James Bulger

[Pixelle]

The reason they got out at eight years is because they should not of been tried as adults. Our emotions, pressure from the public and the like should not of come into that decision.

They committed an adult crime. They knew it was wrong. Very, very wrong.
Just because they were children, they should not be treated as innocent children. They were far from innocent.

This disgusting, appalling crime was and should have been tried as adults. There really was no other option IMO.

 

[KAT1984]

The reason they got out at eight years is because they should not of been tried as adults. Our emotions, pressure from the public and the like should not of come into that decision.

They killed and tortured a baby!!!!!!!! At ten years old you know what's right or wrong they shud still be in prison! They may have been tried as adults but they never went to prison they went to a young offenders institution.

I think you have misread what Tasha was saying. No where was she condoning what they did, she was explaining why they only 'served' 8 years.

I know, I also know that she is not condoning what they did. An I'm not having a go or anything I'm really not. It's just she is suggesting they should not of been tried as adults, but if they where tried as kids they would of been treated better than they already have you know. I just think are legal system is messed up his poor parents are the ones living the real sentance.

 

[Tasha]

Thank you Lora, that is exactly what I was saying. I dont condone it at all. It horrifies me that two ten year olds could be in such a place that they even thought to do this alone, let alone hatch a plan together and then act it out.

You (general not you at anyone in particular) say they were tried as adults because they were animals or they werent innocent, but that is the thing in the UK we have an innocent until proven guilty thing and therefore when they went on trial in the eyes of the law (at that time) they were innocent and therefore should of been treated as innocent children.

My argument is that they may not of even got out after eight years had they been tried as children. The worry at the time for the justice system was that they were going to appeal because they were tried as adults and that would of shown faults in the system, IMO.

 

[KAT1984]

Thank you Lora, that is exactly what I was saying. I dont condone it at all. It horrifies me that two ten year olds could be in such a place that they even thought to do this alone, let alone hatch a plan together and then act it out.

You (general not you at anyone in particular) say they were tried as adults because they were animals or they werent innocent, but that is the thing in the UK we have an innocent until proven guilty thing and therefore when they went on trial in the eyes of the law (at that time) they were innocent and therefore should of been treated as innocent children.

My argument is that they may not of even got out after eight years had they been tried as children. The worry at the time for the justice system was that they were going to appeal because they were tried as adults and that would of shown faults in the system, IMO.

Yes I agree they where guilty before a trail even went ahead but the evidence spoke for it's self they where caught on camera leading that poor child away a pre meditated crime they carried out.

They would of got longer if it was not got the European courts intervention that maybe u are right about being tried as adults Appeal and release

In 1999, lawyers for Thompson and Venables appealed to the European Court of Human Rights that the boys' trial had not been impartial, since they were too young to follow proceedings and understand an adult court. The European court dismissed their claim that the trial was inhuman and degrading treatment, but upheld their claim they were denied a fair hearing by the nature of the court proceedings.[52][53] The European Court also held that Michael Howard's intervention had led to a "highly charged atmosphere", which resulted in an unfair judgment.[54] On 15 March 1999, the court in Strasbourg ruled by 14 votes to five that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the fairness of the trial of Thompson and Venables, stating: "The public trial process in an adult court must be regarded in the case of an 11-year-old child as a severely intimidating procedure".[33]

In September 1999, Bulger's parents applied to the European Court of Human Rights, but failed to persuade the court that a victim of a crime has the right to be involved in determining the sentence of the perpetrator.[7][55]

The European court case led to the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, reviewing the minimum sentence. In October 2000, he recommended the tariff be reduced from ten to eight years,[7] adding that young offender institutions were a "corrosive atmosphere" for the juveniles.[56]

Are legal system is a joke they where an still are on are streets today you could be living next door to one of them with your children an you wouldn't know because it would be illegal to tell you.

I'm going to stop talking about it now as it angers me so much that they will be living normal lives while poor James didn't even reach his third birthday! Hopefully one day what goes around comes around twice as worse for them!

