jonno_2004 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I bet it is interesting as the mods can see who thought the punishment was too severe. No we cant I'm sure one of you lot said you could a while back.. think it was the political spectrum thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 get something done in the process Yep, suppression of wages for unskilled (and low skilled) labour would be the first thing. We already have community service orders. I've seen them round the neighbourhood painting fences etc with the guard officer looking on. I don't think they suppress wages because they are not in the free market competing for jobs. They are given tasks to do which the government has otherwise not offered a job for. Yes, you have a point there but that is really only small beer. If you are talking about turning the entire prison population into a slave workforce (and that would be the result of Q's post - though I am not having a go at him for the suggestion just having a go at the suggestion) that is a different matter. If certain 'projects' are identified for the hundred or so who are serving community service orders in a particular area that is different to having a flood of free (or nearly free) labour available which local authorities, especially, would be under obligation to utilize (in order to adress the cost issues for their local populace). I think illegal migrants are a bigger cause of wage suppression to be concerned about. Perhaps at the moment, yes, but I'd say an influx of an additional 80,000 legal workers at negligible cost would probably have a more direct and effective negative impact upon the wages of the least skilled (or, probably more true, the current and long term employment prospects for them). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 I think illegal migrants are a bigger cause of wage suppression to be concerned about. Perhaps at the moment, yes, but I'd say an influx of an additional 80,000 legal workers at negligible cost would probably have a more direct and effective negative impact upon the wages of the least skilled (or, probably more true, the current and long term employment prospects for them). Yes that is definitely true but then you can't really do anything about a worker who is here legally and is willing and able to work for less, apart from continually raising the minimum wage to increasingly uncompetitive levels. I think I may have wandered off topic a bit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starsailor9774 Posted March 11, 2010 Share Posted March 11, 2010 Post removed. If you have issue with a member of the site in relation to PM's sent to you then please take it up with a mod rather than posting about it in a topic. Please also refrain from posting on posters as you have just done. Trent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oaks Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 An interesting article on a very similar case in Norway. link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 12, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 12, 2010 I bet it is interesting as the mods can see who thought the punishment was too severe. No we cant I'm sure one of you lot said you could a while back.. think it was the political spectrum thread.It was in the "How many sexual partners have you had?" poll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted March 12, 2010 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2010 I think you'll find it was a joke :nod: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted March 12, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted March 12, 2010 I think you'll find it was a joke :nod: Damn. I'm so gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted March 12, 2010 Moderator Share Posted March 12, 2010 I bet it is interesting as the mods can see who thought the punishment was too severe. No we cant I'm sure one of you lot said you could a while back.. think it was the political spectrum thread.It was in the "How many sexual partners have you had?" poll. Yeah that was me and yes it was a joke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gringo Posted March 12, 2010 Share Posted March 12, 2010 I think you'll find it was a joke :nod: Damn. I'm so gullible.Doubly gullible for believing their 'plausible' explanation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 21, 2010 Moderator Share Posted June 21, 2010 Its emerged today at the High court following the lifting of previous legal restrictions that Jon Venables has been charged with two offences; 1. Making 57 indecent photo's of children between Feb 09 and Feb 10 2. Distributing seven indecent images of children Feb 2010 It should be noted that the first charge is purely in relation to downloading the images, not to having taken them himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 21, 2010 Moderator Share Posted June 21, 2010 One of the two killers of Merseyside toddler James Bulger has been charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children. Jon Venables, who killed James in 1993, was released from jail in 2001 and given a new identity and anonymity for life under a special court order. But Venables, now 27, was recalled to prison in February after allegedly breaching the terms of his licence. He is charged with two offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act. Early stage It is alleged that he downloaded 57 indecent images of children between February 2009 and February 2010. He is secondly accused of distributing seven images between 1 