Jump to content

Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]


Reality
 Share

What do you think the punishment for Venebles and Thompson should have been?  

133 members have voted

  1. 1. What do you think the punishment for Venebles and Thompson should have been?

    • Their punishment was too severe
      5
    • The punishment was correct
      25
    • The punishment should have been longer
      49
    • They should never have been let out
      39
    • The Death Sentence
      16


Recommended Posts

Jon Venables, child murderer who killed little Jamie Bulger has been returned to jail, according to BBC News, The Sun and Sky News. Apparently he has breached the terms of his release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 627
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

still say i would prefer it if they released the rocket polisher into the wild and printed his picture in every single newspaper in the country and see exactly what happens

into the wild is probably the most telling part of your post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny when people scream 'child killer' about these two no-one ever mentions that they were children themselves when all this happened. Awful, tragic case but I have real difficulty in writing someone off for something they did when they were only 10 years old, no matter how bad it was.

Had they been 8 years older I'd have happily strung the bastards up ( that's just to stop Snowy thinking I was coming round to his way of thinking)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny when people scream 'child killer' about these two no-one ever mentions that they were children themselves when all this happened. Awful, tragic case but I have real difficulty in writing someone off for something they did when they were only 10 years old, no matter how bad it was.

Had they been 8 years older I'd have happily strung the bastards up ( that's just to stop Snowy thinking I was coming round to his way of thinking)

Oh, I think we're not too far apart, mate. Apart from the happily stringing people up bit, I think we're on exactly the same page. I don't think my comments on the situation would be any different from yours (especially the bit I have highlighted - a desperately sad situation).

See - we don't always disagree. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny when people scream 'child killer' about these two no-one ever mentions that they were children themselves when all this happened. Awful, tragic case but I have real difficulty in writing someone off for something they did when they were only 10 years old, no matter how bad it was.

Had they been 8 years older I'd have happily strung the bastards up ( that's just to stop Snowy thinking I was coming round to his way of thinking)

They are technically a child killer though..... :shock:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny when people scream 'child killer' about these two no-one ever mentions that they were children themselves when all this happened. Awful, tragic case but I have real difficulty in writing someone off for something they did when they were only 10 years old, no matter how bad it was.

Had they been 8 years older I'd have happily strung the bastards up ( that's just to stop Snowy thinking I was coming round to his way of thinking)

They are technically a child killer though..... :shock:

Actually, technically they are a child-child killer but lets not split hairs. This is one case where I actually feel sorry for the 'system', meaning they've got to protect the anonymity etc and keep the wolves from the door until the day these 2 die. Very sad if you ask me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny when people scream 'child killer' about these two no-one ever mentions that they were children themselves when all this happened. Awful, tragic case but I have real difficulty in writing someone off for something they did when they were only 10 years old, no matter how bad it was.

Had they been 8 years older I'd have happily strung the bastards up ( that's just to stop Snowy thinking I was coming round to his way of thinking)

They are technically a child killer though..... :shock:

Actually, technically they are a child-child killer but lets not split hairs. This is one case where I actually feel sorry for the 'system', meaning they've got to protect the anonymity etc and keep the wolves from the door until the day these 2 die. Very sad if you ask me.

If the system allows these two out after under 10 years then **** the system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny when people scream 'child killer' about these two no-one ever mentions that they were children themselves when all this happened. Awful, tragic case but I have real difficulty in writing someone off for something they did when they were only 10 years old, no matter how bad it was.

Had they been 8 years older I'd have happily strung the bastards up ( that's just to stop Snowy thinking I was coming round to his way of thinking)

Oh, I think we're not too far apart, mate. Apart from the happily stringing people up bit, I think we're on exactly the same page. I don't think my comments on the situation would be any different from yours (especially the bit I have highlighted - a desperately sad situation).

See - we don't always disagree. :D

Funny that.....I got accused of being pedantic and argumentative on another site the other day.

Oh how I laughed when I saw they'd spelt 'argumentative' wrong, 15 posts later they had to concede defeat. Actually they didn't conceded, they just logged off. T'was a moral victory though.

(is it just me or does that sound like every paragraph Sue Townsend ever wrote?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny that.....I got accused of being pedantic and argumentative on another site the other day.

I have no idea what you mean and I have no understanding of what that conveys. :D

Oh how I laughed when I saw they'd spelt 'argumentative' wrong, 15 posts later they had to concede defeat. Actually they didn't conceded, they just logged off. T'was a moral victory though.

(is it just me or does that sound like every paragraph Sue Townsend ever wrote?)

Firstly, ha ha.

Secondly, yep. :winkold:

Thirdly: sorry, mate. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, must not be "prejudged" by speculation over allegations he faces, ministers have said.

Venables, now 27, is back in jail after breaching the terms of his 2001 release in which he was given a new identity.

The Sunday Mirror alleged his recall to prison was linked to images of child abuse, but Ed Balls and Harriet Harman refused to be drawn on these claims.

James's mother, Denise Fergus, has said Venables should now lose his anonymity.

The Sunday Mirror also claims that Venables had sparked concerns by using drugs and revealing his past.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw would only say that he faces "extremely serious allegations" and the government was determined to ensure that justice was done.

Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, told the BBC the government would not be drawn on the report.

"I'm not saying whether it's true or not because I don't want to comment on it," she said.

