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

it was not a dig directly at you Pine

but that is the message that is coming over from those that have spoken about their sadness over this case

it is not about anyone's feelings on this thread as someone else said it is a given that this will move people as it is terribly sad

i do not think you feel more or less empathy with the Bulger's than I do or others on here. I have not seen a post that can in anyway be deemed as not showing empathy towards the Bulger's or more for JV or RT just because they are not mentioning the Bulger's in every post, as the discussion started being about JV and many have kept to it being about
him

Nick you deliberately sidetracked the whole thread when you queried my points about criminals reoffending. Because I obviously couldn't come up with any particular names you implied that it wasn't true. There was no need for your insistence of any "examples" of what I said because it's such common knowledge(well I thought it was). There really shouldn't have been any need to have got bogged down with all that. Imo it was nit picking at my posts, there wasn't any need for it.

Of course he can just as easily meet someone in the pub.

This, for me, is the crux of it. Unless you stop or severely restrict him from interacting with people in any way, he will surely eventually enter into a relationship/sexual liaison/whatever with SOMEONE?

I think Icimoi is the voice of reason on this thread.

I have sidetracked it? I implied nothing of the sort but as you brought it up as a point I was interested in it and asked you about it. That's the whole point of a forum such as this, I'm not going to just blindly agree with everything you say!

Your idea of "common knowledge" appears to be speculations from the newspapers you suggest I read. I would rather read from credible sources, not tabloid rumour mongering.

I'm leaving this thread because it's the metaphorical equivalent of a 5th year classroom argument during breaktime...

but I might come back

Yes I do keep referring back to their crimes against James as it is relevant to this discusssion, as a result of killing James they ceased to be ordinary little boys, but ones who were depraved and sadistic, it would take those characteristics to do what they did to James. In relation to Jon Venables, is continuing this in his adult life, in relation to seeking out and gaining gratification of images where children are being abused and suffering, in particular very young children, of around the same age as James was.

Onlylovers

I disagree. I think online dating, as compared to meeting someone in real life enables someone to more easily:
*target a specific type of person based on characteristics like "has/wants children"
*contact a greater number of people within a given time frame
*establish an emotional relationship prior to meeting, which can confuse/alter initial gut reactions and fast track intimacy

These things increase the risks, if only by increasing the weight of numbers.

It is also something that can be more easily (and cost effectively) tracked than say having someone tailed in person 24 hours a day. Not perfectly of course, but to the extent to make it more difficult and therefore less attractive. Just because risk cannot be perfectly eliminated doesn't mean you can't take some steps to reduce and minimise it

I also really don't see how placing restrictions on online dating would be any different than saying someone cannot go within a certain distance of a school for example.

If you approach thinking about this from the point of view of protecting people rather than whether or not people have been properly/effectively/sufficiently punished in the past, it seems a lot less emotive. Is this a reasonable step that may minimise risks without being a very expensive or onerous measure to conduct?

That way you really don't need to go into were RT and JV abused/neglected/should they have been tried as adults/have they suffered enough/is this a witchhunt/are people right to be revulsed by them.

I also notice that the ones who seem to have empathy for the killers seem to be totally lacking in empathy for the Bulgers.

Where do you notice that, pinefruits? I haven't seen anyone say they don't care about the Bulgers. You may not intend to do so, but you are giving the distinct impression that unless anyone prefaces a post which disagrees with you with a statement about how much they care about the Bulgers, you will decide that they are "totally lacking in empathy".

Why do you not accept that people can be absolutely horrified about what happened to James Bulger, and deeply sympathetic to his parents, but still feel that his murderers were very damaged children who received an appropriate sentence for their crime?

There was no need for your insistence of any "examples" of what I said because it's such common knowledge(well I thought it was).

Surely if it's "common knowledge" it would be child's play to google some names?

there are thousands of child abusers who target single mums on dating sites.

yes that is scary Mumsy, there are lots under the radar who haven't yet been involved with the Police

Where do you notice that, pinefruits? I haven't seen anyone say they don't care about the Bulgers oh please, are people really going to come on here and say they"don't like the Bulgers". You seem to be drawing assumptions about me, but I can't do the same?

Surely if it's "common knowledge" it would be child's play to google some names?...........are you serious, do people really remember the names of criminals that they read about in the papers over the years and then be able to google them?? I had a simpler suggestion. "Google examples of criminals who reoffend". Are you suggesting that it doesn't happen??