and 23 February this year by allowing other people to access files on his computer through a peer-to-peer network. The case is at a very early stage and will return to court on 23 July. That hearing will be the first opportunity for Venables to indicate whether he will be pleading guilty or not guilty to the alleged offences. The Bulger family lawyer says there is "relief" Venables has been charged Were he to plead not guilty, he would eventually appear before a jury under his new name. If he pleads guilty, the case will quickly move to sentencing. Under the terms of Venables' anonymity order, the media is not allowed to report anything about his new identity and a jury would never know who he really is. In March, the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw announced that Venables had been returned to prison but said that it was not in the interests of a fair trial to publicise what had allegedly happened. Denise Fergus, James's mother, had called for the reason for the recall to be made public, saying as his mother she had "a right to know". 'Disaster' Speaking outside court on Monday, Robin Makin, solicitor for James's father Ralph, attacked the Ministry of Justice for the way it had handled the case ever since Venables' recall. "We consider that the way this has been handled since news of Jon Venables being recalled to custody has been a disaster," he said. "The public authorities ought to behave quite differently and in due course further details are likely to emerge of the mistakes that were made. Ineptitude and incompetence spring to mind." Venables and his friend Robert Thompson were jailed for life when, as 10-year-olds, they took two-year-old James from a shopping centre in Bootle. The toddler's body was found on a disused railway line more than two miles away from where he had been taken. Venables and Thompson were given new identities on their release from prison in 2001 because of the risk that they would be victims of a vigilante attack. Media law expert Mark Stephens insisted that despite the publicity it was "almost certain" that Venables could get a fair trial. He said: "The judge has gone to extraordinary lengths, as has the prosecution. They have worked with the defence to make sure that a fair trial can happen and that justice will out at the end of the day." Here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted June 21, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted June 21, 2010 By releasing those details, haven't they just buggered the point of the anonymity he has? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 21, 2010 Moderator Share Posted June 21, 2010 Perhaps... but in a way that doesn't break the laws in relation to doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JulieB Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 My take on this: 1. Any 10yr old killing a small child in the manner that Jamie Bulger was tortured & murdered MUST be disturbed severly. Did anyone look into this fact and were there reason WHY? 2. I want to know IF John Venables had been abused sexually, physically as a child previously to committing this crime, was he in anyway treated for the after effects of abuse whilst he was in care & locked up from age 10...or was he simply locked up, without treatment? 3. As Venables is obviously now a paedophile I would very much suspect that as a child he was sexually abused and this is now the norm to him because that's what he knows. Men look at attractive women & become sexually aroused, what normal people find difficult to accept is that paedophiles look at children & become sexually aroused... 4. Until the authorities treat victims of abuse for the abuse they suffered in childhood, then this is what happens...a victim can become and very often does become the perpetrator. 5. Venebles needed to be treated when he himself was a child. However in the UK these emotional difficulties aren't recognised or treated until a child is 16 when it's too late. If he hasn't had this severe behaviour dealt with, then I suspect sadly he's probably a psychopath & the chances of him recovering are small. 6. If he can't be treated & they ever let him out he will offer a threat to children sexually & he'll possibly want to kill again. The Prison service has a saying...."ONCE A PAEDO.....ALWAYS A PAEDO!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted June 22, 2010 VT Supporter Share Posted June 22, 2010 Totally agree, Julie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted June 22, 2010 Moderator Share Posted June 22, 2010 While I agree with you Julie its all too late for Jon Venables now although perhaps something can be learned from it, as for him as I say its too late. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Posted June 22, 2010 Author Share Posted June 22, 2010 I believe they did look into their family past and background. I believe they both came from a very broken home. I also would believe that they did have some kind of therapy or counselling when they were locked up. Something different has went wrong for Venables. The other guy Robert Thompson has obviously took his new life and adapted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheSufferingVilla Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Unless he was abused after being locked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 The other guy Robert Thompson has obviously took his new life and adapted Until about six months ago wouldn't people have said the same thing about Jon Venables? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts