Venables - one of the James Bulger killers - back in jail

[LadyBlaBlah]

here

Not a good advertisement for the rehabilitation programme they went on. I did hear that it was in Ireland and he tried to strangle a girlfriend..........but obviously that is not based on any factual evidence, just internet gossip.

Anyhow, difficult difficult difficult

I don't think anything is likely to make JB's mum feel better but you can bet your life that there are a whole lot of things that can make her feel worse. Getting justice for her son's death is the least she could expect, ditto Ralph Bulger, who feels that the justice system "has danced on Jamie's grave".

WhoIsAsking - yes I did see those comments - I was also a bit at the idea that incarceration in Wales seemed to be that person's idea of the Ultimate Punishment!

Katz - no I didn't read the link. I don't think it really matters whether or not they had to earn the privileges - the fact that the privileges were there to be earnt doesn't make it a hard enough sentence, IMO.

But that is my opinion - I DON'T think they have served an appropriate sentence, and I hope to God that whoever hears JV's appeal against his current imprisonment isn't minded to let the bastard out again.

And as an aside, I wish the papers would stop re-hashing what happened to that poor child - even skip-reading articles on it is hard going.

but they wern't 6 or 4 they were 10.
they planned and carried out an horrendous act, they were found guilty, and should have been punished with a legthy sentance.
I don't for one minuit think they should serve life(as in till they die of old age) but think 20 years at least.
as we are comparing them to "our children"
my son is a year younger than JB would have been.
he is living a full happy life, I look at him and feel for JB's mother as she will never see her son do that.

Just out of interest - (I'm not actually coming back to this thread in any meaningful way BTW) WannaBe, What do you feel the consequences should be for JV now, if the breech of licence was in fact for violence?

wannaBe - I don't think that anyone who is capable of doing something as horrific as these boys did should be living in society with the rest of us. I don't care what age they were. I know that goes against everything you think but it's how I feel, sorry.

A much younger child would not be able to plan a crime as awful and so I don't think that this situation would arise.

Anyone old enough to plan something so awful is old enough to take responsibility for their actions. They knew what they were doing was very wrong and they enjoyed it.

2shoes
I have absolutely no issues with anyone who happens to have a difference of opinion to mine.

Do you not agree, though, that some of the more recent 'throw away the key' 'rape them' 'do you not care about James?' posts are simplistic?

I think, having re-read it that the 'Poor bloke' comment was sarcasm.

2shoes but the law was specifically changed in order that these boys be tried as adults. Imagine if an eight year old committed a similar crime, or a six year old, and the system was changed again to try these children as adults.

Fwiw I don't necessarily disagree with your view that they should have served a longer sentence, but given that it's not my decision to make I think that given they had been deamed suitable to be released it's not up to me to make judgements iyswim - the legal system has done that.

Whoisasking if jv has in fact committed a crime then I think he should be entitled to a fair trial in the same way as anyone else.

So ok it's the Daily Mail, but I'd long suspected they were in a childrens home along with poor souls who'd done nothing wrong but be born to the wrong people.
No wonder Jamies mum cannot let this go, nothing happened at all in way of punishment.

Only one person has said 'rape them' and no one has agreed.

MoreCrackThanHarlem some yess, but the question does reamin what about James?
what about his family and thier rights?
that is't being simplistic, that is just wondering how the hell the victim can be forgotton.

I have a question:

JV has been recalled to prison for doing "something". So that means, said incident must have been reported by somebody, to somebody, followed up by somebody else....etc...etc.... and is now in the hands of numerous prison wardens, legal professionals, social workers, parole board.....blah, blah.

Also, it has been noted on here that he would never have been allowed to join the army, or many other professions I presume.

And apparently any people he built relationships with could be informed of his past if deemed necessary?

So how does this 'new identity' thing work then? With the number of people that must be "in the know" for this level of control to be achieved, I can hardly believe that there has never been a leak.

I mean, what on earth does a CRB check on his new identity throw up?!?!?!?

I ahve a ten year old but wouldn't want to expose him to the truth of that crime, that would be wrong, esp. for the sake of MN.

