Why do we care about this Venables bloke?

[DTE]

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were 10 years old when they brutally killed toddler James Bulger in 1993. Anyone who remembers that time will probably still be disturbed by the circumstances of the child's death and possibly disturbed further by the sentences handed down to the killers.

Regardless of your thoughts on their sentences, this whole media frenzy on Venables' recent re-incarceration is sickening. Maybe someone could explain what the story is here? There is a global injunction in place on reporting, so it gives the media free-reign to do what they love doing best: speculating. And speculating is easy because it requires no sources, just a nifty bit of rabble rousing rhetoric and a hefty imagination. But why should we care? From the conditions of his parole we can gather one of the following has occured:

• Venables has returned to Merseyside
• Venables has contacted Robert Thompson
• Venables has contacted the family of James Bulger (very unlikely)
• Venables has committed a serious crime in violation of his parole

Now on the major news networks, ITV and BBC, the last of those possibilities has been described as 'most likely' despite there being no evidence AT ALL of this. Turn on the news and you'll hear of 'increasing pressure' on the authorities to release details of Venables' parole violation, you'll hear James Bulger's mother's tweets on the subject, and random people from Merseyside's views on the subject. The fact that the media are reporting on this 'pressure' when it comes soley from THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE is seemingly irrelevant. All the while that same photo of the killers and that same grainy CCTV footage is played over and over. Its the frontapge of the redtops and is garnering round the clock coverage on the news channels. All this depite the fact THERE IS NO STORY HERE. Why is there an appetitie for this?! Why are the news outlets devoting so much time to this story which is illegal to report properly on? There can be no new information so why does it sell?

Its because this story fits a number of already-established narratives running in domestic news coverage. Firstly, that of evil children. The hoodies, the unruly knife carrying kids, this plays to that narrative. Then of course there is the 'Britain is soft on crime' through-line, allowing discussions on the nature of the sentences and crys for 'hang 'em' to be yelled to anyone who'll listen. Does anyone else feel this is all just a big distraction? We are 2 months from an election and THIS is what the papers focus on? More disturbing, why is it that the British public passively lap all this up, not once questioning the manipulation and obfuscation being deployed?

[Midas]

Do we actually care or is it nothing more than fodder for the masses and chow for the charlatans - oh, and increased media sales along the way?

[Binnman]

Do we really care about Venables? Well I care enough to be looking forward to the news that he and his mate are no longer with us. Neither of them will be a loss to the human gene pool and their removal will save the taxpayer some dosh - so no down side that I can see.

[octopus]

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were 10 years old when they brutally killed toddler James Bulger in 1993. Anyone who remembers that time will probably still be disturbed by the circumstances of the child's death and possibly disturbed further by the sentences handed down to the killers.

Regardless of your thoughts on their sentences, this whole media frenzy on Venables' recent re-incarceration is sickening. Maybe someone could explain what the story is here? There is a global injunction in place on reporting, so it gives the media free-reign to do what they love doing best: speculating. And speculating is easy because it requires no sources, just a nifty bit of rabble rousing rhetoric and a hefty imagination. But why should we care? From the conditions of his parole we can gather one of the following has occured:

• Venables has returned to Merseyside
• Venables has contacted Robert Thompson
• Venables has contacted the family of James Bulger (very unlikely)
• Venables has committed a serious crime in violation of his parole

Now on the major news networks, ITV and BBC, the last of those possibilities has been described as 'most likely' despite there being no evidence AT ALL of this. Turn on the news and you'll hear of 'increasing pressure' on the authorities to release details of Venables' parole violation, you'll hear James Bulger's mother's tweets on the subject, and random people from Merseyside's views on the subject. The fact that the media are reporting on this 'pressure' when it comes soley from THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE is seemingly irrelevant. All the while that same photo of the killers and that same grainy CCTV footage is played over and over. Its the frontapge of the redtops and is garnering round the clock coverage on the news channels. All this depite the fact THERE IS NO STORY HERE. Why is there an appetitie for this?! Why are the news outlets devoting so much time to this story which is illegal to report properly on? There can be no new information so why does it sell?

