Ms Macbeth Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Its understood that people want to discuss this topic. Some posts reported as offensive have been removed already. Please be aware that the thread will be closed if people can't discuss without name calling and insults. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 In my humble opinion (which doesnt count for much) if its proven that he has commited "serious sexual offences" which breached his licence conditions, surely he should have his right to anonimity waived. If he is given yet another identity - and there is already talk of this apparently - what is to say he wont do it again ? Maybe he has commited these offences, but it seems to be all speculation at the moment. If he has just broken the conditions by having a "scuffle at work" as reported by one tabloid, thats one thing, and his anonimity should stay intact. However, if he is judged to be guilty of the other accusations that are flying around - Cat 4 child porn etc, he should be tried in his real name with full disclosure to the public. Just my opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 So would we have been ok to chop your hand off for the shoplifting? if you did there would have been loads of kids at our school without hands...they were all at it...good old woolies:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BananaSplit Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I have to say I am getting a little uncomfortable arguing with you now as clearly you have some psychological issues. Your lack of ability to disseminate what is being said should worry you and you could do with seeking help. However: If the new charge does not relate to Venables previous conviction then that previous conviction will not be admitted. The prosecution may ask but the defence would certainly object and in all reality be successful in that objection. If however what is being reported is true that he has pictures of child abuse then in that instance it could be argued that his previous conviction is highly relevant and so may be admissible. The 2003 Act also make provision for a trial to be held without a Jury in exceptional circumstances that include jury tampering although how this would apply in Venables case is anyones guess. That is honestly what I can see happening in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 How is it "required" that we hang or shoot 10 year old children? Another finalist for the "Hard Of Thinking" Oscars, I suspect. not saying hang kids...but you must agree that thompson and venables were evil..... now he has re-offended...now hang him Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastbank Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 My then-Seven year old (probably nearer his eighth birthday than his 7th) stepson set his bedroom (curtains/ bed/ bedding / cuddly toy) on fire, after his uncle turned his back on him for a couple of minutes, and he had sneaked upstairs with a pinched box of matches. (uncle was babysitting whilst I had gone to the shop) I made him stand in the naughty corner, downstairs whilst I put the fire out. I then gave him a right-royal telling off, and grounded him. I wonder, would m^rk have preferred I had arranged for my stepson to be hurled off Beachy Head, or some similar Dover-esque cliff? there is a bit of a difference between playing with matches...and multilating a toddler..... if the state brought back capital punishment we could all put the pitch forks away and live happily ever after.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 Living over here in the North West, and also in the area where Venables's latest crime has allegedly taken place (not the one The Sun says), I'm bombarded by loads of rumours and speculation. Too many to know which is true though, and its very dangerous. I can hear the pitchforks being sharpened and the mobs gathering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I understand your dilemma...what I don't understand is your irrationality...we were all horrified by the events of the past regarding this case but to assume that you take the moral high ground is quite frankly arrogant? This situation is complex...very complex and any form of irrationality would be a hindrance to due process. Due process is about facts, rationality...not sentimentality, that's for the family to deal with. As for people helping?..we're all different, we're all afraid, we are insecure as a society. I don't blame criminality for our insecurities I blame the media, media is the cesspit that feeds our fears. But what part did they play in the murder of James bulger?? On the whole though I think you're wrong, many do go out of their way to help...many don't. I would never be so arrogant as to ask them why or why not. I don't believe in evil , nor Satan or God....those two kids did what they did because of a tragic train of events they lost control over What tragic events were these.. what could have possibly happened in thier life that doesn't happen in the lifes of kids from similar backgrounds?. What is it that turned these innocent kids into murdering monsters that who's actions were.. i'm afraid theres no other word for it.. EVIL!. . It isn't a matter of excusing their crime, it's inexcusable. For me it's a matter of hope and that hope has more to do with at least a glimmer of them understanding what they did rather than us pathetically wondering if they get DVD in their cell.They did it because they're disturbed. When they weren't thinking about doing it, they were drawing pictures illustrating it, but that wasn't enough to satisfy thier desire to inflict pain and suffering on someone. What you implied in your above statement is that society is to blame by turning a blind eye and lets itself down. We let James Bulger down because as a collective we let those kids down well before the day they committed a murder. In what way were they let down?.. what is it that should have been done for them that wasn't.. ? You can't take the weight of the world on your shoulders it's far to heavy...unless you want to **** your brain up that is. Regardless of what has happened recently Venables would be better off in a secure unit IMO...I believe he must be pretty messed up and that would be reason enough. Agreed!, he's defintely one messed up individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 not saying hang kids...but you must agree that thompson and venables were evil..... now he has re-offended...now hang him Actually I don't go so far as to brand them evil. so, no, I don't agree, eastbank. Even if I didn't have a bad arm, I was never very fond of pitchfork-brandishing. They were children. They were extremely damaged children. My oldest granddaughter is just coming up to her tenth birthday. I can't imagine (and I don't think I'd want to imagine it, TBH) her being so damaged that she'd go out and do something like that. Or that, at ten years of age, people could be waving their pitchforks, and demanding she should be sentenced to death. And for all the pitchfork waving, and unwashed, torch-carrying villagers screaming for his blood, thankfully, trial by redtop and hangings, particularly of juveniles, are still not permitted in a civilised country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonny5 Posted March 9, 2010 Share Posted March 9, 2010 I understand your dilemma...what I don't understand is your irrationality...we were all horrified by the events of the past regarding this case but to assume that you take the moral high ground is quite frankly arrogant? This situation is complex...very complex and any form of irrationality would be a hindrance to due process. Due process is about facts, rationality...not sentimentality, that's for the family to deal with. As for people helping?..we're all different, we're all afraid, we are insecure as a society. I don't blame criminality for our insecurities I blame media, media is the cesspit that feeds our fears. On the whole though I think you're wrong, many do go out of their way to help...many don't. I would never be so arrogant as to ask them why or why not. I don't believe in evil, nor Satan or God....those two kids did what they did because of a tragic train of events they lost control over. It isn't a matter of excusing their crime, it's inexcusable. For me it's a matter of hope and that hope has more to do with at least a glimmer of them understanding what they did rather than us pathetically wondering if they get DVD in their cell. What you implied in your above statement is that society is to blame by turning a blind eye and lets itself down. We let James Bulger down because as a collective we let those kids down well before the day they committed a murder. You can't take the weight of the world on your shoulders it's far to heavy...unless you want to **** your brain up that is. Regardless of what has happened recently Venables would be better off in a secure unit IMO...I believe he must be pretty messed up and that would be reason enough. Excellent post. Shame that the popular press don't put the same thought/reasoning/empathy into their reporting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts