John Venables

bavlondon · Post by **bavlondon** » Wed 10th Mar 2010 09:26 pm

Surely people will recognise him anyway? Everyone must have seen his face on TV at some point, maybe not everyone but most I would have thought.

I think he will end up in jail on a long term offence later on in life and will end up topping himself inside.

Cisco · Post by **Cisco** » Thu 11th Mar 2010 12:01 pm

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:
cisco wrote:i really cant get to grips that these boys did not know what they were doing , that it was because of there upbringing watching 18 videos and playing computer games ! What alot of Bullshit ! im sorry but you know right from wrong , that killing someone in the manner they done is ok and not their fault ! you know whats right and wrong and if not then society is no place for these kind of people !
It's not right from wrong i am arguing, its the consequences. At that age, violent video games, movies and home life dis-associate children from the impacts of violence. This is what i am saying is an issue, that the true horror of the crime was not able to be comprehended by 10 year olds. I know for me that when i was 10 i wasn't able to comprehend the finality of death.

Although i think the case for improper socialisation leading to warped views on right and wrong is extremely convincing as well. Hard to prove though, i can get studies if you would want them. However, the complex nature of concepts and empathy being difficult to comprehend at such a young age is a much less controversial analysis, hence why i used it as a basis of my argument.

Also, we have had the privilege of a good up brining i am sure, these kids, most certainly did not and were most certainly brought up in a completely differently to what we were. It is therefore possible, i would argue logical, that the value systems would have been warped.

Sorry dude i just dont see it ! i know exactly what your saying , i have experiance with Y/Os and so called under priviliged children through youth work , and my own experiance (im sure like alot of other posters) when i was 10 and under/older there was not such a big emphasis on not letting kids watch 18 films etc , and i did ! however just through exposure to these things i believe it does not make me/others more capable/culpable for similar crimes !

Im not saying you can not be rehabilitated (sp) im saying you know whats inherently right or wrong and if not no place (similar incident at my work where a young guy with dificulties always goes round causing trouble and it gets ignored as the cosensus is he doesnt know what he is doing ? if thats the case then im sorry but a work environment is no place for him!) due to safety issues etc !

Please excyse my poor spelling (and that wasnt a joke wrote by accident) EXCUSE my spelling

Mancuso · Post by **Mancuso** » Wed 24th Mar 2010 10:33 am

An interesting thread.

Anyone wanting to dig a little deeper into this case, and the background to it, should read Blake Morrison's book entitled "As If" which is a very thorough examination. It's a relatively short book, but it will open a few eyes I'm sure.

As to the notion that "nonces" can be got at inside... well, they can, but it takes a lot of planning. Most sex offenders are segregated under "rule 43" and kept on seperate landings within the jail. Many moons ago I spent a short period in a DC (detention centre) for young offenders. The sex offenders were kept away from us, but one lad in there wasn't so lucky and he was scalded with hot water mixed with sugar and soap. This mixture is known as prison napalm, and with good reason. The lad who was attacked ended up in a horrific state. I saw it happen, and I would not want to see that again. Not to anyone, under any circumstances. I've no idea if the victim was guilty of his crime, or even the exact nature of it. I'm certain that the attackers didn't know either. Prisons are horrible places, full of horrible people. Venables and Thompson will have had a rough ride, believe me.

Boner · Post by **Boner** » Thu 25th Mar 2010 10:33 am

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -jail.html

Yes it's The Sun but would anyone be surprised if it's true? I'm certainly not.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Thu 25th Mar 2010 10:34 am

Boner wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -jail.html

Yes it's The Sun but would anyone be surprised if it's true? I'm certainly not.

He hasn't been convicted yet right?

Boner · Post by **Boner** » Thu 25th Mar 2010 11:40 am

Sir Niall of Essex-sire wrote:
Boner wrote:http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/ne ... -jail.html

Yes it's The Sun but would anyone be surprised if it's true? I'm certainly not.
He hasn't been convicted yet right?

He's already got a new identity and we dont know what he's been charged with so why the special treatment, if you're in jail even on remand surely the time you serve should be tougher than what that article describes, it's not like he's in on his first offence.

Sir Niall of Essex-sire · Thu 25th Mar 2010 10:51 pm

Boner wrote: He's already got a new identity and we dont know what he's been charged with so why the special treatment, if you're in jail even on remand surely the time you serve should be tougher than what that article describes, it's not like he's in on his first offence.

I didn't think he's been charged, i thought he was in on his condition that he can be pulled in whenever they believe he is a risk. That's why i thought he the separation, because he hasn't been charged, he's on suspicion of being charged as such?

Boner · Post by **Boner** » Mon 21st Jun 2010 07:59 pm

Bump.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10369277.stm

Charged.