Its because this story fits a number of already-established narratives running in domestic news coverage. Firstly, that of evil children. The hoodies, the unruly knife carrying kids, this plays to that narrative. Then of course there is the 'Britain is soft on crime' through-line, allowing discussions on the nature of the sentences and crys for 'hang 'em' to be yelled to anyone who'll listen. Does anyone else feel this is all just a big distraction? We are 2 months from an election and THIS is what the papers focus on? More disturbing, why is it that the British public passively lap all this up, not once questioning the manipulation and obfuscation being deployed?

The headline I am looking forward to reading: JON VENABLES FOUND HANGED INQUEST- VERDICT SUICIDE! About the most decent thing he and that other creature could do! I was around back then and haven"t forgotten. It will certainly make my day if it happens; like that other creature that was baby "p"s step-father, covered in home made napalm the other day- nasty! Cheered me up through. Almost restores ones faith in divine retribution.

[JacquesMagique]

The headline I am looking forward to reading: JON VENABLES FOUND HANGED INQUEST- VERDICT SUICIDE! About the most decent thing he and that other creature could do! I was around back then and haven"t forgotten. It will certainly make my day if it happens; like that other creature that was baby "p"s step-father, covered in home made napalm the other day- nasty! Cheered me up through. Almost restores ones faith in divine retribution.

Well that's a pretty disgusting post.

[DTE]

The headline I am looking forward to reading: JON VENABLES FOUND HANGED INQUEST- VERDICT SUICIDE! About the most decent thing he and that other creature could do! I was around back then and haven"t forgotten. It will certainly make my day if it happens; like that other creature that was baby "p"s step-father, covered in home made napalm the other day- nasty! Cheered me up through. Almost restores ones faith in divine retribution.

Well that's a pretty disgusting post.

Sure is JM. It does however highlight perhaps the real reason why stories like this get so much attention, nothing like a bit of fire and brimstone to get the papers flying off the shelves. Its like the media have realised that hate sells, used to be sex, now its hate. Hate these evildoers! Hate these overpaid footballers! Why get to the meat of the story when appealing to the emotive gut reaction is so much easier?

Can a 10 year old child be capable of being evil? It was a tragedy and there are no easy answers. Anyone taking such glee in acts of violence and death has a warped perception of God I think. Then again I am an atheist

[Binnman]

Can a 10 year old child be capable of being evil?

Now I'm a wee bit confused. Are you suggesting;

a) Venables and Thomson were innocent, or
b) What they did was not evil, or
c) What they did was normal behaviour one should expect from a 10 year old

[Major Sinic]

The headline I am looking forward to reading: JON VENABLES FOUND HANGED INQUEST- VERDICT SUICIDE! About the most decent thing he and that other creature could do! I was around back then and haven"t forgotten. It will certainly make my day if it happens; like that other creature that was baby "p"s step-father, covered in home made napalm the other day- nasty! Cheered me up through. Almost restores ones faith in divine retribution.

I can fully understand your anger, abhorrence, disgust and even hatred of these vicious sick people. However if society as a whole, or we as individuals, succumb and act on those feelings we surely bring ourselves close to the same level. By all means let justice prevail, and I don't think it did in the case of Jamie Bulgers murderers, but not pure revenge.

[DTE]

Now I'm a wee bit confused. Are you suggesting;

a) Venables and Thomson were innocent, or
b) What they did was not evil, or
c) What they did was normal behaviour one should expect from a 10 year old

No to all 3. Frankly I'm slightly offended that you even ask. Obviously what they did was beyond abhorrent, but can a child of 10 really have an understanding of their actions? Someone like Sutcliffe, or Fred West, they were fully grown adults, aware of what they were doing and not perturbed in the slightest. These were children. As I said before, there are no easy answers, and I won't pretend to offer any. But stuff like 'they should hang' denies the complexity of the issue.

What I said was, can a child of 10 be considered evil?

[uncon]

I wrote a blog.
just check if you want to.

nobody cared before when he was ten. I can't imagine not caring about a ten year old, but a whole country did...you go with your bad self.

[Binnman]

What I said was, can a child of 10 be considered evil?

Yes they can.

At 10 years old, they not only know the difference between right and wrong, they're also criminally responsible for their actions.

There is no way in hell that those two did not realise that battering a 2 year old to death was wrong. In continuing with their actions they clearly demonstrated evil intent...........ergo they are evil.

[uncon]

Yes they can.

At 10 years old, they not only know the difference between right and wrong, they're also criminally responsible for their actions.

There is no way in hell that those two did not realise that battering a 2 year old to death was wrong. In continuing with their actions they clearly demonstrated evil intent...........ergo they are evil.

Frankly I find you as worrying.

Neither Jon or Rob were found to be psychopaths. Have you ever thought that NURTURE rather than nature may take a course or read Lord of the flies? Ever imagine how you would be if you grew up in an eviroment where you beat or got beaten? How if you were beaten constantly and had no education you may want to get some power for yourself....any way you can?

Horrible thought isn't it? more than you can imagine, but then there are a lot of things you can't imagine and were daily life for Rob and Jon, a lot of abuse and no power. What they did was horrible, but we just demonised two ten year olds and the people who created that went free

[Don]

Yes they can.

At 10 years old, they not only know the difference between right and wrong, they're also criminally responsible for their actions.

There is no way in hell that those two did not realise that battering a 2 year old to death was wrong. In continuing with their actions they clearly demonstrated evil intent...........ergo they are evil.

Have you ever stopped to consider that; "There but for the Grace of God..." or of some other deity you may or not believe in? Just contemplating it makes me want to tell certain people in my life; Thank You. Unfortunately only one of them is still alive.

[Barry]

Anyone taking such glee in acts of violence and death has a warped perception of God I think. Then again I am an atheist

I've just seen this thread, and when I read this, my first reaction was to suggest it for quote of the day. It really takes some thinking about.
What I mean is, how can an atheist judge anyone's perception of God, whether warped or otherwise?

Then I read this...

What I said was, can a child of 10 be considered evil?

What do you mean by "evil"? Where does this judgment come from of what is good and what is evil, if you have no God. Is it from some artificial humanist idea of what is good or is not good?

Personally, I do believe in spiritual forces of good and evil.
A murderer is committing an evil act, even at the age of 10 years old.

They could have done it in another country where the age of criminal responsibility is higher and they would have got away with it.
But that does not make it any less evil, just because of artificial humanist guidelines on what is good or bad, or even EVIL!

[Barry]

Frankly I find you as worrying.

Neither Jon or Rob were found to be psychopaths. Have you ever thought that NURTURE rather than nature may take a course or read Lord of the flies? Ever imagine how you would be if you grew up in an eviroment where you beat or got beaten? How if you were beaten constantly and had no education you may want to get some power for yourself....any way you can?

Horrible thought isn't it? more than you can imagine, but then there are a lot of things you can't imagine and were daily life for Rob and Jon, a lot of abuse and no power. What they did was horrible, but we just demonised two ten year olds and the people who created that went free

Oh, let's call them Rob and Jon, as if they are little boys who lived next door to us. That makes it feel so much better. We didn't demonise them, we(society that is) found them guilty of murder.
Then we gave them new identities and cosseted them into jobs, which they would not have, if, like any DECENT member of society, they were required to state their previous convictions on the application form.
The whole system stinks.

[uncon]

so, Barry you think that they had a thought about grabbing a younger child on an off chance than them and torturing him to death? You believe that certain ten year olds (proved not to be sociopaths) are intrinsicly evil?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Frankly I find you as worrying.

Neither Jon or Rob were found to be psychopaths. Have you ever thought that NURTURE rather than nature may take a course or read Lord of the flies? Ever imagine how you would be if you grew up in an eviroment where you beat or got beaten? How if you were beaten constantly and had no education you may want to get some power for yourself....any way you can?
Horrible thought isn't it? more than you can imagine, but then there are a lot of things you can't imagine and were daily life for Rob and Jon, a lot of abuse and no power. What they did was horrible, but we just demonised two ten year olds and the people who created that went free

Hi,

and we learn little as the parents of the children who tortured the child in Doncaster recently walk free whilst society perpetuates the abuse of the two lads who were charged with the crime.

Life is NEVER simple! With a death penalty we may save many lives if excercised wisely as not only does it erradicate the true criminal but also the genetic element of nature which leads to such excruciating nurture.

But in a society where we lock the elderly in comfortable prisons to die of lack of stimulant in the hell of dementia as a torture to apease the superstitions of a minority who worship some malevolent god they invented - I put the few miscreant deaths on a fairly low level - be they Mary Bell or the Bulger killers who MUST be seen as the two boys' parents and OUR society.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Binnman]

so, Barry you think that they had a thought about grabbing a younger child on an off chance than them and torturing him to death? You believe that certain ten year olds (proved not to be sociopaths) are intrinsicly evil?

