He has friends ? I thought that his God would have meade them impervious to anything out there that could kill/harm them ? Obviously his God's not that bothered.

Pass.



The incredulity buildeth withineth me.

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"The problem is that the country is in such a state that however worthy you think it may be, it simply can't afford the millions spent on Venables and his mate, and I could make a list of a million better uses of money. I seriously doubt that there is a vigilante mob who would seek him out and kill him. I think there are plenty who would hound him and make his life miserable but when people who have done nothing wrong find lifesaving or extending treatment unavailable or rationed, the inappropriateness of priorities is apparent. In modern times, before the state started spending millions on fake IDs, there is no trend of baying mobs ripping apart released killers. Indeed, I find it quite reassuring as well as surprising that so many murderers who are released without anonymity never seem to come to any harm at all from their victims' families let alone bloodthirsty mobs so where is the justification?'" Mr Justice Bean "There is understandable and legitimate public interest in the fact that one of James Bulger's killers has now been convicted of child pornography offences. "But there is no legitimate public interest in knowing his appearance, his location in custody or the exact location at which he was arrested and to which he might return on the event of being released "If there is, it is of marginal significance when set against the compelling evidence of a clear and present danger to his physical safety and indeed his life if these facts are made public." He added: "It is a fundamental duty of the state to ensure that suspects, defendants and prisoners are protected from violence and not subjected to retribution or punishment except in accordance with the sentence of a court. "That principle applies just as much to unpopular defendants as to anyone else." Mr Justice Bean said "one would have thought" that threats against Venables would have diminished but that there was "clear evidence" that was not the case. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-10820908

Quote ="Ferocious Aardvark"The problem is that the country is in such a state that however worthy you think it may be, it simply can't afford the millions spent on Venables and his mate, and I could make a list of a million better uses of money. I seriously doubt that there is a vigilante mob who would seek him out and kill him. I think there are plenty who would hound him and make his life miserable but when people who have done nothing wrong find lifesaving or extending treatment unavailable or rationed, the inappropriateness of priorities is apparent. In modern times, before the state started spending millions on fake IDs, there is no trend of baying mobs ripping apart released killers. Indeed, I find it quite reassuring as well as surprising that so many murderers who are released without anonymity never seem to come to any harm at all from their victims' families let alone bloodthirsty mobs so where is the justification?'" Mr Justice Bean "There is understandable and legitimate public interest in the fact that one of James Bulger's killers has now been convicted of child pornography offences. "But there is no legitimate public interest in knowing his appearance, his location in custody or the exact location at which he was arrested and to which he might return on the event of being released "If there is, it is of marginal significance when set against the compelling evidence of a clear and present danger to his physical safety and indeed his life if these facts are made public." He added: "It is a fundamental duty of the state to ensure that suspects, defendants and prisoners are protected from violence and not subjected to retribution or punishment except in accordance with the sentence of a court. "That principle applies just as much to unpopular defendants as to anyone else." Mr Justice Bean said "one would have thought" that threats against Venables would have diminished but that there was "clear evidence" that was not the case. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-me ... e-10820908

That's quite thought-provoking.
In fact, I need to think about that.

Like the sin bin but limited to 140 characters !!

Except that if it really is a fundamental duty, then it is one that is not carried out in 99.9% of criminal cases, as the overwhelming majority of offenders are not given permanent and highly expensive protection. So it is a bit naive to call it a "principle". A true "principle" would be one which you either had the means and ability to act upon, or at least make a good effort. the truth is that protection from the mob for the convicted is a rare commodity. Most would have to dial 999 like anyone else.


I think you are missing a fundamental point. This poor guy had, reportedly suffered at least a year of vile abuse and torment, before he eventually felt his best option was to end his own life, but he had done NOTHING to deserve it. If we have unlimited funds, manpower etc. why did the machinery of this mythical fundamental dutyu swing into gear and either give this man the same or a similar or adequate level of protection as Venables gets, or, at the very least, go public to make it 100% convincingly clear, certain and unambiguous that this man was not Venables, and that any further abuse of any sort, offenders would be arrested and prosecuted?

This tragedy kind of makes my point. You seem to be suggesting that it is almost fair enough that innocent people might die due to nasty malicious toerags, as long as the guilty are protected.

