Latest
  • Welcome!

    We're a UK based community of cult entertainment fans - so whether you're into WWE, Marvel, DC, Game of Thrones, Walking Dead, Star Wars, Doctor Who, Star Trek and more - join us!

    It's free to register, so why not sign up and discuss whatever you're into...

Jon Venables back in prison

Status
Not open for further replies.

JC

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,548
Points
48
Bulger killer 'where he belongs'
The mother of murdered toddler James Bulger has said killer Jon Venables is "where he belongs behind bars".

In her first reaction to his return to custody, Denise Fergus also said on Twitter, "is this my [son's justice?]".

Venables, 27, was recalled to prison last week after breaching the terms of his release. He and Robert Thompson killed James on Merseyside in 1993.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said he could not give details of why Venables was back in custody.

Venables' solicitor at the time of the trial told the BBC he would be surprised if he had contacted Thomson or returned to Merseyside.

Two-year-old James was abducted by Venables and Thompson while at the Strand shopping centre in Bootle.

His battered body was found by children playing on a freight railway line more than two miles from the shopping centre, and 200 yards from Walton Lane police station in Liverpool.

Family members said Mrs Fergus remained unaware of the nature of Venables' breach. The precise details were not released by the Ministry of Justice.

Both Thompson and Venables were given new identities when they were released. An order prohibiting the publication of details which could reveal their whereabouts has since remained in place.

Speaking on the BBC News Channel on Wednesday morning, Home Secretary Alan Johnson declined to reveal the reasons behind Venables' recall to custody.

ANALYSIS
Dominic Casciani, BBC News When Jon Venables walked out of prison in 2001, it was not as a free man. His release came because the Parole Board decided the public would be safe if he were allowed into the community on a licence that includes strict conditions.
A criminal's recall to prison is triggered by one of three circumstances. He either committed a crime, showed the signs that he was about to, or breached specific conditions imposed. Breaches can be technical, such as being out of the home at the exact start of a curfew, or far more serious, such as contacting a victim's family.

Venables will be told why he is back inside and he can seek a full oral hearing before the Parole Board. But with public protection being the top priority, the panel will start with the case for keeping him inside, rather than the argument for letting him out.

"You know I cannot say anything more than confirm the fact that Jon Venables is back in custody," he said.

"I talked to Jack Straw earlier on today, the Justice Secretary, and of course we understand that the public want to know more about this.

"At this stage I'm afraid I can't say anything more. There is a worldwide injunction on Jon Venables in relation to his new identity.

"There is also a process to be gone through. So at this stage I cannot say anything more than you already know. Which is to confirm the fact that he is back in custody.

"I would expect more information to be available at some stage."

He added that it was very important that the licence conditions were observed very closely, and if breached that Jon Venables was brought back into custody.

"The reason why this has emerged is we had to make sure the family knew before it was public knowledge.

"Similarly, anything else that emerges in this case should emerge to the family before it emerges to the wider public."

Harry Fletcher, assistant general secretary of Napo, the probation union, said Venables could have been recalled to custody under two procedures.

It could be an emergency procedure in which he would have to be charged with a serious offence, or a standard incident, perhaps involving a technicality such as a failure to keep appointments with a probation officer, Mr Fletcher said.

In an interview on BBC Radio Merseyside, Venables' solicitor at the trial, Laurence Lee, said it was a "bit early to condemn him completely until we know what he has done".

He added: "If he went to Merseyside when he shouldn't have done or if he contacted Thomson, goodness knows why he should, going by the hatred that developed on the part of Venables towards him, I'd be surprised.

"But if it's a breach of a condition not to go somewhere or not to speak to somebody or not to carry out certain meetings, that kind of thing, then it should be a minor breach and presumably he wouldn't be in custody for long."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/merseyside/8546834.stm

Published: 2010/03/03 10:49:13 GMT

© BBC MMX
I'm surprised nobody else is talking about this given how outraged the public were and still are that this monster along with his mate (children or not) being given release in the first place.

Having now returned to jail surely that must be him locked up for good? I say that in hope rather than in touch with reality, with our justice system currently, for example, only giving men who abuse children violently, a maximum of six years etc.
 

MastersGonads

New Member
Messages
5,247
Points
0
I'm intrigued to find out what the breach of license was, although as I read somewhere it must have been quite a serious misdemenour as there is a good chance is true identity will become apparent in prison, and why after spending years and alot fo money on giving him a new identity would they risk that....

Also as commentated on, of the two boys, it was always considered to be Thompson (who was the lead transgressor) that was thought would have reoffended, if this is the case...
 

Paul

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,528
Points
113
I did hear a rumour that it had something to do with drugs. Obviously could be utter crap mind.
 

WAYNE

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,628
Points
63
There are loads of rumours from drugs to contacting the other bloke to even trying to contact the mother to the victim.
 

Paul

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,528
Points
113
I heard those too, but considering last year there were reports that he was being probided with methadone I went with what I thought was the most likely.
 

Omega

Global Modd
Subscriber
Messages
17,043
Points
83
It's only being publicised because there was already a leak on his return to prison. He could already be back inside by now and it is only being mentioned to prevent something more explicit being published which would "ruin" his new persona.

Anyway, no sympathy either way.
 

The Beltster

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,370
Points
113
Those two little c*nts shouldnt have ever been released in the first place, let alone a measly 8 years after they battered that little boy.
 

Fiona

New Member
Messages
7,556
Points
0
I have to agree with Belty. Neither of them should ever have been let out of jail after killing that 2 year old. Pair of b*stards. And as for his new identity, I don't have any idea why he even has one. He gets all kinds of protections, while the little boy he killed got none. Something wrong with that statement.
 

etz

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,342
Points
48
They all came into the cell 2 by 2, hurrah hurrah
They all came into the cell 2 by 2, hurrah hurrah
The criminals came into the cell and did together what they do so well
and they all came into the cell, all to beat out his brain.

