Jon Venables.

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Guest » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:20 am

What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.
User avatar
Guest
 

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Lady Murasaki » Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:33 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?

What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.


She probably wants him gone from the earth, regardless of what the press are saying.


Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.

Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.

Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?


I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 25197
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:02 am

Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 29826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:05 am

Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Some of you guests don't seem to able to grasp what's really happening here. Do you actually think that Denise Fergus will get anywhere then?

What she''s angry about is the sentence they got for killing James in the first place. I actually agree that it was too lenient. Now we've got this chap who was at the same place telling everyone how Venables had no remorse and got loads of privileges, which isn't going to help. What Denise wants is for Venables to go to prison now for a very long time to serve the sentence she thinks he should have had back then when he killed James, but is that ever going to happen? He got 40 months, so they'd need a good reason not to let him out after that time.


She probably wants him gone from the earth, regardless of what the press are saying.


Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.

Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.

Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?


I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.


She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 29826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Snookerballs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:12 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.
User avatar
Snookerballs
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Lady Murasaki » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:33 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.

Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.

Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?


I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.


She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.


Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 25197
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:37 am

Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Maybe so, although it's not really what the press is saying, it's what she says to the press. If she does want him dead, she's never said so.

Don't you think she'd still be angry though? I think most of her anger is with the legal system, and that wouldn't change even if he was dead.

Meanwhile, prison inmates are allegedly circulating photos, as are others This is contempt of court, so shouldn't they be prosecuted?


I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.


She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.


Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.


What kind of law?

She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 29826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:38 am

Snookerballs wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.



Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 29826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Lady Murasaki » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:44 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.


She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.


Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.


What kind of law?

She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.


Ok, I'm just speculating here because I haven't followed the ongoing story but it seems from what you're saying that she wants to make a difference. Her protective side wants to make sure this kind of thing is taken more seriously than it was by the legal system. She may be using the media in order to put on some pressure but how else can she make a difference in the law?
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 25197
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Snookerballs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:53 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Snookerballs wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:



Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.



Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.


Why should there be a problem ? They are being monitored by the Police

To allow them to return to their home ground is an open invitation for vigilantes, to allow them to disappear into a Community would be a failure on part of the Police.
User avatar
Snookerballs
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:54 am

Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
I haven't really followed the case so I'm not sure what's been said. All I can offer is that as a parent, knowing my young child was harmed and killed in that way is not something I would find peace with unless I left the country and got away from media speculation or reports.
It's more than anger, it's a visceral, animalistic pain/drive.


She's a little vague on what she actually wants, but she clearly feels that the original sentence was too lenient, and she's said that she knew that they'd reoffend because they weren't punished properly - ie, they weren't sent to an adult prison.


Maybe she just wants a change in the law then, some sort of new law as a memory or justice for James's death.
A law which means those two would be permanently locked up.


What kind of law?

She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.


Ok, I'm just speculating here because I haven't followed the ongoing story but it seems from what you're saying that she wants to make a difference. Her protective side wants to make sure this kind of thing is taken more seriously than it was by the legal system. She may be using the media in order to put on some pressure but how else can she make a difference in the law?


Some kind of minimum sentence perhaps? The judge at the murder trial said they'd be locked up for many years, and then set a minimum of eight years, which doesn't seem a lot to me. I don't know if he could have given them more - I presume he could have. They could have been refused parole after eight years, but it was decided that sending them to an adult prison would damage their rehabilitation. Perhaps she wants a law which says that the victims' family should have a say in the sentencing.

The other issue is whether or not Venables should remain anonymous. That was such a farce really. The original judge lifted reporting restrictions, only for another one to decide they should be anonymous later.
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 29826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Raggamuffin » Sun Feb 11, 2018 11:55 am

Snookerballs wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Snookerballs wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:



Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.



Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.


Why should there be a problem ? They are being monitored by the Police

To allow them to return to their home ground is an open invitation for vigilantes, to allow them to disappear into a Community would be a failure on part of the Police.


