Jon Venables and the ugly vigilante mob

Quote: Ferocious Aardvark "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.'"

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

RLFANS.COM MERCHANDISE

RLFANS.COM SPONSORS & HELP