Bulger Killer Returned To Jail [Poll Added]

[kidlewis]

EDIT: also if anyone thinks the laws in this country are perfect, then you're wrong there as well.

I thoroughly agree. The laws in this country are not perfect but the majority of those with imperfections are statutory ones rather than those arrived at through time, practice and custom.

I would say, though, that our criminal justice system is one of the better ones despite some of the efforts to make it worse over the past couple of decades.

If you don't like the laws, the sentencing guidelines, early release schemes, the lack of a death penalty, playstations for 'Enhanced' YOI or whatever then campaign to do something about it.

Democracy isn't perfect and I'm one of the first to admit that (and repeat it) but if you don't like any of the above list (or other things - the list was non-exhaustive) then get enough people together and try and change it.

whilst they are costly to implement I am a big fan of the referendum when it comes to certain issues.

In this modern technological world I think it should be relatively easy to implement a system whereby a motion can be put, passed by say 10% of the population, then a referendum would be held on the issue.

Campaigning against things is niy impossible now, even a million signatures does **** all to get anyones attention these days.

and that downing street petition is the most pointless thing ever

[snowychap]

Jack Straw hasn't said it's not her business either

He wouldn't: he's a politician and his only real interest is re-election.

[wiggyrichard]

Or the death penelty for extreme cases.

- state hypocrisy

- cost

- chances of being wrong

- on the sadistic level, 'the easy way out'

- doesn't actually work as a deterrant

etc etc etc

Bloodlust, vengeance, plain and simple. None of these are justice.

You needn't reply, the debate's pointless, I just thought it was worthwhile providing the counters to something placed to matter of fact-ly.

Cost - how much do you think it has cost the tax payer so far looking after the two of them?

Chances of being wrong - In exterem cases ie. such as this where there is 100% no doubt what so ever.

'the easy way out' - If they dont want to be here, then whats the problem in killing them and putting them out of their misery.

Doesnt actually work as a deterrant - If they have committed such a crime they deserve what they get, if they commit the crime they know the consequences of their actions.

Not blood lust, just ridding society of scum and keeping the place safer for my children.

At the end of the day its your opinion against mine, no-one is right or wrong at the end of the day. I beleive in the death penelty you beleive in a slap on the wrist.

[Chindie]

But the arguement Chindie, is that the punishment was not fitting for the crime committed.

Just explain to me why as you say 'you couldnt have kept them incarcerated any longer' and why you dont agree that they should have recieved a longer sentance?

I said you couldn't have kept them incarcerated any longer in the context of the sentence they were given - the one they were given was served and they were considered unthreatening to society. If those 2 criteria are met, they have to be released.

I don't think a longer sentence was applicable because, firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair. They commited a horrible crime and were given quite a heavy penalty. They had their remaining childhood removed from them. I'll try not to be patronising here, but to my mind that period of your life is inexplicably important for your development, they lost the right to have the childhood and teen years any other child would have, and that is right.

Secondly, and I speak here from my own experience and those of the kids in our family I've known growing up and friends I've known over the years. I, now, am a completely different person to the one I was at 10. The only similarities are that we bear the same now and family and look as ugly then as now. My personality is quite different, my conduct is different. I'm now 21, and since roughly 18 have largely been the same. To put it simply, for me, Venables and Thompson were likely different men to the children that entered custody. I have not known anyone that has not changed immeasurably over that period.

Thus, if their minimum was met, which I think was rightly put at the age we consider people adult, and they then were able to show they were changed men, and with the proviso they would have guidelines to their conduct for life, then the sentence was right.

[Rodders]

I have compassion for the victims of crime. I have no compassion for those who murder and rape, i have no wish to rehabilitate such people. It's quite simple you take a life then you forfeit yours. My preferred option would be death, others may prefer absolute life imprisonment, either way the offender wouldn't be free to do it again.

THIS THIS THIS A 100 TIMES OVER!!!!

