martjs Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 From the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...nights-out.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Sounds like an average 27 year old to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 From the Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/cri...nights-out.html Is your point that they should both still be locked up for what they did when they were 10? I'm no wet-behind-the-ears liberal when it comes to these things, and I wouldn't mind seeing a few people swing for the things they did as adults, but I really wanted those two not to mess it up, principally because the secure accommodation they ended up in was clearly better than the homes they were brought up in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Is your point that they should both still be locked up for what they did when they were 10? I'm no wet-behind-the-ears liberal when it comes to these things, and I wouldn't mind seeing a few people swing for the things they did as adults, but I really wanted those two not to mess it up, principally because the secure accommodation they ended up in was clearly better than the homes they were brought up in. As Will Self said last night on Question time- what is it he did to get himself put back inside? It could be something as simple and meaningless (in the big picture sense) as speeding. Apparently, it may have been a fight but how does that make him any different than a lot of 27 year olds when out on the town. I'm a year younger than Venebles but I knew murder was wrong when he did it, but I was brought up in a nice stable environment with a good education and there was no way my parents would have left me roaming the local shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon (admittedly I was often at latics on a Saturday afternoon). If he had killed another 10 year old (or even someone older) I'm not sure he would have been sent inside since he was below the age of criminal responsibilty, it was only the fact he killed a 2 year old (can anyone say criminal neglect) that he ended up inside. Someone is also going to have to pay to give him a new identity (I think he deserves one- especially since Maxine Carr has one) and all because someone couldn't keep their mouth shut and it ended up in the papers (probably someone close to Bulger's mum). The fact that the secure unit is probably better than the home all 3 (inc. Jaime Bulger) would have been bought up in says a lot about this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Becketts Anchor Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Apparently, it may have been a fight but how does that make him any different than a lot of 27 year olds when out on the town. Err, because he was released on licence for MURDER! If he didn't understand what he did, and it's consequences, when he was 10 I'd hope he understood it before he was released. And no, I doubt he's been recalled for speeding... I find your insinuations about the victim's family a little tasteless too. I know they're Scousers, but where's your evidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 As Will Self said last night on Question time- what is it he did to get himself put back inside? It could be something as simple and meaningless (in the big picture sense) as speeding. Apparently, it may have been a fight but how does that make him any different than a lot of 27 year olds when out on the town. I'm a year younger than Venebles but I knew murder was wrong when he did it, but I was brought up in a nice stable environment with a good education and there was no way my parents would have left me roaming the local shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon (admittedly I was often at latics on a Saturday afternoon). If he had killed another 10 year old (or even someone older) I'm not sure he would have been sent inside since he was below the age of criminal responsibilty, it was only the fact he killed a 2 year old (can anyone say criminal neglect) that he ended up inside. Someone is also going to have to pay to give him a new identity (I think he deserves one- especially since Maxine Carr has one) and all because someone couldn't keep their mouth shut and it ended up in the papers (probably someone close to Bulger's mum). The fact that the secure unit is probably better than the home all 3 (inc. Jaime Bulger) would have been bought up in says a lot about this country. Everything about this statement makes me vomit, it's disgusting. You make it sound so trivial, so throwaway - like it is now such a chore for society to cope with little James being murdered. That's right, murdered. but I was brought up in a nice stable environment with a good education and there was no way my parents would have left me roaming the local shopping centre on a Saturday afternoon Well :censored:-a-doodle do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Err, because he was released on licence for MURDER! If he didn't understand what he did, and it's consequences, when he was 10 I'd hope he understood it before he was released. And no, I doubt he's been recalled for speeding... I find your insinuations about the victim's family a little tasteless too. I know they're Scousers, but where's your evidence? Yeah. The bit about the Bulgers was way off. But does it mean anything if you bang a man up because he breaches conditions applied because of what he did when he was 10, when other people aged 27 doing the same thing won't get banged up? It must have something minor like sniffing or pill-popping