I know what he would say- despicable. I am not aware anyone has arguies otherwise.

However, as I have posted earlier my ten year old has an SN that means had he not had intensive input from us he may well have gone on to this sort of thing IMO- he still is prone ot violence and aggression. he knows right from wrong, but has no empathy and a complete lack of understanding of societal expectations of behaviour, and an inability to control himself inc ertain circs. As a result he ahs constant 1-1, there's a good chance he may learn much better behaviour. I pray so (and more practically am slogging my guts out).

But not long ago DH and I fervently beelive not only that he would up in priosn, but I also believed that he would cause my death for a while. We begged for help, but got none. All referrals were ignored and pleas for ssd help were sent back refused with 'Mum is intelligent and caring' just wroitten in every box.

the only way I am making headway is becuase I am studying for an MA in his condition, clearly that option is available to very few.

So you see- whilst I also totally understand from the perpsective of someone losing their toddler, mine is only 5ft from me now eating lunch (I was with him but he was shoeing off and throwing it at me!), I also know the system on the otehr side all too well.

Which is why I won't dismiss the hmanity of any child when I know the help that mayn well have made a massive difference and prevented everything at a far earlier point isnt there.

I had a look at the law on this; it#'s not possible for someone who commits a crime under age to be given a lifelong term. Ever. So, these two will not be locked up for life for the killing of poor JB. They may well be if they reoffend. if you loatthe that campaign for a change in the law (I won't be backing you) but it can't be retrospective.

Or do we support a government and system allowed to act beyond the law? Where would that end?

If it wasme used the poor term- can't remember- it was in reference to poor childhoodsnot the killing. I don't think I have said anything to suggest I put their victimhood above JB's, becuase I do not.

'2shoes but the law was specifically changed in order that these boys be tried as adults

I think in may ways (apart from the murder, of course apart from that) that is what I find truly awful

how can that be OK, to change a law just to allow you to persecute a particular set of child, when all ten year olds who took life before would have been tried as a child?

Exactly happymatleave, and to be accused of defending her opinion is galling.

Will there be a trial? I'm no lawyer (obviously but hope it's allowed for me to post here anyway) but I thought that if you are sentenced to life and are released on licence, any breach of that and you are straight back inside to serve out your sentence.

Preachy,

I would not expose my 10 year old to the details of this crime. It was a hypothetical question.

wannaBe but they wern't 6 or 8 or any age you want to add, they were 10

PreachyPeachyRantsALot wasn't it because that acts they did were so horrendous?

Sorry i thought it was a straight question

2shoes I think the thing is, the law awas dropped just for them: what if they ahd been 8 or 9 or ..???? Changing the law to enable one to target a specific defendent is wroing IMO: it should be set by a genral agreement and adhered to.

2shoes I think it was an act of vengefulness, myself, and I don't think the croiminal system is the palce for that.

Now, had JB's mother tracked them down and shot them I may well have disgareed and railed at the people charged with protecting them, but I would have understtod from her POV

But the system has to be apart

BUT
they wern't
why do people want to make up ages?
what if they had been 18, 22, 90
they were 10

scotia the two situations are separate. So - if he has committed a crime then he will be tried and if convicted will be sentenced for that crime.

However it is then possible that his licence could be revoked and he could spend longer in jail than the sentence for the crime that has sent him back there, iyswim?

That doesn't mean however that he will spend the rest of his life in jail.

I am puzzled what people are getting so het up about. I would have thought the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key brigade would be delighted. The recall is a demonstration that actually, a life sentence is a life sentence and the recall is always possible.

I haven't read the entire thread but for the record 'Jamie' was not James Bulger's name. People who refer to him by that name always trigger my tabloid reflex. Like 'Maddie'.

Do you honestly think they would be incarcerated with a bunch of kids whose parents are addicts or suffering from cancer? Really?

In a country which allows safe houses for pedophiles in the community, I wouldn't be surprised at all but ok if that's the case, all the little murders were together being treated to day trips, great.