[Closed] James Bulgers killers. Some questions.

That's right surfer, right at the foot of the hills 😉 sheep to shag and trails to ride - and not a thieving scouser in site lol

I'll be over that way tomorrow.

*Wonders how much ££££ I can make from this*
Selling the wearabouts to those who want to kill him
Selling the wearabouts to those who want to protct him
Going to the papers and telling all

Cant be arsed with any of them, dont need the money,

I'm not getting drawn into this debate! However I will say that at the time "The Jigsaw Man" by David Britton was released it was a very interesting read, however he has been seriously discredited since writing it and personally I think it's a load of twonk. But can make interesting reading if you have a VERY open mind!!!

Secondly, someone mentioned earlier what "crime" or reason JV has been recalled for, until MOJ announce it, it is just rumour and speculation, let's face it we all know how much pap the press print that is BS. I believe that he has committed an offence (who knows what) that means he is going to have to stand trial (ie he's going NG). As such they will not release the details as he would not then get a fair trial and he could look at appealing under ECHR (not saying I agree or disagree with the way they've handled it).

Back to spectating on this thread, some interesting views.

I'll be over that way tomorrow.

I'll be sure to lock up properly then 😉 can't actually ride this weekend at all, wifes away so I'm playing single parent!! Gutted

If you believe all the speculation in the papers (nb. "not yet proven fact") then the rehabilitation system has clearly failed this time - dodging vetting to become a nightclub doorman, regular trips fir nights out in Liverpool, drug habit - what a waste of my hard earned. Guess there's no changin some people - hopefully karma will address the scales of justice. Can't say i cried when baby p killer was scolded in the clink...

steffybhoy - Member

TJ?

If crime has massively gone down.
Why is it the government(Scottish) is proposing to quash jail sentences of six months or less to ease the burden on overflowing jails.

Because 1) we lock up people for longer for less than we used to and 2) short jail sentances are fairly pointless

Oh, and in an age when sentencing is less severe than it used to be.
Why is it that childrens homes/social work departments are bulging full?

Because actually sentencing is far more severe than it used to be and there are significant social issues including a greater weillingness to take children into care following on from the baby P scandal

Also what about the crime figures? do they include the amount of non reported crimes due to people disillusioned with the legal system?

Yes they do as the figures are assembled from real peoples experience of real crime - not of reported crime, not of police stats but real peoples experience of real crime
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/bcs1.html

What you have been fooled by is the newspapers drumming up a moral panic about crime. The actual reality is very very different. Crime is massively down as you will see if you follow the BCS link

[i]What you have been fooled by is the newspapers drumming up a moral panic about crime. [/i]

Yes well I fully expected drivel like that from the likes of you.

As I said look in the mirror, point and remind yourself of the valuable contribution you give to this country.
Me? I'll keep living in the real world.

"His killers although 10 years old knew they were perpetrating the most heinous of acts."

Mikertroid - How do you know that? Any evidence to support?

steffybhoy

the point is in the real world crime is massively down since the 90s - no possible doubt about it. Even murder is down hugely - and that cannot be fudged. I do live in the real world. This is an absolute fact with no possible doubt.

As I said look in the mirror, point and remind yourself of the valuable contribution you give to this country.

I have spent 30 yrs looking after the old, the sick and the frail. I have given more to our society than many. I have not directly increased its wealth - but I have increased its wellbeing.

Munqe-chick - I completely agree with you about Paul Britton, he made a lot of money from the Jigsaw man (some might say he cashed in on a lot of cases he had worked on), and the follow up (I have it but cant remember the title, and cant be arsed looking for it) was even worse - it contained some rather dodgy views on a rape case, where he appeared to be saying that the victim was partially responsible due to the way she was dressed.

The news is now reporting that James Bulger's mother is demanding her "[i]right[/i]" to know why Jon Venables has been taken taken into custody.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow the logic at all.

Her son was tragically murdered 17 years ago.

The perpetrators were caught and prosecuted by the state -not the victim's family. They were sentenced, served time and were released on licence. Breaking the terms of the licence resulted in further custody.

