And I'm a big fan daniel of wishy washy self rightious leftie twats, who would rather a child killer got the same sentence as some frantic single mother who just happens to be trying to schedule her busy day whilst driving to pick up her kids from school.

Of course. Although what do you think the vigilantes are doing (or should be allowed to do) to 'protect' their kids? We have the law for that. I don't want to live in a country run by mob rule, where it's OK to beat up anyone suspected of being 'dodgy' or to torch their house.

The vigilanties and child abusers are probably one and the same. These thugs and their unstructured and unfettered violence are capable of hurting anyone.

At least we have a little in common.

Agree - which is why I said earlier I'd want to protect any kids of mine from them, and their way of thinking and 'solving' problems.

I think what the baying mob is saying, or me anyway as it seems I'm britains baying mob !! Is the laws an arse when it comes to protecting the identity of monsters like this, If. Say venables, wasn't given a new identity or a new name,  , then he would still be known as  john venables, and people would know who he was and where they stayed, which in turn would stop these stupid attacks and faceless facebook pages towards innocent people. If venables was then attacked..so be it, you reep what you sow, and in my eyes the blame for the attacks would be on  venables and the courts/ judicary sytem for allowing them out.



In short, rehabilitation rarely works.So either hang them or keep them locked up until they die, I prefer hanging as it would help Daniels tax returns.

But not of their ability to insult with panache, it seems. 

An insults an insult..Just because you may use a more round about way, the meanings are the same daniel. (edit insult)

Just a thought, but maybe if this had been handled differently by the authorities, ie...maybe keeping his identity secret still, but informing the Public of why he had been put back inside and how they were going to deal with it from the offset, the vigilantes wouldn't be baying for blood....IMO, it has been handled completely wrong.

They could've drip fed us the facts without revealing his identity, they could also have made it clear that he was in custody etc, etc....maybe this would've prevented an innocent being accused....

I caught a news item this morning which suggested the opposite. It stated that young offenders who worked in the community had a better chance of being readmitted into society than those who were imprisoned. I'm not suggesting that Venables and Thompson should paint our Mum's fences, they were a one-offf, but you get the idea.

You'd have hanged two 10-year-olds?
And this makes you better than them and more entitled to be part of a civilised society  HOW?

You'd fall foul of the very militant Painters and Decorators Union, you know, especially in a recession. No free labour even if it does punish without the pants option of prison. And they make the most fab placards and banners too! 

I partially agree with you DiD (Hi btw )
I think it was handled very badly by the authorities just like the furore (sp) over the identities of the Baby P killers. They must have been aware that the press knew about this, any of us could have predicted the tabloid line and what the response from the public would be.
IMO the Home Office should have come straight out and said something like 
"We have arrested the person formally known as Jon Venables, charged him with a crime and returned him to prison pending trial. We cannot reveal his identity at the moment or any details of the offence as it will prejudice a fair trial for this latest charge. If he is found not guilty by the courts then he will be returned to his new life and monitored as per his licence agreement without his id being compromised.
If however he is found guilty, we will revoke his licence, he will stay in prison and serve out whatever sentence is imposed for this new offence when a decision will be taken over the additional 'offence' of breaching his terms of licence"
Or Summat similiar.

By allowing the press to get in there first they have let them set the agenda

Hey Veggie

That is exactly the type of thing I mean, the authorities in the case have just fanned the flames....

For the simple fact I did not knowingly kidnap a two year old before subjecting him to the most painful and horrific death, I am also a believer that people are born with a bad gene, just like the gay gene (not that thats a bad thing before i get jumped on for that) so with that reasoning and with the further knowledge that venables still seems to be a threat then yes..I would have hung them.They could have their playstations and cotton wool pillows up until they were 18 though.

That still doesn't explain how such a mindset makes you more fit to be part of society than them. You'd still condemn two children to death. Until scientists positively identify this "bad gene" you're talking about, I'd say your "reasoning" is flawed and based more on bloodlust and vengefulness than logic.

No, I 'd say it's based on the fact they were guilty and that I prefer the death penalty for someone who kills or molests children..It really is that simple.The crime of abusing or killing children is taken far/far to lightly.

For one, if you abuse a child that child is likely to go onto abuse another child or become violent towards another person, so hang them stop the cycle.

By that 'logic', you should also hang the child who has been abused.
I believe the death penalty coarsens and de-sensitises to violence every society or person that has it or promotes it.
Nothing you've said has changed my mind - in fact, you've only strengthened my view. But we're not going to agree, so let's agree to differ?

Presumptuous as well as arrogant. Your statement "I think I`d be happier if the JB killers got their 8 years in prison and the public threw the book at people who do petty crime" Two of your examples being.. using a phone whilst driving and litter throwing. The connection and comparison baffled me, still does, even after reading your "reasoning." I have no argument against Venables and Thomson serving 8 years then released on licence. I agree with the reasoned opinions on here re that decision. Time will tell, in Venables case, if it was the correct one. I`m curious to know what sentences you would like to see given to those you want "the book thrown at" for the petty crimes you`ve detailed.

