Venables

[Big J R]

No - Not the footy Terry - THE OTHER ONE !

 

I'm surprised no-one has raised the subject on here !

[Rhodes]

Big JR - Strangely enough I was going to last week however the topic is just too macabre for words, I can still see those 1994 images of Venables and his evil partner in crime Robert Thompson walking hand in hand with two year old James Bulger and leading the innocent little boy to his unimaginable death

[Rhodes]

Folks - I assume you have all read in disbelief about the astonishing comments made by Children's Commissioner Dr Margaret Atkinson where she described Jamie Bulger's killing as 'exceptionally unpleasant' however nevertheless Venables and his partner in crime Robert Thompson should not have been tried in an adult Court and the age of criminal responsibility should be raised to 12. Dr Atkinson clearly needs to be relieved of her £138k a year duties immediately for making such, as was rightly described by Jamie's Mother, insensitive and twisted comments. You have to tar her with exactly the same brush as Sharon Shoesmith following Baby P's death where she simply quoted statistics and then sued for wrongful dismissal, what is our once proud Country coming to when twisted people in senior positions can behave in this despicable fashion and get away with it.

[Loose]

Astonished? No. She's clearly not a politician and as prone to gaffes as anyone, certainly as prone as a politician caught with his pants down on Clapham Common. What you so easily overlook Cliffy (as usual in your uniquely bigoted manner) is that she hasn't been appointed to represent your view but that of 11 million children in England and I suspect she is just a wee bit more an expert than you. We don't even have a common age of "trial as an adult" in the UK, in Scotland it is 8 years old. Clearly the killing of James Bulger was abhorrent but are all children aged up to twelve years old committing crime as guilty of such abhorrent behaviour? I'd rather have Maggie Atkinson speaking up for children and not a politician and definitely not you Cliffy.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - I think that just about says it all, strangely enough I half expected you to come out of the woodwork following my post, I just had a gut feeling

[Loose]

Strangely enough your post was strange but no stranger than usual. Tatty bye Cliffy, do be a stranger, it must come naturally.

Edited March 17, 2010 by loose

[Rhodes]

Loosely - In all seriousness and putting our past differences behind us how, in God's name, can you possibly defend Dr Margaret Atkinson and her insensitive and twisted comments, those are not my words but the words of Jamie Bulger's Mother who's innocent little boy was led by the hand to his unimaginable death by pure evil Venables and Robert Thompson. It's very interesting that Dr Atkinson doesn't have children of her own and neither I believe does Sharon Shoesmith.

[Loose]

In all seriousness even though engaging with you is as rewarding as putting your savings in an Icelandic Bank, I'm not defending Maggie Atkinson's insensitive reference to the James Bulger case and I don't believe them to be twisted. "Twisted" would indicate a desire to cause harm in some way which I am sure you would like to promote. Maggie Atkinson does have every right and duty to open up the debate as it is inconsistent at best and I very much doubt that you'd be in any position to state at what age a child would even understand the process of an adult court. There is far too much emotive language like "evil" being spouted and of course that suits you down to the ground. Not sure what Sharon Shoesmith has got to do with the case or why you tying her to it could be accepted as any rational argument. What has having children got to do with anything? Some people call themselves parents and yet do little to parent their children or spend a lifetime in caring for them or devote their careers to the health, safety or development of them. Remind you of anyone? I recall a story of a bloke unusually given his kids to look after for the day and either taking them to a football match which they have no interest in and leaving them to roam without food or drink all day, or perhaps leaving them at an ice rink in the care of someone else while he spends the day surfing the internet and football forums in a cafe for hours on end.

 

Anyway Cliffy, nice chatting with you.

[Rhodes]

Loosely - Thanks for that post, thanks a lot, it has finally proved to members what sort of a person you really are. An innocent two year old boy was brutally murdered, albeit some 16 years ago, he would have been 18 now however the subject is still as sensitive as if it had happened yesterday. For Dr Margaret Atkinson, I can barely bring myself to type her name, to come out with the comments she did in the lofty position she holds as Children's Commissioner is beyond belief and she should be sacked immediately, that was my valid comparison with Sharon Shoesmith who was rightly relieved of her duties.

[Loose]

No, thank you Cliffy, thanks for showing everyone your debating style. I'm pretty certain that the only thing proved is your bigotry and lack of any understanding. Do let us all know when you've grown up. Meanwhile as ever, discussion with you remains as joyful as pouring lighter fluid on one's privates and setting fire to them. You have some experience of setting fire to things don't you?

[Rhodes]

Loosely - What if I sent a link of this thread to Jamie Bulger's Mother, I'm sure I can somehow locate her through e-mail, a 'Friends of Jamie' site or Facebook, then she can decide who is right. I know one thing for sure that she will tar you with exactly the same brush as Dr Atkinson who, thank God, will not be left alone now until she is forced to resign from her 138k a year job or is unceremoniously relieved of her duties, Sharon Shoesmith style.