As the mother of the victim of the [u]initial[/u] offence, what possible reason is there for her being told what Venables has done this time? It has nothing to do with her this time.

It must have been awful to lose a child in those circumstances, but I fail to see what this latest incident has to do with that.

I bet Jack Straw's heart sank when this case (originally not on his watch)reared its head again.

steffybhoy wrote, "Yes well I fully expected drivel like that from the likes of you."

Yet you don't seem to be able to actually refute any of his drivel? You said, "Oh, and in an age when sentencing is less severe than it used to be.", he correctly pointed out this is nonsense. It'll take you about 10 seconds to google for the facts on average jail sentences.

He might be wrong to say you've been led to your false impression by the press, it might be a kneejerk of your own personal devising or you might have been misled from other sources (politicians who would rather stand up and say "We'll increase punishment" than "Crime FELL!") but either way, he is correct on the facts and you owe him an apology.

Whenever you're ready.

First page of google!

[url= http://news.stv.tv/scotland/west-central/77193-scotland-has-one-of-the-highest-murder-rates-in-europe/ ]Scotland has one of the highest murder rates in Europe[/url]

[url= http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2010/02/11/scotland-has-highest-rate-of-cocaine-use-in-the-world-claims-united-nations-study-86908-22034446/ ]Scotland has highest rate of cocaine use in the world, claims United Nations study
[/url]

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Crime-Justice/TrendPris
[img] [/img]

Apology? go poke yersel.

What exactly do you think that graph shows? We know prison population is up. Prison population /= crime

The Scottish murder rate of 2.1 per 100000 quoted in 05-06 is lower than it was in 1992, 1993 and 1994, and just barely over the 10-year average from 84 to 94. it's classic bad stat use, the 2004-2005 rate of 1.59 was lower than at almost any point in that same period, it's not quite a peak low but it was very low indeed, a very good year. The "increase" in 2005-2006 was barely more than a return to the norm.

Try this one for size

"Increase in immediate custodial sentenced population
The growth in numbers in prison having been sentenced to immediate custody has been the single most important contributor to the overall growth, representing 78% of the total increase between 1995 and 2009. There were two main reasons behind the growth in this segment of the prison population: (a) the courts sentenced more offenders to prison each year between 1995 and 2002; and (b) offenders have been staying in prison for longer."

(a) Increase in numbers sentenced to immediate custody
From 1995 to 2002, increasing numbers of adult4 offenders were sentenced to immediate custody for indictable offences5, with the annual volume rising by around 23,000 by 2002. <snip> The increase in the immediate custody rate is part of a wider trend of tougher sentencing outcomes.

From 2000 to 2008, the average time served in prison increased by 14% (from 8.1 to 9.3 months) for those released from determinate sentences. This was due to a 15% increase in the average custodial determinate sentence length handed down by the courts between 2000 and 2004"

Steffiboy - what is that supposed to prove?

Go read the research. Crime is significantly down - this is an indisputable fact.

Sentences for the same crime have increased. indisputable fact.

Murder rate is the lowest for decades Indisputable fact.

I am afraid you are simply taking high grade bollx

Go read the BCS survey

LOL! Increase in UK population->recession->crime rate down = Wooohoo! We live in paradise! Yes, because the statistic says so and politicians are angels. We need to worship celebrities.

The mother has all the logic and right to know the identity of both killers. That right is hers and her alone. The memory of her child is hers and she is the only one that can forgive the murderers. Unless you want to " medically erase" her mind to make her forget?

The law is only artificially there to govern the rights or wrongs but it does not govern one's thought. Until such time as she can forgive them the logic is her.

What is illogical is that some want to impose their "logic" on her. LOL! How twisted! Yes, we are the same and let us impose our thoughts on others. Fe*k me. Now listen to my logic and let me tell you how you should think. The salt crocs are hungry ...

😈

Chewk - crime falls with increasing prosperity so I would expect the next set of stats to show a rise crimes rises in recessions- and the drop is far greater than any rise in population - 40% down from the peak in the early 90s.

Why does the mother have any right to know the new identity of the killers? Do you really think all this press fuss is helping her?

