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?

Can't say I'm unhappy with this outcome: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urder.html

Can't say I'm unhappy with this outcome: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urder.html

At age 8, or whatever, he murdered James Bulger.

After everything done for him, at age 27 he is online chatting with paedophiles and downloading vile films and images and distributing them. And he knows the trouble he'll be in if caught, but arrogantly conceals his activity from those responsible for him (he was only caught when being rapidly moved, he was found trying to remove the hard drive with a knife and a can opener).

I would say that this means he is plainly unfit to be left alone with a young child. If he had a relationship, and they had a child, surely even the most liberal of folk would have to concede that a grave risk to that child from him must exist?

Is there anyone on this forum who would be cool with your own daughter having a baby with Venables and leaving him to babysit?

[iIf he didn't have to tell?[/i

How simplistic.

''Hello love'' (as he sidles over to the bar). Do you fancy a Babycham and a quick sh@g later? Bythe way, just to let you know if this turns out to be more than a one night stand, I murdered a young kid when I was ten and I've been convicted of downloading child porn...Go get your coat petal.''

Unfortunately, you would never know it was him, even if he did abuse them as he would be charged under his new identity. This is the problem, with allowing these types 100% anonymity. Perhaps the people in charge of these sicko's could just say 'look, I cannot say why, but keep clear of this bloke'

I was under the impression the age for criminal responsibility in England and Wales was 10

Exactly, therefore if he has the urge to procreate, it'll happen.
That's unless we have him constantly under surveillance by our secret services, ready to jump in whenever he gets a bulge in his kegs.

Are you surprised by this?