[Loose]

By all means Cliffy, do point out to Denise - have you met her? - I can tell you that she's a lady with fortitude and dignity and to be admired, so much more than I can say of you, please remember me to her won't you - as I said, please do point out to her where I mentioned that the killing of James was abhorrent and that I did not defend Dr Margaret Atkinsons insensitivity but did not think her comments twisted. However do ask her which politician we should choose next as Children's Commissioner. I do seem to remember her lack of faith in politicians.

 

And then go and soak your head you silly and idiotic man.

Edited March 17, 2010 by loose

[Ian_W]

A quick question? (maybe controversial - but worth asking)

 

What has it to do with James Bulger's mother if Venables is back inside or not?

 

Venables did his time as set by the courts of this country. We cannot wind the clock back and alter the law of the land.

 

Of course it brings back bad memories for her, but that alone is not a sufficient reason to be informed of police matters that have no relation to a previous crime that she was victim to?

 

Venables still deserves a fair trial for whatever crime he is being charged with. Think of the outcry if he got off due to an unfair trial due to media or public intervention?

 

Your thoughts?........

[Loose]

Its got absolutely nothing to do with Denise Bulger Ian. Because the criminals rights to a voice and not the victim is what is important to our legal system and that in itself is a mockery. Denise Bulger of course has a right to be heard but only through the media and in the Courts of Human Emotion but it will have no legal bearing. It is way past time for victims to be represented in court and to have some bearing on sentencing in violent crimes or crimes against the person.

 

What some people fail to remember is that Venables is still under sentance and was only released under licence. That anyone under licence or parole is still serving a sentance and can be recalled if they break the terms of either.

 

Meanwhile though its an emotive subject that the less than firm of intelligence use to slur anyone who raises the debate.

[Big J R]

A quick question? (maybe controversial - but worth asking)

 

What has it to do with James Bulger's mother if Venables is back inside or not?

 

Venables did his time as set by the courts of this country. We cannot wind the clock back and alter the law of the land.

 

Of course it brings back bad memories for her, but that alone is not a sufficient reason to be informed of police matters that have no relation to a previous crime that she was victim to?

 

Venables still deserves a fair trial for whatever crime he is being charged with. Think of the outcry if he got off due to an unfair trial due to media or public intervention?

 

Your thoughts?........

 

 

Some interesting points, Ian.

 

HOWEVER............

 

Yes, Venables served his time'...... BUT........ if he is found guilty now, of any other offence, then he is in breach of licence and can be returned directly back to prison to serve a LIFE SENTENCE.

 

As far as Jamie's mother is concerned. YES she does have a vested interest in that the two killers were bound by licence NOT to visit Merseyside and it appears that Veneables has done so regularly. She has her family's personal safety at heart, and thereby would expect the authorities to deal accvordingly.

 

I'm sure this debate is going to rumble on and on, and I just hope that if there is a trial, and AFTER it has been completed, ALL the facts will be made known to the general public.

Edited March 18, 2010 by Big J R

[Rhodes]

I see that Margaret Atkinson has been forced to make an unreserved apology for 'the hurt caused by her comments about raising the age of criminal responsibility'. I gather Atkinson has sent a private letter to Denise Fergus (Jamie Bulger's Mother) however I still feel that she should resign or be relieved of her duties as her apology is very much after the horse has bolted, even Children's Secretary of State Ed Balls commented that he believes Dr Atkinson was right to apologise 'as her comments were unwise'.

[Rhodes]

I see that Jon Venables has been charged with downloading 57 vile child porn images and will appear at the Old Bailey next month to enter a plea to the charges. He faces a maximum ten years in jail if convicted of distributing child porn but will no doubt get off 'scot-free' like he did previously for the murder of Jamie Bulger.

[Big J R]

Normally, a breach of arole on a previous murder charge results in the life sentence being re-started.

 

I see he didn't get bail when he was first charged in February and at least we'll get a chance to see an up-dated photo at his courst appearance now that the High Court has lifted all reporting restrictions.

 

So much for aninimoty !

 

(Now where did I put my rope ????)

[Big J R]

So yesterday,the (ex) Mr Venables pleaded guilty to downloading child pornography and was sentenced to two years.

 

Theoretically, after time already served and with parole for good behaviour, he could be out on the streets again withing 12 months.

 

.............. and all this is after he has been issued a warning by his probatation officer for possesion of cocaine and receiving another warning for another 'minor-crime' , i.e. fighting whilst drunk whilst being out on licence.

 

Just Makes yer larf, dunnit ?

 

Would the last sensible law-abiding British citizen to leave the country please ensure the lights are switched off ???

 

 

Edited July 24, 2010 by Big J R