Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

John Venables- do we have a right to know???

243 replies

onebadbaby · 03/03/2010 22:29

Do we really have the right to know if and when the killers of James Bulger re-offend?

I am inclined to say we don't. If they have been given a new identity and life then what is the point and benefit of the general public having knowledge. In my opinion, any re-offences should remain in his new name.

Obviously members of the press behold certain information on the new lives of the two killers, but I really don't see the benefit of this being public knowledge.

Also- do you remember how you thought and behaved at ten? I certainly do and in a way I don't think ten years old is under the age when responsibility for such an horrific crime has to be considered.

Opinions??

OP posts:
gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 22:18

I totally agree FairyMum. The Jamie Bulger case was horrific, but the way I see it there were three victims. We as a society must take responsibility when 10 year old children can be damaged so badly as to commit such a despicable act.

littletortie · 06/03/2010 22:36

I must say, I do wonder who the justice system are protecting I'm probably waaaay out of line here, but if he has reoffended so soon after release, was he really rehabilitated? therefore the system does NOT work...he has just been released to wreck some other poor sods life who has no idea who he is.

littletortie · 06/03/2010 22:38

And yes, perhaps he was only 10- but lets just remeber, he battered a 2 year old to death- beggars belief really. I dont see them 2 boys as victims.

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 22:44

Children are not generally born evil. They are made that way by their parents and by society abdicating its collective responsibility for them. Those two boys were 2 years old once as well. What happened to them in their first 10 years of life to make them that way - that's what I think about. Everything about the case is horrific.

sanfairyann · 06/03/2010 22:44

bumperlicious think it's more the other way round, the rules were relaxed to name james bulger's killers when usually they wouldn't name them as they were so young

littletortie why not see them as victims as well? they were only 10 - how on earth did they end up doing something so, frankly, evil?

Aussieng · 06/03/2010 22:50

The two boys were victims of abusive or neglectful families with drunkeness and instability. Of course they were victims. Gaelic I agree with what you say, except there were a lot more victims than 3 - I uderstand that the siblings of the two boys have had very difficult upbringings due to what their brothers did.

The reports are that Robert Thompson (at the time of Jamie Bulger's death seen as the ringleader of the two) has been successfully rehabilitated and re-integrated into society.

It has been 8-9 years since JV's release. That is not "so soon" Tortie. Not that I'm saying it's OK to commit an offence every 7 years or so.

Can someone explain to me how exactly they think the public interest would be served by further details being released> What exactly would this achieve>

LynetteScavo · 06/03/2010 22:50

In answer to the OP, we have no right to know, and no need to know.

It's very ineresting, yest, which is why it's getting so much media coverage.

"Also- do you remember how you thought and behaved at ten? I certainly do and in a way I don't think ten years old is under the age when responsibility for such an horrific crime has to be considered."

I remember how I behaved at 5, and no normal 5yo would do somehthing like this.

These two 10yo's must have been increadibly damaged themselves. Have their parents faced any consequences?

Aussieng · 06/03/2010 22:52

Sorry should perhaps have said "due to what their brothers did the public's reaction to what their brothers did.

TwoIfBySea · 06/03/2010 22:52

Agree, somewhat, that it shows the system works.

Why was it leaked that he was back in jail anyway? Little Jamie's family need to know - the have to know they are safe from him. Other than that - who can comment unless we are made aware of whether or not it is in the public interest? Has he become a danger to others?

littletortie · 06/03/2010 22:56

I'm sorry but I don't see them as victims as much as I do that poor toddler who was battered to death. Perhaps they did have a rough upbringing, perhaps they were victims- but they are still alive and apparently still offending. I feel strongly on that I am afraid- my sympathy ends there. And yes, they were only ten, still children but what they did was wrong and I dont believe that they didnt know that when they did it.

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 23:01

I never said I saw them as equal victims. Nor that I can bring myself to feel much/any sympathy. But victims they are nonetheless. I have no idea what happened to the so-called parents, but they are as, if not, more guilty IMO.

MillyMollyMoo · 06/03/2010 23:01

The details of the crime committed by the 27 year old man, should be released, we don't need to be told it's him do we and then on the evidence presented on this matter a jury will convict or not.

Then we can all decide what we think of the man not the boy and how good a job the state has done raising him.

Somebody said to me today which I thought was interesting, how many times has a celebrity gone into rehab over and over and over again, they don't seem to be able to change their personality traits even when their careers and millions of pounds are at stake.

thesecondcoming · 06/03/2010 23:01

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 23:04

I would say that Jamie's family more than anyone else should not know where they are or who they are

MillyMollyMoo · 06/03/2010 23:04

He had the nerve to come back to Liverpool. If he'd been recognised he'd have been lynched, didn't care though did he, that's how fucking sorry and respectful he is.

littletortie · 06/03/2010 23:11

I think if he has reoffended, he isnt't sorry. Plain and simple to me.

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 23:13

He's a damaged human being. So he commits an offence as an adult 7 years after being released (and we don't know that the offence is related in any way to what he's done before). It doesn't mean he doesn't regret what he did back then.

sanfairyann · 06/03/2010 23:14

agree, gaelicsheep.

god we are so nasty and vindictive in this country. it is profoundly depressing

(this has got nothing to do with it but his family called him James not Jamie didn't they? why do the media and random members of the public always call him Jamie? think the media at least should show a bit more respect and call him by the name his parents called him)

littletortie · 06/03/2010 23:16

Just my opinion- I apologise for it being very black and white but that is just the way I see it!

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 23:17

It's so much easier though, isn't it, to vilify individuals than to acknowledge and address the problems in our extremely flawed society?

littletortie · 06/03/2010 23:23

There are plently of flawed people within society. Thankfully most of them dont murder toddlers AND then reoffend upon release- the person we are talking about did just that.

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 23:28

7 years later is not "upon release". And to my mind "re-offend" would mean another child murder. Anything else is an offence, NOT a re-offence.

sanfairyann · 06/03/2010 23:29

they were children though not adults. and let's wait and see what reoffending actually happened hey? or not?

gaelicsheep · 06/03/2010 23:33

I for one would be much more worried about someone who could murder a child at the age of 10 and then go on to act like a normal human being. That would equal psychopath and potentially much more dangerous.

MillyMollyMoo · 06/03/2010 23:35

Ah so a mere rape would still be a success story then

Hides this thread before blood pressure goes through the roof

Swipe left for the next trending thread