It is also worth stating that despite the apparent mistaken belief that this guy was a killer, and didn't have police protection, nobody killed him or attempted to do so, so far as we are told. He:


Why was he undeserving of protection to stop this? Perhaps part of the answer may lie in the modern trend that in general you can be ever more verbally vile and abusive, whether in the street, or on Twitter or Facebook or wherever, yet the law seems to be stepping ever-further away from the line onto the freedom of speech side. The impression is that as time goes by you are going to have to say something particularly repellent in future to get your collar felt. So perhaps the mob spouting vile hatred is just viewed as sticks and stones, and if you can't hack it, tough? "Call us if they start smashing your windows and breaking down your door"?

I know you didn't mean to, but the point I am trying to make is that in simply citing the sad case of Mr Bradley as a reason why Venables should continue to be protected at all costs, you have de facto dismissed the value of the lost life of Mr. Bradley without a comment. All he was, was a valedictory example of what Venables might face, and so [ihim[/i, or any other innocent mistaken identity case, getting suicidal due to a long campaign of abuse from the mob (and the authorities failing to sort it out) is presumably a price worth paying if it means that the adult paedophile [iVenables[/i does not.

Oh my facebook has the Venables thing on my timeline too, so so many sheep when it comes to cases involving children being murdered. What these facebook sheep seem to forget that Venables himself was just a kid, not a grown man, at the time.

p
Im not sure how you have made that leap. If in 99.9% of cases there isn’t a threat of retribution, then not providing new identities isn’t an avoidance of that responsibility. If in 0.1% of cases there is a threat of retribution, and that 0.1% are provided with protection congruent with the threat, then that responsibility has quite obviously been met.

The principle the judge is talking about isn’t applicable to the overwhelming majority of offenders, that’s why the overwhelming majority don’t get expensive new identities or protection. They have no need for it. Some do, so they get it.

As you have done your usual trick of ignoring the parts of the post you cant argue against ([ia post which actually contained nothing from me but was the reasoned judgement of the presiding judge explaining his reasons, under law that the protection given was not only needed but obliged, it was the person capable of making such a decision, making such a decision, explaining their reasoning and explaining why you are wrong[/i) and picking out a bit, that in isolation you can, rather than spend the next 5 pages with me explaining this, lets just leave it there.

If you look at the details of the case the police went out of their way to find out if both of them knew what they were doing and if that they knew what they were doing was inherently wrong. It was a major part of the case against them as the police and prosecution felt a defence of some kind of diminished responsibility should not (and could not) stand up to scrutiny. That is what shocked people most at the time in that they knew what they were doing.



They don't have to deal with anything if they hold an opinion that they should not be released which is the view of the mother. It's not for anyone to lecture the parents and to tell them to "deal with it". Of course vigilantism is wrong but that is stating the obvious and is not unique to this case.



I don't think forgiveness is necessarily the right word. I think constant hatred of someone is exhausting so giving that up can possibly free someone's mind up who was greatly wronged. Even that would be immensely difficult when Denise Fergus regularly sees Venables in the news.

As to Bin Lid he didn't wrong you at all. He organised some very nasty acts of terrorism but unless you were a victim you have nothing to forgive him for on a personal level. What is interesting about you bringing up Bin Lid is not the forgiveness angle but the lack of any mention of the way in which he died. He was basically taken out by the US State as they regularly take out perceived enemies either like that or via drone attacks. Justice, which is what Venables got, is out of the window it seems.

does it make a difference that he was a kid when he committed this evil act?

this week i've read the court report about what they did to that poor child, i've read the arresting officers interview in the paper and also his interview with panorama, last night i sat and cried reading what they had done. it makes my blood boil. to try in anyway to excuse their actions on the fact that they were children themselves and that they were abused is laughable!

there are plenty of abused children who grow up and never abuse. my own brother in law was abused, he grew up and became a social worker working in childrens services trying to stop the same things that happened to him.

jon venables was rearrested and charged in 2010 with child pornography offences, tell me that he didn't know what he was doing on that fateful day? tell me that prison has rehabilitated him?

i can truely understand some peoples view that they wish these two harm. they will never, ever live a quiet, normal life. everyday will be spent looking over their shoulders awaiting the moment someone realizes who they are and what they did, and what action that person may take. but do they really deserve millions of pounds having their identities constantly changed, new NI numbers issued, new addresses, new lifes? they committed the crime, they served the time/sentence handed down, they have been released into society, maybe, just maybe they should live with the consequences of their actions?

