Bulger killer Venables in 2 years for indecent images

[cringer]

Does that fit the crime?

What do you think he deserves?

[Milky Bar Kid]

Have they recalled his licence too? Meaning he will have two years on top of the rest of his other sentence or is it JUST two years?

[Bri w]

Have they recalled his licence too? Meaning he will have two years on top of the rest of his other sentence or is it JUST two years?

There's been no mentionof his licence having been recalled. Also, there was mention of other assaults at his place of work since being out on licence but he wasn't recalled for those either.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Maybe he's not on licence? I dunno, you would have thought it would have been recalled if he had one.

[Lozzo]

I think a 75p bullet to the back of his head would be the better option.

That would save us millions in future court cases and keeping the useless murdering paedophile piece of **** in prison for years

[gruntygiggles]

I think it's a ridiculous sentence. A convicted murderer with a track record of downloading indecent images of children amongst other things should not be given leniency IMO.

[TamSV]

He was on lifetime licence which was withdrawn a few months back following his arrest and he has been in jail since AFAIK.

This presumably means he stays locked up until the parole board decides he's safe to be released, so the 2 years is academic.

[MR UKI (1)]

He was on lifetime licence which was withdrawn a few months back following his arrest and he has been in jail since AFAIK.

This presumably means he stays locked up until the parole board decides he's safe to be released, so the 2 years is academic.

From the judge:

"But he stressed Venables would not be automatically freed after serving half of his jail term like any other prisoner and it would be for the Parole Board to determine when or if he would be released."

[alexh]

I think a 75p bullet to the back of his head would be the better option.

That would save us millions in future court cases and keeping the useless murdering paedophile piece of **** in prison for years

+1, Its a disgrace, People like this are of no value to society!

[Jabba]

post deleted by Jabba for fear of being misunderstood.

[Milky Bar Kid]

Despicable thing he (and his mate) did. They were very young and will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Consider this:

1. He was locked up during his formative teenage years
2. He probably didn't have much interaction with his age peer-group
3. He wouldn't have learned how to socialise more generally
4. He wasn't able to share the fact that he has a new identity with anyone
5. He would have found it very difficult to have normal close relationships
6. He lived in constant fear of his true identity being found out

Any wonder that he turned to alcohol and drugs when released and that he led a solitary existence?

The assault charge was never prosecuted as it couldn't be shown whether he was the aggressor or victim.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm certainly not condoning what he did and I'm not suggesting that his family, the family of Jamie Bulger or society more generally should forgive and forget. I'm suggesting that the situation should be given some thought before the "pitchfork and burn him" brigade start spouting forth. Some understanding as to why things have worked out this way for him might prevent it happening in other cases.

Ok, while you're at it, lets think about the poor kids that were in the indecent images and what they feel like, and how their lives might turn out now they have been abused/raped etc etc etc......

I get what you're saying but if he hadn't killed Jamie Bulger, he would never have been locked away. He chose his path, not society, and in my opinion, put in the most basic of terms, "you make your bed, you lie in it."

[MR UKI (1)]

Despicable thing he (and his mate) did. They were very young and will have to live with it for the rest of their lives.

Consider this:

1. He was locked up during his formative teenage years
2. He probably didn't have much interaction with his age peer-group
3. He wouldn't have learned how to socialise more generally
4. He wasn't able to share the fact that he has a new identity with anyone
5. He would have found it very difficult to have normal close relationships
6. He lived in constant fear of his true identity being found out

Any wonder that he turned to alcohol and drugs when released and that he led a solitary existence?

The assault charge was never prosecuted as it couldn't be shown whether he was the aggressor or victim.

Please don't misunderstand, I'm certainly not condoning what he did and I'm not suggesting that his family, the family of Jamie Bulger or society more generally should forgive and forget. I'm suggesting that the situation should be given some thought before the "pitchfork and burn him" brigade start spouting forth. Some understanding as to why things have worked out this way for him might prevent it happening in other cases.

