James Buldger killer back in prison

[WATFORD zero]

Mary Bell - 10 years old when she tortured and killed a 3 & 4 year old in 1967.

As Edna points out, this isn't something that has only happened in the last 20 years. The further back you go, the more child murders you will find. Despite what the Daily Mail would have you believe, children are safer now than they have ever been.

 

[Cadiz Seagull]

If this happened to one of my children I am pretty damn sure that it would appease me. Excuse my lack of compassion.

And it would make me feel a whole lot better if it was one of my children. And I suspect that the same goes for most parents.

But that doesn't make it right.

The parents are not the right people to make a judgment on what action should be taken against their child's killers, they are far too emotionally involved.

Yes they should be consulted, allowed to have their say, kept informed every step of the way and treated with the maximum compassion but society should decide what happens and, I suspect, in most cases this will not be harsh enough to satisfy the parents.

But one other thing mystifies me. As I understand it Venables was not in a mainstream prison as he was still a child but he must have been fully aware when released that if he committed another offence he ran the risk of being recalled. And not to a child prison where he would presumably be protected but to an adult prison where it would take about 5 minutes for him to be identified by the other prisoners, even with a new identity.

If, as we are told, he has allegedelly done something "extremely serious" then he was obviously going to go straight back inside. He must have been mad to do whatever it was he is supposed to have done, knowing what would happen to him

If I had been him (heaven forbid!) I wouldn't have broken ANY law for the rest of my life, not even walking on the cracks in the pavement.

The same goes for any prisoner released from a life sentence on licence, why on earth would the commit any offence knowing what will happen?

 

[Acker79]

I understand that anonymity was necessary for children who committed this repulsive crime but we are talking about a 27 yr old man now, there are no excuses, I do not know what the breach of his conditions involved but if it is a serious offense then once the case has been heard, the anonymity should be removed and he should be treated the same as all other people and treated no differently.

I agree with that. Anonymity for child criminals should expire if they re-offend. If a child offender is rehabilitated, and goes on to live a lawful life then by all means give them the chance of that life without prejudice.

If Venables is found guilty of whatever he did, his anonymity should be lifted.

If this happened to one of my children I am pretty damn sure that it would appease me. Excuse my lack of compassion.

I don't believe it would appease you. I reckon it would give you a momentary feeling of satisfaction, then you will realise you still have lost your child to an horrific crime, and the pain of that loss, the anger of the senseless violence, the distraught feeling of 'Why my kid?" will still be there.

You may not feel sad or guilty at your child's killer being strung up, but I doubt it will appease you in the long or even medium term.

 

[Freddie Goodwin.]

The Sun was again attempting to publish details of this alleged crime today until stopped by an injunction.


The issue as far as I can see is that any criminal trial he now faces is going to be seriously compromised. Although he's supposedly anonymous, somebody somewhere will cotton on if/when he ends up in court, and any solicitor worth their salt will have a field day, claiming he cannot possibly get a fair trial. Let's face it: no matter what they're told by a trial judge, what jury won't convict someone they know or strongly suspect to be one of Britain's most notorious killers?

While I'm sure most people don't care if he gets a fair trial or not, the point is he could be released a free man if a trial was scrapped because it was deemed impossible for it to be fair.

You put it much better than my effort. It should be more of a worry that this guy gets off simply because he cannot get a fair trial.

They really need to fast track this & get him to court.

 

[drew]

The problem is that the press won't give a damn about compromising a court case as they would get their scoop. I heard on the radio he has gone back inside for a serious sexual charge. If they withdraw his anonymity then he will be a target in any prison he goes to and whilst that may appease some of the more bloodthirsty amongst you, it's not the way we do things. If they don't, then every prisoner on remand for a sexaual charge and who appears to be about 27 with a scouse accent is likely to be targeted.

The Mary Bell reference is a good one because she was released and by all accounts has lived a normal life since showing the system can work. However, it wasn't that long ago that one paper was attempting to print details of where she is on the basis it was so long ago but they were stopped because of the effect it would have on her children.
Thompson, the other boy could well be living a normal life and has been rehabilitated successfully. What he did though will never leave him.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Funny, isn't it, how there would be lynch mobs waiting outside the instant Jon Venables' whereabouts became public knowledge.

Yet nobody gives a damn what Mary Bell is doing with her life. Nobody is launching vigilante campaigns to find out where she is or whether she's ever been convicted of any other offences. Double standards by the tabloid press, surely?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The press did keep on Bell's case as she had to go to the High Court to get anonymity for life which included her daughter. She was convicted of manslaughter not murder.

 

[drew]

The press did keep on Bell's case as she had to go to the High Court to get anonymity for life which included her daughter. She was convicted of manslaughter not murder.

She may have been convicted of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility but if you read the wikipedia account (I know, not 100% reliable) I am sure parallels will be drawn with the Jamie Bulger killing and if it had occured now, she would have been tried for murder.