What you have to understand is that a fair amount of people show compassion to those who have killed and raped.

yep. Full of compassion for kil--

oh wait there isn't.

The campaign for capital punishment for *edit* silly billies who intentionally fail to read or comprehend what is actually posted starts here.

My post wasn't a sweeping statement about this thread so i'm not sure why you assumed it to be unless it was a release of your 'internet agression' :winkold: .

It was a general statement that there are people who show compassion or maybe if that is too strong of a word, I think Chindie mentioned humanity instead; towards criminals of the worst kind and furthermore people who don't understand it should accept it rather than getting worked up into a frenzy.

oh right, I misinterpreted it then. misread the tone as a bit sarky. Better pop off down to the guilotine then :oops:

[snowychap]

whilst they are costly to implement I am a big fan of the referendum when it comes to certain issues.

In this modern technological world I think it should be relatively easy to implement a system whereby a motion can be put, passed by say 10% of the population, then a referendum would be held on the issue.

Now there I have to disagree. Referenda are not my cup of tea, at all.

Especially referenda made easy.

You are Simon Cowell and I claim a tuppence.

Campaigning against things is niy impossible now, even a million signatures does **** all to get anyones attention these days.

and that downing street petition is the most pointless thing ever

Well, yes and no. The whole Gurkha thing seemed to get something done (okay one can't always have Lumley in one's corner!) but I do agree that a lot of it does seem to be banging heads against a brick wall (and now we're back to the whole reforming politics gig, again, which is another thread :winkold:).

[Chindie]

I felt the same as myb to be honest when I read what you wrote, I think it just feels shocking because the initial point you chose to make about the whole subject is the fact that you don't understand what it's got to do with the mother of the child that the man previously killed and why she is involved.

As Bicks said, it's not her business. I'm sorry if people don't understand that, but it isn't.

If you think it is, you're plain wrong.

Your comment there seems to be just passing off what I would percieve to be your opinion, as fact.

Jack Straw hasn't said it's not her business either, he has in fact said he does not want to prejudice the investigation by giving details at this stage - which I think most will accept as a fair point, whether they believe she has a right to be involved or not.

Mrs Fergus says she was told in 2001 that if either of them were to breach the terms of their licence, she would be informed straightaway. I imagine a large reason as to why she is 'getting involved.'

From the point of view that if he has missed a few appointments, it might be possible to come to the opinion that she has no right to know, but what if - and we don't know of course, so just an example - he has commited a similar crime. I would think very much so she has a right to be informed.

I won't often say this, but here my opinion IS fact. She has nothing to do with it, that's just the case. The only way she would is if he had done something that directly impacted her, which you'd imagine he hasn't since she appears not to know anything about it.

Jack Straw is electioneering. It's disgusting but he knows to gauge the popular mindset, he's doing something to make him popular. If he said what I have, he'd be strung up, by idiots.

Fergus should not have been given that promise. Someone either made a mistake or again was electioneering.

She has no right to know regardless of what he's done. That's just the way it is and should be. She has no right to sit in a trial for him any more than I do. She no right to know what he's apparently done than you do.

And to speculate on what he may have done is irrelevant.

[Pelle]

the kid is never coming back ergo there will be no decision that will end the pain suffered by the family.

Thus there will never be "enough" to wipe out the pain.

At one point quest for vengeance is just bloodlust. There are victims families who've wanted the criminal dead, others who haven't because they know it changes nothing or are amazingly strong enough to want the perp to make amends ( where applicable, obviously not all of them would be, but for example, in a death caused by drink driving etc )

does executing a criminal bring closure or make the world a safer place? Really? Criminals commit this shit regardless of the consequences - no one dallies over doing something evil to factor in whether they'll be killed or have 20 years behind bars.