 

[Piper84]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

 

[Tasha]

Yes I agree they where guilty before a trail even went ahead but the evidence spoke for it's self they where caught on camera leading that poor child away a pre meditated crime they carried out.

They would of got longer if it was not got the European courts intervention that maybe u are right about being tried as adults Appeal and release

In 1999, lawyers for Thompson and Venables appealed to the European Court of Human Rights that the boys' trial had not been impartial, since they were too young to follow proceedings and understand an adult court. The European court dismissed their claim that the trial was inhuman and degrading treatment, but upheld their claim they were denied a fair hearing by the nature of the court proceedings.[52][53] The European Court also held that Michael Howard's intervention had led to a "highly charged atmosphere", which resulted in an unfair judgment.[54] On 15 March 1999, the court in Strasbourg ruled by 14 votes to five that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the fairness of the trial of Thompson and Venables, stating: "The public trial process in an adult court must be regarded in the case of an 11-year-old child as a severely intimidating procedure".[33]

In September 1999, Bulger's parents applied to the European Court of Human Rights, but failed to persuade the court that a victim of a crime has the right to be involved in determining the sentence of the perpetrator.[7][55]

The European court case led to the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, reviewing the minimum sentence. In October 2000, he recommended the tariff be reduced from ten to eight years,[7] adding that young offender institutions were a "corrosive atmosphere" for the juveniles.[56]

Are legal system is a joke they where an still are on are streets today you could be living next door to one of them with your children an you wouldn't know because it would be illegal to tell you.

I'm going to stop talking about it now as it angers me so much that they will be living normal lives while poor James didn't even reach his third birthday! Hopefully one day what goes around comes around twice as worse for them!

I was too tired to reply to this last night, so didnt cos I didnt want it coming out jumbled.

It doesnt matter whether there was CTTV, if they had been caught red handed even, they deserved to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. We cant decide that they are guilty before trial because how can the trial then be fair? Everyone deserves a fair trial despite the publics wants and emotions. And if they dont get a fair trial, well then that opens it up to appeals.

What you quoted proves my point, we cant allow the public to decide before hand as they cant get a fair trial. And that is exactly why the two of them got out after eight years rather than ten.

 

[Tasha]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

One hundred percent agree with the bolded. We can not allow the vocal proportion to affect how cases are handled or there outcome.

Incidently I am glad that Bulger's parents were not successful in their bid to persuade the court that a victim of a crime has the right to be involved in determining the sentence of the perpetrator. I know that opinion wont be popular, but I dont think emotion should ever decide the outcome of the punishment nor a courtcase.

 

[Lina]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

I agree word for word with what you have written. The whole circus surrounding this case and the way it has been and continues to be hijacked by media is nothing short of shameless. A true injustice is trial by media in the court of public opinion.

 

[KAT1984]

Yes I agree they where guilty before a trail even went ahead but the evidence spoke for it's self they where caught on camera leading that poor child away a pre meditated crime they carried out.

They would of got longer if it was not got the European courts intervention that maybe u are right about being tried as adults Appeal and release

In 1999, lawyers for Thompson and Venables appealed to the European Court of Human Rights that the boys' trial had not been impartial, since they were too young to follow proceedings and understand an adult court. The European court dismissed their claim that the trial was inhuman and degrading treatment, but upheld their claim they were denied a fair hearing by the nature of the court proceedings.[52][53] The European Court also held that Michael Howard's intervention had led to a "highly charged atmosphere", which resulted in an unfair judgment.[54] On 15 March 1999, the court in Strasbourg ruled by 14 votes to five that there had been a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the fairness of the trial of Thompson and Venables, stating: "The public trial process in an adult court must be regarded in the case of an 11-year-old child as a severely intimidating procedure".[33]

In September 1999, Bulger's parents applied to the European Court of Human Rights, but failed to persuade the court that a victim of a crime has the right to be involved in determining the sentence of the perpetrator.[7][55]

The European court case led to the new Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, reviewing the minimum sentence. In October 2000, he recommended the tariff be reduced from ten to eight years,[7] adding that young offender institutions were a "corrosive atmosphere" for the juveniles.[56]

Are legal system is a joke they where an still are on are streets today you could be living next door to one of them with your children an you wouldn't know because it would be illegal to tell you.