or a few loose swipes at some other joker outside a nightclub. I think we would have heard by now if it was something more serious, mainly because the police and the screws wouldn't be able to keep their mouths shut otherwise. In fact, now I think about it, the reports are quite likely to be massive exaggerations or even - perchance - outright lies, sold by the unconscionable to the gullible, and duly printed in the nation's newspapers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) They did what? 8 years for a brutal murder of an apparently happy 2 year old boy. If you've not read an in-depth report on the various steps of the crime itself, I suggest you don't. It is harrowing to the extreme. My daughter is 20. Jamie should be reaching that age soon too. If it had been my daughter and not their son? I just can't get my head round that thought. I doubt Jamie's parents could ever recover fully. I know their marriage didn't. I doubt very much I could handle such an appalling situation and come out the other side with any degree of sanity. While he's probably back inside for something trivial like entering the City of Liverpool, or taking a soft drug, or forgetting to tie his shoe laces, I really don't care. He killed a kid in cold blood with no motive other than being an evil :censored:. Society, for whatever reason, gave him a second chance. If he's too stupid to take that then the key really should be thrown away this time. Edited March 5, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Becketts Anchor Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 But does it mean anything if you bang a man up because he breaches conditions applied because of what he did when he was 10, when other people aged 27 doing the same thing won't get banged up? Yes, it does unfortunately. Because he's on licence for MURDER, and if the threat of being returned to prison if he doesn't keep his nose clean isn't sufficient, he probably shouldn't be out in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) They did what? 8 years for a brutal murder of an apparently happy 2 year old boy. If you've not read an in-depth report on the various steps of the crime itself, I suggest you don't. It is harrowing to the extreme. My daughter is 20. Jamie should be reaching that age soon too. If it had been my daughter and not their son? I just can't get my head round that though. I doubt Jamie's parents could ever recover fully. I know their marriage didn't. I doubt very much I could handle such an appalling situation and come out the other side with any degree of sanity. While he's probably back inside for something trivial like entering the City of Liverpool, or taking a soft drug, or forgetting to tie his shoe laces, I really don't care. He killed a kid in cold blood with no motive other than being an evil :censored:. Society, for whatever reason, gave him a second chance. If he's too stupid to take that then the key really should be thrown away this time. He did an evil thing. When he was 10. Does that mean he's still evil, despite not doing anything of the kind in the next 10 years, or the subsequent seven? Are you seriously saying that he should be locked up for ever for what he did when he was 10? Isn't that just repaying one sadistic act with another? Edited March 6, 2010 by 24hoursfromtulsehill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleetwood Blue Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Im all for giving people a second chance but ffs, these two are the spawn of the devil, they battered, tortured and then killed a defenceless 2 year old child. Yes, they were only 10 year old themselves but 99.99% of societys 10 year olds would not have even contemplated what them two evil little bastards did. One of them didnt last long in Fleetwood in 2005 before he opened his mouth and recieved a pasting, he was swiftly moved on, funny though i never read about it in the papers. Id now put Venables in a cell with Bronson and let him deal with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beag_teeets Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 They did what? 8 years for a brutal murder of an apparently happy 2 year old boy. If you've not read an in-depth report on the various steps of the crime itself, I suggest you don't. It is harrowing to the extreme. My daughter is 20. Jamie should be reaching that age soon too. If it had been my daughter and not their son? I just can't get my head round that though. I doubt Jamie's parents could ever recover fully. I know their marriage didn't. I doubt very much I could handle such an appalling situation and come out the other side with any degree of sanity. While he's probably back inside for something trivial like entering the City of Liverpool, or taking a soft drug, or forgetting to tie his shoe laces, I really don't care. He killed a kid in cold blood with no motive other than being an evil :censored:. Society, for whatever reason, gave him a second chance. If he's too stupid to take that then the key really should be thrown away this time. Disagree that it was evil. Evil is the label society has put on the actions of 2 10 year olds who didn't know what they were doing. Doing what West, Sutcliffe, Shipman et al did was evil as they were able to know better and understood the consequences. The 2 lads were born in to damaged homes, not taught right from wrong and it led to a pretty freak incident occurring, the baying society lynch-mob makes me sick. It is as if Venables is being made a scapegoat for all that is wrong in the world at the moment, can we pin Haiti, Chille, the recession, collapse of the Greek society in to near anarchy and Latics flirt with the bottom 4 on Venables too? 2 wrongs don't make a right, as I said earlier if reports are to be believed then he sounds like a normal 27 year old, considering his start in life both before and after the unpleasantness to turn out reasonably normal is a massive achievement. Cue the "Jamie didn't have the chance to turn out normal"..... No he didn't and that is a tragedy, crucifying Venables now doesn't bring Jamie back, help the parents grieve, prevent such and event happening or make everything better again. It is another :censored:ed up situation in a :censored:ed up world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) We really are messed up society aren't we... we produce two ten year olds who want to murder and torture and do so... we have grown adults who then verbally assult, attempt to lynch the two kids we then put the kids through our legal / care system which results in at least one of the two still not realising ther wrongs of their actions and keeping there noses clean we still have grown adult men wanting to lynch people for what they did when they where 10 years old We really are such a violent society... Even the "good upstanding" ones represented in this thread... And we wonder how / why we produce two kids capable of doing such things... I think anybody who actually took the time to look into the upbringing of the two "evil" ones they might just realise that they where victims as well. As unpopular as that is... But then again its easier to hate than try to learn... What a messed up world we live in... Edited March 6, 2010 by Latics & England Swearing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 (edited) He did an evil thing. When he was 10. Does that mean he's still evil, despite not doing anything of the kind in the next 10 years, or the subsequent seven? Are you seriously saying that he should be locked up for ever what he did when he was 10? Isn't that just repaying one sadistic act with another? Yes. The 2 lads were born in to damaged homes, not taught right from wrong Regardless of the parenting, kids know right from wrong. Don't for a second try to convince me that they didn't realise that beating and killing a 2 year old boy was "wrong". the baying society lynch-mob makes me sick. It is as if Venables is being made a scapegoat for all that is wrong in the world at the moment, can we pin Haiti, Chille, the recession, collapse of the Greek society in to near anarchy and Latics flirt with the bottom 4 on Venables too? Strange comment. Look, if he didn't know right from wrong when he was 10, he's had 17 years to learn. There are rules around his release that tell him what he can and can't do. If he's unable to comply with them society shouldn't be further exposed to him. Edited March 6, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Jaime Bulger I doubt Jamie's parents... "Jamie didn't have the chance to turn out normal"..... No he didn't and that is a tragedy, crucifying Venables now doesn't bring Jamie back, help the parents grieve, prevent such and event happening or make everything better again. It is another :censored:ed up situation in a :censored:ed up world. Since when was he called Jamie? Or Jaime for that matter? Tsk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 5, 2010 Share Posted March 5, 2010 Im all for giving people a second chance but ffs, these two are the spawn of the devil, they battered, tortured and then killed a defenceless 2 year old child. Yes, they were only 10 year old themselves but 99.99% of societys 10 year olds would not have even contemplated what them two evil little bastards did. One of them didnt last long in Fleetwood in 2005 before he opened his mouth and recieved a pasting, he was swiftly moved on, funny though i never read about it in the papers. Id now put Venables in a cell with Bronson and let him deal with him. What you mean is someone said something to someone in Fleetwood and received a pasting. Let's say that this someone did not quite fit in, was an oddball at work and did not have a girlfriend or was somehow unforthcoming about his background - until he supposedly said something. By a funny coincidence, someone else (or was it the same person?) said something in Accrington and got a pasting. A third person (or perhaps it was the first or second person again) said something in Pendle and got a pasting. Still more people (or perhaps the same ones) who said something once to someone got pastings in Lancaster, Pontefract, Royston Vasey and every other northern town you can name. Venables and Thompson seem to have been on a tour of northern towns to get pastings, if you believe everything you read on t'internet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleetwood Blue Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 There is no way he would be locked up for a minor breach, he must have done something bad enough for Jack Straw and his merry men not to release the details, it will be them with egg on their faces if he has commited a serious crime because of the national outrage of them being released at 18 yr old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveoafc Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 Disagree that it was evil. Evil is the label society has put on the actions of 2 10 year olds who didn't know what they were doing. Doing what West, Sutcliffe, Shipman et al did was evil as they were able to know better and understood the consequences. The 2 lads were born in to damaged homes, not taught right