The mother has all the logic and right to know the identity of both killers. That right is hers and her alone. The memory of her child is hers and she is the only one that can forgive the murderers. Unless you want to " medically erase" her mind to make her forget?

What?!?

In the UK the state 'punishes' criminals. It is not carried out by the families of victims. If one of the men (presumably the other one has not done similar) who has been released on licence(rightly or wrongly) has committed a recent offence it is very unlikely to have affected the mother of their earlier victim. What does it have to do with her -or any of us? I can only assume that the parole board are doing their job correctly.

Rockitman, unless they had zero IQ, the acts they dealt that poor child were deliberate, heinous and callous.

My 5 year old son would know that inserting batteries into a 2 year olds eyes was wrong; I'm pretty sure those 10 year olds did too.

The Jigsaw man by Paul Britton, whilst providing some useful insights, should not be taken as proof. He often used unlawful methods to extract confessions out of suspects. Look at the mess he made of the Rachel Nickell case.

JV's recent case (if there is one to answer) has nothing to do with his previous crimes and should be dealt with on its own merits. However painful this is for Denise Bulger/Fergus she should not get involved and leave the legal and judicial process to take its course.

Each time I hear something about this case I feel upset. It plays on my mind and I get unwanted images of a terrified child. Do you think the 2 who are guilty of it go through the same? My guess is no - that's why IMO there's no place for them in this life.

Mikertroid wrote, "My 5 year old son would know that inserting batteries into a 2 year olds eyes was wrong; I'm pretty sure those 10 year olds did too."

They didn't do that.

Northwind. You're wrong.

Geronimo - Member

What?!?

In the UK the state 'punishes' criminals. It is not carried out by the families of victims. If one of the men (presumably the other one has not done similar) who has been released on licence(rightly or wrongly) has committed a recent offence it is very unlikely to have affected the mother of their earlier victim. What does it have to do with her -or any of us? I can only assume that the parole board are doing their job correctly.

Yes, the state can impose whatever punishment it sees fit according to the "civilised" law. But are you saying that the state has the right to take away the memory of those murderers from her? Not even "god" nor any "supreme beings" have that right let alone the puny "civilised" state.

... has committed a recent offence it is very unlikely to have affected the mother of their earlier victim.

Now are you saying she should feel your logic? If that is the case are you saying you have higher logic than hers? How much higher a logic do you have?

What does it have to do with her -or any of us? I can only assume that the parole board are doing their job correctly.

It has nothing to do with you nor your feeling. Your assumption on the action of the parole board is irrelevant to her call(anger etc) to identify the murderers.

😈

Don't believe I am, no.

northwind how do you know what they did or did'nt do ?

TandemJeremy - Member

Chewk - crime falls with increasing prosperity so I would expect the next set of stats to show a rise crimes rises in recessions- and the drop is far greater than any rise in population - 40% down from the peak in the early 90s.

Hhhhmmm ... TJ is sending coded message that the next govt will be in trouble. LOL!

Why does the mother have any right to know the new identity of the killers?

Because the killers owe her when they murdered her son and they owe her until she forgives them.

Do you really think all this press fuss is helping her?

If she has not forgiven the killers then it make no difference.

If she has made peace with herself by forgiving the killers then I see no difference too, as the killers' heinous crime has now bore fruit on themselves.

😈

"northwind how do you know what they did or did'nt do ?"

How do you or Mikertroid? I have no special knowledge, just what was reported. Court reports stated batteries were found at the scene, and it was one of the details that helped to break Robert Thompson's denials, he said that Jon Venables threw them into Bulger's face. Most reports say they were placed in his mouth, some made that part of the alelged "child's play" link. Absolutely no reliable reports that I can see say they were pushed into his eyes, frinstance if you google for it you get one guy saying that a "copper mate" of his said that batteries were "hammered into his eyes", which definately didn't happen. And that's it.

You also get lots of hits to that horrendous chain email that does the rounds every 2 years that's completely full of lies, the one that doesn't seem to think the real crime was horrific enough so adds some imaginary details to spice it up.

Anyway. Getting off the topic and mired in horrible detail.

Anyway. Getting off the topic and mired in horrible detail.