Lets switch it round shall we? You think that these two murderers are just misunderstood bairns, who knew no better and thought that battering a 2 year old to death, was acceptable?

Just for your information, I Policed some of the worst schemes in Scotland, in relation to domestic violence, child abuse, unemployment, drugs, poverty etc etc.

Funnily enough 10 year old murderers were not the norm.

[Barry]

so, Barry you think that they had a thought about grabbing a younger child on an off chance than them and torturing him to death?

They abducted him from a shopping centre. They told people en route to the railway line not to worry about his crying, he was their little brother and they were taking him home. They also abducted another child.

You believe that certain ten year olds (proved not to be sociopaths) are intrinsicly evil?

Do I? I didn't say that, please don't put words into my mouth.

[uncon]

Oh, let's call them Rob and Jon, as if they are little boys who lived next door to us

as if they could have lived next to you and you ignored what was happening there...lets.

That makes it feel so much better. We didn't demonise them, we(society that is) found them guilty of murder.

You go with your bad self. Personally I'm not happy about it.

Then we gave them new identities and cosseted them into jobs, which they would not have, if, like any DECENT member of society, they were required to state their previous convictions on the application form.
The whole system stinks

What a great favour we done to two abused kids who did something horrific and possibly didn't even know that the beating they took off their dad couldn't be taken doubletime by a toddler. It was horrible, painfull, confusing and to a small boy who would have cried for his mummy and his mummy will not live a day without it.

They were children. We wrote them off. We were no better than them

[Barry]

They were children. We wrote them off. We were no better than them

You might not have been better than them, but most people in society are, so don't lump me in with you, there's a good girl.

[uncon]

You write off children at 10?

[pauli007001]

You write off children at 10?

They wrote off Jamie Bulger at what? Two or three was it?

[Binnman]

You write off children at 10?

Not a case of writing them off....................but what exactly have they learned?

They can kill another child, then go to a childrens home, where their circumstances are no doubt better than they were used to. Then just before they reach the age for adult imprisonment, they're released with new identities etc etc.

That's a lesson they won't forget!!!!

[uncon]

They wrote off Jamie Bulger at what? Two or three was it?

They murdered him in a terrible way, tortured too.

They were 10 and served their full sentence - my point is, particularly with a more recent incident, that you can't deal with children who kill children until you deal with why. This occurs! so we can't treat it as we do any other case. There is a whole different reasoning and background...and a chance to change that too

[uncon]

Not a case of writing them off....................but what exactly have they learned?

What exactly are they taught?

As much as I hate to advertise I have written a blog on this site about this rather than repeat myself

[DTE]

Wow, where to start. First off Barry, I use the word evil as shorthand because everyone else does. I don't believe there is any such thing as evil at all. And no one can be inherently evil, just as no one can be considered inherently good either. You do believe in spiritual forces of good and evil and we've had this debate before, and you are welcome to those delusions.

Then you said

the whole system stinks

which is bizarre considering in the entire history of this country we have only done this 4 times! What, may I ask, is the alternative?!

For my money uncon has this down. We want to dismiss these kids and write them off because we refuse to accept the same society that spawned them is the one in which we reside. Serious problems with how children are raised and viewed, but why bother with that when demonising them is so much easier and makes us feel better?

[uncon]

Hi,


With a death penalty we may save many lives
Regards,
Greg L-W.

proof? lets kill people to save people...nice logic there

[pauli007001]

proof? lets kill people to save people...nice logic there

Lets heap praise on Murderers and punish the victims families, Jamie Bulger obviously deserved to Die in your opinion, why not jail his parents for causing such Difficulties for the two Killers, if they hadnt concieved him the two wouldnt have murdered him.
Not that I agree with the death penalty but I refuse to agree with soft soaping criminals.

[pauli007001]

Wow, where to start. First off Barry, I use the word evil as shorthand because everyone else does. I don't believe there is any such thing as evil at all. And no one can be inherently evil, just as no one can be considered inherently good either. You do believe in spiritual forces of good and evil and we've had this debate before, and you are welcome to those delusions.

Then you said which is bizarre considering in the entire history of this country we have only done this 4 times! What, may I ask, is the alternative?!

For my money uncon has this down. We want to dismiss these kids and write them off because we refuse to accept the same society that spawned them is the one in which we reside. Serious problems with how children are raised and viewed, but why bother with that when demonising them is so much easier and makes us feel better?

So we are all to blame for the murder of this bairn?
Yes we all should be jailed, release the criminals and lock up the honest hard working types, or Kill em, it is (according to the Nulab stalinist calender well past time for a good old fashioned Stalinist Purge.

They wonder why I say the UKs Moral Compass is reversed, the Innocent are considered Guilty and the guilty are rewarded.

Perhaps I am wrong, the compass no longer exists, the UK is morally bankrupt.

[Opinionated]

Oh, let's call them Rob and Jon, as if they are little boys who lived next door to us.

Small point perhaps but they were little boys who grew up next to us, three childhoods were lost that day and whilst the majority of my sympathy goes to Jamie's parents of course, we need to try and remember these were children! Little boys who did a terrible terrible thing that I am not sure any ten year old is capable of grasping and most likely were acting under some form of psychosis as events escalated.
We don't actually know what terms Venables has broken, it is possible he just forgot to turn up to a meeting with an official of some sort.

[Barry]

Small point perhaps but they were little boys who grew up next to us, three childhoods were lost that day and whilst the majority of my sympathy goes to Jamie's parents of course, we need to try and remember these were children! Little boys who did a terrible terrible thing that I am not sure any ten year old is capable of grasping and most likely were acting under some form of psychosis as events escalated.
We don't actually know what terms Venables has broken, it is possible he just forgot to turn up to a meeting with an official of some sort.

Such naive liberal claptrap.
'Jon & Rob' are not those little boys any more.
They are men in their late twenties, released on life licence after committing a sickening murder.

Have either of them written an article apologising for their behaviour? I don't remember seeing anything, they have had 17 years to come up with something like that.

[pauli007001]

Such naive liberal claptrap.
'Jon & Rob' are not those little boys any more.
They are men in their late twenties, released on life licence after committing a sickening murder.

Have either of them written an article apologising for their behaviour? I don't remember seeing anything, they have had 17 years to come up with something like that.

I think they would but the system has them convinced that they are not to blame, all the years of Pampering and trips to Alton Towers have them convinced that they didnt do anything wrong.Jamie Bulger never got to Alto towers, The average British Kid dosnt enjoy the life of Pampered luxuary that these two scummers grew up in.But I guess that In Nulabnewspeak their violent murderous nature qualifies them as "VULNERABLE", of course Jamie Bulger never had that Label, he dosent count.

[Binnman]

Small point perhaps but they were little boys who grew up next to us, three childhoods were lost that day and whilst the majority of my sympathy goes to Jamie's parents of course, we need to try and remember these were children! Little boys who did a terrible terrible thing that I am not sure any ten year old is capable of grasping and most likely were acting under some form of psychosis as events escalated.
We don't actually know what terms Venables has broken, it is possible he just forgot to turn up to a meeting with an official of some sort.

I listened to a fella on radio this AM. His children were at school with Venables and Thomson. Apparently the reason the Police got on to the two of them so quickly, was as a result of kids at the school telling their parents about the two of them discussing taking a kid some weeks prior to the incident. That would appear to indicate some measure of premeditation, rather than any psychosis.

As to the last part, there is no way Venables would be recalled for such a minor breach. After all, it's going to cost around £250,000 to give him yet another identity when he's released as his current one has obviously been compromised.

[Opinionated]

Such naive liberal claptrap.
'Jon & Rob' are not those little boys any more.

No that's very true, does that mean you think someone should be punished for life for crimes they commit in childhood and/or youth? Liberal claptrap is it, hmmm what's the bible have to say about it?

They are men in their late twenties, released on life licence after committing a sickening murder.

Yes a sickening crime they commited at the age of ten!

Have either of them written an article apologising for their behaviour? I don't remember seeing anything, they have had 17 years to come up with something like that.

I believe and I may be wrong, that they are not allowed under conditions of their new lives to break silence, very little point protecting people from vigilantism if they are going to self publicise. Also can you imagine the outcry at what would undoubtedly be spun into something like "sickening plea for forgiveness from animal Venables" or similar?
I also read that understandably neither of James' parents wish to be contacted by either man, so that pretty much leaves any act of contrition between them and God doesn't it?

