Jon Venables Face And Name Revealed
BECAUSE someone has posted what he claims to be photos of Jon Venables on the internet, one of James Bulger’s killers will have to be given a new identity and be re-housed (he was living in Cheshire).
A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice says:
“Such a change of identity is extremely rare and granted only when the police assess that there is clear and credible evidence of a sustained threat to the offender’s life on release into the community.”
The Sun reports:
The activist, who again The Sun cannot name, said: “The picture has now been seen by millions. I don’t believe Jon Venables or any convicted sex offender has the right to anonymity or a protected identity. It is the public that needs protection.”
How is the public protected by being shown photos of a man the State says cannot be named nor revealed for his own safety? Have we lost faith in the system and the rule of law, achieved by consensus?
The Liverpool Post reports:
Ralph Bulger, James’ dad, was not at the Old Bailey yesterday to see Venables jailed for two years.
But his solicitor Robin Makin was there on his behalf and believes the authorities have to answer for their actions.
He also said they had hoped Venables would be given an indefinite jail term for public protection (IPP).
Mr Makin said: “No-one has taken into account the danger this man poses. The public was not protected in this case.
“We are upset because no-one considered a sexual element in the original crime, the murder of James, so it could not be brought up here to show past history…
“It was a ticking timebomb waiting to go off, putting him so close to Liverpool and to the scene of it all. It will only have upped the pressure. They gave him a new identity but if he was so close, that cannot have helped.”
What now..?
Spotter: Karen
May 5th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
Andrea and tj…. I wonder how you would feel if one of your children was the perpetrator of an awful crime?
It happens to ordinary families for a variety of reasons. The children do something horrendous; ordinary children, not just those from deprived,violent amoral backgrounds. (as was the case with both Venables and Thompson) Would you hand your ten year old over to a crowd of adults to be torn limb from limb? Would you stand and laugh? would you enjoy it?
If so then I’m afraid you’re the psychopaths.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
no karen as i said in my first post they were children and although they should of known what they were doing was wrong they still id it and were given new identities to live their lives and make good but jv i an adult now and should be answerable for his actions and not hide behind the justice system. how must james family feel seeing that even though they lost their baby this man has gone on to hurt more people in one way or another?
May 5th, 2011 at 4:27 pm
“i believe in freedom of speech and wouldnt take some opinionated teen telling me how i should think and fighting for the fair treatment of murderers.”
She’s already said she has two children and works in the legal sphere, read more closely. I think what we have here is an assuming Sun/Daily Mail reader who sees an articulate argument and just thinks “Aha, university education! Damn those kids and their fancy words!” Then you all air your outraged views and call on the higher powers of ‘loving your kids’ to try to lend some weight to your poor, flawed argument. Like anyone who disagrees with you doesn’t love their kids, I suppose.
I’m sick of you people. You bay for blood at the drop of a hat. Left to you I suppose we should have found Mary Bell, tarred and feathered Maxine Carr, because the ‘public have a right to know!’ which is just an excuse for you to crane your necks and fuel your morbid fascination, and downright noseyness regarding what they all look like now. The louder you scream, the more you fan your egos with this self-justified proof that you’re upright decent citizens. Think again.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
TJ – your original post was sensibly edited by the moderator to remove your question and I sincerely hope that one is too.
Your post is libellous and untrue. I know from the clue you gave me as to your whereabouts that the incident you mention could not have involved Jon Venables.
I would urge the moderator to remove your post.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:23 pm
If it was left to people like you, he would have been tied to a lamp post and stoned by an angry mob of adults when he was ten. Would that have been acceptable in your eyes?
May 5th, 2011 at 4:19 pm
emma if you would pay more attention i think would find that jv was infact older that ten when he reoffended . i say tie him to a lampost and let justice be done the first stone should be jamies parents xxxx with love
May 5th, 2011 at 4:09 pm
Andrea, you should read my posts more. My post said 15th century, not ‘beginning of 15th century’.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:07 pm
‘isn’t that what these 2 were ?’
No, they were ten year old children who committed a heinous act AS ten year old children. I believe psychiatrists even declared that they were NOT psychopaths (psychopathy btw can only really be diagnosed from 16 onwards since the defining factor – absence of empathy can only be assessed from that age).
I’d say, however, that an adult who thinks of taking a ten year old child and placing him on a scaffold and then hanging him herself while laughing, however, IS a psychopath. That is a very disturbing fantasy to have.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
Everyone on the ‘pro-hanging’ side is conveniently ignoring Emma’s statement that she does indeed have children of her own.
Wow! By endorsing capital punishment you clearly show how much you love your own children, probably moreso than rational people. You all should be proud of yourselves and get medals.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:03 pm
I would be more worried about psychopathic lunatics
isn’t that what these 2 were ? you just want to hope and pray nothing happens
May 5th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
Oh and just for FYI Justitia was only commonly represented as “blind” since about the end of the 15th century. Not the begining of the 15th century Emma, originally she had a sword and scales and her eys were indeed UNCOVERED…. Which i said in the begining.
May 5th, 2011 at 4:00 pm
‘maybe you need to do that and stop spitting your dummy out when someone challenges what you say’
I’m remaining reasoned and calm. The frothing and hysteria is coming from your quarter.
‘but keep a close eye on them cos you never know where jv might be living on his release ‘
Frankly, if he lived near me, I would be more worried about psychopathic lunatics who would seek to carry out their own medieval ‘justice’ than anything he may do. I think myself and my children would be more at risk from THEM.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:56 pm
Emma you actually sound like my son still at school studying law and psychology knows everything there is to know about everything and doesnt like to listen to opinions that dont match him- well apart from the fact that he too feels very strongly about child killers and kiddy fiddlers dispite what he studys he has actually realised the value of life maybe you need to do that and stop spitting your dummy out when someone challenges what you say. I dare say Andrea doesnt give a toss about the blindfold as i dont give a toss that you dont like my bad grammar truth is we seem to be living in the real world and you seem to be studying to hard – there is life out here dispite what the LAW OF THE LAND says. there are familys like james bulgers that live there life sentance every day of their lives because of some other being that thought it was their right to take away there baby and are living quite a happy and safe life because of the LAW. they didnt only loose there child they lost there marraige because of the strain caused by those two animals. WHERE IS THE JUSTICE IN THAT???? now run along and get out your dictionary as there is plenty of bad grammar here for you to play with and when you gow up you too could perhaps enjoy your future childrens lives but keep a close eye on them cos you never know where jv might be living on his release with his new identity and you couldnt rely on THE LAW to protect you they are to busy protecting the criminals x
May 5th, 2011 at 3:41 pm
‘and as freedom of speech i am entitled to say what i want. ‘
Absolutely. And I am perfectly within my rights to declare my views also.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
FYI you probably dont know more about the case, but i willnot begin to get into a mud slinging contset with you. I know what my thoughts and beliefs are and as freedom of speech i am entitled to say what i want. All i know is that if anyone hurt my children in a way to this i would be all out to seek revenge, i love my children and no 2 wrongs don’t make a right but i wouldn’t be happy until i knew that they no longer breathed the same air as me. I don’t particularly care about your views either so lets end it there Emma !
May 5th, 2011 at 3:38 pm
‘Think you will find Emma that the lady justice stands atop of the old bailey in London WITHOUT a blindfold and this is because she originally didn’t have one !!!!’
Lady Justice is older than the Old Bailey. The blindfold has been common in her depiction since the 15th century. The Old Bailey has only been in existence since the early 20th century (built on the site of Newgate Prison).
‘would you stand in front of Denise and Ralph and explain your “law” views to them???’
Yes. Because my views are based on the law of the land, not the law of vengeful lunatics.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:36 pm
Emma you are either very highly educated or a saddo that reads a lot either way your grammar is very good and you seem to believe that you know your stuff but if you had bothered to take any notice of mine or Andreas comments rather that just pick for fault you would realize that our opinions come from the heart and not some legal dictionary and sometimes in life they are worth more. maybe when you get out in the REAL world and are fortunate to have someone so close you would die for them then maybe you will realize not all the answers in life are in a text book.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:34 pm
Think you will find Emma that the lady justice stands atop of the old bailey in London WITHOUT a blindfold and this is because she originally didn’t have one !!!! Again i ask the question if you have children and if you are old enought to remember the case? because i certainly hope if you have children nothing happens to them in the same category as to what happened to James. Again would you stand in front of Denise and Ralph and explain your “law” views to them???