+1, extremely difficult circumstances surround this whole case. For example, I was reading that as part of his license, it was a condition that he had to disclose his true identity and background to why he is on license to any girl he was looking to have a long term relationship with and Cheshire Police also provided counter-surveillance training to him for his own protection.

On the other hand however, the other lad doesn't appear to have been involved in anything further (not that I've seen reported in the news anyway) so is JV just beyond help?

[Stuuk1]

He should be sent to jail for the 2 years with a picture of him as a child with his original name and him name now.

Put it this way, he wouldn't be able to offend again if he made the 2 years...

[Tara]

Ok, while you're at it, lets think about the poor kids that were in the indecent images and what they feel like, and how their lives might turn out now they have been abused/raped etc etc etc......

I get what you're saying but if he hadn't killed Jamie Bulger, he would never have been locked away. He chose his path, not society, and in my opinion, put in the most basic of terms, "you make your bed, you lie in it."

I agree Nic he was reabiliated into society or so they say he was, after he left jail he got a new life and name it is up to him how he behaves.

the guy who led the investigation into James Bulgers murder said that out of the two of them he thought it would be Thompson that re-offends not Venables.

i think he should be locked up for longer

[cringer]

Lot of people think that these sort's are the victim's as they don't know any better bla bla bla.

Well all I have to say is;

If we had fit punishments for the crimes in this country maybe these sort might think twice.

[Jabba]

Hmmmm..... I got "quoted" despite deleting my post :rolleyes:

I agree Nic he was reabiliated into society or so they say he was....

I think this sums up what I think. The chances of him being successfully rehabilitated must have been slim given the age that he was locked up and the fact that the crime that he committed could be weighing heavily on him. Maybe they got the decision to release him wrong?

[Jabba]

Lot of people think that these sort's are the victim's as they don't know any better bla bla bla.

If that's aimed at me then please re-read what I wrote. Thanks.

[Biker Biggles]

Lots of good sense.

Misunderstood or not cheers for a bit of balance on a subject with far too many knee jerks and hype.

[Jabba]

One more thing then I'll butt-out:

He chose his path, not society, and in my opinion, put in the most basic of terms, "you make your bed, you lie in it."

He was ten years old when he did what he did. Whilst it's true that most kids (and presumably him too) know right from wrong at that age, let's not forget that at that age he will have been under the heavy influence of his parents, other family adults and other things in his environment (computer games, videos, etc). What made him and his mate do what they did,? Probably things that they must have seen on a screen in one form or another.

Without good influences, he might not have understood was the seriousness of what he was doing. Even with good influences, he most certainly wouldn't have understood the consequences on him for the rest of his life. For this reason I can't agree with "you make your bed, you lie in it" applying to a ten year old with regard to something as serious as this.

Back in clink now, so no threat to anyone. Probably best for him and for society as a whole.

[yorkie_chris]

I think a 75p bullet to the back of his head would be the better option.

75p? You getting robbed!

[Milky Bar Kid]

One more thing then I'll butt-out:



He was ten years old when he did what he did. Whilst it's true that most kids (and presumably him too) know right from wrong at that age, let's not forget that at that age he will have been under the heavy influence of his parents, other family adults and other things in his environment (computer games, videos, etc). What made him and his mate do what they did,? Probably things that they must have seen on a screen in one form or another.

Without good influences, he might not have understood was the seriousness of what he was doing. Even with good influences, he most certainly wouldn't have understood the consequences on him for the rest of his life. For this reason I can't agree with "you make your bed, you lie in it" applying to a ten year old with regard to something as serious as this.

Back in clink now, so no threat to anyone. Probably best for him and for society as a whole.

I'm sorry but I think if we can blame social enviroment et al, then there would be many, many more instances of this kind of thing. Especially today as computer games and films and such like are much more common and MUCH more violent.

