

Usual disclaimer: Does not mean I support, condone, sympathise .. yada yada yada ..

Originally Posted by paralax

..and given that there was a strong element of sexual abuse to their crime..

At his eventual parole, Venables's psychiatrist until he was aged 21, Dr. Susan Bailey, reported that "visiting and revisiting the issue with Jon as a child, and now as an adolescent, he gives no account of any sexual element to the offence."

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

I think the police thought that there might have been and so believed the Jury had a right to know. I posted the quote and link on another thread once. I don't think it takes a genius to work out that Venables' possible paedophilia was manifesting itself back then.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=1012

[Hobbit Feet]

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

I think the police thought that there might have been and so believed the Jury had a right to know. I posted the quote and link on another thread once. I don't think it takes a genius to work out that Venables' possible paedophilia was manifesting itself back then.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=1012

That certainly implies that the 'untold' stuff was of a sexual nature.

[Ads]

Well done for the OP for trying to start a sensible debate. Its beyond belief that some death penalty enthusiasts would have been happy hanging two ten year olds Even Iran would struggle to do that.

It is very odd how so many people seem to know exactly what both of them are up to these days - especially the one who hasn't been in trouble since - yet everyone knows he is gay, that he told his partner and he is fine etc. Has this rumour got any basis in truth at all?

[Dan Fortesque]

Originally Posted by Ads

Well done for the OP for trying to start a sensible debate. Its beyond belief that some death penalty enthusiasts would have been happy hanging two ten year olds Even Iran would struggle to do that.

It is very odd how so many people seem to know exactly what both of them are up to these days - especially the one who hasn't been in trouble since - yet everyone knows he is gay, that he told his partner and he is fine etc. Has this rumour got any basis in truth at all?

It was just one of many other rumours about Thompson that were floating around a couple of years ago. Someone else mentioned that it originated in the Daily Mail and so should be completely taken with a pinch of salt. The Mirror ran stories that he was a past heroin user, lived in the North and he'd just had a child with his girlfriend. Other sources claim that he's also living in Australia as well as now being in prison in Ireland for attacking his girlfriend. The truth about his lifestyle probably hasn't been mentioned anywhere.

[maurice45]

Originally Posted by Ads

Well done for the OP for trying to start a sensible debate. Its beyond belief that some death penalty enthusiasts would have been happy hanging two ten year olds Even Iran would struggle to do that.

It is very odd how so many people seem to know exactly what both of them are up to these days - especially the one who hasn't been in trouble since - yet everyone knows he is gay, that he told his partner and he is fine etc. Has this rumour got any basis in truth at all?

Well said

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by Ads

Has this rumour got any basis in truth at all?

None at all.

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

I don't think it takes a genius to work out that Venables' possible paedophilia was manifesting itself back then

At 10 years old ?

While I'm no expert in any sense of the word, I find it hard to believe that a child can exhibit that kind of behaviour, especially considering the brain isn't yet fully developed at that age.

I know there are cases of child sexual abuse where the child in question exhibits inappropriately sexualised behaviour from a young age, but I'm afraid nobody, outside people closely involved with the case, will ever know what was going through either of their minds at the time.

Look at it this way, when I was at school, I saw plenty of occurences of other kids pulling down the shorts or trousers of other kids. I saw boys twanging girls' bra straps. There was even a running "joke" in my school of boys going up to girls and asking them to hold their right arm in the air. They'd then pull the arm down in the style of a one-arm bandit and then crudely grab each breast shouting "hold! hold!" before running off.

All highly distasteful for sure, but done with a sexual element in mind ?. Absolutely not. Done for humiliation, and embarrassment. Absolutely.

So while I personally think the "sexual element" of the crime was technically correct, I personally don't think it was done for any kind of gratification or as any kind of pre-cursor to further deviant behaviour.

[Kirkfnw]

Originally Posted by Aye Up

Every so often this case rears its head with some very strong and quite emotional views. What I feel a lot of people lack is perspective about this case. What Thompson and Venables did was horrific by any measure, and at the same time sad. I am currently having quite a strong debate with some people on twitter at the moment, and some people even think the two should have been killed or hanged when they reached 18. When I look back I question or wonder what does a person convicted of a crime have to do to have served a "just" sentence. Initially they were detained at HM Pleasure, further to a review from the ECHR and our own Chief Juctice their sentence was reduced. Now whether you do or don't agree with earlier rulings and subsquent ones since, in the eyes of the law justice was served and the two indviduals were given parole with lifetime control orders.