The people living near the prison would also presumably object to them living near them though. How are they monitored anyway?
User avatar
Raggamuffin
 
Posts: 29826
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:51 am

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Snookerballs » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:06 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Snookerballs wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
Snookerballs wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:



Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


I believe it is policy once a person has been released from Prison for serious child offence`s they are given the facility to be rehoused by the local Authority where the Prison is situated, this gives them anonymity plus they are monitored by the Police.



Really? Other people live near prisons though, so there would be the same problem.


Why should there be a problem ? They are being monitored by the Police

To allow them to return to their home ground is an open invitation for vigilantes, to allow them to disappear into a Community would be a failure on part of the Police.


The people living near the prison would also presumably object to them living near them though. How are they monitored anyway?


If a Parent is concerned that an Ex convicted Pedophile is living nearby they can get further information from the "Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme "
User avatar
Snookerballs
 
Posts: 386
Joined: Sat Dec 23, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Lady Murasaki » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:14 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Lady Murasaki wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:
What kind of law?

She has said she doesn't want them locked up for ever, but that they were rewarded rather than punished.


Ok, I'm just speculating here because I haven't followed the ongoing story but it seems from what you're saying that she wants to make a difference. Her protective side wants to make sure this kind of thing is taken more seriously than it was by the legal system. She may be using the media in order to put on some pressure but how else can she make a difference in the law?


Some kind of minimum sentence perhaps? The judge at the murder trial said they'd be locked up for many years, and then set a minimum of eight years, which doesn't seem a lot to me. I don't know if he could have given them more - I presume he could have. They could have been refused parole after eight years, but it was decided that sending them to an adult prison would damage their rehabilitation. Perhaps she wants a law which says that the victims' family should have a say in the sentencing.

The other issue is whether or not Venables should remain anonymous. That was such a farce really. The original judge lifted reporting restrictions, only for another one to decide they should be anonymous later.


Yes, a minimum sentence at the very least. From what you're saying it does appear that she's trying to apply pressure on the legal system to acknowledge how seriously this kind of crime affects/destroys families. A more serious sentence than just 8 years would go some way to alleviate that life shattering event instead of making the victims feel diminished (again) in the eyes of the law.
User avatar
Lady Murasaki
 
Posts: 25197
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2011 9:46 pm

Re: Jon Venables.

Postby Trapper John » Sun Feb 11, 2018 12:45 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
Guest wrote:What the liberal infested probation service (the warboys releasing probation service) want is for denise fergus to shut up about her dead son so they can continue their little liberal experiment going without anyone drawing attention to it.

I would imagine Denise wouldnt really be very happy with that so carrys on shining the light.

Its easy to be a liberal soft justice exponent when it doesnt effect you. I was probably guilty of that at one time. Then not too far from me a dangerous paedophile was secretively parachuted into a run down estate comunity (thanks probation service!). The residents kicked off like fuck when it became known. I found myself fully understanding there cause. I wont accept adding to any risk to my kids and thats absolute. If thats a problem for paedophiles rehab....fuck em.


Well yes, it does all raise the question of what to do with people convicted of child abuse when they're released. I don't suppose anyone wants them living near them if they have children, but then again, they have to live somewhere.


When one of my brothers moved out of London to the Kent coast he had six step daughters and a biological one, all under the age of 15. After about six months they were told that the bloke who lived next door was a convicted paedophile who had done time.

I was gobsmacked when he told me but surprisingly neither he nor his wife were unduly worried and certainly not freaked out. They said there was little they could do about the situation, they just warned all the girls about him without frightening the life out of them and kept a eye out more than they normally would have done.

They lived there for 9 years and not once did they have any problems with him or the girls. The thing is, despite the hue and cry which follows paedophiles around, most are not the kidnapping murdering, rapists the media and certain groups make them out to be, thats not excusing their behaviour but more being realistic of the dangers they are said to pose.

No one should live in fear of them as if they lurk behind every corner just waiting to snatch your kid, that doesn't happen very often and you can ruin your own life and your kids if you think it does.

All you need to be is vigilant to possible threats just like you would about a busy road or condemned building, not look for them where they probably don't exist.
User avatar
Trapper John
Gunner.
 
Posts: 35973
Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:36 am
Location: Champions league next season - prediction date: 10/5/2018

PreviousNext

Return to News, Politics And Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests