Indeed. That good that it merited an extra S......

Thought it may have been part of a special congratulatory feast after you and the posse had meted out some summary justice to them childkilling children?

How about we show the same compassion to the racist woman on the tram in Croydon? Or more importantly, the child that was with her.

Is she worse than someone who deliberately killed a 2 year old child?

She probably needs her methadone hit increasing?

Is her Addiction due to an abusive childhood then?

No, but I do partially blame that on her life of prostitution.

How unempathetic of you. Maybe if she murdered a two year old with a friend, she'd be worthy of your empathy?

No, but if arrested and convicted I would hopefully be satisfied that our legal process would serve it's due purpose.
How's about you?

Indeed.

Common sense?
The thread is about vigilantism and you are waffling about people's daughters hooking up with Venables.
I think the excitable one is you.

The "dessert" you mention is preferable to your Smörgåsbord of irrelevance.

You have completely ignored what I wrote. All that you say above was considered and the case against them was made that they a) knew what they were doing i.e. deliberately led the victim away to be killed with that act in mind and b) knew what they were doing was wrong. How old they were doesn't alter that is what the case was built on.



What crimes did Bin Lid commit that you are a victim of? Taking on the role of "proxy victim" doesn't count and in any case you can't even say he was responsible for (say) the deaths of British Soldiers in Afghanistan (that would be the Afghan Taliban and Bin Lid was holed up in Pakistan). Just what did he do that directly affected you personally?



The taking out of an offender is unrelated to a topic about vigilantism? Really?

The question was put. Yes, you would be happy to see one of your daughters with Venables, or having him as a neighbour, or no you would not.

A simple reply, from a simple man like yourself would suffice.

Kudos for spelling smorgasbord though.

A slight thread drift, or at least a change of tack.

The point has been raised on this thread, if Venables starts dating, and moves on to perhaps a possible long term relationship, should the partner of his choice be kept in ignorance of who he really is, and is it reasonable that they should live their life with him based on official lies as to his identity?

How would they feel if, say in 10 years, they found out the truth?

The question is relevant because in the news today is the inquiry about a situation where just this actually happened, except the official fake identity was that of a police officer who infiltrated an activist group.
Reporthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21629991rl

Reading the harrowing accounts of how learning the truth affected the women concerned, the years of their life which they can't replace that they had 'wasted' by putting their energies into a realtionship with someone who wasn't who they thought he was, where is the balance of fairness? Would it have somehow made it OK, as long as the women had never found out the truth? Or is there a difference between the state providing fake identities for officers, as opposed to for offenders?

I think there is a difference as police officers will always assume this identity temporarily whereas an offender would have to 'become' that new identity.

Still a very difficult one though

I'd think from the womans point of view, 'temporarily' would be worse than 'permanently'