Naturally we now find ourselves in the era of Socia Media where a widely circulated picture purporting to be Jon Venables is now reaching peoples monitors. I admit I have looked at said picture purely out of curiosity, but wonder what if this is the wrong person? We are now facing a trial by media and the court of public opinion, which really does concern me about the future of Judge, Jury and the right to a fair trial.

When I say some people lack perspective, they forget that when the horrific even occurred, both the offenders were children who were barely over the age of responsibility. I have know doubt what they did they knew was wrong, but I sincerely believe they wouldn't have comprehended the consequences that would soon follow that awful murder. I still believe they shouldn't have been tried as adults in an adult court, this was wrong from the outset. The case is a reminder of Mary Bell from the late sixties, similar situation however she murdered another child. However she was convicted with dminished responsibility, later shown to have symptoms of psychosis. I believe if someone like to correct me a campaign was run by some tabloids on the continent and over here to have her released as some felt the sentence was over zealous. As we all know she was released and the circus that followed.

The same happened with these two individuals new identities, everything. Where do we draw the line regarding the journey someone travels from criminal punishment to rehabilitation and no longer being a danger to society? Looking objectively, this case caught the nations attention is such a way I doubt these two could ever live out their lives free from vigilantes or lynch mobs. I certainly believe in retrospect the sentence they were given I feel was proportionate given their age and also the background behind their upbringing.

What I find remarkable is some people label these two as serial killers, true heathens of society who pre planned the murder and what they were going to do. When I look back through document evidence and testimony nowhere is it spoken of it being a pre meditated act against Bulger. It has been established they came from damaged homes, abusive parents and so on. We have seen time and again what happens to children on the fringes of society, invariably they become involved in crime or in this case murder.

My point in all of this is everything is always based on emotive opinion rather than fact. We have to accept that both UK and European legal systems agreed the two offenders were given and served an appriopriate sentence. Ignoring the crimes that Venables has commited since (Yes I know they are shockng), I ask when does a person get to a point when it is seen as they have served a sentence and get to walk free? It seems these two are condemned for life, when we consider other children who have commited burglary and violent assault are allowed to put the past behind them when they reach adult age.

Denise Bulger accepts 0% responsibility for losing her kid though. "I looked around and he was gone". Do drivers get away with saying "I was driving along and all of a sudden a car crashed into me"? Nothing to do with her that he got lost in the first place right? Even in the 90's most parents knew you should never let your kid out of your sight, especially in a shopping centre.

It's a tragedy and all and should never happened, but Denise could have prevented this from happening with slightly better parenting skills.

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

.. Denise could have prevented this from happening with slightly better parenting skills.

That's crap. As I said in the locked thread, you can watch kids like a hawk and it just takes that one split second and they're out of sight.

Someone could walk in front of you or walk in to you and your concentration is diverted for a split second. Your child could be acting up and think it's 'funny' to hide from you.

There are a myriad of reasons why you could lose sight of your child and none of them is your fault. I won't ever have kids but even I know that !

[Hobbit Feet]

It was widely reported that James was the second attempt at abduction, taken to it's logical conclusion I would say that a child was going to be abducted that day.

Therefore Denise could not have prevented it happening, circumstances might have changed the victim though.

[MCC243]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

That's crap. As I said in the locked thread, you can watch kids like a hawk and it just takes that one split second and they're out of sight.

Someone could walk in front of you or walk in to you and your concentration is diverted for a split second. Your child could be acting up and think it's 'funny' to hide from you.

There are a myriad of reasons why you could lose sight of your child and none of them is your fault. I won't ever have kids but even I know that !

Well said Jason.

[Kirkfnw]

Originally Posted by JasonWatkins

That's crap. As I said in the locked thread, you can watch kids like a hawk and it just takes that one split second and they're out of sight.

Someone could walk in front of you or walk in to you and your concentration is diverted for a split second. Your child could be acting up and think it's 'funny' to hide from you.

There are a myriad of reasons why you could lose sight of your child and none of them is your fault. I won't ever have kids but even I know that !

Does it though? I've never lost my kids. You may be one of those parents that just lets them wander round.

And it's the arrogance of those parents who think it's not up to them to watch where their kids are at all times.

edit: clearer for ppl making excuses to attack me

[Ads]

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

Does it though? I've never lost my kids. You may be one of those parents that just lets them wander round.

My parents 'lost' me once on holiday for about 30 minutes when I was very young, and they were fantastic parents. It can happen to any parents.

[Kirkfnw]

Originally Posted by Ads

My parents 'lost' me once on holiday for about 30 minutes when I was very young, and they were fantastic parents. It can happen to any parents.

We're not talking about "30 minutes" in the Bulger case though.

[Hobbit Feet]

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

Does it though? I've never lost my kids. You may be one of those parents that just lets them wander round.

And it's the arrogance of those parents who blame everything on other people when it's them who are responsible for them.

We get it

you think that Denise is to blame for her son being murdered.

Very compassionate.

[Kirkfnw]

Originally Posted by Hobbit Feet

We get it

you think that Denise is to blame for her son being murdered.

Very compassionate.

If you read the first post which you didn't by the way, then it's about Denise's arrogance that she let her kid leave, and she is 0% responsible.

Stop trying to drive off-topic and trying to run away from those "split seconds" Jamie was left.

[Hobbit Feet]

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

Denise Bulger accepts 0% responsibility for losing her kid though

...................

It's a tragedy and all and should never happened, but Denise could have prevented this from happening with slightly better parenting skills.

ok

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

And it's the arrogance of those parents who blame everything on other people when it's them who are responsible for their kids.

righty-ho

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

If you read the first post which you didn't by the way, then it's about Denise's arrogance that she let her kid leave, and she is 0% responsible.

Stop trying to drive off-topic and trying to run away from those "split seconds" Jamie was left.

You raised the topic of Denise not I.

What part of the above suggests that you don't think Denise is responsible for James death?

[JasonWatkins]

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

Does it though? I've never lost my kids. You may be one of those parents that just lets them wander round

You obviously never read the part where I said i'll never have kids ..

Just because it's never happened to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. There are cases of neglect like the child in Portugal we're not allowed to mention where the parents should accept some responsibility, but there are also situations like this one that have far too many factors beyond your control.

[Smokeychan1]

Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky

this is just splitting hairs

I don't care, personally, but you have to be consistent if you deny redemption to one killer, but allow it to others. It cannot just be an age thing.

If a killer truly repents, then by your terms why continue to punish and imprison. They ARE surely safe to be let out.

If you follow the particular thread of conversation that led to that comment, anais was not denying Brady redemption, she was acknowledging the fact his psychopathy is incurable (and he remains dangerous?).

Originally Posted by Dan Fortesque

I think the police thought that there might have been and so believed the Jury had a right to know. I posted the quote and link on another thread once. I don't think it takes a genius to work out that Venables' possible paedophilia was manifesting itself back then.

http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showp...postcount=1012

Despite sensationalist articles claiming that 'the sexual nature of the act was not disclosed in court to spare Denise's feelings', there was no evidence to suggest the crime contained elements of a sexual nature. I'd suggest it was the lack of evidence that swayed the prosecution, not a keen sensitivity to a mother's pain.

[JOHNOR]

Those children are evil. I don't believe for one second they deserve a second chance. What they done to that baby was beyond comprehension, they need locking up forever, they are a danger to society.

I do hope that during their time inside, that they were subject to some serious psychological evaluations, to see what made them so evil.

I don't know much about their family life & upbringing, but there's no excuse. I think some people must be born evil, those two being prime examples.

[MCC243]

Originally Posted by Kirkfnw

Does it though? I've never lost my kids. You may be one of those parents that just lets them wander round.

And it's the arrogance of those parents who think it's not up to them to watch where their kids are at all times.

edit: clearer for ppl making excuses to attack me

It must be great being perfect. You must be like a pig in sh*t.

Meanwhile in the real world.......

[KnifeEdge]

Originally Posted by reglip

I stumbled across a youtube video that might interest you the other day. A word of warning though it is disturbing viewing. 30 minutes long



Just search youtube for 'child of rage'

Wow, what a fascinating watch!
The 'hang 'em high' brigade should watch this, but probably wont as they want blood and have very little interest in understanding why children are damaged and what can be done to prevent this.