I'm going to stop talking about it now as it angers me so much that they will be living normal lives while poor James didn't even reach his third birthday! Hopefully one day what goes around comes around twice as worse for them!

I was too tired to reply to this last night, so didnt cos I didnt want it coming out jumbled.

It doesnt matter whether there was CTTV, if they had been caught red handed even, they deserved to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. We cant decide that they are guilty before trial because how can the trial then be fair? Everyone deserves a fair trial despite the publics wants and emotions. And if they dont get a fair trial, well then that opens it up to appeals.

What you quoted proves my point, we cant allow the public to decide before hand as they cant get a fair trial. And that is exactly why the two of them got out after eight years rather than ten.

Yes that is why i quoted it that was the point you where making and i understood your ponit.

 

[LoraLoo]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

One hundred percent agree with the bolded. We can not allow the vocal proportion to affect how cases are handled or there outcome.

Incidently I am glad that Bulger's parents were not successful in their bid to persuade the court that a victim of a crime has the right to be involved in determining the sentence of the perpetrator. I know that opinion wont be popular, but I dont think emotion should ever decide the outcome of the punishment nor a courtcase.

Hmmm, I'm not sure I agree, I think the family of the victims voice SHOULD be heard. Ive read stories when families have wrote to the Judge and asked for leniency, where they have forgiven their childs killer- recently I read a story of a man who killed another man. It was a vicious attack, but the family have forgiven him. Since he has been released they have even helped to find him work etc. I know thats the flip side of the coin, but I do think its important to let families have their say.

 

[KAT1984]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

No what makes our legal system a JOKE is the fact they were found guilty of killing a two year old baby!!!!!!!!! In a horrific way which shocked the UK they were sent to a young offenders institute never actually going to prison, they got took on days out and got to play on computers and had an education, when they got released they were given new identities you could be living next door to one of them now with your kids and it would be illegal to tell you this, they were took to that little boys grave without the parents say so what right did they have to do that?? The workers who spent years around them came out and said that they have never showed any remorse for what they have done and yet they are on are streets around our kids.

Venables is due to get out soon and James’s Mum is trying to stop it, good for her she keeps it in the press in James's name everyone should know what them two monsters did to that baby so they are never able to forget it as James's family will never be able to forget it, she is campaigning at the moment to stop criminals being able to sell their story’s for money which Venables was trying to do how many more chances will he get before he kills someone else??

To who ever said we should follow America in trying 6 year olds I think it depends on the case and if it was a 2 10 year old’s who deliberately went out of their way that day to take a two year old baby and torture and kill the child leaving that poor baby to dye by himself then yes LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE, they took a life and yet they are living there's with a fresh start it's not right.
No one knows how we would react in the situation that Poor James’s parents have and I hope to god no one ever does, but this is how she handles it she uses the media to her advantage and if she is ok with having the press behave the way we do then why should it bother us if you don’t like it don’t read it. I think she has handled herself in a brilliant way I have so much respect for his parents as if it was my Olivia I swear I would be hunting for blood. But that is just me and my opinion.
You all comment on me saying are legal system is a joke, but then say that the case was mishandled and the courts bowed to public pressure well if you think that how does this make our legal system not a joke?
I still stand by my comment my 2 year old knows what is right and wrong and she knows not to hurt someone. They knew what they were doing. They are not animals that is an insult to animals they are Monsters pure Evil but what is very scary is that you could be living next door to them and not even know!

 

[Piper84]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

No what makes our legal system a JOKE is the fact they were found guilty of killing a two year old baby!!!!!!!!! In a horrific way which shocked the UK they were sent to a young offenders institute never actually going to prison, they got took on days out and got to play on computers and had an education, when they got released they were given new identities you could be living next door to one of them now with your kids and it would be illegal to tell you this, they were took to that little boys grave without the parents say so what right did they have to do that?? The workers who spent years around them came out and said that they have never showed any remorse for what they have done and yet they are on are streets around our kids.