NickIve only just read your post because I've been out, so can you tell me what is your source of news? and of course I don't expect you to blindly follow what I say but I'm sorry I can't take you seriously if you refuse to acknowledge that criminals are ofen released back in to society too soon and go on to reoffend.

Having empathy for the fact that two small children were so disturbed that they committed such a horrific crime and were then thrown to the wolves by the media does not equal "not liking the bulgers."

In fact the inability to see that while the death of james bulger was horrific beyond most people's imagination the two children who committed the crime were in fact only children themselves and were treated in the way they were purely to satisfy the public's lust for revenge shows a far greater ability to have empathy.

We don't actually know whether this story is true. nor do we know that john Venibles fathered a child or two, nor do we know that he is on dating sites. In fact it is entirely possible that there are twisted people out there who might tell someone that they were john Venibles especially if he has revealed his own identity in the past. Would you know if you past him in the street? if someone told you in a pub they were jv how would you know they were?

This is nothing more than the media's attempts to whip up a hysteria over something which there is actually no information about. And might I say they are succeeding.

Where do you notice that, pinefruits? I haven't seen anyone say they don't care about the Bulgers

oh please, are people really going to come on here and say they"don't like the Bulgers". You seem to be drawing assumptions about me, but I can't do the same?

I haven't drawn assumptions about you, pinefruits. You made a very definite statement that some people were showing no empathy at all about the Bulgers, and I asked where, as I haven't seen it. Even if you are making assumptions, you must surely have some basis for those assumptions? I do you the credit of believing that you would not make any assumption without evidence. If you believe as a result of reading specific posts that the authors of those posts in fact do not like the Bulgers or lack empathy towards them, surely you can explain why?

Hear hear Wanna

Pine, you're moving the goalposts on your discussion with Nick. What she asked you was "Pine genuinely interested, what case are you referring to where the expert warned against release? And honestly, you don't need to try and convince me of all people about re offenders."

If, as you suggest, it is common knowledge that such cases exist, I am sure you are well aware that it would be possible to google examples without knowing the names of the people involved.

Pine you just sound silly now.

It is YOU who has drawn the entirely irrational conclusion that anyone who shows the slightest desire to understand how and why two ten year olds came to be so damaged as to commit a brutal murder, must necessarily "not like the Bulgers" . Ridiculous.

In fact, the desire to understand in itself suggests both empathy and an appreciation for the awfulness of the crime.

What WannaBe said. I really hate the cynical way the media exploit the Bulgers on this. It simply cannot be helping them to keep dragging this up on the flimsiest bases, simply in order to sell a few more papers - especially when they know full well that many of the scare stories about Venables are based on fiction.

pine I think you are being obtuse now. I work with offenders and re offenders most days of my working life so I don't need to be convinced they exist.

My question to you was specifically about the cases where people have re offended despite being released where experts states they were dangerous. That was my query.

As for the news, I read it but don't believe it word for word. I've worked on too many enquiries where I know what happened but the headlines publish something completely different.

Nick your question to me was unreasonable, how could I possibly remember those names. Why was it necessary, all that was required was to google reoffending criminals. I still don't understand what the need for names are. You say you work with offenders and re offenders, In that case I'm amazed that you questioned what I said. You must see it first hand.

Pinefruits You made this statement aimed at NickyNacky who actually works in this field:
'Nickynacky do you read the papers. There's literally loads being released back into the community. It's so well documented, just google it, and in countless times criminal behavioural experts warn against them being released because they are still a danger to the public. They often then go on to murder. It shouldn't happen.'

I think that NickyNacky asking for some examples is not unreasonable given that you have clearly stated there are countless examples where the experts recommend against release but the criminal is released anyway. It's a huge accusation and as NickyNacky said, she works in the field and is unaware of these countless cases. Of course people get released from prison, otherwise everyone would die there, but whether or not the experts' recommendations stand for nought is what is being questioned about your statement.

Arsenic...... You are misinterpreting my posts. Up thread someone said something like "I've never seen anyone say they don't like the Bulgers" or something like that. I responded "as if anyone is going to say that"....... Please don't try and belittle me and and say I've said something that I didnt. How bizarre that you would say that.