[Barry]

No that's very true, does that mean you think someone should be punished for life for crimes they commit in childhood and/or youth? Liberal claptrap is it, hmmm what's the bible have to say about it?

hmmm - Don't you have a Bible in your house to refer to?
Or, more likely, this is just a personal dig at my faith, in an effort to persuade me that I should not have my opinion. The Lord has given me freedom of thought.
The 10 commandments said "Don't murder people" and the penalty was death.
However the 10 commandments don't apply here, God has given man dominion over his own affairs, in government, punishment etc.

Yes a sickening crime they commited at the age of ten!

Yes, to a defenceless toddler of two!

I believe and I may be wrong, that they are not allowed under conditions of their new lives to break silence, very little point protecting people from vigilantism if they are going to self publicise. Also can you imagine the outcry at what would undoubtedly be spun into something like "sickening plea for forgiveness from animal Venables" or similar?
I also read that understandably neither of James' parents wish to be contacted by either man, so that pretty much leaves any act of contrition between them and God doesn't it?

The liberal left are always full of excuses for the criminals in society, regardless of their age.
It is never their fault, in the eyes of liberalism.

[Opinionated]

hmmm - Don't you have a Bible in your house to refer to?

I do as it happens and I've been having a little read about suffering little children, not judging and also forgiveness.

Or, more likely, this is just a personal dig at my faith, in an effort to persuade me that I should not have my opinion. The Lord has given me freedom of thought.

Yeah it was only a little dig as a response to being called a naive, liberal spouter of claptrap, forgive me?

The 10 commandments said "Don't murder people" and the penalty was death.
However the 10 commandments don't apply here, God has given man dominion over his own affairs, in government, punishment etc.

And only by grace are we worthy, which doesn't overturn the commandments I know, but even so let him without sin etc.

Yes, to a defenceless toddler of two!

So their age makes no difference? Suppose they'd been six? Four? At what age does it stop being diminished responsibility.

The liberal left are always full of excuses for the criminals in society, regardless of their age.
It is never their fault, in the eyes of liberalism.

I'm certainly not arguing that, part of redemption is admiting to your sins, repenting and not sinning anymore; what I am arguing for is compassion for two children who did a terrible terrible thing and have to live the rest of their lives facing up to that.
Now if someone could jump in with a secular take that would be great.

[Don]

I do as it happens and I've been having a little read about suffering little children, not judging and also forgiveness.
Yeah it was only a little dig as a response to being called a naive, liberal spouter of claptrap, forgive me?

And only by grace are we worthy, which doesn't overturn the commandments I know, but even so let him without sin etc.

So their age makes no difference? Suppose they'd been six? Four? At what age does it stop being diminished responsibility.

I'm certainly not arguing that, part of redemption is admiting to your sins, repenting and not sinning anymore; what I am arguing for is compassion for two children who did a terrible terrible thing and have to live the rest of their lives facing up to that.
Now if someone could jump in with a secular take that would be great.

Raises hand and says; pick me! Pick me!

I'm not going to respond secularly to all these points. I'm simply going to say that in this case, we had two young children who had apparently been bullied and brutalized all their lives by adults who were supposed to be the ones who cared for, loved and led by example. Unfortunately they only led by example. Their entire lives, they only knew one way, brutality, so what did they learn? To brutalize those who were defenseless. We are not born knowing right from wrong, it is a learned behavior and you don't learn it without some one to show you the way.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal, but I do know right from wrong and I understand compassion. Compassion fro their victim and compassion for them. How did I learn right from wrong and compassion and love, I was taught it, I sure as hell didn't teach myself.

Did they deserve "punishment"? Sure, but not in the traditional sense. They were, then, two small boys at the mercy of impulses that most of us, thank God, learn to control. The "punishment" they needed was an intense period of, for lack of a better term as my vocabulary fails me here, reeducation and intense psychological treatment plus the one thing they probably missed out on most in life a good dose of love. Would it have helped make the rest of their lives productive, who knows, but we never will know until we try it.

None of us have said they didn't commit a horrendous crime, we're simply saying that in cases such as this, sometimes the letter of the law is found lacking, and a deeper second look is needed before passing judgment.

[Barry]

I do as it happens and I've been having a little read about suffering little children, not judging and also forgiveness.
Yeah it was only a little dig as a response to being called a naive, liberal spouter of claptrap, forgive me?

Of course!

And only by grace are we worthy, which doesn't overturn the commandments I know, but even so let him without sin etc.

We have to be led by the Spirit, then we are not subject to law ... but that leads to a whole theological debate, one I will never in this life be 100% sure on - so not for this thread.