Venables is due to get out soon and James’s Mum is trying to stop it, good for her she keeps it in the press in James's name everyone should know what them two monsters did to that baby so they are never able to forget it as James's family will never be able to forget it, she is campaigning at the moment to stop criminals being able to sell their story’s for money which Venables was trying to do how many more chances will he get before he kills someone else??

To who ever said we should follow America in trying 6 year olds I think it depends on the case and if it was a 2 10 year old’s who deliberately went out of their way that day to take a two year old baby and torture and kill the child leaving that poor baby to dye by himself then yes LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE, they took a life and yet they are living there's with a fresh start it's not right.
No one knows how we would react in the situation that Poor James’s parents have and I hope to god no one ever does, but this is how she handles it she uses the media to her advantage and if she is ok with having the press behave the way we do then why should it bother us if you don’t like it don’t read it. I think she has handled herself in a brilliant way I have so much respect for his parents as if it was my Olivia I swear I would be hunting for blood. But that is just me and my opinion.
You all comment on me saying are legal system is a joke, but then say that the case was mishandled and the courts bowed to public pressure well if you think that how does this make our legal system not a joke?
I still stand by my comment my 2 year old knows what is right and wrong and she knows not to hurt someone. They knew what they were doing. They are not animals that is an insult to animals they are Monsters pure Evil but what is very scary is that you could be living next door to them and not even know!

I appreciate your passion for the injustice you think was done, but this could have come right off a page of the Sun, and that's not a compliment.

You are saying our legal system is a joke because they were sent to a young offenders' institution and let out after 8 years. I am saying our legal system is a joke for breaking its own laws and bowing to the mob. It was made a mockery of by the international courts and Michael Howard's reign as Home Secretary was tainted as a result of his intervention.

Our legal system is not perfect, but it has been worked on for thousands of years. I don't see why that should change for one case where people demand the right to make up their own laws just because of the shocking nature of the crime.

 

[KAT1984]

So people are seriously considering the US model of criminal justice regarding minors, where a child as young as 6 can be held criminally responsible?

What makes our legal system a joke was that it caved to a very vocal portion of the public's reaction - the way it was handled was actually illegal. Armchair legal pundits who say things like "I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 10" and decide on a case by case basis who deserves what punishment rightly have nothing to do with how such decisions are made, and it needs to stay that way. Luckily the Home Secretary no longer has the power to extend prison sentences in order to win votes. The judiciary has to be separate from the government.

It's not about living in a bubble away from bad news. The way violent crime is reported has a direct effect on the way we view each other as citizens, and it is splashed across the lowest common denominator tabloids with gusto and bought into by an eager readership, that can't wait to talk about society's decline and the latest gruesome murder.

No what makes our legal system a JOKE is the fact they were found guilty of killing a two year old baby!!!!!!!!! In a horrific way which shocked the UK they were sent to a young offenders institute never actually going to prison, they got took on days out and got to play on computers and had an education, when they got released they were given new identities you could be living next door to one of them now with your kids and it would be illegal to tell you this, they were took to that little boys grave without the parents say so what right did they have to do that?? The workers who spent years around them came out and said that they have never showed any remorse for what they have done and yet they are on are streets around our kids.

Venables is due to get out soon and James’s Mum is trying to stop it, good for her she keeps it in the press in James's name everyone should know what them two monsters did to that baby so they are never able to forget it as James's family will never be able to forget it, she is campaigning at the moment to stop criminals being able to sell their story’s for money which Venables was trying to do how many more chances will he get before he kills someone else??

To who ever said we should follow America in trying 6 year olds I think it depends on the case and if it was a 2 10 year old’s who deliberately went out of their way that day to take a two year old baby and torture and kill the child leaving that poor baby to dye by himself then yes LIFE SHOULD MEAN LIFE, they took a life and yet they are living there's with a fresh start it's not right.
No one knows how we would react in the situation that Poor James’s parents have and I hope to god no one ever does, but this is how she handles it she uses the media to her advantage and if she is ok with having the press behave the way we do then why should it bother us if you don’t like it don’t read it. I think she has handled herself in a brilliant way I have so much respect for his parents as if it was my Olivia I swear I would be hunting for blood. But that is just me and my opinion.
You all comment on me saying are legal system is a joke, but then say that the case was mishandled and the courts bowed to public pressure well if you think that how does this make our legal system not a joke?
I still stand by my comment my 2 year old knows what is right and wrong and she knows not to hurt someone. They knew what they were doing. They are not animals that is an insult to animals they are Monsters pure Evil but what is very scary is that you could be living next door to them and not even know!