I can understand and appreciate differences of opinion over the length of the sentence handed out - they are in the hands ultimately in the judge who presides over the case and we have to hand them an element of our trust that they are making the right call. Sometimes they won't - but the idea there's no justice involved and the level of moral outrage successfully whipped up by the press for their own economic selfish ends is infuriating and embarrassing.

what is headbangingly annoying is the claim that " those who don't want the death penalty must love the criminal" type reasoning which is just grossly offensive and stupid.

and a point which I still haven't seen countered since Snowy brought it up:

Treating people all the same - as adults. To be consistent then - there should be no age barriers whatsoever on any element of life, from rewards to penalties. kids should be able to get married get drunk, have sex, join the army, at 6, 8, 10 years old then too.

One of the few reasons I'm proud of Britain is that it, unlikey 99& of other countries doesn't have kneejerk OTT reactions to these cases, although the way the climate is at the moment, I fear the worst - that's one climate change that would be a disaster. ( ok that doesn't work, the weathery one is too but bigfatraspberries anyway )

Very, very good post that I totally agree on. Maybe for the last bit, but that I don't know much about so I just can't comment on it.

And an example for that part about the victims having a say about the verdict: My friend lost his little sister when she got overrun by a too fast driven car when she was 3. No doubt he should get jailed for that but it was an accident. I don't know my friends father but I know my friend and he's the kind that would never hurt anybody and I guess his father is the same, but he tried to take the gun off the police to shoot the driver and I'd say that he'd still want to see the man dead. And I can't blame him, but it wouldn't be right. He wasn't and never will be in the right emotion to ever look on that objectively, as is the same with everyone I guess in that situation. Can't blame them, I would probably feel the same, but it's not right.

Now, this woman if she had anything to say she'd probably say "kill him" to whatever the guy's done this time, cause that's probably what she feels about him. Shoplifting? Kill him! Stolen a bike? Kill him? Robbed a bank? KILL HIM! and it has nothing to do with the crime he's done now, but her natural feelings for this guy for what he once did to her and her family. And again, can't blame her, but it wouldn't be right.

You need to make a distinction between the two crimes mate. People get run over by drunk drivers all the time , its extremely unfortunate but it happens. Drivers do not set out to mow down pedestrians or have a demolition derby type head on collision with another vehicle, it happens due to their stupidity, caused by intoxication.

In the bulger case , it was all about doing it for kicks , just because they could and they probably enjoyed themselves carrying out the 'act'. I keep repeating this , it was not a normal, everyday crime with normal victims. They fully knew what they were about to do was going to result in serious injury at the LEAST and also that It was probably going to hurt the little fella a LOT. You just do not do such stuff if you're ok inside the head.

Of course there's a difference. A big difference. Not arguing about that. My point was that the emotional state of mind of the parents is probably about the same. They've lost a child because someone commited a crime. They have someone to blame and they can't ever forgive them. They probably just can't look at it in an objective way, thus they shouldn't have any say in the sentence for the commiter of the crime. See what I mean? I know I might be a bit hard to understand sometimes, and I blame that on english being my second language.

[wiggyrichard]

But the arguement Chindie, is that the punishment was not fitting for the crime committed.

Just explain to me why as you say 'you couldnt have kept them incarcerated any longer' and why you dont agree that they should have recieved a longer sentance?

firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair.

I stopped reading after this.......

[jonno_2004]

I have compassion for the victims of crime. I have no compassion for those who murder and rape, i have no wish to rehabilitate such people. It's quite simple you take a life then you forfeit yours. My preferred option would be death, others may prefer absolute life imprisonment, either way the offender wouldn't be free to do it again.

THIS THIS THIS A 100 TIMES OVER!!!!

What you have to understand is that a fair amount of people show compassion to those who have killed and raped.

yep. Full of compassion for kil--

oh wait there isn't.

The campaign for capital punishment for *edit* silly billies who intentionally fail to read or comprehend what is actually posted starts here.

My post wasn't a sweeping statement about this thread so i'm not sure why you assumed it to be unless it was a release of your 'internet agression' :winkold: .

