To ask your thoughts on Jon Venables joining a dating site?

[Sallystyle]

With his new name no one can do a google search on him and find his history.

He was found not long ago with images of child abuse.

Should he be able to get on with his life now he is out of prison? Of course he can just as easily meet someone in the pub.

I just had a debate with a family member about this so interested in your thoughts.

Link here


www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/james-bulger-killer-jon-venables-5039227

[bottleofbeer]

It's certainly not what people expected is it? Thompson was the evil one and JV the sheep. The rumours that went around at the time (I live two miles from The Strand and logistically it never made any sense that it was a pre meditated crime "let's get a kid") I actually DID hear one of them was called Bobby way before they were named, a lucky guess or genuine info coming from somewhere I don't know. Another one that annoys me is the rumours of what was actually done to James. Of course we didn't hear it all, and sometimes it's like people are desperate to know the details while hiding it behind interested concern. Isn't what we do know bad enough?

I hate the way the press wheel his mum out at every opportunity, she doesn't come across well on TV, she doesn't articulate herself very well (absolutely no criticism) I've seen her around and actually she's a tiny, very attractive lady. I think the media use her to whip up more hatred and another non news story and that's deplorable.

[AmarettoSour]

Apologies then bottle - I wasn't sure I definitely think the fact he's went on to commit horrible crimes as an adult is clouding the issue of how they were treated as 10 year olds.

I can see both sides of the argument but if the discussion had been about Robert Thompson people may have been more sympathetic as he appears to have been successfully rehabilitated. JV doesn't even seem to be remorseful.

[bottleofbeer]

Nope, the comments were very general. I have absolutely no sympathy with JV for the crimes he committed as an adult.

[muffpuff]

James Bulger. Not Jamie. James.

[AmarettoSour]

bottle if that comment was to me I don't see how you can say I'm on the bandwagon from one sentence. I haven't said anything about whether or not I think they should have been/are rehabilitated.

The point I was making is JV's life has not been 'destroyed' in the same way as Jamie Bulger's. One was viciously murdered as a baby. The other is still free enough to be able to access and enjoy child porn fgs! You can't really compare the two and maintain a sympathetic view to JV in my opinion.

[bottleofbeer]

Excuse typos, absolutely full of them sorry!

[bottleofbeer]

The ONLY course of action in a civilised society was to rehabilitate children. I've brought up three so far past th age of ten and my daughter will be ten in a couple of months. I looks at her and imagine her being hated and vilified, wanted dead evermore at the very least to rot in a prison cell for an act she committed now and it's just too hard to comprehend. Get off the bandwagon and actually think about it.

Adults vowing to kill them; that actually happened. Beating their chests in righteous indignation to show how disgusted and how much better they were. I saw the ridiculous irony of that at 14 years of age.

[nauticant]

I'm with momb. This thread is an excellent example of why we should always try to avoid trial by media in this country.

It's interesting to see how some people are super keen to soak up the tales served up by the tabloid press about Venables and Thompson. Although many of those tales are embroidered or fictional, believing them provides some with a thrilling ride on the grief bandwagon.

[WannaBe]

the difference though is that they were children who were made to face the consequences as adults, not because we thought that this was the right thing to do, but because only treating them as adults would satisfy the mob's lust for revenge. The motivation was wrong, and the outcome satisfied no-one.

Yes, jb's life ended because of their actions, but their lives changed through their own actions regardless of how they had been treated. They were never going to be absolved of the murder of JB, but the way in which society reacted to them says a lot about the way we think about revenge rather than rehabilitation.

We have posters on here asking whether their ten year old should be allowed to stay in the house for an hour and who are told no they're too young. Whether it's ok to take a ten yo to a twelve cert film and again, no, it's too violent. Yet as soon as the ten year old does something horrific the fact they're ten year olds seems to be forgotten and suddenly those children who shouldn't be left alone or taken to age-rated films should be treated as the adults they will become...... in eight years time....... and be punished as adults for the rest of their miserable childhoods at which point they can then be locked up for the rest of their adult lives.