May 5th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
Andrea – I have two children – I’ve been asked this before and I have no idea what relevance it has.
‘When you actually know what happened to James then come and tell me that these 2 deserve a 2nd chance because they DON’T. ‘
I’ve read all the court transcripts. Chances are I know a good deal more about the case than you. I work within the legal sphere.
‘there was outcry outside the courts when those 2 were on trial and if the jo public could of got their hands on them 2 at that point they would of been ripped limb from limb. I wonder coolandcalm and Emma if you were old enough to remember the outrage?
Yes I was old enough. The scenes outside the court were disgusting – and a clear indication that they need to be protected from loons like that. THAT is why new identities were needed and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that they are needed less now.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
‘wonder if you would both want them so heavily protected if it was your 2 year old that they had lead to his death?’
Yes, that is what a reasoned, civilised justice system is based on. The wronged getting to decide what should happen to offenders.
Have you seen the figure of Lady Justice? (Google it if you don’t know what I mean). She wears a blindfold. Why do you think that is?
There is only one legal system in the world where the victim’s family in murder cases get to decide the punishment. Sharia Law. Which (I am glad to say) we do not have in this country – or have ever had under English Common law. Justice has always been taken out of the hands of the wronged and placed into the impartial hands of the state. If you think it should be in the hands of the victim, then I suggest you move to Saudia Arabia, where there is a judicial system which more closely mirrors your beliefs.
May 5th, 2011 at 3:24 pm
oh finally someone else that has some sense TJ, there was outcry outside the courts when those 2 were on trial and if the jo public could of got their hands on them 2 at that point they would of been ripped limb from limb. I wonder coolandcalm and Emma if you were old enough to remember the outrage?
May 5th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Emma and coolandcalm, i am definately no psychopath but feel very strongly about this whole thing, James was a baby 2 years old. @ 10 / 11 yrs old you KNOW right from WRONG and if you don’t what does that say about how these 2 were soooo obviously dragged up ? I wonder how many of you actually have children? I would die for my children. When you actually know what happened to James then come and tell me that these 2 deserve a 2nd chance because they DON’T. And as for coolandcalm its a good job there is too many “Andrea’s” in this world and not too many of you because my kids and others would not be safe if it was down to the likes of you to protect them!!! I wonder if you could actually sit in front of Denise and Ralph and tell them that the 2 of them need protection and that they should not spend the rest of their days locked up ? i am pretty sure they would tell you the reasons why they should! And why should my taxes etc pay to keep them protected??? if you would like to donate your’s go right ahead…….
May 5th, 2011 at 3:14 pm
Emma and cool and calm. your getting very personnel about people on here – bad grammar? did’nt know it was a spelling test. psychopath? thought everyone was entitled to their view? wonder if you would both want them so heavily protected if it was your 2 year old that they had lead to his death? And as for there licience agreements and being honest with the people they become involved with it did’nt stand for much when jv reoffended did it im sure that was’nt in his ‘conditions’! sorry to offend but i’m with Andrea if it was my child they had killed i’d gladly do time for my revenge! no matter how good you think my grammar is!
May 5th, 2011 at 2:27 pm
Sadly there are too many ‘Andrea’ types out there… thats why those two boys needed protection from the off.
Nutters Rule.
May 5th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Andrea, sorry but you sound like a psychopath. To say that you would have personally hanged two ten year old children and ‘laughed’ is disordered in the extreme.
May 5th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
‘how many other people are being put at risk- future girlfriends maybe with children, workmates, local residents, friends the at risk list goes on’
If you knew about the case, you would know that as part of their licence conditions, JV and RT must be honest about their past if they form close relationships.
‘ why shudnt he know realise crime doesnt pay and let him fend for himself hes had chances and as tax payers we have all funded him’
See what I mean about spelling and grammar?
