Jamie Bulger killer back in jail

[theblackwatch]

One of the two boys who tortured and killed Jamie Bulger on a railway line back in 1993 is back in prison - there is a news story on the BBC site at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546528.stm

Some members here will not be old enough to remember when the murder took place, it is one of the most shocking news events I can remember. The two boys who did it were released after eight years and given new identities.

 

[royaloak]

They should NEVER have been released, they were poison to the core!

 

[theblackwatch]

They should NEVER have been released, they were poison to the core!

Even the Home Secretary didn't want them released. If my memory is right, it was the 'do gooders' at the European Court of Human Rights who ruled that they should be let out.

 

[Ferret]

Let's hope the sweet innocent little boy is given a traditional welcome in prison....................... whoops - I think I dropped the soap!

 

[Nick W]

Hearing the shocking story of such a heinous crime disgusts me and sends shivers down my spine, and I'm sure there is no one here who will not join me in condemning the abominable offence. However, the very fact that Jon Venabales, after his release, certainly hasn't commited any crime up to this point, and the fact that the state has acted swiftly after the terms of his licence have been breached shows that the state was right to deam his as no danger to society, and that necessary safeguards were in place.

Shall we then wait until the outcome of the revocation of the parole before we judge whether or not the state acted in the correct way?

 

[142094]

I just wonder what the family of the little lad think about all this. Should have a life sentence not life licence. Was also reading about the attempts to free Peter Sutcliffe - or Peter Coonan as he is now known. I would be very happy for some of my tax money to go for building a nice big prision on a small island somewhere with big walls and no luxuries, crap food and brutal guards. And change the legislation to make life actually mean life.

 

[Oswyntail]

While I agree about Peter Sutcliffe, I cannot agree that "Life should be life" for Venables. How old was he when he committed the crime? How many of us, even the ones who are only a few years older than that, can say we have not changed since we were that age. It's called "growing up", and some of us have done it. We do not yet know what the "breach of conditions" was - but that was done as an adult, in full knowledge of the consequences, and so should be treated accordingly.

 

[Kneedown]

Fingers crossed that the other lags quickly suss out who the new inmate is and act accordingly. If Sutcliffe were also to finally get his long deserved comuppance then that'd really make my day!
Was listening to the hand wringers on radio 4 this morning going on about venables "having a second chance". Yeh right! like the second chance they gave James Bulger?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

While I agree about Peter Sutcliffe, I cannot agree that "Life should be life" for Venables. How old was he when he committed the crime? How many of us, even the ones who are only a few years older than that, can say we have not changed since we were that age. It's called "growing up", and some of us have done it. We do not yet know what the "breach of conditions" was - but that was done as an adult, in full knowledge of the consequences, and so should be treated accordingly.

I was brought up next door to one of the toughest estates in Leicester and went to school there. We got into all sorts of trouble and fights but the idea of picking on a little tot and doing what those two amoeba's did to James would never even have entered our minds!

 

[eos]

Does it not seem strange to anyone other than me that the 'public' can now find out ( thru Sarah Paynes campaign) personal details of anyone convicted of looking at a 'mucky picture' on a computer , yet the 'State' contrives to keep the identity of a convicted child killer secret.
I don't at all feel happy that he could be living in my neighbourhood , along with lots of other 'identity changed ' convicts out on a trial parole.

 

[Geezertronic]

While I agree about Peter Sutcliffe, I cannot agree that "Life should be life" for Venables. How old was he when he committed the crime? How many of us, even the ones who are only a few years older than that, can say we have not changed since we were that age. It's called "growing up", and some of us have done it.

You are joking right? You think the punishment fitted the crime in this case? At least Venables and Thompson got the chance to grow up and live their lives after their extremely early release from prision, with new identities and a fresh start. What about James Bulger?

It shouldn't matter how old someone is - they tortured and murdered a toddler in cold blood, you can't say that is part of "growing up".

 

[Oswyntail]

Fingers crossed that the other lags quickly suss out who the new inmate is and act accordingly. If Sutcliffe were also to finally get his long deserved comuppance then that'd really make my day!
Was listening to the hand wringers on radio 4 this morning going on about venables "having a second chance". Yeh right! like the second chance they gave James Bulger?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I was brought up next door to one of the toughest estates in Leicester and went to school there. We got into all sorts of trouble and fights but the idea of picking on a little tot and doing what those two amoeba's did to James would never even have entered our minds!

No one ever suggested that it would. But, unless you are suggesting that we cannot change as we grow up, then you are getting close. Should society be run along the lines of "lags" giving someone "comeuppance"? I am not a "hand wringer", but that sort of idea sickens me.

Does it not seem strange to anyone other than me that the 'public' can now find out ( thru Sarah Paynes campaign) personal details of anyone convicted of looking at a 'mucky picture' on a computer , yet the 'State' contrives to keep the identity of a convicted child killer secret.
I don't at all feel happy that he could be living in my neighbourhood , along with lots of other 'identity changed ' convicts out on a trial parole.