I appreciate your passion for the injustice you think was done, but this could have come right off a page of the Sun, and that's not a compliment.

You are saying our legal system is a joke because they were sent to a young offenders' institution and let out after 8 years. I am saying our legal system is a joke for breaking its own laws and bowing to the mob. It was made a mockery of by the international courts and Michael Howard's reign as Home Secretary was tainted as a result of his intervention.

You properly didn't mean this but I find that comment very offensive being from Liverpool and hating the sun!!!!!!!!!! After the lies it has published about Liverpool believe me when you refer to something being like the SUN I would never take it as a compliment!

Everything i have said there did not come out of the sun as i do not read that paper most of it came from James' parents and is public knowledge in their campaign for justice for James. You basically think everything I have said there are lies referring what I have said to the SUN as we all know what they say never to believe.
I wish it wasn’t but it is.

 

[Tasha]

Lora, an impact statement is usual now, if the victims chose to use the impact statement to say they have forgiven the person commiting the crime, then that is fair but that is different to the family determining the punishment IMO.

Kat, where are you getting this stuff from? I mean where can I read what you have please? An education has to be provided by law in the UK, and if that wasnt provided then the chances are that they would of ended up more messed up than they were/are. Have the day trips been confirmed? Were they part of rehabilitation for when they were let out? I mean, it would be pretty over-whelming being locked up for eight years and then let out just to get on with it.

They could be living next door to me, but so could any manner of criminals. I dont think putting them in danger by not giving them a new identity, as well as any manner of innocent people (ones that look similar, ones with the same name, someone that x person doesnt like so claims is him, the police person who would have to protect them, the family with the same surname etc etc) would help the situation at all.

The workers were paid for that story. The media wont chose to print someone story who says oh they were the most remorseful pair we have come across. It simply does not fit the media's agenda, besides how do we know they didnt twist the workers words, or the workers werent influenced purely by how shocking/horrific the crime was? I mean many people on this thread have an opinion on them and havent met them, I am sure that despite being professionals they would not be exempt from a personal view and therefore could of made up their mind about them without ever really giving them a chance. However the reports some one provided earlier say that they did show remorse.

 

[KAT1984]

Lora, an impact statement is usual now, if the victims chose to use the impact statement to say they have forgiven the person commiting the crime, then that is fair but that is different to the family determining the punishment IMO.

Kat, where are you getting this stuff from? I mean where can I read what you have please? An education has to be provided by law in the UK, and if that wasnt provided then the chances are that they would of ended up more messed up than they were/are. Have the day trips been confirmed? Were they part of rehabilitation for when they were let out? I mean, it would be pretty over-whelming being locked up for eight years and then let out just to get on with it.

They could be living next door to me, but so could any manner of criminals. I dont think putting them in danger by not giving them a new identity, as well as any manner of innocent people (ones that look similar, ones with the same name, someone that x person doesnt like so claims is him, the police person who would have to protect them, the family with the same surname etc etc) would help the situation at all.

The workers were paid for that story. The media wont chose to print someone story who says oh they were the most remorseful pair we have come across. It simply does not fit the media's agenda, besides how do we know they didnt twist the workers words, or the workers werent influenced purely by how shocking/horrific the crime was? I mean many people on this thread have an opinion on them and havent met them, I am sure that despite being professionals they would not be exempt from a personal view and therefore could of made up their mind about them without ever really giving them a chance. However the reports some one provided earlier say that they did show remorse.