You may not agree with it but Venables’ right to life under law (both British and international law) come above and beyond anyone’s right know who he is. And the cost of new identities for Venables and Thompson are far less than either keeping them in prison or the massive cost of their lawyers hauling countless people through the justice system should something happen to them.
It should be noted that if Venables is killed, those held responsible won’t just be the person/people who carried out the act. There could be a whole raft of people who find themselves on trial for conspiracy to murder (including friends/family of the victim if they have been circulating the photo). Conspiracy to murder carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.
Not so cut and dry when you think of it like that is it?
May 5th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Sorry chaps i am glad he has been exposed, if and when he gets out he could be living next door or down the road from my kids. My daughter was the same age as James when JV and RT done that horrendous crime. Kids or not they should never ever have been allowed out of prison. They done a crime only a sick person could do, they were children agreed. however at 10/11 yrs old you know what you are doing they both knew what they were doing was wrong. Why should their identity be protected ???? Let me say this, if it had been my decision i would of paraded them in the street and allowed anyone who wanted to do exactly what they liked to the pair of them. I don’t know how Ralph and Denise have carried on living well they probably just exist after what happened, its a good job it never happened to my child because every breath i took would of been spent hunting them down. And yes it probably would of turned me insane and bitter but in my eyes i would of lost everything anyway. I would of made damn sure that so would of RT and JV lost everything too not just the names they were born with.
I knew someone in the court when those 2 evil spawn of the devils were on trial and some of the things they done were never released to the press. There are no words to descibe the crime what they done, and definately no words in describing what them 2 are. For a crime like that, death penalty regardless of their age and i for one would of pulled that trap door from under them and also laughed while i done it….. And all you “do gooders” out there you only campaign for the “lets forgive” because nothing as bad has probably never happened to you so you don’t know the feeling that must fester. James was a baby 2 years old trusted them 2 completely with his life, and unfortunately thats what he paid with. May he rest in peace, and hopefully one day his mum and dad will find peace too.
May 5th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
hi ive been hearing bits about info about jv being leaked. i agree that they were both only kids themselves when the first horrific offence was commited but surely they knew it was so wrong to do what they did to that little boy. The pain james’s family must of gone through you wouldnt wish on your worse enermy and also lets not forget the familys of the two offenders they also must of gone through hell but the money being wasted on protecting jv and rt is so wrong. rt hasnt reoffended so he therefore is entitled to keep his secret new identity as yes he was a child back then but jv is an adult now and has the justice system not spend enough on him already he was given his chance with a new life and new identity but he chose as an ADULT to offend again so surely its time he lived with the consiquences. There are so many people in prison that will be released on simular crimes and they will have to face up to what they have done when they are out. How many times is jv going to reoffend knowing that his big brother ‘the justice system’ will give him a whole new life each times he screws up!? Apart from anything else each time he has a new identity how many other people are being put at risk- future girlfriends maybe with children, workmates, local residents, friends the at risk list goes on….. maybe its time to look after the innocent people this could effect and let him finally pay for the crimes hes commited especially the ones as an adult. why shudnt he know realise crime doesnt pay and let him fend for himself hes had chances and as tax payers we have all funded him.
Post edited, too much of a leading question
May 5th, 2011 at 11:34 am
Franco – it’s not a hoax, the pictures exist and have existed for a while (I first knew of their existence back in August, the name he was living under, and where he was living).
I had the good sense to keep the information to myself though (although I did inform the MoJ that the pictures were circulating and who was circulating them). It should be remembered that Denise and Stuart Fergus were at the Old Bailey during the sentencing for JV’s latest offence and his assumed name and the town he was living in were both revealed there although the press were barred from reporting the information.
However, the website which has published these photos is down. The person who runs the website claims it will be up later today but he’s playing with fire imo and is incredibly stupid if he thinks there will be no repercussions for him clearly breaking the law.
May 5th, 2011 at 11:25 am
I’m fascinated (in a horrifed way) to have been shown a Facebook page ‘The Murder of James Bulger’ and you have to click the ‘like’ button.
Like? LIKE?