The point Denise Fergus makes is that had they not had new identities then this man would not have been able to be persecuted as he was.

So the argument is by giving them new identities it directs the mindless mob against the innocent. That should never happen and if new identities are indeed necessary there needs to be some form of well publicised mechanism available to deal with this for anyone who is being accused of being someone they aren't in this way. And going to the local plod office isn't it. It would need some kind of national body that came down hard on the vigilantes and if necessary relocated the one being wronged if that us what they wanted.

Yes. It does.

And indeed, the hysteria around this case, when there have been plenty of other cases of particularly gruesome murders, is indicative of exactly how this case has been treated differently. Presumably, because some people hold on to an idea that children are inherently 'innocent', making such a case as this (which is rare, but not unique) somehow more appalling, since it challenges that romantic view. And that in turn leads to an idea that the killers were somehow particularly 'evil' or demonic.

There are, if I remember the stats correctly, something like 50 children murdered in the UK each year. Some are skilled by siblings. Some by parents or other family. Some by strangers. That's around one a week. You or I won't even hear about most of those. Do you really believe that they are so much less bad than this particularly sensationalised case?



I've yet to find a single person who has attempted to "excuse" the actions of the two. They may have tried to find ways to understand why they did what they did. That is not the same thing. And it is surely a good thing to try to understand such cases, not least in the hope that one can avoid repeats.

Agree with that.

Not that that sort of case is unique.

Fortunately, the thick little sods who harassed a woman from her home because they were too dumb to know the difference between 'paedophile' and 'paediatrician' did no more than hound her from her home. And equally, thankfully nobody was actually killed in the Paulsgrove rioting that followed the [iNotW[/i's to 'out' sex offenders (although Paulsgrove did see that used as an excuse to cover other attacks).

Whilst that may be Denise Fergus’ argument, its not a particularly good one

Regardless of your views of the crime, its punishment, the case as a whole, whatever.

Any vigilante action is crime. That’s what needs to be addressed. We need, as a society, to remember that. The press and sadly often people involved in cases spend to much time demonising, dehumanising and labelling people who have committed crime, whipping certain sections of society into a frenzy. In cases like these we always seem to get to a point where the perpetrators have become so dehumanised, so demonised that they become fairytale monsters with a mob egging each other on in to more violent and more aggressive revenge fantasies.

Why not? There is clearly a link between the fact the identities of her sons killers are kept secret and the fact this man was harassed. The fact it is wrong for him to have been harassed doesn't break that link.

I am not saying they should not have their identities kept secret but that if you do then there are consequences for others.

Treating it simply as a crime won't completely fix it either because that won't stop the tongues wagging. There needs to be a mechanism to not only stop the illegal acts associated with vigilantism involving cases of mistaken identity but also putting things to right so all those involved are made to fully understand their mistake.

They committed serious crimes but let’s remember that they were only just old enough to be tried for those crimes. They were a whisker away from not being held accountable at all due to their age. That in itself means we should all exercise extreme caution when making assertions about culpability.



I was not lecturing Bulger’s parents, I was criticising those baying for blood on their behalf. They should deal with their hatred rather than taking it out on Venables.



I agree it would be very difficult, nigh-on impossible given the circumstances.



How do you know?



What is your definition of victim? Was James Bulger a victim? His parents? His cousins?

I think that if you have been affected in a negative way by a crime then you are a victim. You therefore need to consider whether or not you will forgive the wrongdoer.



That is a completely unrelated topic and is not relevant to this discussion. If you have an axe to grind then create a thread about US foreign policy/rules of engagement.

It does unless you believe that kids have the same sense of right/wrong/cruelty/sanctity of life that adults have....


What reason do you have to suppose that they don't live with the consequences?
Or does "live with the consequences" mean punishment-by-vigilante until the day they die?

I wish you would read and think about what I actually write, instead of knee-jerking off.

