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?

a) He's legally entitled isn't he?
b) No
c) No