Thompson was held at the Barton Moss secure unit in Manchester, which housed 14 young offenders and was divided into three wings, including one for girls.[49] Venables was detained in Vardy House, a small eight-bedded unit at Red Bank secure unit in St. Helens on Merseyside — the same facility where, 25 years prior, Mary Bell had been held for half of her 12-year sentence.[50] These locations were not publicly known until after the boys' release.[3]

Details of the boys' lives were recorded twice daily on running sheets and signed by the member of staff who had written them. The records were stored at the units and copied to officials in Whitehall. The boys were taught to lie about their real names and also to conceal the crime they had committed which resulted in them being in the units. Venables's parents regularly visited their son at Red Bank, just as Thompson's mother did — every three days — at Barton Moss.[3]

The boys received education and rehabilitation; despite initial problems, Venables was said to have eventually made good progress at Red Bank, resulting in him being kept there for the full eight years, despite the facility only being a short-stay remand unit.[3] Thompson was said, by a social worker who observed him for his eight years at Barton Moss, to be well-behaved and intelligent, and to have coped well with his situation, adjusting to life in the secure unit quickly, but never showing any remorse or interest in his crime. By the age of 14, Thompson was taken on outings to the theatre, the Lake District, and shopping centres, where he could spend some of the £60-per-month allowance he received.[51] At the age of 16, he acquired a girlfriend, a fellow inmate who served time in the unit for one year.[49] Venables was taken on trips to Wales, swimming in Wigan, and once to watch a Manchester United football match at Old Trafford.[

This is from wikipedia, James's mum has been on and off the radio in Liverpool in her campain. His Dad was on recently about the two of them being took to James's grave with out thier permission.

If being stuck inside for 8 years was a pretty long time then im sorry they shouldn't of killed a baby.

I know but Venables just got put away again On 21 June 2010, Venables was charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children. It was alleged that he had downloaded 57 indecent images of children over a 12-month period to February 2010, and allowed other people to access the files through a peer-to-peer network. Venables faced two charges under the Protection of Children Act 1978.[93][94] On 23 July 2010, Venables appeared at a court hearing at the Old Bailey via a video link, visible only to the judge hearing the case.[95] He pleaded guilty to charges of downloading and distributing child pornography, and was given a sentence of two years' imprisonment.[96] At the court hearing, it emerged that Venables had posed in online chat rooms as 35-year-old Dawn "Dawnie" Smith, a married woman from Liverpool who boasted about abusing her 8-year-old daughter, in the hope of obtaining further child pornography. Venables had contacted his probation officer in February 2010, fearing that his new identity had been compromised at his place of work. When the officer arrived at his flat, Venables was attempting to remove or destroy the hard drive of his computer with a knife and a tin opener.[3] The officer's suspicions were aroused, and the computer was taken away for examination leading to the discovery of the child pornography, which included children as young as two being raped by adults[97][98] and penetrative sex with seven- or eight-year-olds.

The fact that he might be given another chance is just wrong! That is why i wouldn't want him living next to me with my child!!! He couldn't as they are both not allowed in Liverpool. I think that is more for there safety than ours as hopefully one day one of them might and someone will reconize them and do to them as they did to that poor baby.

 

[Tasha]

Wikipedia anyone can write on, some of my friends have added funny little bits to various pages. Despite that I will address what is written.

As I said education is a legal requirement in this country. One social worker said that he didnt show any remorse, yet surely a SW who goes to the media with that is an untrustworthy sorce given she is breaking confidentiality by doing so? The official report when parole came up said they did show remorse, I personally will believe psychiatrict reports over the hearsay of someone wanting to sell a story.

How did the people that wrote on Wiki find out about where they went and what they did? By fourteen I imagine they knew that in the not too distant future they would be released. When I said that being locked up for eight years and then just left to get on with it, I didnt mean it was a long time what or what ever I meant that as they knew they would be released preparation and rehabilition for that was important. Them being over-whelmed would of been worse for society.

How did James Dad find that out? As wrong as it is if they did, when you bury your child in a public place then there is always a chance of people you dont want going there, doing so. Since it was without their permission though, it seems cruel they were told and my bet is on the media telling him/them to get a story. Of course they would never make that up, considering they arent allowed in Liverpool which I imagine is where James is buried.