There are MILLIONS of kids growing up with terrible "influences" as parents, role models, computer games, friends etc and yet, how many similar crimes have we seen committed over the past ten years or so? Only one I can think of, and the boy didn't die and there was no suggestion of any sexual element to it, unlike this.

I don't believe that everyone who has ever committed a crime should be condemned, the opposite infact. However, sometimes, the risk to the public completely outweighs the benefit one person will experience.

Venables tortured and killed a 2 year old boy. 2 years old. And all he served was 8 years. I don't care whether he was 10, 20, 40 or 133, 8 years was not a sufficient sentence for the kidnap, torture and murder of a 2 year old boy.

It has now been shown that Venables will never be safe. He is a dangerous individual who will always pray on the innocent. He had his second chance. He has blown it. And in my opinion, the rape and sexual abuse of children is as one of the most henious crimes known to man. Those children will live with that for the REST of their lives whilst he gets to swan about with his secret identity provided for him by us. Our money. Billions of it.

I also think that he shouldn't be allowed his anonymity now. Had he kept to his side of the bargain when he was released, maybe. Not now. If any of us committed any crime like that then our names would be plastered all over the paper. Why should he be any different?

Don't give me the "it's not safe for him" chat either because any person who is named as having child porn on their PC etc is also in grave danger. So either everyone convicted of a crime like that is allowed a new secret identity or no one is.

[yorkie_chris]

Can anyone give good reason for him to be alive?

If he was looking intently at your kids, you'd blow his head off without a second thought. F***ing whinging "their poor human rights" brigade don't mind someone else getting the sh*tty end of the deal when they're a hundred miles away.

[metalangel]

I agree with MBK... a second chance was given and wasted. Time for the firing squad.

[Lozzo]

75p? You getting robbed!

It was a guess based on the last time I was told the costs of small arms ammunition, which was sometime in the late 1980s - I allowed for inflation etc, but obviously got it wrong.

[yorkie_chris]

Shotgun rounds are about 14p and one of those would do the trick humanely.

If this dude was a rabid dog, you'd do the same.

[Lozzo]

It'd have to be a proper bullet to the back of the head, shotguns are too unskilled and messy

[yorkie_chris]

You seen pulp fiction :smt082... it will be a black bag and a shovel job either way

[jimmy4237]

personally I think he should be publically stripped of his new identity,castrated (with no anesthetic), then allow the public armed with baseball bats to beat the hell out him, and dump him in a locked padded cell with no windows or lights for the rest of his low miserable life. No parole, no gyms, no tv, no interaction with anybody else bar a guard giving him bread and water once a day.....

Anybody who has the nerve to kill a wee kiddie, then have a hoard of child abuse on his personal PC deserves to recieve the worst..

[yorkie_chris]

What's the point of that? Two wongs don't make a white.

Simple straightforward execution, it's cheap, it works, it's humane.

[jimmy4237]

What's the point of that? Two wongs don't make a white.

Simple straightforward execution, it's cheap, it works, it's humane.

I agree with what you're saying - the chinese don't mess about, and they'd shoot the bulger killer 1st, then ask questions later...

But do my suggestion 1st for the 1st 5-8 years simply to drive him stone mad nuts (break his mind), then drag him out of the padded cell in chains, and shoot him in the back of the head. Unmarked grave or cremation...
Chinese style.....

It would make anybody think twice about doing anything heinous..

[yorkie_chris]

I don't think it would help. These nonces are not rational people who will see the risk of that.

[cringer]

Let the family choose the punishment. An eye for an eye. In this case 17 years ago the opportunity was wasted. Although if I remember rightly the human rights brigade were even worse in the 90.s than they are now!

These ****s levy more right's for the criminal than the victims and there families.

Hang a couple of the ****,s and I'm fairly confident in general these crimes would reduce by a percentage. The moral of this punishment would be offset by the amount of innocents saved I think.

[Ch00]

Had he served longer (or still be) in prison the 1st time around then he would not have be able to commit further crime.