Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

480 replies

Sallystyle · 26/01/2015 12:57

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

OP posts:
ArsenicFaceCream · 27/01/2015 15:38

Nobody has been able to explain what exactly it was about being tried as an adult that was so traumatic

If they had been dealt with by the Youth Justice system, there is no earthly way their names could have been released post-trial, which was possibly the worst decision, both in terms of trauma to them (assuming that has had an effect on their later behaviour and therefore is important) and in terms of the difficulty of managing their post-release supervision.

chaiselounger · 27/01/2015 16:06

The independent link that fight posted was interesting.

AcrossthePond55 · 27/01/2015 16:08

I think part of the problem is the unwillingness of the 'authorities' (whoever they may be in each case) to admit that there are some people who simply cannot be 'rehabilitated'. They seem to grasp at behavioural straws to pronounce an offender as 'fit for release'.

We seem to be swinging away from this a little here (US) as some states have put in 'danger to society' laws whereby an offender can be kept incarcerated (usually in a MH facility) after serving their sentence if it's determined they still represent a danger to society. We've also seen offenders released who have to live on prison grounds.

We need to admit to ourselves that there are just some people who will not or cannot change. And deal with them accordingly.

pinefruits · 27/01/2015 16:27

"I take it you think they should not have been tried in an adult court or else you are just making the point that trying them in an adult court was not the actions of bleeding heart liberals. However the way they have been treated since the trial have certainly been the actions of bleeding heart liberals.

So you agree exactly with what I said then pinefruits"
No Chunderella you missed my point, you had said in an earlier post that trying them in an adult court was not actions of bleeding hearts. I was just quoting your opinion, it wasn't mine. They have been treated with kid gloves throughout their whole sentence, unless you think the reason Venerables reoffends is because of this I really don't see the relevance. I am far more concerned with the reasons why they weren't sent to an adult prison when they were 18.

zippey · 27/01/2015 16:30

This is really the fault of the original judge for naming these little children. If they had not been named then there would be much less furore from the general media and public.

If we have sympathy for abused children then we should have sympathy for abused children who turn into harmed adults who end up harming others. James Bulger, Thompson and Venables - they were all victims of abuse.

LoisWilkersonsLastNerve · 27/01/2015 16:43

Do I think someone on probation for looking at child pornography should be allowed to use an online dating site? If it breaches the terms of his probation then no. If it doesn't then disturbing as it is I don't see how they can be stopped.

pinefruits · 27/01/2015 16:48

If they had been dealt with by the Youth Justice system, there is no earthly way their names could have been released post-trial......that is not quite true.
Under section 39 of children and young offenders act 1933......Where there is a strong interest in open justice and in the public knowing as much as possible about what has happened in court including the identities of those who have committed the crime.
So even if they had gone through a young offenders court it probably wouldn't have made much difference.

MoanCollins · 27/01/2015 16:49

And if they hadn't been named it's far more likely that Venables would have been able to get up to far worse after his release because the authorities would have been able to hush it up far more. It's also unlikely that, even if Venables had been caught viewing child porn he wouldn't have been identified on this website. And the same situation would occur again where some unsuspecting girl got up the duff them got told 'Sorry, your child's father is a schedule 1 offender, a danger to children and you and your child have no right to know where he is'. Because as we all know our politicians value the right of child murderers and undercover policeman to fuck women more than they value the right of women to know who is impregnating them.

And Venables was not a victim of abuse. At the very outside he had a somewhat chaotic household but he wasn't abused.

pinefruits · 27/01/2015 17:29

James Bulger, Thompson and Venables - they were all victims of abuse...... No James Bulger was savagely murdered, Thomson and Venerables murdered him, please don't put James's name alongside those two giving them all equal status. As far as we know only Thompson was abused. The authorities probably let him down, but that's no consolation to James's parents or excuse for what happened.

ilovechristmas1 · 27/01/2015 18:29

i agree with the poster that said maybe he wants to be back in an controlled enviroment like prison

he really dosent know anything else and he was well looked after and probably in his case had a more stable life than before,

he probably cant cope with the outside world he is so use to being pandered to

i am not batting his corner,would not give him the time of day,just that it seems one of the reasons he blows his cover,it's as if he wants to be caught

i havent worded this well but im sure you get the jist

Viviennemary · 27/01/2015 18:45

Venables and Thompson are victims of their own wickedness. They should thank their lucky stars they are alive and were allowed to be adults. Something that was not afforded to James Bulger because of their evil deed.

wowfudge · 27/01/2015 19:38

This thread has really disturbed me - and I haven't been brave enough to post before because of the reactions some posters have had. That said, I cannot condone the comments of those posters who have said Thompson and Venables did not deserve to be released into society. They were just ten years old when they killed fgs. Some posters seem to be advocating ISIS style 'justice' for children.

The Independent article linked to was really interesting and provided some insight to what their lives might have been like and the work done with them in the secure units.

I wonder whether Venables' issues have come from his trying to make sense of what he did, why he did it and him having a conscience and the constant feeling you are living a lie because you are living under another identity which is not your own. Thompson by comparison is said to have shown psychopathic tendencies and no remorse for his actions. Perhaps it is easier for him.

Venables' despicable offending as an adult has been dealt with under the laws and justice system of this country. Background checks on him would flag up that he is an offender - even with another change of identity.

Aeroflotgirl · 27/01/2015 19:59

Wowfudge, you have forgotten that they savagely and brutally mudered a little boy, they obviously had issues way before then. I agree with Pine, James was murdered, don't put him with those two individuals, what an insult to his memory and his family.

ArsenicFaceCream · 27/01/2015 20:08

Under section 39 of children and young offenders act 1933......Where there is a strong interest in open justice and in the public knowing as much as possible about what has happened in court including the identities of those who have committed the crime.
So even if they had gone through a young offenders court it probably wouldn't have made much difference.

Perhaps I should have said "no way their names would have..."

The decision to try them as adults certainly paved the way for the later decision to release their names. Revealing their names acheived nothing and made their management much much harder.

londonrach · 27/01/2015 20:11

Tbh i honestly feel there are three victims (excluding the family here) here. How can venables and thompson be evil as they so young when they killed little jamie.

ArsenicFaceCream · 27/01/2015 20:15

Wowfudge, you have forgotten that they savagely and brutally mudered a little boy, they obviously had issues way before then.

Yes they did, which is unspeakably awful.

But (serious question) amongst the very small group of children who commit awful, brutal, serious crimes like this - how many of those are from comfortable, nurturing, non-damaging backgrounds? Are there figures?

JV's and RT's backgrounds were far from optimal (understatement). Ditto Mary Bell's.

What kind of experiences does a ten year old have to have before it even occurs to him or her that violently attacking a toddler is something that they could do? For the notion or the urge to be there?

Aeroflotgirl · 27/01/2015 20:19

Yes londonrach,but age does not matter, they still committed those evil crimes. Obviously they are psychologically damaged prior to the murder of that little boy or they would not have done what they did to him.

wowfudge · 27/01/2015 20:34

I assure you Aeroflotgirl, I have forgotten nothing.

You agree they were damaged to commit such crimes, yet you seem to advocate throwing away the key. I cannot agree with that view.

londonrach · 27/01/2015 20:38

Whos mAry bell?

londonrach · 27/01/2015 20:41

Just googled. How awful. How can a child that young do something so bad? Those poor children (includes jamie in that)

pinefruits · 27/01/2015 20:44

The decision to try them as adults certainly paved the way for the later decision to release their names. Revealing their names achieved nothing and made their management much harder....... Under section 39 of the children and young offenders it also states that for grave crimes, releasing the names of the offenders can act as a deterrent to other children. So it does achieve something.
When you say revealing their names achieved nothing and made their management much harder....well apart from the fact that even before the names were released it was known locally who they were, as always happens in shocking crimes! it's soon common knowledge who they are,but surely for Jamie's parents who had lost their only child they would have wanted Venables and Thomson to face up to what they had done in an adult court. Or should we all worry about the murderers and their rights and the reasons they committed the crime. Imo they committed a crime so horrific and evil that the normal procedures (as in child courts) that it was dealt with in an adult jail, and rightly so. If it gave Denise Ferguson one tiny ounce of comfort then it was the right thing to do.

wowfudge · 27/01/2015 21:04

I do not for one minute think that naming these children deters other children from murder. These crimes are mercifully rare.

pinefruits · 27/01/2015 21:21

That wasn't the reason for naming them though, but it is a factor to be considered in other cases.

FightOrFlight · 27/01/2015 21:27

Just googled. How awful. How can a child that young do something so bad?

Apparently Mary Bell's mother was a prostitute specialising in sado-masochistic sex who allowed clients to abuse her daughter. Her step-father (possibly bio father, nobody really knows) was a violent alcoholic. According to family members her mother tried to kill her on more than one occasion. I don't think Mary Bell had developed much of a moral compass, all things considered.

Aeroflotgirl · 27/01/2015 21:28

Not throwing away tge key, but a much longer custodial sentence.