It was a general statement that there are people who show compassion or maybe if that is too strong of a word, I think Chindie mentioned humanity instead; towards criminals of the worst kind and furthermore people who don't understand it should accept it rather than getting worked up into a frenzy.

oh right, I misinterpreted it then. misread the tone as a bit sarky. Better pop off down to the guilotine then :oops:

Far too lenient..

[MrWeedMcGrass]

the kid is never coming back ergo there will be no decision that will end the pain suffered by the family.

Thus there will never be "enough" to wipe out the pain.

At one point quest for vengeance is just bloodlust. There are victims families who've wanted the criminal dead, others who haven't because they know it changes nothing or are amazingly strong enough to want the perp to make amends ( where applicable, obviously not all of them would be, but for example, in a death caused by drink driving etc )

does executing a criminal bring closure or make the world a safer place? Really? Criminals commit this shit regardless of the consequences - no one dallies over doing something evil to factor in whether they'll be killed or have 20 years behind bars.

I can understand and appreciate differences of opinion over the length of the sentence handed out - they are in the hands ultimately in the judge who presides over the case and we have to hand them an element of our trust that they are making the right call. Sometimes they won't - but the idea there's no justice involved and the level of moral outrage successfully whipped up by the press for their own economic selfish ends is infuriating and embarrassing.

what is headbangingly annoying is the claim that " those who don't want the death penalty must love the criminal" type reasoning which is just grossly offensive and stupid.

and a point which I still haven't seen countered since Snowy brought it up:

Treating people all the same - as adults. To be consistent then - there should be no age barriers whatsoever on any element of life, from rewards to penalties. kids should be able to get married get drunk, have sex, join the army, at 6, 8, 10 years old then too.

One of the few reasons I'm proud of Britain is that it, unlikey 99& of other countries doesn't have kneejerk OTT reactions to these cases, although the way the climate is at the moment, I fear the worst - that's one climate change that would be a disaster. ( ok that doesn't work, the weathery one is too but bigfatraspberries anyway )

Very, very good post that I totally agree on. Maybe for the last bit, but that I don't know much about so I just can't comment on it.

And an example for that part about the victims having a say about the verdict: My friend lost his little sister when she got overrun by a too fast driven car when she was 3. No doubt he should get jailed for that but it was an accident. I don't know my friends father but I know my friend and he's the kind that would never hurt anybody and I guess his father is the same, but he tried to take the gun off the police to shoot the driver and I'd say that he'd still want to see the man dead. And I can't blame him, but it wouldn't be right. He wasn't and never will be in the right emotion to ever look on that objectively, as is the same with everyone I guess in that situation. Can't blame them, I would probably feel the same, but it's not right.

Now, this woman if she had anything to say she'd probably say "kill him" to whatever the guy's done this time, cause that's probably what she feels about him. Shoplifting? Kill him! Stolen a bike? Kill him? Robbed a bank? KILL HIM! and it has nothing to do with the crime he's done now, but her natural feelings for this guy for what he once did to her and her family. And again, can't blame her, but it wouldn't be right.

You need to make a distinction between the two crimes mate. People get run over by drunk drivers all the time , its extremely unfortunate but it happens. Drivers do not set out to mow down pedestrians or have a demolition derby type head on collision with another vehicle, it happens due to their stupidity, caused by intoxication.

In the bulger case , it was all about doing it for kicks , just because they could and they probably enjoyed themselves carrying out the 'act'. I keep repeating this , it was not a normal, everyday crime with normal victims. They fully knew what they were about to do was going to result in serious injury at the LEAST and also that It was probably going to hurt the little fella a LOT. You just do not do such stuff if you're ok inside the head.

Of course there's a difference. A big difference. Not arguing about that. My point was that the emotional state of mind of the parents is probably about the same. They've lost a child because someone commited a crime. They have someone to blame and they can't ever forgive them. They probably just can't look at it in an objective way, thus they shouldn't have any say in the sentence for the commiter of the crime. See what I mean? I know I might be a bit hard to understand sometimes, and I blame that on english being my second language.