The connection is obviously vigilantism, the public outrage (in advance of the full details) over our justice system and its handling of this case, and the damage various crimes do to us all. I think the outrage is disproportionate and inappropriate, especially as this is an atypical case.  If people are outraged about our justice system enough to incite, or actually do vigilante action, or even just moan about how society is somehow fundamentally broken because of it then I think they've lost proportion.

You say you have no argument about the 8 years.  So that's not so astonishing what I wrote about that.  I have no real idea if that is an appropriate outcome for the case.  How could I?  I've just accepted that the professional people in possession of the facts decided that as they saw fit.

I'd rather that if some people can work themselves up enough to send emails and text messages across the internet/telephony network allegedly identifying the two men presumably in the hope that someone will administer some vigilante justice on them (or the unfortunates who might get caught up in it) then they could work up some outrage about the petty crime that plagues all of us.  Afterall, the impact of that is very broad and corrosive whereas the JB case is a very rare anomaly.

So, what do I mean by the courts throwing the book at petty criminals?  Well, driving whilst using a mobile phone should not be 3 points and £60 or whatever it is these days.  It should be akin to drink driving as far as sentencing is concerned.  Both should be treated as dangerous driving and intentional whether or not someone is involved in an accident.  Littering and graffiti?  28 hours community service for the first offence, clearing up litter or scrubbing off graffiti or tarting up the communal environment.  Of course, it's probably quite likely that many of the people having such outrage about infamous tabloid cases are guilty of these lesser but damaging things themselves.  Likely also, if my personal experience is anything to go by, to get very angry if their criminality is pointed out in the course of the conversation.

I agree with this - I've narrowly missed being knocked down on pedestrian crossings a few times in past year, each time by some idiot using their phone at the wheel.

Even you know thats not what I'm saying.


And I'm not trying to change your mind, unlike some I find everyones opinion counts.

Unfortunate for the next victim/s.

Daniel, you say in your experience, can I therefore ask what it is you do ?

That is what you said, though. You said:

"For one, if you abuse a child that child is likely to go onto abuse another child or become violent towards another person, so hang them stop the cycle."

Does this mean you also think those born with the "bad gene" then somehow pass it on to those they abuse, thus making them abusers too? So (by your own argument) they can be either born monsters, or tunred into monsters by others. Who are we supposed to be hanging again?

Ah, well. Maybe we should leave it there.

Yes thats what I said, but even you knwo that is NOT what I meant. You know fine well I meant hang the abusers and not the abused. Help the abused with care and nurture, teach them right from wrong, teach them how to break the cycle..If they then go onto abuse or kill, THEN hang them.Or chop of their testicles and keep them inside. (thats the person NOT the testicles, just incase you are really as ignorant as you are coming across)

.. and as soon as the insults start, that's my cue to ignore. Cheerio!

interesting discussion all round but am a tad confused now..

what if the abusers were once the abused [which I think has been stated here that that is often the case]. .which lot do we hang, if their abusers were also abused etc... how far back do we go with the hangings?

or maybe we look to deal with what we have now and try to help all, abusers, once abused, and new abused who may be potential abusers of the future? Some may not be able to be helped, those I think need to be kept out of society for their own and Society's sake.

** Goes to lie down**

Good, you understood that ok then.

Daniel J.......I have been reading back and noted your references to the French Revolution and the revolutionaries. You are very wrong in your assumptions there. Try and read on it before commmenting on it in an uniformed way....I reccommmend Simon Schama...you may reach enlightenment yourself.

Apparently the psychologist who supported Venables' release....said at the time that he posed a 'trivial threat' to the public.......??????

I don't know what reference Danjay made but if I wanted to study the French Revolution, the last author I would reach for is Simon Schama. He is to History what the Daily Mail is to this particular case. All description, no cause, and no belief in structural argument.

Absolutely....but he's very easy to read for a beginner

Like Wide Rangers?....

I`ll try and wade my way through this...bullet points only.

The connection of vigilantism in your comment was not obvious and still isnt. It doesn`t make sense to me.

Correct, I have no argument over their punishment and release. I, like you accepted what the powers that be decided but my "astonishment" was nothing to do with that as you well know. It was the connection and comparison which I`ve already said doesn`t make sense to me. It`s too disproportionate. Totally different subjects altogether. You obviously don`t think so, I do. There we will have to agree to disagree.

As far your sentencing for petty crimes goes, which wasn`t what I was talking about in the first place but I did ask the question after being drawn into it by your inability to accept my original post.  28 hours community service for the first offence. Seems a bit random to me. Why not 30?

Your view that the people who are outraged at these infamous tabloid cases are the same people who commit petty crimes is nothing other than pompous.

This is not the subject I came on here to talk but it`s been interesting to say the least. I`ll leave it there. Ma heeds mince. (I`ve left you an opening for another insult)

Oh I just this minute received the Venebles/Calvert text....what was the story behind that again? I think I saw it mentioned before...

Basically, its not him

I wish daniel would hurry up, I must admit to getting slightly turned on by insults dressed up in pink tutu's

The sun said it wasn't him,so it must be true.

And this name has been connected to him before, proven wrong and now dragged back up again?

Shit...scary stuff...