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

Free to get on with their lives.

They should still be rotting in a forgotten corner of a jail somewhere.

There appeared to be a suggestion Jon Venables reoffending was caused by his experiences in the justice system. I was just pointing out that most offenders involved with the probation service don't find it makes them get the urge to wank off over child porn. So it's Venables himself who caused that, not the system.

Gotta love the pitchfork wavers here.

They were two 10 year old boys who committed a sickening crime, it's an unforgivable crime and you have to ask why and how they capable of doing it. They should NEVER have been identified or tried in an adult court and I honestly believe that had his happened more recently they would not have been tried so publicly.

As for rehabilitation...Robert Thompson has never re offended and is said to have been successfully rehabilitated. Jon Venables seems to have been the more damaged of the two right from the beginning...abusive childhood etc from which he has never recovered. I doubt he can be rehabilitated completely successfully.

Am assuming that all the pitchfork wavers would be happy for their own children to be locked away for life if they (God forbid) committed such a crime. I don't believe for one moment they wouldn't be out there trying to help and support their child, see them rehabilitated and back in society if it came to it. They certainly would not put their money where their mouth is.

I am no apologist for either of these two individuals but they were two very damaged children who committed an appalling crime against another child. Certainly questions needed asking but these should have been why two children were so abused that they became this dangerous without anyone in authority seeing or noticing.

Hello all,
We absolutely understand the urge to discuss this news story, and of course we understand that this subject causes emotions to run high, but please can we remind everyone that we're here to make parents' lives easier and whatnot, and be careful that those emotions don't spill over into personal attacks? Many thanks.

Has anyone read 'Body of Death' by Elizabeth George? Expolres a very similar scenarion and very, very thought provoking.

What is this special OLD site most beloved by single mums? Why did nobody tell me about it when I was single?

I didn't miss the point, but I think that any news agency using this angle is scaremongering and painting single mothers as feckless, thick victims-in-waiting.

Grateful, it was Thompson with an abusive childhood not Venables.

Grateful the pitchfork wavers at least have bothered to familiarise themselves with the case before commenting. It was Thompson, not Venables who had an abusive background, Venables came from a normal and respectable family with few problem.

If my child was a danger to other children I would expect them to be treated in such a way that other people's children were safe.

Venables came from a normal and respectable family with few problem.

That's not entirely accurate, as this article makes clear.

Normal respectable family with few problems

just one a child that committed an awful violent crime

Of course something was very wrong maybe not within the immediate family and what we do not know and may never know

Leaving aside the original crime committed.

Its unfortunate that dating sites allow paedophile's, rapists, thugs etc on the books as there are no checks or safeguards involved. Anyone with this sort of background would worry me.

this shows why he should never have been released again. he re offended as an adult, so you can't make out it is his age.

That article says just about the same thing??? That although his parents had split up they co-parented, no abuse, the mother had a few boyfriends. Nothing which could possibly justify what he did to James. Remember the previous poster was claiming that he'd suffered terrible abuse from which he had never recovered which is simply not true.

And to pretend that we could 'never know' is obviously wrong when they've had masses of intervention and the professionals involved have always been very keen to make much of anything which mitigated their crimes. That's just inventing excuses.

There is nothing that justifies such violence and cruelty toward another person adult or child
really does it sound like a normal upbringing one of love and security where his actions before those of a happy and secure child

Is abuse always known about no

If it turns out he had been abused the question asked would then be why would he make others suffer as he knows what it is like to suffer

Honestly given the level of intervention they've had it would be unthinkable that he had been abused but kept it a secret. There's simply no evidence that is the case. And yes, his childhood was by all accounts happy and secure. To say 'Well he committed this crime therefore he must have been disturbed already'. Well no, not necessarily. It's perfectly possible that he was just bad, that nothing cause that, he is just a sadistic paedophile. All of the available evidence points towards the latter. It also seems that Venables was very successful at pulling the wool over the eyes of the authorities by convincing them that he was not the prime mover behind the attack when it has become more and more obvious that he was.