Yeah , I get your point , what I was trying to say is this: A parent is more likely to move on eventually if its a drunk driving death or a death due to food poisoning at a restaurant or something like that. In this case , they'll always have the word 'why?" till the end , the sheer senselessness of it.

Your English is fine , at least to me-It is my third language! :winkold:

[Rodders]

Ok I'll go to the minature guilotine about half a meter down :eek:

[myb]

You're hiding behind the law and lawmakers. It may be 'plain wrong' when viewed in black and white, but when taken in the context of what happened to her, the impact that this lad has had on her life and what he has taken away from her then it has everything to do with her. It's your morals that are 'plain wrong' i'm afraid.

I have no cause to hide behind anything thank you.

She has no right to be told anything. She is not related to whatever Venables is accused of doing (if she was, you'd imagine she'd not need to demand that the government tell her what he's done) and thus she is no more important to any case that might arise against Venables than you or I. Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand.

My morals are fine.

All in your opinion.

"Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand." From a legal perspective maybe and it's very easy to hide behind that as some kind of way of patronsing an audience. (although i'm guessing you are wrong here as she was probably a witness during the trial at the very least.)

And just a point, she is quite clearly related to what he is accused of doing as the reason that he has been recalled to prison so qucikly is because he is out on license for killing her son. As I said previously, if she wanted to know everytime he went to the toilet then she should have that right.

[myb]

I felt the same as myb to be honest when I read what you wrote, I think it just feels shocking because the initial point you chose to make about the whole subject is the fact that you don't understand what it's got to do with the mother of the child that the man previously killed and why she is involved.

As Bicks said, it's not her business. I'm sorry if people don't understand that, but it isn't.

If you think it is, you're plain wrong.

Your comment there seems to be just passing off what I would percieve to be your opinion, as fact.

Jack Straw hasn't said it's not her business either, he has in fact said he does not want to prejudice the investigation by giving details at this stage - which I think most will accept as a fair point, whether they believe she has a right to be involved or not.

Mrs Fergus says she was told in 2001 that if either of them were to breach the terms of their licence, she would be informed straightaway. I imagine a large reason as to why she is 'getting involved.'

From the point of view that if he has missed a few appointments, it might be possible to come to the opinion that she has no right to know, but what if - and we don't know of course, so just an example - he has commited a similar crime. I would think very much so she has a right to be informed.

I won't often say this, but here my opinion IS fact. She has nothing to do with it, that's just the case. The only way she would is if he had done something that directly impacted her, which you'd imagine he hasn't since she appears not to know anything about it.

Jack Straw is electioneering. It's disgusting but he knows to gauge the popular mindset, he's doing something to make him popular. If he said what I have, he'd be strung up, by idiots.

Fergus should not have been given that promise. Someone either made a mistake or again was electioneering.

She has no right to know regardless of what he's done. That's just the way it is and should be. She has no right to sit in a trial for him any more than I do. She no right to know what he's apparently done than you do.

And to speculate on what he may have done is irrelevant.

Again, that isn't "fact." I can clearly see why she should have more access to information surrounding this case than you and I. She has a vested interest in anything this young man goes on to do, given that he killed her son, she campaigned for him not to be released on the grounds that he was likely to reoffend and low and behold, he seems to have gone on and done just that.

[Chindie]

Cost - how much do you think it has cost the tax payer so far looking after the two of them?

Considerably less than killing them would have. In the death penalty you have to allow a very long appeals process, which costs a fortune, and also you have to keep them imprisoned during that time. It's not cheaper.

Chances of being wrong - In exterem cases ie. such as this where there is 100% no doubt what so ever.

The doubt here is not so much whether they were guilty or not, it would be whether it is possible or morally right to convict a child with death. And thus we go back to the appeals process.

