Read the forum code of contact
By: 4th March 2010 at 09:45 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I strongly hold the view that he and Thompson should have been quietly put to sleep at the end of their trial and their families imprisoned for what they did or failed to do that resulted in the horror that little Jamie suffered.
Instead of which they are let out after a few years and given nice new homes for the extended family and presumably a lifetime income.
One set moved to Hockwold cum Wilton, a few miles from me in Norfolk. Needless to say one of the hangers-on blabbed in the local pub and the massively extended home they had been given became the target for nightime shotgun practice.
They have moved on since, by all accounts to Mandurah, on the outskirts of Perth WA.
Moggy
By: 4th March 2010 at 10:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Don't get me started!
I think the people who fight so hard to get these monsters released should also be accountable. If they re-offend with murder, the do-gooders serve the same sentence as the murderer.
Baz
By: 4th March 2010 at 10:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Whatever some people think should have happened to the two boys is irrelevant. The point is that it is quite clear that no further information will be forthcoming because Venables is likely to be prosecuted for a crime or crimes. Therefore everyone, including the Bulger family, is going to have to wait for that to happen and any amount of tabloid ranting or worse, ranting from disinterested individuals will not change the situation.
The crimes were heinous, of that there is no argument, and one of the murderers has probably re-offended and will pay the price. Before anticipating what might happen, let's wait and see.
By: 4th March 2010 at 10:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Pay the price? Like he did the first time around? That is actually quite funny. He can now look forward to another change of identity and another fresh start. You know, he could make quite a career of this.
Regards,
kev35
By: 4th March 2010 at 11:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-His fresh start back in prison, you mean?
By: 4th March 2010 at 11:11 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I think Kev means the fresh start after another paltry period of custody
By: 4th March 2010 at 11:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Maybe - but let's wait and see. I appreciate that it is a topic which gets the blood behind the eyes.
By: 4th March 2010 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-His fresh start back in prison, you mean?
He's never been in prison.:mad:
By: 4th March 2010 at 14:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Where was he detained, then?
By: 4th March 2010 at 15:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A 'Young Offenders Institution' was what I heard
Moggy
By: 4th March 2010 at 15:35 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-A wooden box six feet under may have been a more appropriate place
By: 4th March 2010 at 15:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Well the truth is none of actually knows. And no doubt they would have been moved from one sort of custody to another as they grew older. Either way, whoever claimed Venables had never been in prison, is splitting hairs. They were locked up somewhere prior to parole.
By: 4th March 2010 at 15:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'll put it another way, the Prison he's in now will be a lot different from
the lock up hotel that he was in before:D
By: 5th March 2010 at 00:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Funny how he get's more protection from violence then he gave Jamie Bulger.
One bullet then solves worrying about what Venables has done now.
By: 5th March 2010 at 01:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-This case showed for all what a mockery the so called justice system of the UK has become. Brings 'A Clockwork Orange' to mind. Looks like Kubrick wasn't too far off with his prediction of UK society. A sad state of affairs and it's getting worse I am afraid.
By: 5th March 2010 at 08:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Brings 'A Clockwork Orange' to mind. Looks like Kubrick wasn't too far off with his prediction of UK society.
I'm sure you actually meant Anthony Burgess?
Moggy
By: 5th March 2010 at 11:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-I'm not in any way trying to excuse what they did,but you have to remember that when they murdered that poor little boy they were ten year old children.
Do people honestly think that it's right to execute a child ?
Moggy,I take your point that the parents should have been in some way accountable,but in practice it's pretty hard to make sure that your child lives up to the way you want them to behave.
By: 5th March 2010 at 12:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-
Do people honestly think that it's right to execute a child ?
Venables and Thompson did.
Regards,
kev35
By: 5th March 2010 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Being a child does not excuse someone from torturing and killing another person, regardless of their age. At Age 10 you know, instinctively, that killing is wrong. You even know that hitting another person is wrong.
Putting a child to death for murder is a little over the top in my opinion, as is executing anyone for that matter. Sometimes I do wish the crimes of the murder could be put upon them. So if a murderer subjects his/her victim to a torturous death, they'll be in for the same treatment if convicted.
However, that is not in the slightest bit civilised.
A more civilised response, in my opinion is this:
Causing the death of someone by your direct actions should mean you forfeit your life by way of spending the rest of it behind bars. The only way you get out of prison is by your own death. And even then you should be buried, unmarked, in the prison cemetery.
Venables and Thompson should never have been let free, let alone so soon after their horrific act of calculated cruelty. Did the pen pushers who made the decision really think that such evil children would grow into responsible members of society?
By: 5th March 2010 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
-Venables and Thompson did.Regards,
kev35
And we regard them as the epitome of evil. What does that make those advocating state sponsored murder of children?
Posts: 2,820
By: BSG-75 - 4th March 2010 at 09:39
One of the killers of Jamie Bulger was returned to prison recently, and there has been a fair amount of press coverage.
There have been calls for details of why he was returned to be made public, saying that as an adult, it should be in the public domain.
This is a very emotive issue and to me, strays straight away into the justice/revenge debate, so are there any strong views on this from the forum.