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

MMR I did find something eysterday saying that his Mum didnt like him being called Jamie actually

But tbh I do imagine that is the furthest from her world concerns

Because if he couldn't control himself, then he wasn't able to be safely released. [bangs head]

Anyone else who can't control themselves just doesn't go to football matches or concerts, they avoid them. Most people just don't get to go because they can't afford them.

But as you rightly stated it now appears he wasn't safe to be released as he couldn't control himself, unfortunately the little day out proved nothing, cost a fortune, made the system lose credibility.

Thanks Morecrack, I know what you mean. I think vigilante attitudes like hers are the reason why JV and RT need protecting in the first place.

It is a very emotive subject and I have to admit to being a bit torn in my own feelings about it, but I don't for a minute think that anybody advocating violence on them is in any way helpful

Watching the news last night brought it all back again, seeing those mobsters attacking the prison vans. Sheer barbarism. Had t been James' family I could understand, but the wannabes (not our Wannabe) I don't get at all.

milly, just because that's what it says in the daily mail doesn't mean that it is so. In fact the fact it's in the daily mail means that it's likely that it isn't so.

And if jv was in a fight he wouldn't be the first and he wouldn't be the last. It proves nothing wrt rehabilitation or otherwise. Lots of blokes hit other blokes. It doesn't necessarily mean they're pleasant people, but equally doesn't mean they're all murderers.

'But as you rightly stated it now appears he wasn't safe to be released as he couldn't control himself, unfortunately the little day out proved nothing, cost a fortune, made the system lose credibility.

true to an extent (the extent that the other man is still free)

Howqever it did work for a good while and what we need to learn now is why it didn;t flag up potential

And also what triggerd the fight tbh...... was it a random attack becuase someone looked at him the wrong way, ort did someone tell him he ahd just shagged his wife?

because of course in the second many people would respond like that

Which is why we need a fair trial, as such things are norne into consideration

totally agree with you both Preachy and Wannabe - one fight without knowing its context does not equal a failure in rehabilitation.

wannaBe i do aggree, if it was a fight, imo it has no link to this.
men fight, that happens all over.
of course he would be treated differently form the man in the street as he would have broken the terms of his release.

if that's even what happened. for all we know there could be some bloke somewhere who got into a fight at work, was suspended and then arrested, and someone somewhere has put two and two together and made five and decided to cash in.

In fact I bet sky news and the tabloid's' phone lines are overrun with people claiming they know Venables/have worked with him/shagged him/had a pint with him...

I appreciate we are quick to see the worse in JV but unfortunately that is what happens when you have previously murdered a baby.

Something further wrt comments made earlier in the thread about the boy's apparent lack of remorse.

The judge, set their minimum period of imprisonment to eight years. This was increased to 10 years on appeal by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
Later it was increased to 15 years by the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, on the grounds that he was "acting in the public interest". This decision was then overturned in 1997 by the Law Lords.
October 2000, Lord Chief Justice Harry Woolf reduced their minimum sentence by two years in recognition of their good behaviour and remorse shown while in detention, effectively restoring the original trial judge's eight-year recommended minimum.

Oh well, WHATEVER.

link

'The pain of losing him will never go away. But there's so much more in my life that I determined
long ago not to be a victim any more. I don't let things hurt me so easily as I once did. Like it
was hurtful when the papers called him "Jamie". That was never his name. It was like a strange label
they invented to sum him up in one word. It's the same now with Madeleine McCann. The papers call
her "Maddy".

Yes it's probably not her biggest concern is it? But you are just indicating you can't be bothered to get anything right.

'of course he would be treated differently form the man in the street as he would have broken the terms of his release. '

quite right and proper too, what shoines for me in this is how quick and well the system does seem to be working

I recognise that for many the sentence was too short and cam empathise..... for the throw away the keys bunch, how do we equate that with a judicial system that says no minor canhave a whole life sentence? Do we go against that law for one case and how is that right, and how would that offer justice to anyone else who ahs lost a loved one but whose killers are out on licence after 15? And what about JT@ should JV's failure to rehab if it is that then mean he never was safe to release even though all evidence at the moment suggests he was?