'the easy way out' - If they dont want to be here, then whats the problem in killing them and putting them out of their misery.

I'm sure most death row-ers want very much to be here, such do we value life. I'm also sure that life behind bars is not a nice thing and I daresay they'd want death to escape it sooner or later. Look at Ian Brady. He escapes punishment if he dies.

Doesnt actually work as a deterrant - If they have committed such a crime they deserve what they get, if they commit the crime they know the consequences of their actions.

The idea of a justice system is both about punishment and deterrant. Deterrant is arguably the most important part of it. If it doesn't work as a deterrant, why have it? Especially it makes the state a hypocrite and introduces numerous problems and isn't even cheaper and serves only to sate a bloodlust for vengeance?

Not blood lust, just ridding society of scum and keeping the place safer for my children.

It won't be safer for your children 1 iota. There will always be more 'scum'.

At the end of the day its your opinion against mine, no-one is right or wrong at the end of the day. I beleive in the death penelty you beleive in a slap on the wrist.

The slap on the wrist is one of the most annoying things people ever put on these, it's effectively an ad hominen. I don't believe in a sla on the wrist whatsoever, thank you. I actually advocate stronger sentencing in some cases. It is just that this one has some mitigating factors that make it much much less simpler than hanging children.

On which note, I know the worlds gone insane as I've just tried to debate the merits of not hanging children. Absolutely batshit bonkers.

[jonno_2004]

Ok I'll go to the minature guilotine about half a meter down :eek:

Careful, you'll provoke a paedophile discussion with talk like that :winkold:

[Chindie]

But the arguement Chindie, is that the punishment was not fitting for the crime committed.

Just explain to me why as you say 'you couldnt have kept them incarcerated any longer' and why you dont agree that they should have recieved a longer sentance?

firstly, their punishment to my mind was actually fair.

I stopped reading after this.......

You reveal your closed mindedness then. Try reading the rest, it might have you baying for my blood.

[Pelle]

the kid is never coming back ergo there will be no decision that will end the pain suffered by the family.

Thus there will never be "enough" to wipe out the pain.

At one point quest for vengeance is just bloodlust. There are victims families who've wanted the criminal dead, others who haven't because they know it changes nothing or are amazingly strong enough to want the perp to make amends ( where applicable, obviously not all of them would be, but for example, in a death caused by drink driving etc )

does executing a criminal bring closure or make the world a safer place? Really? Criminals commit this shit regardless of the consequences - no one dallies over doing something evil to factor in whether they'll be killed or have 20 years behind bars.

I can understand and appreciate differences of opinion over the length of the sentence handed out - they are in the hands ultimately in the judge who presides over the case and we have to hand them an element of our trust that they are making the right call. Sometimes they won't - but the idea there's no justice involved and the level of moral outrage successfully whipped up by the press for their own economic selfish ends is infuriating and embarrassing.

what is headbangingly annoying is the claim that " those who don't want the death penalty must love the criminal" type reasoning which is just grossly offensive and stupid.

and a point which I still haven't seen countered since Snowy brought it up:

Treating people all the same - as adults. To be consistent then - there should be no age barriers whatsoever on any element of life, from rewards to penalties. kids should be able to get married get drunk, have sex, join the army, at 6, 8, 10 years old then too.

One of the few reasons I'm proud of Britain is that it, unlikey 99& of other countries doesn't have kneejerk OTT reactions to these cases, although the way the climate is at the moment, I fear the worst - that's one climate change that would be a disaster. ( ok that doesn't work, the weathery one is too but bigfatraspberries anyway )

Very, very good post that I totally agree on. Maybe for the last bit, but that I don't know much about so I just can't comment on it.