No one is convicted of looking at "mucky pictures". They are convicted of looking at pictures of children as young as babies being forced to indulge in sexual acts, some of which would be shocking in an adult; they are convicted of creating a market for such things by paying for them; and for encouraging those who produce the pictures - pictures of real children, remember - to think they have a place in society.
But I still do not agree with holding their names on a special list available to the public. Like it or not, our system of justice is based on the simple idea that punishment handed out by the courts gives the perpetrator the chance to reform and change. Once the punishment has been served, society assumes that the perpetrator has reformed, until and unless he/she re-offends. Mostly this works. But having a special list of those who have served their punishment in certain areas of crime specially highlighted and publicly available is just an invitation to lynch-mob "justice". I would feel less easy if a convicted burglar or GBH merchant was living next door - why are we not informed of those as well?

 

[Geezertronic]

I would feel less easy if a convicted burglar or GBH merchant was living next door - why are we not informed of those as well?

Sorry mate but your arguments don't hold much water if you are comparing a convicted burgler to a convicted paedophile. And if you would feel less easy living next to a burgler than a paedophile then there really has to be something wrong with you.

 

[Ferret]

You are joking right? You think the punishment fitted the crime in this case? At least Venables and Thompson got the chance to grow up and live their lives after their extremely early release from prision, with new identities and a fresh start. What about James Bulger?

It shouldn't matter how old someone is - they tortured and murdered a toddler in cold blood, you can't say that is part of "growing up".

Absolutely right. The exact details of the 'torture' weren't released at the time as it was deemed too horrific. Use your imagination to work out exactly what they did to that poor young boy - while I'd not go so far as to say they should never be released, the sentence they served in a cushy institution no way reflected the severity of the crime. And I don't care what anyone says - at 10 years of age, I knew right from wrong. They knew what they were doing was beyond the pale, even at that age. An absolutely shocking case, it still makes me shudder now.

 

[Oswyntail]

You are joking right? You think the punishment fitted the crime in this case? At least Venables and Thompson got the chance to grow up and live their lives after their extremely early release from prision, with new identities and a fresh start. What about James Bulger?

It shouldn't matter how old someone is - they tortured and murdered a toddler in cold blood, you can't say that is part of "growing up".

No - I did not say that was a part of "growing up". I was trying to say that no one, not even you, remains the same from the age of ten to the age of 27. What is appropriate punishment for a 10 year old is certainly not the same as for an adult. Punishment is necessary, but, at that age, it can involve making sure that the kids grow up with more of a sense of right and wrong.

Sorry mate but your arguments don't hold much water if you are comparing a convicted burgler to a convicted paedophile. And if you would feel less easy living next to a burgler than a paedophile then there really has to be something wrong with you.

Why? Both have committed offences. Both are intensely nasty specimens of humanity, and I would rather neither moved in next door. But then I am unlikely to wake up one night to find a paedophile rummaging through my bookshelves or to go out of my front door only to be assaulted by a paedophile. Surprisingly, it is a lot easier to protect children than it is to protect property.

 

[Geezertronic]

Surprisingly, it is a lot easier to protect children than it is to protect property.

But it's not is it. I don't keep my kids under lock and key and up until now there is not a paedophile alarm that can be fitted to kids (although personal alarms are available but under-used). Sorry to sound sarcastic but you cannot say it is not easier to protect children than property.

Once a child passes a certain age, parents are not 100% responsible for the safety and security of their children, that role falls to nurseries, schools etc...

 

[eos]

I would feel less easy if a convicted burglar or GBH merchant was living next door - why are we not informed of those as well?

If its all the same with you, I would prefer it if none of them lived next door to me...

 

[SouthEastern-465]

You are joking right? You think the punishment fitted the crime in this case? At least Venables and Thompson got the chance to grow up and live their lives after their extremely early release from prision, with new identities and a fresh start. What about James Bulger?

It shouldn't matter how old someone is - they tortured and murdered a toddler in cold blood, you can't say that is part of "growing up".

I don't mean this in a nasty way but I really do wonder if Oswyntail has kids and if he's opinion would change if that was he's child?

Although I do agree on one point of Oswyntail. A 10 year old would change (And maybe regret?) alot personality wise from 10 -to- 27. But I also think that evil nature may still stay with the killer from a child to an adult (If there good enough to do it at that age, god knows what they would do as an adult).

 

[Oswyntail]

Yes, I do have children, though they are now all over 18. And I protected them the best way anyone can, by giving them a sense of right and wrong, being open to them about what goes on in the world, and giving them the awareness and self-confidence to know if anything inappropriate is tried on and what to do if it is. I did not shield them from the truth that the world is a nasty and dangerous place, and they knew that, whatever they needed, they could talk to me and not be ignored or belittled. And so, with respect, all my children were equipped with a reliable paedophile alarm from an early age.
And I agree, I would rather not have any of these types anywhere near. But, sadly, there are those who, as adults, choose this path.

 

[Kneedown]

No one ever suggested that it would. But, unless you are suggesting that we cannot change as we grow up, then you are getting close.

They could change so much they could become monks for all i care but it still doesn't change what they have already done. No amount of atonement will undo that.

Should society be run along the lines of "lags" giving someone "comeuppance"?