Does anyone really want to be a part of a society which would condemn ten year olds for the rest of their lives? where should that end? It's very easy to apply that when the crime is beyond all reason but what about lesser crimes? If a ten year old is caught shoplifting should they receive a criminal record which goes against them for the rest of their lives? affects their future career prospects? and if not, why not? If a ten year old gets into trouble at school should that be held against them when going into secondary? be labelled a troubled child even if they haven't been in trouble since? If ten year olds are responsible enough to be tried as adults for murder why are they still living at home? why have we not all sent our ten year olds out to live as adults in society and be responsible as adults for their conduct?

We see plenty of posts on here about things people did and regretted in their youth and early/mid twenties, and we excuse those things on the basis those people were young and foolish. It's only when it's a crime that it should stay with them for ever regardless of whether rehabilitation was possible.

no-one has ever said that jv and rt shouldn't have been held accountable for what they did to jb. and as an adult jv needs to be held separately accountable for his subsequent conduct. but it is possible to see the murder of a toddler as the horrific event that it was while at the same time wondering how the hell it was possible for a ten year old to have been capable of committing such a crime.

Read the article flight linked to above. it is incredibly interesting reading...

[AmarettoSour]

I've not RTFT but bottle one little boy's life was destroyed through the actions of two others. Venables and Thompson's lives were destroyed by their own actions. There's a pretty significant difference.

[bottleofbeer]

I honestly despair over this case. Any of you got ten year old kids at home? Imagine them being so hated for something they do now, that as adults people still want them dead for it. The mentality at the time was to punish child murder, with uhm, child murder.

Imagine a ten year old (they were both found to be less mature and certainly less emotionally intelligent than average ten year olds) being tried as an adult. It's absolutely mind boggling.

And then you get the "they should have rotted in prison for the rest of their lives, evil little bastards" and "they knew right from wrong". Yes, let's be part of a society that gives up on damaged children. The abuse they suffered themselves would in any other circumstances be seen as tragic but we lost sight of that because they became a product of their upbringing.

I can't hate children. I hate what they did but I can't hate them. Three kid's lives were destroyed that day. I live a couple of miles from where it happened, I was 14 at the time but couldn't admit that scenes of adults banging on the van taking them to court made me feel uncomfortable, because you had to hate them and want them dead.

Why spend years trying to rehabilitate children to throw them in an adult prison at 18?

They.were.ten.

[pinefruits]

I was discussing, you turned it into a row. You say it's naive to believe everything you read in the papers. So why ask for proof by googling then. It's probably all lies. How long is this going on for.

[Nicknacky]

How can you say I'm naive or blinkered? I really don't know what gives you that impression. On the contrary I think is naive to glibly believe everything you read in the newspapers who never need to prove a source is correct.

And how on earth do you think I have started an argument, we are having a discussion on the subject not a row.

[pinefruits]

Wannabe good grief, we're trying to move on, talk about wanting to keep it all going. How dare you say that I've said there are people on here who don't like the Bulgers. Read back through the threads, that is deliberately twisting my words. You've come on here to try and stir things up, don't do it at my expense.

[pinefruits]

Nick you love a good argument don't you,matter all you were the one that started it. You seem rather naive to say you work with criminals, a bit blinkered. No I won't say I'm mistaken just to satisfy you, because I'm not, but .....for all our sakes, let it go please.

[WannaBe]

and we've probably all done a "wtf" about certain murders and wondered why those people were out, but that's not the same as the experts having advised they remain in prison. I'm thinking e.g. of the recent incident in Australia where the man who held all those people hostage in the cafe was out on bail for a number of things such as being an accessory to the murder of his wife as well as having numerous convictions of a sexual nature. I think we all probably were a bit and wondered wtf he was at large.

I found fight's link incredibly interesting.

[Nicknacky]

Honestly, do you never give up?! Where have I said I expect you to remember? But in all honestly, if a murderer had been released against advice and then went on to kill then it would make the news somewhere, especially during the enquiry. One of us on this thread would recall a case like that.