And an example for that part about the victims having a say about the verdict: My friend lost his little sister when she got overrun by a too fast driven car when she was 3. No doubt he should get jailed for that but it was an accident. I don't know my friends father but I know my friend and he's the kind that would never hurt anybody and I guess his father is the same, but he tried to take the gun off the police to shoot the driver and I'd say that he'd still want to see the man dead. And I can't blame him, but it wouldn't be right. He wasn't and never will be in the right emotion to ever look on that objectively, as is the same with everyone I guess in that situation. Can't blame them, I would probably feel the same, but it's not right.

Now, this woman if she had anything to say she'd probably say "kill him" to whatever the guy's done this time, cause that's probably what she feels about him. Shoplifting? Kill him! Stolen a bike? Kill him? Robbed a bank? KILL HIM! and it has nothing to do with the crime he's done now, but her natural feelings for this guy for what he once did to her and her family. And again, can't blame her, but it wouldn't be right.

You need to make a distinction between the two crimes mate. People get run over by drunk drivers all the time , its extremely unfortunate but it happens. Drivers do not set out to mow down pedestrians or have a demolition derby type head on collision with another vehicle, it happens due to their stupidity, caused by intoxication.

In the bulger case , it was all about doing it for kicks , just because they could and they probably enjoyed themselves carrying out the 'act'. I keep repeating this , it was not a normal, everyday crime with normal victims. They fully knew what they were about to do was going to result in serious injury at the LEAST and also that It was probably going to hurt the little fella a LOT. You just do not do such stuff if you're ok inside the head.

Of course there's a difference. A big difference. Not arguing about that. My point was that the emotional state of mind of the parents is probably about the same. They've lost a child because someone commited a crime. They have someone to blame and they can't ever forgive them. They probably just can't look at it in an objective way, thus they shouldn't have any say in the sentence for the commiter of the crime. See what I mean? I know I might be a bit hard to understand sometimes, and I blame that on english being my second language.

Yeah , I get your point , what I was trying to say is this: A parent is more likely to move on eventually if its a drunk driving death or a death due to food poisoning at a restaurant or something like that. In this case , they'll always have the word 'why?" till the end , the sheer senselessness of it.

Your English is fine , at least to me-It is my third language! :winkold:

Ah, fair enough. I don't know, though, but I guess it's down to the person itself, maybe. Some might do as you say, and some might not. But when you put it like that, well, yes, maybe you have a point.

And now I could start a love fest for us who hasn't got english as first language, but I won't.

[Chindie]

All in your opinion.

"Her consideration in this case from a legal perspective ended the moment Venables and Thompson were charged. Again, that isn't hard to understand." From a legal perspective maybe and it's very easy to hide behind that as some kind of way of patronsing an audience. (although i'm guessing you are wrong here as she was probably a witness during the trial at the very least.)

In your world, do people get convicted before witnesses are called?

And will you stop saying I'm hiding behind the law, my opinion is the law is right it's a pretty sound opinion to be perfectly honest.

And just a point, she is quite clearly related to what he is accused of doing as the reason that he has been recalled to prison so qucikly is because he is out on license for killing her son. As I said previously, if she wanted to know everytime he went to the toilet then she should have that right.

At the point at which they were sentenced, her involvement is null. At the moment the sentence is passed, the case is considered done, justice adminstered and that is that. She would only become involved again in the light of new evidence that questions the previous, or if she was to become entangled again with either of them. None of those have been met, it's nothing to do with her.

And don't say I'm hiding behind the law again. I've nothing to hide from.

[Chindie]

Again, that isn't "fact." I can clearly see why she should have more access to information surrounding this case than you and I. She has a vested interest in anything this young man goes on to do, given that he killed her son, she campaigned for him not to be released on the grounds that he was likely to reoffend and low and behold, he seems to have gone on and done just that.

It's the bloody law, of course it's **** fact.

My aunts son was murdered a few years ago. My aunt has no right to know anything about the man that burned her son to death. She has the sentence and that is it. I'm sure she felt it wasn't long enough. I'm sure I would as well, I actually can't remember what the sentence was.

She has no right to know anything about that man other than what came from the trial and what sentence was given, and that is right.