In the absence of proper punishment in this retarded country, such as hanging or drowning, then comeuppance is the best that those of us who believe in justice can hope for!

I am not a "hand wringer"

Hmmmm, righto then.

 

[Oswyntail]

....
In the absence of proper punishment in this retarded country, such as hanging or drowning, then comeuppance is the best that those of us who believe in justice can hope for!....

That's not justice but vengeance, something I thought we left behind with Magna Carta

 

[starrymarkb]

No one is convicted of looking at "mucky pictures". They are convicted of looking at pictures of children as young as babies being forced to indulge in sexual acts, some of which would be shocking in an adult; they are convicted of creating a market for such things by paying for them; and for encouraging those who produce the pictures - pictures of real children, remember - to think they have a place in society.

After Harriet Harmans's law change even images of mild S&M between adults could potentially land you in court

Will be interesting to see what they charge the owners of the Lee Mill Dungeon with

 

[ukrob]

We don't know the terms of his license and also we don't know why he is in prison now. It could be something as trivial as littering or having a joint. I'm not taking the p**s - it really could be. But a breach of his license is a breach of his license.

From reading some posts on here (and other sites in the Internet) you would think he has murdered another child.

Hundreds of children are killed everyday across the world. People really need to move on from Jamie Bulger (and I say this as a Liverpudlian myself). He wasn't even called 'Jamie' by anybody - it was just more media friendly and personable than 'James'.

It just sticks in peoples minds because a) it was the first sensationalist news story with the beginning of 24/7 news access complete with CCTV of the actual abduction and b) because Denise Bulger has never shut up about it since (equally the medias fault for going back to her time after time).

As recently as last year Hollyoaks were even pressured into pulling a storyline about two people with new identities who murdered a 12 year old in their past because Denise didn't like the story.

I don't care if this post is unpopular, but I feel better for typing it.

 

[Tom B]

That's not justice but vengeance, something I thought we left behind with Magna Carta

Very true. There is a difference between the two.

 

[Geezertronic]

From reading some posts on here (and other sites in the Internet) you would think he has murdered another child.

He's done it before

Hundreds of children are killed everyday across the world.

But not in the UK...

People really need to move on from Jamie Bulger (and I say this as a Liverpudlian myself).

I couldn't disagree more. As a parent, I remind myself (not regularly but...)that nasty things like this can happen to James Bulger, Holly & Jessica etc...

...and b) because Denise Bulger has never shut up about it since (equally the medias fault for going back to her time after time)

Her child was tortured and killed...

As recently as last year Hollyoaks were even pressured into pulling a storyline about two people with new identities who murdered a 12 year old in their past because Denise didn't like the story.

That I agree is a complete over-reaction. Even soap opera's and drama's have a right to portray sensitive storylines

 

[ukrob]

He's done it before

I didn't say or suggest otherwise. I was making a point - quote me in context if you want to discuss it rather that to suit your point.

But not in the UK...

Therefore they don't matter? I explained why this case had a high profile but you chose to not quote that.

I couldn't disagree more. As a parent, I remind myself (not regularly but...)that nasty things like this can happen to James Bulger, Holly & Jessica etc...

There is a vast vast difference between 'moving on' and being aware of dangers to children. You don't need to think of James Bulger to remind yourself that children can be abducted. I don't need to think of a child cutting themselves with scissors to know that scissors are dangerous.

Her child was tortured and killed...

That doesn't mean she should still be talking to the media about it 20 years later. I'm not talking about this weeks events - I mean in general.

 

[GB]

While I agree about Peter Sutcliffe, I cannot agree that "Life should be life" for Venables. How old was he when he committed the crime? How many of us, even the ones who are only a few years older than that, can say we have not changed since we were that age. It's called "growing up", and some of us have done it. We do not yet know what the "breach of conditions" was - but that was done as an adult, in full knowledge of the consequences, and so should be treated accordingly.

Exactly the attitude that allowed these wasters out in such a short a time.

Yes people do silly things when they are young but every normal 10 year old knows that murder is wrong!:roll:

 

[Kneedown]

That's not justice but vengeance, something I thought we left behind with Magna Carta

Nope, it's Justice.

 

[Oswyntail]

...
Yes people do silly things when they are young but every normal 10 year old knows that murder is wrong!:roll:

I quite agree - but these were not normal 10 year olds. They had apparently been neglected, beaten up, and effectively tortured all their lives. If, in their experience, that is what happens, one can understand how they might consider it something they can do to others. But, at 10, there is still the possibility to put right the effects of their early upbringing, and that is what the sentences they were given were aimed at.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Let's have a look at what these 10 year olds did?
They hit the child so hard that the Pathologist could not determine which blow killed poor James.
They hit him with an iron bar, bricks and stones.
They stuffed batteries in his mouth.

Are these normal 10 year olds?

 

[ukrob]

Let's have a look at what these 10 year olds did?
They hit the child so hard that the Pathologist could not determine which blow killed poor James.
They hit him with an iron bar, bricks and stones.
They stuffed batteries in his mouth.

Are these normal 10 year olds?

I don't think anybody has ever said they were?:-?