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?

Mintball wrote:
On Venables....

He was nine when the murder was committed.


Thomson and Venables were both 10 when the murder was committed and 11 when they were tried. Tried, incidentally (and shamefully), as adults in an adult court.

At what point do you draw the line where do they become culpable, the abuse they suffered as children is not an explanation.

I have had a couple of cases recently which illustrate the pointlessness of your argument.

3 children growing up in a house full of Domestic violence. The best example is the dad who poured petrol on the the family cat and then set it on fire in front of the kids to scare and intimidate the family.
The eldest is 4 . When in foster care he tried to drown his sister aged 3 in the bath. Should he have been prosecuted for attempted murder . Is his abuse not an explanation

3 children aged 7, 4 and 3. Living with a nutter ( my term rather than the PC version) who is mad on the military, martial arts etc. Brought his kids up to be tough. wants to go and live in America so he can get guns and live in a log cabin waiting for armageddon.

Kids in foster care now BUT are so violent towards each other they can NEVER live together or with other children, they have big problems at school fighting etc. The 3 year old has been assessed by child psychologist as having NO internal controls on his behaviour and an inability to respond to external controls. Are they to be prosecuted for what they have done is there abuse an explanation.

In response to your comment about not every child who is abused goes on to abuse you are right. BUt reserach does show that of adults who have gone on to abuse children ( sexually) 50% were abused as children and 50% were not. It does however raise the issue of what else went on in their childhoods. It is not a justification but it is an explanaition of why things go wrong with kids.


Just out of interest a squaddie who comes back from Afghanistan suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome ( PTSD)and commits an offence is his PTSD and army experiences an explanation or a mitigation

I've never understood this. Would accommodating a penis suddenly change a person's outlook on such matters? Does your outlook change in degrees according to the amount or size of the penis? I think we need to know.

I enquired about certain other delicate issues relating to this episode yesterday.
I believe they were removed from public consumption.

Few years ago, i wasn't sure where i stood on this issue.

Where they old enough to truly realise, was the punishment sufficient, was the pure hatred towards them justified? I was completely on the fence as i weighed things up. The fact is i didn't know what the justice system knew about them or their team of shrinks so just took for granted they knew best.

I think giving them new identities was the correct thing to do unfortunately because of the lesser class societies thirst for vengeance.
I also think that given their second chance that Venables should now be locked up until deemed fit for release and that Thompson should be left alone to live his life, a punishment was given and whether we agree or not it was served.

An interesting aside, has anyone seen a film called 'Boy A', it's very loosely based on this case in that two boys commit murder and it deals with the reintroduction of one of the boys back in to mainstream society.
It made me think long and hard on the Bulger case and probably changed my outlook on it.