James Bulger's Dad Wants Killers' New Identity Taken Away

[TheNugget 10]

My view is that it was right to protect the anonymity of this pair when they were released from prison initially having served their sentence for a (heinous) crime they committed when still children themselves.

However, having re-offended as an adult I think that Venables at least has lost that right.

Ultimately there is no release system that will monitor him 24/7. No assessment process can judge what he might do at any given point. It would only take a few minutes for him to commit a similar offence.

Surely protection of the public should be the primary concern.

If he, or similar offenders were living in your street, then wouldn’t the safest thing for the public to know that so they could keep their children away from him?

Why are his rights being put above our children and his potential victims? The law’s an ass.

[melthebell 863]

They cant prosecute EVERYONE who posts them and shares them . Those photos will have been shared millions of times in the last day or so. The court order isnt worth the paper its written on.

well tell us how YOU get on, have a good day

[ukdobby 224]

Watched the programme on tv for a full 10minutes then had to switch off,what they did made sick and tearful.

[Baron99 795]

My view is that it was right to protect the anonymity of this pair when they were released from prison initially having served their sentence for a (heinous) crime they committed when still children themselves.

However, having re-offended as an adult I think that Venables at least has lost that right.

Ultimately there is no release system that will monitor him 24/7. No assessment process can judge what he might do at any given point. It would only take a few minutes for him to commit a similar offence.

Surely protection of the public should be the primary concern.

If he, or similar offenders were living in your street, then wouldn’t the safest thing for the public to know that so they could keep their children away from him?

Why are his rights being put above our children and his potential victims? The law’s an ass.

 

Totally agree. He was 10 years old at the time of the Bulger murder back in 1993, so he's now in his mid 30's, fully responsible for his own actions. As far as I'm concerned he gave up any right to anonymity back in 2010 when he was gaoled for a number of years for similar offences to the ones he's now accused of again.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Baron99
Misspelling

[Penistone999 10]

well tell us how YOU get on, have a good day

 

I havnt shared them Mel . I dont use facebook , the missus showed them to me. The point is , within an hour of those photos being posted online, millions of people will have them . There is nowt the authorities cant do to stop it.

 

Its like when one of the tabloids (think it was the sun ) posted pictures of how Karen Mathews looks now on their front page last year. Were they prosecuted ? NO

 

These photos are all over facebook and Google . They are out there now, same as Karen Mathews new look is . Nothing can be done about it .

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2018 at 19:16 ----------

 

Totally agree. He was 10 years old at the time of the Bulger murder back in 1993, so he's now in his mid 30's, fully responsible for his own actions. As far as I'm concerned he gave up any right to anonymity back in 2010 when he was gaoled for a number of years for similar offences to the ones he's now accused of again.

 

This is the second time he has been sent back to prison for child images on his computer . He will never learn . Yet he will be out again in three years at most.

 

We need to adopt the American system of three strikes and out.

[hackey lad 3,976]

On Question Time last night , a chap in the audience said that Venables should now be told in no uncertain terms , that when he finishes this latest sentence he will keep his anonymity BUT if he offends again, then hes on his own

[taxman 12]

I think the original sentences were probably on the lenient side because they gave scope for changing and showing remorse and becoming different people. We will never know what or who Thompson has become but we know Venables.

 

He's broken his parole multiple times, a recidivist, a palpable threat, a known drug user. But still seems to be under the "protection" of the probation service, his crimes hushed up, his trips to Liverpool excused.

 

A line should now be drawn. He's had his chances, and no matter what sort of hideous childhood he might have had, it won't wash anymore, that's it. He is an ongoing threat to young children and should be locked up.

[*_ash_* 88]

The title apostrophe - I think - means both. but the topic is mainly venables.

 

Are they asking for both?

 

I didn't watch the one last night because I had enough after the other one the night or two before.

 

The other ones lawyer said (and obviously knows him) said he thought we'd never see the other one like this - probably meaning he's living a normal life now.

 

-

 

As for the picture thing, I googled imaged it - just to see what it brought up, and it brings up so many men, that anyone could end up lynched for being him (venables)

 

---------- Post added 09-02-2018 at 22:33 ----------

 

On Question Time last night , a chap in the audience said that Venables should now be told in no uncertain terms , that when he finishes this latest sentence he will keep his anonymity BUT if he offends again, then hes on his own

I've not watched it yet, but obviously there is a section on this, and will see tomorrow when I watch it.

 

I tend to think more the next quote here...

 

I think the original sentences were probably on the lenient side because they gave scope for changing and showing remorse and becoming different people. We will never know what or who Thompson has become but we know Venables.

 

He's broken his parole multiple times, a recidivist, a palpable threat, a known drug user. But still seems to be under the "protection" of the probation service, his crimes hushed up, his trips to Liverpool excused.

 

A line should now be drawn. He's had his chances, and no matter what sort of hideous childhood he might have had, it won't wash anymore, that's it. He is an ongoing threat to young children and should be locked up.

 

 

-

 

Either way, the whole thing is and always has been very messy.

[Penistone999 10]

I think the original sentences were probably on the lenient side because they gave scope for changing and showing remorse and becoming different people. We will never know what or who Thompson has become but we know Venables.

 

He's broken his parole multiple times, a recidivist, a palpable threat, a known drug user. But still seems to be under the "protection" of the probation service, his crimes hushed up, his trips to Liverpool excused.

 

A line should now be drawn. He's had his chances, and no matter what sort of hideous childhood he might have had, it won't wash anymore, that's it. He is an ongoing threat to young children and should be locked up.

 

One of the lawyers on the programme last night said one of the the reasons they were only given 10 years was because any longer would have meant them being transferred to an adult prison , and they would have been at severe risk of harm had that happened.

 

So basically their sentence was 10 years so to protect them from what would lie in store for them in an adult prison at 18 years old.

 

For me, this is wrong on every level .

[*_ash_* 88]

One of the lawyers on the programme last night said one of the the reasons they were only given 10 years was because any longer would have meant them being transferred to an adult prison , and they would have been at severe risk of harm had that happened.

 

So basically their sentence was 10 years so to protect them from what would lie in store for them in an adult prison at 18 years old.

 

For me, this is wrong on every level .

 

On that programme, there were quite a lot of differing opinions, and topics to discuss, I think.

 

I thought the Norway part was quite bizarre too.

[Penistone999 10]

On that programme, there were quite a lot of differing opinions, and topics to discuss, I think.

 

I thought the Norway part was quite bizarre too.

 

I agree , it was

[Halibut 12]

One of the lawyers on the programme last night said one of the the reasons they were only given 10 years was because any longer would have meant them being transferred to an adult prison , and they would have been at severe risk of harm had that happened.

 

So basically their sentence was 10 years so to protect them from what would lie in store for them in an adult prison at 18 years old.

 

For me, this is wrong on every level .

 

Would it be fair to say you would like a system where inmates are permitted to deal out punishment beatings at will, on anyone they see fit?

 

Or perhaps where regular beatings are part of the punishment?

 

Did you get smacked around a lot as a kid and find it arousing perhaps?