It is social services who have the duty of car, the responsibility and the powers to apply for care orders. Other agencies can express their concerns to the ss but the buck stops with them
It is telling that the government took over the running of this ss dept

most of the general public have no idea how complex the system is, or how many people and differnt agencies are involved with things like child protection cases.

Funny thing is the government does not want to run ss departments they want the private sector to run them, most people dont even know that the private sector run about 60% of children homes, companies like capita and G4s

Yes, they were children. I'm very uncomfortable with children being locked up, tbh, unless it's in a genuinely therapeutic setting.

The UK has one of the lowest ages of criminal responsibility in Europe (iirc, only Malta is lower). Far too low, imo.

Scotland has raised the MACR to 12. To be honest, I'm weary of these discussions because there is always an element that thinks that if they could commit such an awful act at 10, then they have the potential to be even worse as adults when there is not one iota of evidence that this is the case.

It's a fundamentally flawed and stupid position to take. And it's only ever related to criminal behaviour. No-one thinks that a 5 year old who still carries a blanket around with them will continue in that behaviour into adulthood. Or a ten year old who has a tendency to sulk when s/he doesn't get her own way. Or even teenagers who sit all day in dark rooms being grumpy. Behaviour changes. People change.

And that's before we even get into the totally dysfunctional position of judging a child more harshly than we would judge an adult. Demanding they be treated more punitively (when their age should be a mitigating factor, not an aggravating one).

And with the diminishing resources for preventative work, loss of Sure Start, closure of children's centres etc, there will be fewer opportunities for any agency to do anything but firefighting.

To be fair, cases like this are extremely rare. They happen at around the same rate in every single country in the world and their rarity is part of the reason we are so horrified when they happen. Children are not generally at risk from other children - they are at risk from parents first and foremost and that cannot be said enough.

But much more common is the lower level of social problems caused by dysfunctional upbringings - both criminal and non criminal and you are right. Scarcer resources mean bigger problems. There are social workers with caseloads so ridiculously unmanageable that it should be regarded as a public health issue.

But, to take your last point first, children's services are also vilified if they take children from their families too quickly.

The "meetings after meetings" are safeguards put in place to prevent that happening, and the courts would not issue the necessary orders to remove children if all those steps had not taken place.

Imo, the law needs to be reviewed and the process streamlined somewhat. The Children's Act leaves a lot to be desired imo.

I agree, but in many areas there is also a severe lack of foster carers who have the skills to deal with these very damaged children.

Time will tell. But also well documented is that serial killers and sex offenders often start their life's work very young.

'Well documented'? Are you going by popular TV shows about serial killers which talk about them being cruel to animals as children? You do realise that for every serial killer cruel to animals, there are plenty who were never cruel? And there are plenty of children who are cruel to animals who grow up to be perfectly functional adults?

It's the kind of crass 'one size fits all' nonsense that leads to ridiculous statements like 'serial killers all had intense and problematic relationships with their mothers in childhood.'

Of course the most prolific serial killer in the UK had a total normal upbringing, no childhood issues, loving parents, held down a highly respected job.

You're the only one here who's put cruelty to animals on a par with murdering human beings. I was referring to youngsters who kill. Brady claims to have killed his first aged 12. Bundy at 12. Kemperer at 14. Angus Sinclair at 15. And so on.
As for the ones you mention who did not have dysfuntional backgrounds, or apparently did not (I've never bought into the theory that some children are just born evil and I'm surprised that you do), there's nothing to be done about them until they surface. But those people are hardly relevant here - in the Yorkshire case, the boys were clearly signalling premeditated murderous intent on more than one occasion and I still say that it is rash to release them quite so quickly considering how brutal they were.
But as I say, time will tell.

I don't consider children are 'born evil'. I think it's lazy thinking.

Where is your evidence that Brady killed at age 12? If Brady claimed it, I'm going to call bull. He claims a lot of things. He's a compulsive liar - like most psychopaths. He uses his lies to get attention and exert control.

And your comment that the boys were 'signalling premeditated murderous intent ' is pure conjecture. There is no evidence of this at all. There was an incident a week or so earlier but there was absolutely NOTHING that indicated what would happen. Indeed, prior to this incident, there was more attacks against them than by them.

As I pointed out, a seven and nine year sentence may not seem along time, but considering their ages it would be a very long time. More equivalent to an adult serving 15 years.

I also don't agree that they should have been sent to an adult prison, which would have happened if they had served longer. Especially as they were so young when convicted and had already been around negative adult role models.
They certainly wouldn't have a chance of being rehabilitated if they were then forced to be with violent, murderers, rapists, or adult convicts. People who display the same behaviour as their parents whom they should have been removed from since birth.

Exactly. Five years was actually half their lived lives when they were sentenced.

And for people who think they had it cushy, their lives would have been the same, day in day out. A 50 week school year (no half terms or holidays in secure units); control over every aspect of their lives; an entire adolescence spent locked up.

The idea they weren't punished is utter nonsense.

I agree.

Agreed, but I do think this time away from those who were harmful to them, along with growing up, will possibly have helped them.
They would have had a routine to follow that they would have never experienced before, in a home that didn't provide stability or protect them from anything.

They may have had one to one help from someone been shown that there are other ways to deal with what they have experienced at home, than by committing crime.

I would think prisoners who have good supportive family outside, stand more of a chance of living a crime free life than someone who has no one to go straight for.

But who will these boys have? The family they came from, are certainly not the role models who will have a positive influence on them to stay crime free and live a positive, law abiding life.

Well I work in this field and us researchers have a vested interest in making out that the solutions to crime are very complex and require our highly specialised input.

