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.

Two photos appeared on my facebook last night. I don't know if they were legitimate or not (the alleged one of Robert Thomson bore the most similarity to that of the photograph of when he was 10). What if these two pictures were NOT of the adult Thomson and Venebals, if anybody sees the pictures and know who they are there could be serious trouble.

Should people really be spreading these pictures without any thought or is there just no reasoning with some people? There would probably be some who say 'it's their own fault for looking like them'.

Recently pictures have appeared on my Facebook feed of these two as they are now. Problem is I've seen two completely different people in photographs of venables.

Maybe these two didn't know or weren't fully aware of their acts all those years ago and maybe they deserve another chance but conversely I don't want them having that opportunity of a new life near me or anyone I know.

here he is again, school holidays and his social workers let this manc twaaaat loose on the internet yet again.when will they ever learn about giving idiots like him access to computers.

Bless.

In amongst this lake of crocodile tears, it is surprising to read that not one of our easily offended and concerned posters has stepped up, and boldly proclaimed that they would be happy to see either Venables, or Thomson standing on their doorsteps alongside one of their daughters.

And I'm sure that it is concern for future property values, nothing else, which prompts others to wave the NIMBY flag. No Really.

Ironic is it not, that it is only the much maligned Kirkstaller, who I suspect has the courage of his convictions (no pun intended), who would actually have no problem with having a neighbour like the child killer Venables, whose CV includes an arrest for affray after a drunken street fight ; was cautioned over possession of cocaine; convicted of distributing indecent 42 images in February 2008; convicted of distributing indecent photographs in February 2010; convicted of loading 57 pornographic pictures of children oto his computer between February 2009 and February 2010;
Was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years as a convicted paedophile, and is subject to a sexual offences prevention order for five years.
have been barred from working with children for life. (Thanks to FA for info)

As an agnostic myself, whilst I think he is wrong, I have to give credit to him for the strength of his Christian compassion, which contrasts sharply with the rank hypocricity displayed by the other Talking Heads.

Which means that vigilantism is fine, does it?