"At the time that Venables was sentenced, it was said that he should keep his anonymity and, as a general principle, we want to make absolutely sure that nobody can get off a criminal offence by saying 'I can't get a fair trial, there's been too much publicity'."

The stance was backed by Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who said it was important to ensure the public was protected.

"It was a terrible crime, the scars of James Bulger's death are very deep for his family, [and] for all of us," he told Sky News.

"It was right for people to try rehabilitation but the first thing always has to be making sure the public are safe.

"Now you'll understand I'm not going to say anything about this case because I don't want to prejudge any court case and I think it's really important the media and politicians don't prejudge and therefore potentially put at risk any further court action."

Mrs Fergus, 42, is due to meet Jack Straw next week to press him on the reasons for Venables' recall. But Mr Straw is not expected to divulge the reasons.

Venables' solicitor at the time of his trial, Laurence Lee, blamed the Ministry of Justice for creating what he called the "speculation show".

'Serious questions'

"If they'd come clean and give us some information about what he'd done this wouldn't be happening now," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

"I think if we'd been at least drip fed some information this wild speculation wouldn't have gone out of control like it has now."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said he was more concerned about newspaper reports of Venables' activities than discovering the allegations he faced.

"This is somebody who has been released from prison, who is supposed to be on licence, is supposed to be under the control of the probation bodies," he told Sky News.

"Something has gone wrong here and there will certainly be serious questions to be asked."

Venables, alongside Robert Thompson, served eight years for the murder of two-year-old James.

Both boys became the UK's youngest murderers, as 10-year-olds, after abducting James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

His battered body was later found by children playing on a freight railway line more than two miles away.

The Beeb

Right. Can someone please tell me quite why Mrs Fergus needs to be involved in this at all, and also what her calls for his anonymity are going to achieve? (at least in what we perceive to be a civilised nation?).

I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have both been left in prison to rot in all honesty. I don't buy the excuse that they were only children. Absolute rubbish.....

Basically they brutally murdered a young child, got a few years for it and now have been given a new life. Absolute joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, must not be "prejudged" by speculation over allegations he faces, ministers have said.

Venables, now 27, is back in jail after breaching the terms of his 2001 release in which he was given a new identity.

The Sunday Mirror alleged his recall to prison was linked to images of child abuse, but Ed Balls and Harriet Harman refused to be drawn on these claims.

James's mother, Denise Fergus, has said Venables should now lose his anonymity.

The Sunday Mirror also claims that Venables had sparked concerns by using drugs and revealing his past.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw would only say that he faces "extremely serious allegations" and the government was determined to ensure that justice was done.

Labour's Deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, told the BBC the government would not be drawn on the report.

"I'm not saying whether it's true or not because I don't want to comment on it," she said.

"At the time that Venables was sentenced, it was said that he should keep his anonymity and, as a general principle, we want to make absolutely sure that nobody can get off a criminal offence by saying 'I can't get a fair trial, there's been too much publicity'."

The stance was backed by Children's Secretary Ed Balls, who said it was important to ensure the public was protected.

"It was a terrible crime, the scars of James Bulger's death are very deep for his family, [and] for all of us," he told Sky News.

"It was right for people to try rehabilitation but the first thing always has to be making sure the public are safe.

"Now you'll understand I'm not going to say anything about this case because I don't want to prejudge any court case and I think it's really important the media and politicians don't prejudge and therefore potentially put at risk any further court action."

Mrs Fergus, 42, is due to meet Jack Straw next week to press him on the reasons for Venables' recall. But Mr Straw is not expected to divulge the reasons.

Venables' solicitor at the time of his trial, Laurence Lee, blamed the Ministry of Justice for creating what he called the "speculation show".

'Serious questions'

"If they'd come clean and give us some information about what he'd done this wouldn't be happening now," he told BBC Radio 5 live.

"I think if we'd been at least drip fed some information this wild speculation wouldn't have gone out of control like it has now."

Shadow home secretary Chris Grayling said he was more concerned about newspaper reports of Venables' activities than discovering the allegations he faced.

"This is somebody who has been released from prison, who is supposed to be on licence, is supposed to be under the control of the probation bodies," he told Sky News.

"Something has gone wrong here and there will certainly be serious questions to be asked."

Venables, alongside Robert Thompson, served eight years for the murder of two-year-old James.

Both boys became the UK's youngest murderers, as 10-year-olds, after abducting James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993.

His battered body was later found by children playing on a freight railway line more than two miles away.

The Beeb

Right. Can someone please tell me quite why Mrs Fergus needs to be involved in this at all, and also what her calls for his anonymity are going to achieve? (at least in what we perceive to be a civilised nation?).

I feel for her, of course. But I'm not entirely sure why she's so involved.

Because he tortured and murdered her son?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • VT Supporter
Because he tortured and murdered her son?

Which has nothing to do with the justice system. He was tried and convicted and punished (as the law decreed) for the crime. Everything from the moment he was caught had absolutely nothing to do with her, other than that she see what thee justice system decrees her son's murderer's punishment.

Why she is consulted by the government, or feels she has any entitlement to that, or any say in what goes on in the justice system, is what I am concerned with here. It's not her business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

exclamation-mark-man-user-icon-with-png-and-vector-format-227727.png

Ad Blocker Detected

This site is paid for by ad revenue, please disable your ad blocking software for the site.

Â