Mary Bell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BensGrandad]

What I cannot understand is the fact that a paper says he was working as a 'doorman' how did he pass a CRB check to get his SIA license which is needed to be a doorman.

It was said that even the police did not know his new identity so if he applied for a CRB check in his new name then obviously it would show up as nothing known.

 

[little al]

Funny, isn't it, how there would be lynch mobs waiting outside the instant Jon Venables' whereabouts became public knowledge.

Yet nobody gives a damn what Mary Bell is doing with her life. Nobody is launching vigilante campaigns to find out where she is or whether she's ever been convicted of any other offences. Double standards by the tabloid press, surely?

There would be if she misbehaved again, to the point of imprisonment.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

What I cannot understand is the fact that a paper says he was working as a 'doorman' how did he pass a CRB check to get his SIA license which is needed to be a doorman.

It was said that even the police did not know his new identity so if he applied for a CRB check in his new name then obviously it would show up as nothing known.

Well I can pretty much guarantee you that he wouldn't be the only convicted criminal working as SIA staff, CRB checks or no CRB checks!

And I'm not sure how it would work exactly in terms of his anonymity on the Police National Computer (which stores criminal records) but would guess he's recorded under his new name, with a note that a particular officer in the local public protection office is notified immediately if he comes to police attention for any offences.

If he's been given a completely new identity, there is no chance of his position being compromised by details of his past being revealed to potential employers in a CRB check. And his movements and applications for jobs would be subject to the approval of his PPO officer.

 

[little al]

He was granted anonymity once, when getting that, it should have been drummed into him that it was a one time chance and if he misbehaved he wouldn't get another ID.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

There would be if she misbehaved again, to the point of imprisonment.

Hmmm. Maybe...

Let's face it, if someone found and publicised where Robert Thompson is living now, I bet you some of the local dregs would be round there like a shot to dish it out, even though there's no evidence, similarly to Mary Bell, that he's done anything wrong (I mean since his release, obviously).

The major difference between the crimes seems to be the time period in which they took place. The popular media was a far less powerful presence in the 1960s than it is now.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

He was granted anonymity once, when getting that, it should have been drummed into him that it was a one time chance and if he misbehaved he wouldn't get another ID.

I don't have a major issue with the original anonymity order, as whatever he did, it doesn't give any one other individual the right to go and bludgeon him to death, but yes, there does seem to be a fair argument that, if convicted of another crime, he should forfeit that right.

He knows the score, after all.

 

[little al]

I don't have a major issue with the original anonymity order, as whatever he did, it doesn't give any one other individual the right to go and bludgeon him to death, but yes, there does seem to be a fair argument that, if convicted of another crime, he should forfeit that right.

He knows the score, after all.

Of course, if he gets another new (costly) ID, he knows he can do what he likes and get away with it, even in prison its a secret who he is.

 

[BensGrandad]

According to The Sun and ITV News he has been accused of a serious sex crime that if convicted would probably result in imprisonment and that is why he has been returned to prison. There was however no mention of what the actual crime was or is.

 

[little al]

To be honest, I'd rather have the 4 only people with anonymity orders walking the streets, Bell, Carr, Thompson and Venebles, under supervision as none of them seem to be predatory offenders like the faceless, nameless pedophiles that are allowed to roam.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Of course, if he gets another new (costly) ID, he knows he can do what he likes and get away with it, even in prison its a secret who he is.

The interesting thing about all this is that- if you believe what you read in the rags- he is a fairly regular drinker and has previously been in a little drug-related trouble in recent years.

Now given that alcohol tends to make most of us a little more honest, and if you were in his position: wouldn't you swear off alcohol for the rest of your life once released from prison? How could you trust yourself not to let something slip after a few beers?

You'd think Venables would spend the rest of his days staying sober and relentlessly watching his back, for fear of some grudge-wielding Scouser dishing out a bit of local justice down a side alley with a Stanley knife.

But apparently not.

 

[little al]

According to The Sun and ITV News he has been accused of a serious sex crime that if convicted would probably result in imprisonment and that is why he has been returned to prison. There was however no mention of what the actual crime was or is.

It was also suggested that although this was the crime he was done for, he had broken his license on more than one occasion before.

 

[little al]

The interesting thing about all this is that- if you believe what you read in the rags- he is a fairly regular drinker and has previously been in a little drug-related trouble in recent years.

Now given that alcohol tends to make most of us a little more honest, and if you were in his position: wouldn't you swear off alcohol for the rest of your life once released from prison? How could you trust yourself not to let something slip after a few beers?

You'd think Venables would spend the rest of his days staying sober and relentlessly watching his back, for fear of some grudge-wielding Scouser dishing out a bit of local justice down a side alley with a Stanley knife.

But apparently not.

Correct, he should be living his life whiter than white.