If you read some of my earlier posts that is exactly what I have been saying. I realise you have reason to doubt those who 'preach' good ............in my experience it has all been positive ...................I honestly think you're linking to a minority ...........................don't judge all by the same criteria. 'Some' priests in the Roman Catholic church have committed horrible crimes against children but the vast majority give it out from the heart .....................as I said I'm not RC - I was taught a standard CofE code .............I'm sure you can cite bad examples but the good examples far outweigh the bad. .

That is what I was saying, they can get it wrong.  I got a text tonight that 'apparently' told me exactly who Jon Venables is now, where he has been living and why he was took back in to custody, in the text I was urged to forward it to 'everyone that loves their children'.  Did I forward it? No.

For the simple fact, for whatever reason he has been took back in to custody he needs a fair trial, because if it is something terrible and the papers are all over it, he might get off.

I know, I did read them before I posted, I wasn't disagreeing with you, simply responded to you being 'riled' by my post!.However, if I were of a mind to to disagree with you I would say that your belief that children are no longer taught right form wrong is quite simply ridiculous

I was still getting emails up until a couple of weeks ago to forward to all of my contacts re preventing the release of Venables and Thompson - how many years after their release?!?

Why don't we all take a lesson from James Bulgers mother Denise Fergus and wait until he has been tried at court for what ever it is he has done, and then comment.

Mmmm interesting, the lawyers in the original case tried to argue that they had already been tried by the media and the red top reading public, to no avail.. then the case became a political football...and here we go again!

Why indeed?

I'll have to disagree on that point .....................Thompson and Venables were obviously oblivious to right and wrong. I've worked with kids in school and you have to be very watchful of what you say.

Long story but .........i worked with a child with 'special needs' ...............she was six years old - she told me about a community Christmas party for the kids on the estate and how her brother 'nicked' bottles of coke and packets of crisps to take home. I forgot myself for a moment and said 'ooooooooooooh Nicola that was naughty' ........she looked at me as if I was mad - to her it really wasn't naughty - it was just life. I truly believe that there are far too many kids out there today who dont know right from wrong simply because it's not PC to tell them and the lack of assemmblies in school whereby they are 'preached' to and the fear of neighbours or other caring adults to speak out is a large part of the problem.

well in reply to soozys post venables and thompson didnt run home and tell their parents they had just nicked a kid from bootle strand and murdered him brutally, because they knew it was wrong!, they didnt admit it during police interview because they knew it was wrong....in fact Thompson never admited his guilt for 5 years, cause he knew it was wrong and in my honest opinion thats when his sentence should have started after he had admited his guilt

Soozy, I'm not saying that some children aren't taught right from wrong, surely that's my point  Do you actually properly read /think about/consider other people's posts before replying?
As for it not being PC/schools not teaching children right from wrong/ not covering it in assemblies then that, imo and considerable experience, is quite simply a ridiculous thing to say.

Yes they did, immature children however, often cannot distinguish between 'minor' wrongs and 'major' wrongs, especially when they have been systematically subjected to 'major' wrongs themselves. That is why imo, we have to at least try to re-educate/rehabilitate them.
One of the things that saddens me most about Venables is that his parents were, in police interviews, encouraged to tell him that if he told the truth,that they would not withhold their love from him, (something that, he would have, most probably, at such a tender age and  given the amount of rejection and neglect he had suffered, been desperate for, ) and when he did tell the truth, they did just the thing that they said they wouldn't do

sorry super, I think you need to go and read up about sue and neil venables, they have stuck by their son right the way through this

No-one has the right to take a life for a life but IMO-- them 2 should have been made to serve a full sentence and not let out  on Licence... Murder is murder no matter what age you are.. and the full sentence should be served before any release is considered.. once the term is up then it should be up to the authorities as to wether the offenders are fit to return to public life.. And even then with Tags and have to report daily to their probation officer.. Our Judicial system in this country needs  a   serious  overhaul to stem the violence and favoritism for the offenders rather than the victims---

That is what happened Real, surely the issue here, (aside from the baying/vigilante mob, maybe motivated by a belief that they were ' born evil'/'devil incarnate' children,)  is as to whether the 'authorities' got it wrong, which they may well have??? Only time will tell,  but fgs let's wait to see what the allegations are before we make that judgement

Not at the time of the police interview Lockes, with respect, to quote you, "I think you need to read up about that" (look up Blake Morrison).. I shall resist of course, making judgement about how shocked the police were at her behaviour at the time/during the court hearing and her being overly preoccupied by her appearance/applying her lipstick as I think that there could be many innocent explanations for that

No-one can be born Evil--- Murder is murder, no matter what age... As for waiting to see what the alegations are as to why he is back inside-- Both of them should have served their full sentence--Life--- before even being considered for relaease... Life here should mean life ---- as in the USA... we are too soft here with our Judicial System-- and there are victims families that will agree with this... Our system needs a big shake-up to make victims get re-compence instead of the purpetrators of the crimes laughing in their faces....

But Real, that wasn't their sentence, it was indeterminate and not less than 8 years, (because of their age,) that was over ruled by the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, (in a political manouvere, pandering to the tabloid press and their readership's opinion,) to not less than 15 years... then that was over ruled by The High Court and the European Court of Human Rights and reset to 8 years

He would have gone one of two ways imo, either:
1) Have had some meaningful compensatory experience (usually a loving/carent adult, often a teacher or other respected adult) to help him be 'ok'/ overcome extreme adversity, develop empathy etc.
2) The same way as his mother and step-parent, (and then demonised)

Just taking the piss at your comment which is essentially "I want you to know that I very much dislike what you said and that I add my weight to anyone disagreeing with you but I won't articulate an argument against it so that I deny you a proper reply".  Well, you got a reply and you still can't leave it alone because I wasn't intimidated by your disapproval as you expected.

If I'm comparing them in any meaningful way then it's because they're all crimes.  But I'm not really comparing them at all.  I'm looking at the response to them by the general public, and in particular the people who are inclined to vigilantism.  Vigilantism is also a crime, and a nasty one as it undermines the rule of law on which our society is based.  If anyone actually kills Venables in this way then I think the courts should try for murder and, if conviction occurs, sentence at the top end of the tariff because it's a heinous crime, it shows a complete disregard for the rule of law, and it's dangerous for the rule of law.

I'm profoundly disturbed at the murder of JB, as I was at the murder of Baby P, and the near murder by the two Edlington boys.  And so on.  Who wouldn't be?  I don't know if 8 years custody and rehabilitation at Her Maj's Pleasure was a suitable course of action for two 10 year olds from dubious backgrounds.  The Parole Board would have included someone who worked on a day to day basis with the two killers.  It also had access to all the case details, unlike everyone here.  Possibly, they made a mistake.  Also possibly, they took a calculated risk and it went bad.  Possibly, they thought the supervision would be better.  Who knows?  No-one here, I reckon.

If the tabloids are to be believed, V was arrested/recalled for possession of Cat 4 CP.  The same tabloids claim he is in a precarious mental state.  Perhaps his recall indicates he was monitored and recalled in time since possession is a lot gentler than acting on his thoughts and he may still not have acted on those over time.  I'd understand if he is in a precarious mental state too.  With my pop-psychologist's hat on and based on that fact alone, I'd say he's probably severely conflicted and has unresolved memory and self-identity responses.  His recall may be a blessing for all concerned, including V.

You`re either a mind reader or full of your own self importance. I`ll go for the latter. Maybe you should try to accept the fact that some people don`t give long winded replies.

Lets face a fact here. If he was venables, the police are not  going t go Oh yeah, he's venables, what they would do would however, is provide false documents abd photos about his past history.Try googling his name, you would have thought there would be photos of calvert huh.

Make your mind up simon.You have just been trying to undermine the rule of law all over this thread.

Erm. What FACT is that then ?

Here you go.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho...or-Jon-Venables.html

How "Nice" of the scum newspaper to print that,forgetting the fact that they are whipping up the bloodlust in the first place.Poor man I feel for him and his family and despair at the thickness of the mob.

THANKS BLIZZIE.

he's got one of those faces I'd like to slap all the same.

Interesting interview with Venables (ex) lawyer on GMTV this Morning, he said that he was deeply shocked that it was Venables who has commit an offence rather than Thompson, the reason for this is that Venables apparently came from a caring tight knit Family where as Thompson came from dysfunctional Family.

Very interesting as that indicates his Childhood wasn't as troubled as some have reported.

I remember when someone who 'looked' like Maxine Carr, although she actually looked nothing like her, was attacked by a thick, baying mob person.

His precarious mental state ... conditional as I said at the start on whether one chooses to believe the tabloid stories.

Nope.  I appreciate you may be struggling with nuances in arguments here but I'm dead against vigilantism while the state provides a system of justice and policing on our behalf.  I'm simply saying that if people are intent on the crime of vigilantism, subverting our social contract, then they'd probably be better tackling the crimes we all usually experience if they want act on our collective behalf.  Otherwise, those people are simply indulging themselves after a frenzy of tabloid incitement aimed at people who are heavily burdened with emotional-reasoning.

I would call it feeling sorry for himself.


And thanks for appreciating my lack of understanding in your dribbling rush to believe or use tabloid headings when it backs up your argument.

I'd take a pithy argument if you have one.  It doesn't have to be long-winded, just well argued.  However, I expect you'll just carry on looking astonished and following the time-honoured forum approach of being 'tired and emotional' in the absence of a reasoned argument.

I haven't read back through the whole argument, but on the subject of vigilantism, I'm with DanJ.
It bothers me whenever I see the latest mob 'demanding' to know where certain people are, their identities, etc. Why? So they can go round with petrol bombs and pitchforks? Unless I'm doing them a disservice and all they want is a calm chat over a cuppa.
How does acting like a howling lynch mob make them better people/parents?

There were three different Maxine Carr incidents in the North East. One really despairs. At times like this you may ponder on the fact that HMG would rather you didn't smoke, drink alcohol to success, or eat fatty foods, yet is more than happy for you to consume tabloid er, shieght to the detriment of your logic and decision making.

Perhaps they just want to protect their children from the monsters within the community.

Yes.  I'm a big fan of tabloids and their approaches to news as I'm sure everyone here is well aware.  I'm a sucker for them.  I read them avidly for every snippet of news about current affairs, and not just Ashley Cole's either!  The Daily Mail is my particular favourite.

If I had children, I'd want to protect them from the influence of vengeful, simplistic vigilante types.

If you had children, you would want to protect them from vigilanties and the baying mob 1 I'm assuming here that you would also wish to protect them from child abusers and the like. Is that correct ?

Far more children are abused and killed within the family than are  by rare "stranger" snatch/ killing.