from wrong and it led to a pretty freak incident occurring, the baying society lynch-mob makes me sick. It is as if Venables is being made a scapegoat for all that is wrong in the world at the moment, can we pin Haiti, Chille, the recession, collapse of the Greek society in to near anarchy and Latics flirt with the bottom 4 on Venables too? 2 wrongs don't make a right, as I said earlier if reports are to be believed then he sounds like a normal 27 year old, considering his start in life both before and after the unpleasantness to turn out reasonably normal is a massive achievement. Cue the "Jamie didn't have the chance to turn out normal"..... No he didn't and that is a tragedy, crucifying Venables now doesn't bring Jamie back, help the parents grieve, prevent such and event happening or make everything better again. It is another :censored:ed up situation in a :censored:ed up world. You really have to be joking????? Didn't know what they were doing? They made a damn good job of torturing a 'baby' Believe me that was EVIL! And as for calling it unpleasantness...........beggars belief! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 There is no way he would be locked up for a minor breach, he must have done something bad enough for Jack Straw and his merry men not to release the details, it will be them with egg on their faces if he has commited a serious crime because of the national outrage of them being released at 18 yr old. The word credulous springs to mind. The criminal justice system leaks like a seive. If he did anything worth knowing about, such as a crime we might read about in the paper, we'd know. If they're saying cocaine, pills and fight at nightclub, he's probably done less than that. Go figure. Maybe he retaliated in some way during one of the beatings that the internet tells us he's been receiving all over the north of England. Who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankly Mr Shankly Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 You really have to be joking????? Didn't know what they were doing? They made a damn good job of torturing a 'baby' Believe me that was EVIL! And as for calling it unpleasantness...........beggars belief! My opinion is it was more callous and henious than evil. A ten year old is still an infant and a ten year old with a shocking upbringing who's never been taught right from wrong since he was born doesn't classify as truely evil. As repulsive as it is to you and I, to them it was normality. I'd class the Moors murderers, The Wests and Ian Huntley enormously above them in terms of evil. But all this eye-for-an-eye nonsense that people are going on about is massively distasteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fleetwood Blue Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 What you mean is someone said something to someone in Fleetwood and received a pasting. Let's say that this someone did not quite fit in, was an oddball at work and did not have a girlfriend or was somehow unforthcoming about his background - until he supposedly said something. By a funny coincidence, someone else (or was it the same person?) said something in Accrington and got a pasting. A third person (or perhaps it was the first or second person again) said something in Pendle and got a pasting. Still more people (or perhaps the same ones) who said something once to someone got pastings in Lancaster, Pontefract, Royston Vasey and every other northern town you can name. Venables and Thompson seem to have been on a tour of northern towns to get pastings, if you believe everything you read on t'internet. The truth will come out sooner or later mate of there whereabouts over the last few years and you will be surprised to find they put him beside the seaside, im not interested if you believe me or not but all i will say is if one of these lads were housed next door to you and you had a toddler would you want to know? and if you did know would you be worried? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 How is it that because a child was murdered by other children the perpetrators are automatically evil satan incarnate. They were 10 FFS- they were below the age of criminal responsability in this country, if they had committed armed robbery would they have served time- no. But because they killed someone, yes they were charged with murder but I'm not so sure it wasn't manslaughter, they are evil so and sos- do me a favour. Shipman was evil, Hindley and Brady were evil, Huntly is evil (his girlfriend still has her new identity and she is far more evil than two 10 year olds) Venebles and Thompson were two 10 year old boys who may have simply made the wrong decision after a prank gone wrong, unless you were on the jury how are you to know. Jaime Bulger died as a result of many things but do you think 2 10 year old boys would have been able to take him away if his Mum had been doing her job. Yes you can loose sight of your child for a spilt second but it was a lot longer than that. 2 year olds struggle to walk very far, (most 2 year olds find running difficult) but these 2 10 year old boys managed to travel with a 2 year old over uneven ground for a couple of miles- having left a shopping centre as well. That strikes me as very odd. I'm not a parent, but how many of you who are parents would let your 10 year old roam Spindles on a Saturday afternoon, I know I wouldn't. I know my comments will be upsetting but if a 2 year old escaped from his mother whilst she was shopping and managed to harm themselves fatally in that time what would you think of the mother? Because someone else did the harming the mother gets absolved of all the blame- not for me, unfortunately Jaime's Mum has to live her life with the guilt. Oh and I think I should clarify the homes Venebles and Thompson were bought up in may well be very unpleasant places (I'm not sure about the facts there) but a secure unit for children isn't the worse place in the world and whilst there isn't any love they often have more of the material possessions than quite a lot of families can afford- hence why quite a few young offenders reoffend as prision is a nicer place. (In fact the same could be said of adults too). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