So their age makes no difference? Suppose they'd been six? Four? At what age does it stop being diminished responsibility.

Although they were only 10 they planned this crime and committed deceptions en route to throw off enquiring members of the public. The government decided that we are criminally liable at 10 years old, provided certain tests are passed, I did not decide the age. Personally, I think it may be too low.

I'm certainly not arguing that, part of redemption is admiting to your sins, repenting and not sinning anymore; what I am arguing for is compassion for two children who did a terrible terrible thing and have to live the rest of their lives facing up to that.
Now if someone could jump in with a secular take that would be great.

Yep, redemption relies on repentance.
I can't feel much compassion for these two men, they were not even able to tell the truth at their trials. If people do not know right from wrong, why would they tell lies to cover up their wrong-doing?
I can't argue with you too much, Ops - You make far too much sense in your posts, you might start to sway me!

[octopus]

Well that's a pretty disgusting post.

Good! That"s the affect I wanted. It was VERY disgusting crime he did, along with that other piece of filth. One day almost 2 decades ago (when some of our members were in nursey school, or perhaps wern"t even born) they abducted a little two year old boy, Jamie Bulger, took him to a railway line, then beat him death - real lovely people, 10 0r 110. If you and Greg wish to "stick up" for people like that - FEEL FREE!!! Again, like most other issues, you"re in the minorite. Don"t you ever spare a thought for the people left behind, as well as little Jamie? THAT"s who my pity goes to!

[octopus]

I can fully understand your anger, abhorrence, disgust and even hatred of these vicious sick people. However if society as a whole, or we as individuals, succumb and act on those feelings we surely bring ourselves close to the same level. By all means let justice prevail, and I don't think it did in the case of Jamie Bulgers murderers, but not pure revenge.

Why not revenge? THEY SURE AS HELL ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT FROM THE LAW. 8 YEARS! THAT"s A SICK WARPED JOKE!

[octopus]

Sure is JM. It does however highlight perhaps the real reason why stories like this get so much attention, nothing like a bit of fire and brimstone to get the papers flying off the shelves. Its like the media have realised that hate sells, used to be sex, now its hate. Hate these evildoers! Hate these overpaid footballers! Why get to the meat of the story when appealing to the emotive gut reaction is so much easier?

Can a 10 year old child be capable of being evil? It was a tragedy and there are no easy answers. Anyone taking such glee in acts of violence and death has a warped perception of God I think. Then again I am an atheist

It is actualy called normal revulsion DTE/JM. If I had seen them doing this back in the early 1990s these two little "charmers" would have got the same off me as they were doing to little Jamie, at the very best young Mr Venerables would still be walking on sticks to this day. But, you know something, I would have got a hell of a lot more than 8 years - MORE LIKE 38 years! Law-abiding, white, lead a respectable life - my feet wouldn"t of touched!

[Major Sinic]

Why not revenge? THEY SURE AS HELL ARE NOT GOING TO GET IT FROM THE LAW. 8 YEARS! THAT"s A SICK WARPED JOKE!

Because revenge is an emotional reaction not a rational one. In this case I believe the law did fail society, but that is not justification for taking the law into our own hands. Next we will see vigilante gangs and lynch mobs.

Don't get me wrong, I share your emotional response but try to control it in the interests of maintaining a civilised society. I think the murder carried out by Venables and Thompson was the conscious act of two nasty, vicious, cruel and evil children who knew exactly what they were doing.

[octopus]

Because revenge is an emotional reaction not a rational one. In this case I believe the law did fail society, but that is not justification for taking the law into our own hands. Next we will see vigilante gangs and lynch mobs.

Don't get me wrong, I share your emotional response but try to control it in the interests of maintaining a civilised society. I think the vicious sick murder carried out by Venables and Thompson was the conscious act of two nasty, vicious, cruel and evil children who knew exactly what they were doing.

Then the law needs to regonise that 8 years for a vile, depraved crime such as this, is no way shape or form, justice - as I suspect, do some members of this forum. Ok, as you say, we don"t want vigilanties, or lynch mobs , although we will see more of them if this kind of so-called justice continues. Althrough, I won"t take back one word of what I have said! What is needed is appropriate punishment such as Capital punishment. However, even I, wouldn"t advocate executing 10 -year-olds, but what I would advocate is sending them to prison for good. That is to say, if these creatures live to 100- years -old, then they have 90 years of porridge to look forward too. I think through, I have just had many millions of thanks for a useful post from non-forum members judging by the newspapers.