At worst this is a 50% failure in rehab, a reason to evaluate and learn yes, but a re4ason to strip every other peron in rehabilitation sentences of their chance?

Something further wrt comments made earlier in the thread about the boy's apparent lack of remorse.

The judge, set their minimum period of imprisonment to eight years. This was increased to 10 years on appeal by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth.
Later it was increased to 15 years by the Home Secretary, Michael Howard, on the grounds that he was "acting in the public interest". This decision was then overturned in 1997 by the Law Lords.
October 2000, Lord Chief Justice Harry Woolf reduced their minimum sentence by two years in recognition of their good behaviour and remorse shown while in detention, effectively restoring the original trial judge's eight-year recommended minimum.

I know this was a few pages back, but about the lack of remorse, Venables did apologise during the police interviews:

"The police officer then asked Jon what he now thought of all that he and his friend had done to the baby. His reply was given in a broken, piping voice. "Terrible," he said. "I was thinking about it all the time." When confronted with the word "distress", he asked what it meant. Still worse was the pathetic and awful plea: "What about his Mum? Will you tell her I'm sorry." "

From here: www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7365479/Jon-Venables-is-no-longer-the-guilty-boy-who-ki lled-James-Bulger.html

Interesting morecrackthan.

And good post tinier. The bereaved set store by tiny things... such as the correct use of a name. That is their prerogative.

MMMoo, what if it is true that TV had some form of delay? I don't know either way but what if? Would you still be so adamant that he is ten so should act as an adult?

If he did have that, and I will happily emphasise the if many times in order to appease MN capacity to assume SN excuse, then if that was ghidden in documents not used at trial, then the whole damned circus sourriounding TV should hang their ehads in shame. It should also have affected their rehab, in that a more suitable palcement ffor him may well have been a supported living establishment.

But you are just indicating you can't be bothered to get anything right.

She herself called him Jamie on many a television interview, now whether that was as a result of the media making him sound more babyish by adding the ie to his name or it was deliberate at the time who knows, but it stuck with many people because Denise herself used the term.
The McCanns I have never heard use Maddy.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7365479/Jon-Venables-is-no-longer-the-guilty-boy-who-killed-Ja mes-Bulger.html

am wondering what there is to talk about on this stroy.

stil not sure!

Swarthy apart from a few freak extemists advocating arse rape for murderers / piutting them down like dogs, I think it comes down to:

Does this new development indicate they (or rather TV but nobody seems to want to gel with that) could never have been rehabilitated, ore that they deserved their chance even if TV blew it?

With brief asides into length of sentence / bleediung ehart liberals / was remorse whown / etc

"burn in hell....be arse raped to death"

dear me. Anyone would think you were a violent thug, size zero.

This thread has gone exactly the way I knew it would. It brings a certain type of poster out of the woodwork. The people who bay for blood, call for them to be murdered and tortured (funny, seeing as murder and torture is what the perpetrators were guilty of - a weird irony there, anyone?) and those who relish the spelling out of the gory details relating to the case - just incase any of us forgot. Take a bow MMMoo - you sound like you have read entire books about it with all your attention to detail. Same old, same old.

Oh fuck off Donnie, as stated before my parents were out looking for the poor mite whilst everyone thought a bad man had taken him away or he'd been stolen by gypsies.
The whole bloody city came to a stand still and people cried in the street the day that baby was buried.

'Denise' - first name terms is it?

this is a clear demonstration of the way the tabloids encourage us - the public - to believe we all own a piece of these people. They are all public property.

NO THEY BLOODY ARE NOT.

'Maddy', 'jamie' 'denise'.

FFS.Have some respect.

are diminutives relevant?