opinions4u Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 (edited) they were below the age of criminal responsability in this country They passed that mark when they had their 10th birthdays. The age in Scotland is, I believe, 8. I know my comments will be upsetting but if a 2 year old escaped from his mother whilst she was shopping and managed to harm themselves fatally in that time what would you think of the mother? Because someone else did the harming the mother gets absolved of all the blame- not for me, unfortunately Jaime's Mum has to live her life with the guilt. I'm sure she does live with the guilt. My detail here may not be spot on, but I believe she let go of his hand for a few seconds to reach for her purse to pay the butcher. Some little twats took the kid in this tiny timeframe and tortured him to death. 2 year olds struggle to walk very far ... but these 2 10 year old boys managed to travel with a 2 year old over uneven ground for a couple of miles- having left a shopping centre as well. That strikes me as very odd. How much eager walking do you think he did between the beatings? Please elaborate on what you find "odd" because I am intrigued as to what you may be hinting at. Sorry, I think your perspective on this one is way off. Venebles and Thompson were two 10 year old boys who may have simply made the wrong decision after a prank gone wrong One hell of a misjudgement there then. Served his time for his "prank gone wrong" ... given a second chance and made a further misjudgement knowing full well what the outcome could be. If he's still stupid enough to keep misjudging the situation so badly perhaps society does still need protecting from him. I'm not a parent, but how many of you who are parents would let your 10 year old roam Spindles on a Saturday afternoon, I know I wouldn't Well we can agree on that. Or a Friday in the Strand in Bootle when they should be at school. Edited March 6, 2010 by opinions4u Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 How is it that because a child was murdered by other children the perpetrators are automatically evil satan incarnate. They were 10 FFS- they were below the age of criminal responsability in this country, if they had committed armed robbery would they have served time- no. But because they killed someone, yes they were charged with murder but I'm not so sure it wasn't manslaughter, they are evil so and sos- do me a favour. Shipman was evil, Hindley and Brady were evil, Huntly is evil (his girlfriend still has her new identity and she is far more evil than two 10 year olds) Venebles and Thompson were two 10 year old boys who may have simply made the wrong decision after a prank gone wrong, unless you were on the jury how are you to know. Jaime Bulger died as a result of many things but do you think 2 10 year old boys would have been able to take him away if his Mum had been doing her job. Yes you can loose sight of your child for a spilt second but it was a lot longer than that. 2 year olds struggle to walk very far, (most 2 year olds find running difficult) but these 2 10 year old boys managed to travel with a 2 year old over uneven ground for a couple of miles- having left a shopping centre as well. That strikes me as very odd. I'm not a parent, but how many of you who are parents would let your 10 year old roam Spindles on a Saturday afternoon, I know I wouldn't. I know my comments will be upsetting but if a 2 year old escaped from his mother whilst she was shopping and managed to harm themselves fatally in that time what would you think of the mother? Because someone else did the harming the mother gets absolved of all the blame- not for me, unfortunately Jaime's Mum has to live her life with the guilt. Oh and I think I should clarify the homes Venebles and Thompson were bought up in may well be very unpleasant places (I'm not sure about the facts there) but a secure unit for children isn't the worse place in the world and whilst there isn't any love they often have more of the material possessions than quite a lot of families can afford- hence why quite a few young offenders reoffend as prision is a nicer place. (In fact the same could be said of adults too). The legal age of responsibility is ten years old... I think your criticism of the mother is more than a tad harsh.. I also think secure units for children are some of the worse places in the country... Maybe not the world... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted March 6, 2010 Share Posted March 6, 2010 The truth will come out sooner or later mate of there whereabouts over the last few years and you will be surprised to find they put him beside the seaside, im not interested if you believe me or not but all i will say is if one of these lads were housed next door to you and you had a toddler would you want to know? and if you did know would you be worried? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.