What'd i do?

Nooooooooooooo I do not.

I feel all this secrey surrounding JV should be lifted - it makes it so that he has special privlidges and now it has been reported (allegedly) that they may not even charge him with new charges in fear of public finding out his identity, well this is ridiculous - how will he learn, he will always assume that he will be protected! I think our laws are absolutely incredible and it just looks like Britain says its ok to commit a crime! This was a horrific crime it breaks my heart for little James :( and his family.

Except they dont really have freedom, they were released on life licence, argue about that as much as you want, it still means legally they are acting under sentence. I do admit that yes it would seem to some to be freedom but its still a restriction on liberty. Unless you were dealing directly with them in a legal sense the public are unaware as to the full extent of the limitations of that licence.

They were 10 at the time of the offence, it was decided that they were to be held criminally responsible, but were they in fact fully aware of their actions? Even if you hold that they knew the difference between right and wrong did they really comprehend the severity of what they were doing? As an adult of sound mind and judgement would have.

Was the outcry at the time simply peoples disgust at the fact that this sort of crime could happen in todays society, were people really angry at society as a whole and vented this anger out on those two children.

Because the murder of a child in this way is disgusting and because the culprits were children themselves at the time havent we as a whole treated this particular case very differently to other child murders.

Is it not true that when a person is accused of committing a crime, they are deemed innocent till proven guilty? In the unlikely event of him actually being innocent of the current charges wouldnt releasing his current identity ensure that he didnt receive a fair trial on the fresh allegations?

Why doesnt he have the right to a fair trial same as everyone else?

Even if the the current allegations do not lead to a trial (and please remember its only reported that some advisors are advising the charges not to be pursued so as he isnt in a position to claim for an unfair trial at a later stage.). The current allegations would feature in current and future Parole Board Reviews. This means that he would in fact be punished for an allegation for which he has not been found guilty of in a court of law.

This would in turn create a situation where Venables could take the Ministry of Justice to the Court of Human Rights for a punishment without trial and if his claim was found to be true, end up with him being awarded substantial damages, wouldnt that be great? The mob baying for his blood and later because of the MoJ buckling under this public pressure him being awarded enough money to live a life of relative luxury for the rest of his days.

:laugh2:

tell me!? Im so confused!

I hope it's murder.

Do you have anyone in particular in mind?

yeah, :dance:

Oh goody am all ears, care to share?

Do you want a list ?

As good as that, eh?

Well dont listen to those voices, dont use the axe, you know they will only get you into trouble

Oh please. If they are out in the real world then they are as good as free. Unless you think theyre being watched 24/7? Fat chance. Even crims with those tag things on still go out and commit crime. We all know that.

Liberty? I doubt they know how to spell it let alone give a ***** about it. Or appreciate it. Jamie Bulger is dead...his whole life taken from him after just 2 years. By those two who are now as good as free for their entire adult life.

I dont buy all this they were just kids cr*p. Kids that age are well aware of the full horror of what was done to Jamie. Absolutely. The reason we still remember it is because it was such an exceptional case. Which in itself proves that this was not typical behaviour in anyway for kids that age. So how is their age any excuse? It was abnormally horrific, cruel and extreme. Such an exceptional crime deserves an exceptional sentence. That was certainly not given.

That said, Im all for reform. Hopefully theyve had lots of therapy and psychological help. Wouldn't bet on it though. Probably been surrounded by bleeding heart social workers feeding them excuses on a plate.

But they still deserve a basic LONG sentence just as pure punishment. And to give Jamies family and his memory the sense of justice they absolutely deserve. Seems the justice system doesnt give a ***** about that aspect in all this.

If I knew I'd kidnapped, tortured and killed a toddler like they did I would fully understand that I needed to be punished for a very long time. Indeed, I would love somebody to ask them if they think they deserve to be free after what they did. If they answer yes then the therapy has failed.

Oh please what? Not point out the facts. Oh sorry i didnt mean to upset your sensibilities. By the way I didnt say I agreed with either the original sentence, the European review of the sentence and its subsequent ruling about criminals being given a definitive tarif length (sentences) when ordered to be held at her Majesties Pleasure, nor have i stated I agree with the ruling about life time anonymity granted in January 2001.

My own personal opinion, for what it is worth, is, at the age of 18 when the consideration about serving time in an adult jail was undertaken, that they should have been transferred as adult prisoners, if any time served in a proper jail undermined the rehabiliation work already undertaken, then that's just tough, it would have meant them being held in prison longer. The parole review and hearings system should have started after they were in the Adult Penal System, in other words they should have started pre release assessments after they were in an adult jail.

Unfortunately because the Government had at the time already ceded powers to Europe on Human Rights, Michael Howard's ruling as Home Secretary that their minimum tariff moved from the previously increased 12 to 15 years was deemed to be in breach of their human rights.

You also have to consider one other point when looking at the Law, everyone is to be treated equally, there are no exemptions to the rule of law. If a right is applied to adults it is applied to all adults, if a responsibility is applied to children it applies to all children. That problem cuts both ways. The age of criminal responsibility is 10 in the UK, is it too young? Some say yes, others say its about right. What happens with a child who under current assessments would not be classed as retarded, possibly educationally sub normal or even emotionally under developed? What is your view that they were tried in an adult court open to the public? What about if they werent 10 when the offence had been committed, what if they were only 9, or even 8? Where would you have drawn the line?

I take it you yourself never committed anything that could be considered an offence during your childhood? Were you punished?

Believe me they know how to spell Liberty, both of them received the best tutors available and acheived A levels. Incidentally what are your views on the Khyra Ishaq case? What about the incidents in New Edlington last year? What about Mary Bell?

Yes the law isnt fair to victims and lets face it James Bulgers family were victims. Unfortunately its down to elected politicians to make the rules and down to the criminal justice system apply them equally to all.

:laugh2:

I think that if you take a life you should be put in prison or children prison for life(well the kids will be transferred to prison once they are old enough)