There are cases like Edlington where clearly the children involved had been subjected to awful long grinding years of abuse and as a result their morals were so skewed they didn't even know what they were doing was wrong. But you simply can't make that argument about Venables, he wasn't subjected to violence or sexual abuse so no argument can be made that he thought what he was doing was normal or okay.

Nomb .....To hear them described as "two little boys makes me uncomfortable. Yes they were indeed "two little boys but I don't think its appropriate to describe them in such a way. To describe them as such somehow implies that were just typical "little boys" and as such deserve to be treated as any other little boys are treated.
I prefer to call them 2 evil boys who tortured and murdered a child.
I would refer to their helpless victim as just "a little boy", who instead of going to the safety of his own home with his loving mother after shopping,he was left on a disused railway track beaten to death.
As far as I know I don't think they've ever truly repented for their evil crime, and successive governments have continued to put their needs above the rights of he whole of society but more importantly above James's parents.
I don't have a single ounce of sympathy for them, I prefer to save that for James's heartbroken parents.
Btw, if they were tried as adults they should have been transferred to an adult prison when they came of age, but they were set free with total anonymity costing the taxpayers millions. Disgusting.

Abuse is often suppressed for years and often not even acknowledged by the abused he may not have ever been abused but it is not something I would say as a fact

who knows what has been discovered since the court case we only get snippets of information ones the press like to inform us of

did you read the link is that a description of a happy secure boy

Oh for Christ's sake Freudian, the case has been widely reported on and they have had massive amounts of intervention. Considering that the authorities seem to be determined to make as many excuses for them as possible I don't think for a moment that they would hide that he had been abused. Plus as a man who seems to be a very, very able manipulator I don't think that he would have been backwards in coming forwards should he have had a tale of abuse to garner sympathy with.

I don't think that story suggests anything out of the ordinary about his childhood. Really, Freudian you're just making very poor excuses and it's quite clear that you're just desperate to find something which excuses the obvious. That he's a sexually sadistic paedophile who gets off on children being hurt. And no amount of hand holding or excuse making is going to change that. Some people are just horrible, it's nobody elses fault.

Should be allowed to get on with his life & the authorities/parole officer etc. should be concerned with this situation & do their jobs in peace. None of this should be discussed by us.

Have you read that article, Moan? I'm not sure how you could describe his childhood as 'happy and secure' when it details behavioural difficulties at school, at least one instance of neglect, and a suicidal mother.

Wall this giving him new identities... He's rather high maintenence and expensive! Only in this country..

I agree pinefruits, whatever way you try and sugarcoat it, they were two children, who not only killed a little baby, but they brutally tortured and mutilated him. Their sentence was not long enough tbh.

I agree with lljkk

I bet there are lots of odd and criminal people on dating sites - some who have been caught and lots who haven't

that's why you are careful and can even have potential partners past history checked before you embrace them into the bosom of your family.

I don't see why he specifically should be 'banned' or how you would even do that

Yes it has been reported on

And again as much as you think there is no suggestion of abuse that is not a fact

Happy secure children do not commit such crimes they do not act out the way he was doing so before sadly his family set up and his acting out at school is not so unfamiliar but it is not the actions of a child that is not troubled

No, pinefruits, at 10 they were undoubtedly little boys. And they were little boys to whom evil had been done. Venables' mother was more interested in repairing her make-up than supporting her son through a police interview. Abuse is a complicated thing, and ignoring your child can be as abusive as hitting him.

Where do you get the idea they haven't repented of their crimes? Are they supposed to appear on TV begging for forgiveness before you will be satisfied of that? I know there has to be a doubt in relation to Venables, but even his conduct isn't necessarily incompatible with vengeance, given his seriously messed up psychological state You have no reason whatsoever to believe that Thompson doesn't repent.

It really doesn't cost millions to keep them safe. And remember, we wouldn't have to spend anything like that amount were it not for the prurient interest the press takes in these two and the way they keep dredging up stories - many of them bearing little resemblance to the truth - designed to keep hatred for them at white hot levels. It's the press you should be disgusted at.