Can you address the issue that the chap who was wrongly believed to be Venables WAS NOT in the course of a year the recipient of ANY physical retribution. This supports my argument that the risk of death or serious injury from vengeful vigilantes (which must exist, if only to a small extent, in ANY case where evil acts have been done to a child) seems not to have been borne out in this case.

Secondly, undoubtedly the deceased suffered some appalling abuse, and I am asking why, if it is right we spend millions to protect Venables from such abuse, when he is a convicted killer and paedophile, why do we not offer the same luxury to people who are then mistaken for Venables?

The point you are missing in your rush to get personal is the simple observation that, if an innocent person is BELIEVED to be Venables, then that person, by definition, from that moment, is in need of exactly the same protection AS IF HE WAS Venables.

That's how i see it. If you disagree, then maybe you could explain why, instead of having another rant.


Rejected. If there are parts of the post I do not specifically argue against, then just maybe that is because I don't argue against them? Anyway, if it makes you happy, please specify what parts of the post I can't argue against i have in your view ignored and, just for you, I will respond. I am not doing any tricks or being clever, it's a genuine offer so up to you.


I understand what the judge said. If you stopped salivating and spitting, you might in a calm moment see that I am not even directly disagreeing with everything the judge said - for one thing, presumably he had no knowledge, and so must have been advised by someone, as to the perceived risks to Venables.

But I am not "wrong", am I, I am stating my opinion. In your bluster, you assume that because the judge says in the circumstances protection is not only needed but obligatory, I am disputing his interpretation of the law. I am not. If on his finding the protection for Venables is indeed "obligatory" then the state is obliged to provide it. What you fail to understand is that this does not make that position, or the finding that the protection is needed, immune from criticism or comment. Nor does it invalidate discussion on whetehr it [iought[/i to be obligatory, certainly on a permanent basis. You agree with the judge that the protection is needed. I am not even saying definitively that it's not (I don;t know what evidence was provided to the judge so how could I) but I am entitled to cast doubt on the continuing need for it, and the fact nobody tried to kill or even physically harm the faux Venables in the space of over a year, would tend to support my view, in my opinion. Do you disagree? if so, on what basis?

I am trying to seriously discuss serious issues here. I'll thank you to cut out your [iad hominem[/i crap and try for once to address these questions.

An innocent person being harassed isn’t a consequence of their identities being kept secret. It is a consequence of a society whipped up into a paedogeddon frenzy by demonising and dehumanising offenders and a poorly informed, tabloid media writing a narrative of justice denied to foster feelings of resentment manifesting as misplaced macho posturing and revenge fantasy being tied up the myth of the vigilante hero.

What you are proposing ‘may’ in some cases address mis-indentification of an innocent party, but it in no way addresses the fact that its not healthy for a society to want to dole out ‘justice’ in this way. It isn’t a sign of a healthy society and a healthy mind which fantasises about violent, often degrading, revenge. It isn’t a healthy society which fetishises violent retribution.

Id also argue on a practical level that identifying innocent people who have been mis-identified leaves the fairly obvious problem of what to do when the correct person is identified? Either they can lie in which case the whole identifying innocents becomes pointless as it wouldn’t take long for the mob to figure out that both guilty and innocent will go through the same process, or they keep quite in which case the non-identifying of an accused person becomes tacit confirmation of their identity.

Well, I for one will raise a glass of a very good single malt, should they day ever come when the Media report the death of this odious specimen.

If the manner of his passing involves a similar amount of pain and terror to which the inflicted on that small child, then I will raise another, in the hope that his partner in crime will soon be joining him.

Just out of interest, what sentence would you have handed-down for a ten-year-old?
I think I probably know the answer.

Its not an ad-hominem insult, its quite specific to you. If I thought for one moment you wouldn’t descend to your usual form I would happily engage, im sure you have an interesting point of view. But I don’t. As I say, we can leave it there

Not forgetting he'd have an erection upon handing down said sentence.

And you can fekk off with your "usual form" jibes as well. If you've nothing to say on the poionts, which appears to be the case, then it's probably as well if you do as you suggest, and STFU.

Out of interest, what does everyone think about him prospectively having a relationship and starting a family (if it hasn't already happened)? Should his partner/family know his real name and his past? Do you believe that the traits of an abuser are genetic, rather than just learned?