Fergus is a Scouser, their idea of justice is 'get what I want, screw everybody else'

Harsh!
Have you ever been the parent of a murdered child.
Are you talking from experience?

If you wish.

Thanks for your reasoned response...

So you would allow somebody that was abused as a child, who has inherited that trait and abused another child, to have children?

I'm not saying not to, I'm just interested. I don't think the authorities can just allow it to happen. I think he would have to be profiled and monitored, in which case, how do you keep it quiet from his partner?

What if said partner/prospective partner has a child?

Should they not have the right to make the decision whether or not to trust him with that child, or at least the decision of when?

It is harsh, and I cant say anyone of us would really know how we would react in a similar situation and Im sure we all sympathise with her.

But from what I have heard her say, and what James’ father has said as well, they both seem completely consumed by bitterness and vengeance.

A bit harsh on her, I agree, after all we can only imagine the pain she has endured. On a broader note, my in-laws live in Liverpool and the one thing I have noticed over the 36 years I have been visiting on a regular basis is that Scousers are very good at playing the 'victim', if you hurt one, you hurt them all. I have heard some of them discussing the Bulger case and referring to Denise this, Denise that and when asked if they knew her the answer is usually 'no', but they feel a deep connection because of their 'Scouseness'

I don't think revealing identities of these scumbags will do anyone any good, if someone ends up killing him then they will end up in the slammer for a long one, which is not worth it.

With regards to him being in the nick for his child porn activity and applying for parole, I would have thought that he would have ended up doing a lot more time for breaching his licence (which I would assume is for life), he clearly has not learned anything (system failure maybe, they have had him since he was 10) while behind bars, which might lean towards the thought that he is not reformable and should never be let out.

Don't say that, you'll be labelled all sorts of evil, and bitter

It seems that those with the decision making powers regard his rights to anonymity superior to those of any child he may be in contact with.

They're a very insular bunch, that's how i'd describe it. Remember Ken Bigley, Boris Johnson's 'self-pity' apology, Michael Shields, the 2 footballing disasters...

Relationships - no problem as long as they were legal ones.

Partner knowing who he is? I'd emphatically say that at some point he would have to come clean. Otherwise the whole relationship would be built on a mammoth lie.

Genetic? That's a difficult one. The first reaction is just "Nah!" but I think it can't be as simple as that. Just as a starting comment, given his subsequent conviction under his new ID, it seems clear Venables has a predilection for young children. We all find certain people sexually attractive and I do reckon that that's largely genetic; for example, it's at least about 50% genetic as most people are either gay or straight, and nobody (well, not nobody, but you know what I mean) would argue that they made a choice of sexuality.

Venables obviously found some attraction in the sight of the young James Bulger that spurred him to do what he did, so were those feeling essentially genetic, or learned? Maybe paedophile tendencies are indeed part of his genetic makeup. I suggest that if attraction to young children was something he had somehow earned, which could therefore be unlearned, then he wouldn't have been sentenced to 2 years in chokey for having what must have been some pretty vile films and images. This was at the age of 27. Given the millions spent on him since he was a young offender, and given the strenuous efforts that must undoubtedly have been made to re-educate and rehabilitate him away from a predilection for young children, maybe the fact that it plainly had no effect does support the view that he's just like that?

If any child abuser in the country should have been "cured" of their abusive feelings and inclinations, it would surely be Venables, and yet he plainly wasn't. I tend to the conclusion that he is genetically that way, and can't help himself.

He could, of course use his free will to choose to refrain from abusive behaviour, but that would just mean that he didn't do it - not that he didn't feel it. He would be a reformed abuser. I tend to the view that many notorious paedophiles will always be, genetically paedophiles, they will always find the thought of abusing young children attractive, and many go on to repeat offend. If one stops offending, I don't think, in most cases, that is because the feelings are likely to have stopped, and think this again supports the argument that they are just made that way. They will be paedophiles until they die. They may just choose to stop acting on those impulses. So maybe it is, basically, genetic?

I wasn’t leading anywhere with that question, it was an honest question I don’t know the answer to. It is very very difficult.

At what stage is he supposed to say this? How much would he be obliged to say? Can we blame him if this person then goes out and tells the world who he is? Who would he have to tell? Just his partner? His mates who would worry about leaving a kid with close friends whilst you nipped to the shops? How would we even know this person had been told?

Isn't that what being a parent is all about, making decisions, and having the ability who to trust around them?
There isn't a text book incidentally.
It's called life.
There'll be all sorts of good and bad decisions being made this very moment as I type..

Undoubtedly true. But if he didn’t have to tell, and were to then go on to do the unthinkable. Wouldn’t there being some blame for not giving that parent the full information on which to base their decision?