[Midas]

Yes a sickening crime they commited at the age of ten!

But harking back to what you said in an earlier post - "Little boys who did a terrible terrible thing that I am not sure any ten year old is capable of grasping and most likely were acting under some form of psychosis as events escalated" - most children are totally capable of understanding the wider scope of right and wrong well before they're 10, if not some of the subtleties of it, and they're certainly quite capable of understanding what pain and death are! This was a crime that regardless of their age, in the absence of the death penalty, they should have been locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

I believe and I may be wrong, that they are not allowed under conditions of their new lives to break silence, very little point protecting people from vigilantism if they are going to self publicise. Also can you imagine the outcry at what would undoubtedly be spun into something like "sickening plea for forgiveness from animal Venables" or similar?
I also read that understandably neither of James' parents wish to be contacted by either man, so that pretty much leaves any act of contrition between them and God doesn't it?

That wouldn't have prevented them from making a public apology way before they were freed and given "their new lives" though would it?

[octopus]

Small point perhaps but they were little boys who grew up next to us, three childhoods were lost that day and whilst the majority of my sympathy goes to Jamie's parents of course, we need to try and remember these were children! Little boys who did a terrible terrible thing that I am not sure any ten year old is capable of grasping and most likely were acting under some form of psychosis as events escalated.
We don't actually know what terms Venables has broken, it is possible he just forgot to turn up to a meeting with an official of some sort.

Frankly I don"t care if he was sent back for not wearing a tie to a meeting; life should have mean"t life for both of them.

[octopus]

You write off children at 10?

I can when they torture two- year-old toddlers to death; even go as far as lock them up for the rest of their natural.

[octopus]

proof? lets kill people to save people...nice logic there

Where"s the logic in torturing, beating and killing a two-year-old toddler? Feel free to try and reach their better nature, if the"ve got one? I wish you luck.

[DTE]

A few things...

This was a crime that regardless of their age, in the absence of the death penalty, they should have been locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

I thought that given time, this subject would bring out the crazy. So we should be looking to execute children in a fair and just society Midas? Wow

Where"s the logic in torturing, beating and killing a two-year-old toddler? Feel free to try and reach their better nature, if the"ve got one? I wish you luck.

There is no logic. Obviously. But before going off the deep end again octopus, lets look at the alternatives shall we? Either lock them up indefinitely or attempt some form of rehabilitation with provisions. I repeat that these are extraordinary circumstances, the likes of which we have only seen once before, once since and hopefully will rarely see again. The fact that Thompson has been recalled to prison shows the provisions put in place are working. I literally see no other alternative to the course of action taken by the courts, therefore this whole argument is based on very little.

Now getting back to the topic at hand, (remember that?) which was more to do with OUR fascination with this crime, rather than the sentences handed down. In my orginal post, I talked about the 'growing pressure' on the the justice system to release details of WHY Thompson was recalled, in the days since, newspapers and Carol Vorderman (noted political commentator that she is) have called for this information to be made available to the public. Why? What good will it do? What reason is there for it?

[Opinionated]

But harking back to what you said in an earlier post - "Little boys who did a terrible terrible thing that I am not sure any ten year old is capable of grasping and most likely were acting under some form of psychosis as events escalated" - most children are totally capable of understanding the wider scope of right and wrong well before they're 10, if not some of the subtleties of it, and they're certainly quite capable of understanding what pain and death are! This was a crime that regardless of their age, in the absence of the death penalty, they should have been locked up for the rest of their natural lives.

Yes most children are, although not that many really understand death, they are also very easily desensitised to violence. Doc's already addressed it, but I somehow doubt you meant to imply that a child should face the death penalty. As for locked up for their natural lives, I think it's more than natural to want to see revenge, but please can we remember they were children, is it not a huge punishment to be taken away from your parents and forced to grow up as captives.

That wouldn't have prevented them from making a public apology way before they were freed and given "their new lives" though would it?

I don't know, presumably not, but there may have been a press embargo in place whilst they served their sentence, can you imagine the fuss it would have caused though? Who would take an apology on face value - some of us are re-trying and convicting them again as it is. Perhaps they feared that any comment would add to the distress of James' family, perhaps nobody suggested it to either of them.