You say 'The fact that he might be given another chance is just wrong!' But it seems with Thompson that he has not gone on to commit further crimes, no one ever focuses on that instead using Venables as a reason they shouldnt, what about flipping it over and using Thompson as a reason they should?

The last line, well I can never understand that line of thought. Either it is wrong to torture and murder someone or it isnt. Revenge isnt a good enough reason to do the same IMO.

 

[LoraLoo]

Tasha, I think Kelsey works with someone that worked with Venables, I remember her saying he showed no remorse.

 

[LoraLoo]

I think if they hadn't had such luxuaries and priviledges, people wouldn't be (quite) as angry. Thats what angers people, they did such a shocking, appauling crime and got given trips out to football matches etc, that isnt rehabilitation to me, thats reward.

 

[KAT1984]

Wikipedia anyone can write on, some of my friends have added funny little bits to various pages. Despite that I will address what is written.

As I said education is a legal requirement in this country. One social worker said that he didnt show any remorse, yet surely a SW who goes to the media with that is an untrustworthy sorce given she is breaking confidentiality by doing so? The official report when parole came up said they did show remorse, I personally will believe psychiatrict reports over the hearsay of someone wanting to sell a story.

How did the people that wrote on Wiki find out about where they went and what they did? By fourteen I imagine they knew that in the not too distant future they would be released. When I said that being locked up for eight years and then just left to get on with it, I didnt mean it was a long time what or what ever I meant that as they knew they would be released preparation and rehabilition for that was important. Them being over-whelmed would of been worse for society.

How did James Dad find that out? As wrong as it is if they did, when you bury your child in a public place then there is always a chance of people you dont want going there, doing so. Since it was without their permission though, it seems cruel they were told and my bet is on the media telling him/them to get a story. Of course they would never make that up, considering they arent allowed in Liverpool which I imagine is where James is buried.

You say 'The fact that he might be given another chance is just wrong!' But it seems with Thompson that he has not gone on to commit further crimes, no one ever focuses on that instead using Venables as a reason they shouldnt, what about flipping it over and using Thompson as a reason they should?

The last line, well I can never understand that line of thought. Either it is wrong to torture and murder someone or it isnt. Revenge isnt a good enough reason to do the same IMO.[/QUOTE





You are entitled to your opinion just as i am entitled to mine. They committed a horrific attack on that innocent child and i put myself in James's parents shoes and i am on their side 100%.

They tortured that little boy i don't care where i heard it from be it the streets of Liverpool, the newspapers or the internet but since i was 7 years old i knew what they did was wrong i have never read what exactly they done to him as i can't i don't know if you have or not (maybe if you haven't then you should) as i don't know any Mother wouldn't want the people who done that to their child to be locked away for good.

I am not sure how James's dad found out about them visiting James's grave but they were took there when they were first released from the detention centre. I am guessing his Mom and Dad could not afford to bury him some where privately.

Yes it is wrong in my opinion James will never get another chance at life why should the ones who took him away?? You say Thompson has not gone on to commit further crimes and so on and maybe we should look at Venables in the same way, but he has gone on to commit another crime!! A crime involving children once again. So that would be another chance he might be given. He is in prison for revealing his identity and child pornography. In my opinion hurting a child in any way or form is lower than low hurting a child is hurting someone that cannot defend themselves.

To me and this is purely my opinion i respect that you cannot understand what i was saying a life for a life is not the answer. But in the case of a child a baby i don't care I am sorry but i don't. Paedophile’s and Child killers i tar them with the same brush what goes around comes around i hope they suffer the same way that poor baby did. If there is a hell then i hope it is waiting for them

 

[Tasha]

Tasha, I think Kelsey works with someone that worked with Venables, I remember her saying he showed no remorse.

Heresay though Lora. And like I said the public had made up their minds before it had even reached court, that will influence them and so many people, possibly including those that worked will them, will never believe they are capable of remorse.

How are they meant to show remorse on a day to day basis any way? I mean they couldnt show it on daily basis could they? I imagine the only people who know if they were truly remoresful are those involved in their mental health care.

Even if Venables wasnt, Thompson may of been.