In fact, we know what reduces the likelihood of reoffending. There are only three things. A place to live; positive family ties; and gainful employment. That's it. It is that simple.

It's difficult to replicate the family but you can help in making it more likely for them to form positive relationships in the future; and in getting employment and therefore secure living conditions. But it takes time, effort and care. It's the last bit that certain people seem to have an issue with. We need to care. Even when people have done the most dreadful things.

I think the answer is let newspapers publish their details in the name of fake exposé for capitalistic newspaper profit and certain criminal harassment, isn't it?

Pretty much sums it up.

However, the interesting thing about this case is that it appears only one newspaper group objected (actually it was one reporter from a newspaper group who seems to have had a 'scoop'). The reporter wanted to be able to release their real names (something which clearly would have led to them being identified - no matter what he claimed).

As mentioned, I will be interested to see what the judge's reasoning was here because it seems there might have been a potential story which is responsible for the injunction.

'We can't go yet. We haven't killed him,' If that doesn't signal intent, I don't know what does.

The attack on the other boy a few days before was surely an indication of what was to come - the only difference there was that a passserby came to the rescue.

As for Brady, what lies did he tell? His tactic was to stay silent until it suited his purpose to talk. It's true that Glasgow police investigated his claim of killing a child when he was 12, but they came up empty. To this day though they suspect all those trips Brady made up to the hills and lochs. Or it may be that Brady thought he had killed when in fact his victim survived. I admit I'm inclined to believe him.

And yet they left. In fact they told one of the victims to go away while they didn't kill the one left behind.

As for Brady, you clearly haven't read the transcripts of the trial. He is a very, VERY convincing liar. (Of course he also claims he's been lying all this time about being psychotic with several mental heath issues - who knows if he is or not).

We know he lies about his supposed 'hunger strikes'.

I'll grant you the hunger strikes!

In cases where they were detained at such a young age, would it not be better if they were in supported lodgings at first, possibly one to one or with a couple? They could then be supported, while also being taught to budget, buy their own food, shown how to cook, find employment etc As these young men would be on their own for the first time otherwise, without a clue how to look after themselves.

I know that all too often, children who have been in prison or in care, are usually just put in accommodation of their own when they reach 18, and largely left to fend for themselves. Apart from a visit to a social worker or a probation officer once every few weeks, they are very much alone. Many end up getting into debt as they have been looked after until they are housed, they suddenly find they cannot manage on £75 jobseekers to run their own accommodation, pay essential bills and to feed themselves.
They then end up either turning to crime or to hanging with undesirables for company, or be introduced to drugs. Having their own accommodation can also make them a target by those who have not got that "luxury" at a young age.

A job is most important to give them something to do with their time & to make them feel worthy, apart from the cash earned.
Its a place where they would have the opportunity to meet new people who could be a positive influence in their lives & also give them a social life or someone to confide in when need be.
Maybe they have gained some qualifications while attending school in the unit.?

Probation services are all to often underfunded as with everything else. Many youths just attend as per their parole conditions require, which ends up being on a less regular basis as the months go by.
They might be short sessions and may not get support in finding work etc. Worse still they might be group sessions whereby they have the opportunity to meet other criminals, some who may have been persistent criminals, or have committed far more serious offences than they may have been there for.

I really don't know what the solution is, in this case, but I do know that as with Mary Bell & many other young offenders, its possible that they can go on to live life without reoffending...With the right support. Mary Bell might not have been one of seven children, with the elders not being positive role models, who could suddenly reappear back in their lives upon release.
Mary Bell also met a partner & became a mother herself. That is most likely the reason why she didn't reoffend.
Luckily also for Mary Bell, she has avoided being in the public eye. Her partner/s or anybody else, hasn't befriended her only to sell stories of what an evil so & so she maybe, according to them & the media that would buy & publish it...

That's another thing that should be banned, making money from knowing ex criminals. Such as people who purposely write to, or befriend criminals, only to get a reply to sell. Its all to common to read of people only associating with someone in order to sell a story, usually along the lines of "he hasn't changed" etc The worst thing is, the public believe it and call for them to be hung! With "friends" or family like that lurking around, it must be very difficult to trust anyone.

Lets not forget the victims here, two young lads were savagely attacked by two others.

The nature of the attack was as savage as one could imagine, appalling and will have life lasting effects on the victims.

I think the perpetrators do need anonymity and it was right it was granted, never again should we see the happenings, the circus that was the Bulger case.

Brandy wrote, " Mary Bell also met a partner & became a mother herself. That is most likely the reason why she didn't reoffend".

Possibly but the most likely reason she never reoffended was the extraordinary amount of support given her, those kind of resources won't/can't be afforded these two.

As for Thomson and Venables, more money and time was spent on the cat and mouse game it became then given them,---or others.

Anais sums it up so well, " In fact, we know what reduces the likelihood of reoffending. There are only three things. A place to live; positive family ties; and gainful employment. That's it. It is that simple.

It's difficult to replicate the family but you can help in making it more likely for them to form positive relationships in the future; and in getting employment and therefore secure living conditions. But it takes time, effort and care. It's the last bit that certain people seem to have an issue with. We need to care. Even when people have done the most dreadful things".

I wish I could be more magnanimous, I wish my post could end with more on my hopes and best wishes for their victims because gosh, they deserve it.

While my heart goes to the victims it should be remembered the utterly appalling circumstances the perpetrators grew up in, witnessed, subjected to, I mean truly awful.

While my feelings say one thing, reasoning dictates they stood no chance but to behave the way they did.

These two do deserve a 2nd chance but imo it has come to soon.