To think Tina Malone deserves no sympathy

[poldarkssecretlover]

She's in trouble legally for allegedly sharing photos of one of James Bulgar's killers. She is getting lots of support online but I think people are letting their hatred of the crime cloud their judgement. Surely exploiting a tragedy to get attention is not something that should be applauded! This wasn't done with any intention of "helping" James's family, was it?

Any kind of support for anonymity or mention of diminished responsibility because of age (which is what the experts decided) gets shouted down as excusing the crime or being ignorant of its heinous nature in this thread.

There are people here who would be happy to have vigilante action taken in our society - they have admitted as much.

Others have also decided to comment on the criminals' states of mind etc despite never having met them and having no qualifications in this field.

I hope you people are prepared to pay higher taxes because there are people being released onto the streets all the time that are an equal if not bigger threat than these two. We need more prisons to be built.

I think you are the one who is coming across as immature. I feel a bit embarrassed for you reading this.

Agree. Cringeworthy really.

Why is it that not wanting to have two men battered to death by a vigilante gang waving pitchforks equates to apologist behavior? I don't think a single poster has said they sympathise with Venables or even Thomson. But allowing mouthy needy fools like Malone to breach laws that are designed to prevent such behaviour is wrong.

No one needs to know what those men look like. They are presumably under restricted monitoring so they won't be arriving at your house for tea!

They were ten. They needed to be taken out of society. and now because of people like Malone and some of the quite frankly barking mad posters on here, the tax payer has to pick up the costs of keeping them alive. Not even Mrs Bulger wants them found. At least respect here wishes.

Mrs Bulger would like to know if they were to be living near her, I believe, she doesn't want to accidentally see them, or not knowingly speak to them.

Neither of them deserves to have a hissing mob continually pursuing them and seeking revenge

They really do. They tortured and murdered a 2 year old and not with any sort of childish naivety either.

You seem to want to ignore my comment that he has exposed his true identity in prison because it doesn’t comply with the narrative you want to uphold. That he is a victim by being exposed on social media.

Mrs Bulger would like to know if they were to be living near her, I believe, she doesn't want to accidentally see them, or not knowingly speak to them

but Mrs Bulger, to her credit, has said she doesn't think their identities should be revealed

From a legal viewpoint Tina Malone has done the UK a great service. It is a lose lose situation for P.C Plod. Either they drop the case (unlikely) and she wins. Or they make her a martyr, ooppss...how will Britain look on a global stage? Jailing a woman whose message is freely available outside the country? You see, dear Attorney General Cyberspace has no borders.

Mrs Fergus. Her name is Denise Fergus.

Shes actually done the Tories a favour who want rid of the Human Rights Act.

You seem to want to ignore my comment that he has exposed his true identity in prison because it doesn’t comply with the narrative you want to uphold.

Or maybe it’s because this is mere conjecture - something you’ve ‘heard somewhere’, unlikely to have any basis in truth. If he’d revealed his identity in prison he’d be dead by now.

Actually it’s a known fact and one of the reasons for his several new identities. He identifies himself, but don’t let that stop you.

James has a dad too remember . Who also groves him .

It goes to show how easy it is to fuck up online

I should get bothered by vigilantes. But these boys /men will never ever have a normal life . Maybe death is better . Surprised they havent killed themselves actually . The waste of public funds keeping them protected is pretty galling .

HelenaDove, what on earth has Tina Malone's offence got to do with the Human Rights Act? She knowingly did something that she knew was against the law and that will put hundreds of innocent men in danger. Is that really acceptable?

Ralph Bulger wants JVs anonymity lifted and Denise wants to know where they are, but not for the general public to know.

They were children at the time of this appalling offence andnthey shouldn't have been tried in public in am adult court. Nor should reporting restrictions have been lifted, there was no 'public interest' only public voyeurism. They shoild have never been identified at the time, legal process was bent out of all shape to appease the ignorant mob anf tabloids baying for their own version of 'justice' at the time of the trial. A lot of these problems stem from the decision made at the time.

Regardless of what her intentions were. Tina Malone broke the law.

"Tommy Robinson" was jailed after breaching a court order for a cause that he believed was right and in the public interest. It's either wrong to do so, or it isn't.

Actually it’s a known fact and one of the reasons for his several new identities. He identifies himself, but don’t let that stop you.

Known by who? Where’s your proof? Any kind of confirmation?

I had also heard that he revealed his identity. I have no proof of this.

I think it's beside the point however. The anonymity is to prevent public unrest and mob activity. Wherever there is a risk of that happening, regardless of Venables' actions, the law says there must be anonymity.

Do you have proof he hasn’t! Works both ways asking me for proof you prove he hasn’t

Do you have proof he hasn’t! Works both ways asking me for proof you prove he hasn’t*

Doesn't work like w that...

a) you can't prove a negative

b) you make a claim you provife the evidence.

Do you have proof he hasn’t! Works both ways asking me for proof you prove he hasn’t

It does not work like that!

I believe my source

I believe my source

Who's your source?

Do you have proof he hasn’t! Works both ways asking me for proof you prove he hasn’t

It would work both ways if I’d said it was a ‘well known fact’ that he hasn’t revealed his identity. You claimed fact; the onus is on you to prove it.