Why don't you just say "hey maybe I'm mistaken and that's not as common place as I thought, maybe I was confusing it with offenders who have been released who then went on to kill"?

What you have to remember is the authorities aren't psychic. They can only go on past and present behaviour and the recommendations of the experts.

Interesting on the link flight posted it stated that no child murder has ever went on to kill again.

[WannaBe]

bloody hell is this really all necessary? Pine you seem determined to discredit everyone who disagrees with you, you talk of countless criminals being released to offend in society against the better judgements of the professionals who have suggested that they not be released, with digs at nick because she as a professional should apparently be aware of the existance of all these criminals, and even google does not yield information about all these crimes.

Added to that you have accused anyone who has expressed any kind of empathy for thompson and venibles as having no empathy for James bulger or his family, even going so far as to imply that there are people on this thread who do not like the bulgers. And then you get snippy at people who call you on your claims.

Ok so you're of the persuasion that ten year olds should in fact be locked up for life if they commit a crime. It's your opinnion, not everyone agrees with you and that is their view.

Personally I think that anyone who thinks that condemning a ten year old to a life of confinement has a very twisted view of reality.

[momb]

Thanks to everyone who did actually join in a reasoned discussion. I've learnt a lot.

What wowfudge said at 12.45

[pinefruits]

Nick years ago if someone was murdered it would have been front page news for weeks and on all the news bulletins. Now it's so commonplace it doesn't always get in the paper. When it does it gets a small space. Do you expect people to remember the names of murders when there's hundreds a year. Why on earth would someone on here remember them.

[pinefruits]

We don't get proof of a lot of things in life momb, the things we know about V and T are generally what we read, we don't get proof really of any of it. There have been a lot of opinions and statements on this thread, we can't demand proof of every thing we read. We listen to news reports and mostly we believe them, we don't get proof. The incidents I was talking about regarding prisoners who have been released against the better judgement of experts, these are incidents I have read about over the years and which at the time I used to discuss with my dh. In the course of the thread which is so long now I can't be bothered looking for it, I used it as an example(as far as I remember) as to how the authorities can get it wrong. The thread should really have proceeded nicely but I was challenged to provide proof of this. I shouldn't really have to, I've no reason to lie, I'm just surprised it's caused such a fuss.

[Nicknacky]

I don't want to speak on another posters behalf but I think she was referring to your claim that there was "countless" instances, she wasn't saying there was none. If there was countless then perhaps some cases would spring to the minds of posters??

[pinefruits]

I was referring to the post by, I think it was Nomb who said something like "well "Nick who works with criminals has never heard of any of these criminals" I responded oh that means there can't be any right", meaning just because you hadn't heard of them it didn't mean they didn't exist. I know you work with them but you obviously won't know them all. Don't take it all so serious.

[momb]

I was replying to your post at 19.10 which was addressed to me. Before that I'd only addressed you to clarify that no-one was disputing that some released prisoners reoffend, but rather taking issue with your comment that experts were ignored.
You say that we overanalysed your general comment: but no-one else on the thread has any evidence that your statement is actually true: this isn't over-analysis but correction of a fallacy. No-one is calling you a liar or even implying any such thing but in the absence of any evidence we cannot be blamed for believing you mistaken. No-one said you were talking tosh but asked for evidence at which point we have been accused of railroading and ganging up. Excellent example, I must say, of how belief isn't necessarily based on fact and why indeed I believe that the public mood at the time should not have been taken into account when deciding the trial mode and publication of names of those children.

[pinefruits]

Rather patronising post there momb I'm quite calm thanks, the thread was railroaded unnecessarily because my general comment about the justice system was analized with a fine tooth comb and detracted from the thread.
unless you keep a record of criminals it's hardly likely I'm going to remember their names in order to google it. I read papers, watch current affair programmes, that tells me all I need to know, it's even been debated in the Houses of Parliament, I remember watching it. Btw nick doesn't need your support, I don't like being ganged up on. You say the thread has moved on? so why are you dragging over old ground again. Let it go.