I rather think that is the topic. The details are horrible & we should not put them to one side. Clearly the details mean little to Venables. Do we want to live in a society which allows him to carry out further acts which may at some point be described as "horrible details."

OK, I'm in no way trying to "put it to one side." What I mean is, there's a risk here of derailing the thread into pointless dissection of [i]exactly[/i] what was done, which would just be morbid and IMO tasteless.

Clearly the details mean little to Venables

you get this information from where? From what I have read one of the key things that led to him being released on liscence was that he showed remorse

Do we want to live in a society which allows him to carry out further acts

Of course not - which is why he is serving life and only released on licence

Feeling remorseful - or displaying what the system requires to get an early release? Guess we'll never know. I reckon it's the latter

Northwind; I don't need to discuss HOW I know; it's enough to say they lost their right to breathe on that day.

My point (rather than discuss all aspects of that fateful day) was that at 10, those boys knew EXACTLY what they were doing and as a result disappeared of the face of human society.

By placing his head above the parapet, hopefully Venables will get what he truly deserves inside.

TJ, the details clearly mean little to him because he is out re-offending. If he was truly remorseful about his former crimes he would think twice about committing more.

His licence includes a number of conditions which he is not allowed to breach, and reportedly he has breached a number of them. Even if we allow for the hyperbole of the press there is some definite reason why he has be returned to custody. It wasn't just for dropping a fag butt by mistake.

Releasing him on licence permits him to return to society, and in his case, he has carried out further acts. Life should now mean absolutely life.

So I think the information is quite clear to anyone who thinks logically.

So I think the information is quite clear to anyone who thinks logically.

TJ, the details clearly mean little to him because he is out re-offending.

this however has no logic to it at all

Nor has this

My point (rather than discuss all aspects of that fateful day) was that at 10, those boys knew EXACTLY what they were doing and as a result disappeared of the face of human society.

It is very clear that many folk here are not thinking logically but are understandably enough being emotional about it.

Northwind; I don't need to discuss HOW I know;

TJ, the details clearly mean little to him because he is out re-offending.

this however has no logic to it at all

I don't really understand what you mean here. Are you meaning that he may be full of remorse for the murder of James Bulger, but that he hasn't learned anything from his rehabilitation?

And just to clarify, I'm not supporting a death penalty for 10 year olds.

I mean that for you to say

the details clearly mean little to him because he is out re-offending.

The one thing does not follow on from the other.

hang the ****, no longer a danger , or a drain on our system , simples.

hang the ****, no longer a danger , or a drain on our system , simples.

My personal opinion, is that if you knowingly commit murder(except under exceptional circumstances) (yes I know they were only ten), and cause devastation to an innocent family(as these two have). Then you do not deserve the right to a life yourself.

*for all the do-gooders that are amongst the majority on this forum*

Sing to the tune of 'free Nelson Mandela'

freeee-eeeee jon venable-s
After all he's only 27 yrs old, has his whole life ahead of him(so did little james tho) this fella needs more counselling not locked up(again) it did'nt work the first time so why will it work now?

Waits for a barrage of hate mail!

Don't think there will ever be an outcome to this case that would be considered fair by all sides - yes he's a scumbag, but he's a product of his poor upbringing, no guidance growing up, access to inapprpriate films, games, no discipline, etc etc. Let's not forget his parents got new IDs too. New jobs, new place to live - yet no form of punishment?

The knee jerk reaction for me - and most people is to wipe him off the planet, but as said 10yr olds can't be executed unfortunately so we have to waste hundreds of thousands of pounds on a family who now live a constant lie.

M6

No, I think his family should be forced to earn their 'free' keep. Plenty of pot-holed roads that need repairing....

One of the complications in all this is that Venables was a child of 10 when he killed James Bulger. The majority of posters are concentrating on that crime, when what appears to have caused the current s***storm is the fact that he has been recalled for a (presumably current) breach of his license - we cant, no matter how much we think it would be right, go back and retry him for his original crime, therefore he will have to face the charges for whatever he has been recalled for. If the media is to be believed (a long shot I know), he is facing serious allegations (anything from assault to posession of child porn, according to the press). The past is the past, all we can hope for is that he is tried and sentenced appropriately this time around.