If there's any justice, at least...
 

Saz

New Member
Messages
10,781
Points
0
Allegedly he had a fight at work.

Unfortunately, once a sentence has been served, everyone has the right to live their life in peace.

Not that I am defending what was done, but if any of you made a mistake that put you in prison, would you want a baying mob ready to brand their own sense of justice on you after you left prison?

The big part of Policework is crime prevention, assaulting and perhaps murdering a person who has served their time generally tends to be a crime, so to protect the public from themselves the accused are given a new identity.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for them, or against them, just explaining the logic behind our law.
 
Last edited:

JC

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,548
Points
48
Allegedly he had a fight at work.

Unfortunately, once a sentence has been served, everyone has the right to live their life in peace.

Not that I am defending what was done, but if any of you made a mistake that put you in prison, would you want a baying mob ready to brand their own sense of justice on you after you left prison?

The big part of Policework is crime prevention, assaulting and perhaps murdering a person who has served their time generally tends to be a crime, so to protect the public from themselves the accused are given a new identity.

Like I said, I'm not arguing for them, or against them, just explaining the logic behind our law.
It is understandable when written down on paper but the fact is, those boys did something completely inhuman. I mean it was a two year old!

Justice was not done.

Either they should have been locked up for life (preferably their parents aswell for raising kids like that) or they should be booted out into the big bad world with no new identity and the police can turn a blind eye to the treatment they will receive.
 

Saz

New Member
Messages
10,781
Points
0
As I said, I am not arguing the principles behind it, just explaining how the law interprets rehabilitation.

I think I made that point quite succinct in the part you highlighted.
 

JC

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,548
Points
48
And I was just commenting on it..

Never said anything about your stance.
 

etz

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,342
Points
48
As I said, I am not arguing the principles behind it, just explaining how the law interprets rehabilitation.

I think I made that point quite succinct in the part you highlighted.
And that is the problem. You cannot rehabilitate someone who kills another person, unless they have been driven to it in the most extreme circumstances. Once you have crossed that boundry, it's much easier to do again. Let alone what they did to that little boy.

Frankly, re-offence rates show rehabilitation for the bullshit it is. And those are just the ones who didn't spend their first stay in prison learning how to not get caught again...


Justice for murder is life imprisonment. That means you leave in a body bag, as a corpse. After all, that's how long you took from your victim.
 
Last edited:

JC

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,548
Points
48
And that is the problem. You cannot rehabilitate someone who kills another person, unless they have been driven to it in the most extreme circumstances. Once you have crossed that boundry, it's much easier to do again. Let alone what they did to that little boy.

Frankly, re-offence rates show rehabilitation for the bullshit it is. And those are just the ones who didn't spend their first stay in prison learning how to not get caught again...


Justice for murder is life imprisonment. That means you leave in a body bag, as a corpse. After all, that's how long you took from your victim.
I just don't understand how the parents of both boys never got done. They got bloody moved and got new identities also from what I read.

I'm not a believer like some christians that people are born evil or any bollocks like that and so I can only see certain avenues to why these two ten year olds could possibly fathom doing that to a two year old.

There's nothing to explain what they did. They were purposefully trying to abduct small toddlers even before Bulger and I just can't help but think one of the two set of parents is to blame for their thinking or common sense on what is right and wrong.

Ten years old is an age for naivety without question but not to the level were you think abducting, torturing and killing someone (toddler or not) is in any way normal behaviour.

The fact the police always said Thompson in particular, never showed any remorse what they had done, to me is chilling and again why the parents surely should hold some responsibility.
 

Paul

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,528
Points
113
I'm not a believer like some christians that people are born evil or any bollocks like that.
Oh some are, some people are very much evil regardless of how they were brought up. Not often obviously, and I doubt in this case, but yeah it happens.

edit: I should also add that I am adding many mental illness's in with the 'evil' comment. Is being a sociapth evil?
 
Last edited:

JC

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,548
Points
48
Oh some are, some people are very much evil regardless of how they were brought up. Not often obviously, and I doubt in this case, but yeah it happens.

edit: I should also add that I am adding many mental illness's in with the 'evil' comment. Is being a sociapth evil?
For example?

I'm not purposefully doubting you or anything I just don't see how it works.

A child might be aggressive naturally or whatever but how does a child just get born..evil?

I don't think Hitler would have the stomach for what they did to Bulger!

EDIT: Only seen your added bit there.

I believe that no one is born evil and that whether it is bad parenting or mental problems like you mentioned, there's nearly always a reason.
 

Paul

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,528
Points
113
Like I said in the edit, its down to what you define as evil. Is a sociapth evil? I was lumping them in there as evil despite the argument that they cant be evil as they are ill. If you dont accept sociapaths as evil then does evil even exist?


Oooh, lets not get going down that road. :lol:
 

JC

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,548
Points
48
I apologise then because I should have just said that I don't believe in 'evil' from the start.

I believe in actions by humans you might describe as 'evil' but I don't believe there is something unexplainable with this idea of 'evil.'
 

etz

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,342
Points
48
Some people are born wrong. Usually (in fact, almost always), it's a mental illness, and no amount of nuture can change their fundamental flaws. What it can do, is teach them to behave more normally and resist their impulses. Impulses and desires do not have to be acted on, regardless of how strong they might be...

These people aren't evil, per se, until they put aside restraint and choose to give in to their impulses. There is always a choice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top