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 7th, 2011 at 4:05 pm
‘The man who exposed JV may not be prosecuted for the breach of his identity because it could be argued that JV told people himself, hence how some people already knew, who then went on to inform him.’
Ann, he wouldn’t be prosecuted for revealing it (that actually isn’t unlawful). He would be prosecuted for publishing it in print (individuals AND media organisations are equally responsible here and the internet is covered in the injunction under the term ‘in print’)
And Ann, you are right. Everything he puts out now (either on a Facebook private page or publically) is going to be strictly monitored. He’s a fool if he thinks that the Attorney General’s office can’t look at his private Facebook pages unless they have ‘friended’ him. He is being accused of unlawful conduct online for goodness sake. Of course Facebook are going to give the government access – there is nothing he can do about that as Facebook own the copyright of everything posted.
May 7th, 2011 at 6:21 am
‘that was my last comment’
Thank goodness for that.
‘the law was not invented for this,’
No, as Emma (I think) said below – the law was ‘invented’ in order to underline the King’s supremacy and protect his property. But the law as it exists today exists to protect everybody – even those who have committed grave crimes. That is why the man who (allegedly) killed Colin Hatch will find himself on trial for murder just like anyone else. Despite the fact that he is accused of killing a hated paedophile and child-killer, he doesn’t get points for it. Neither will the fact that the victim was almost universally loathed be a mitigating factor in sentencing should he be found guilty.
As for ‘winning’. Clearly your position didn’t win. The injunction remains and those who break it are breaking the law and subject to the consequences of breaking the law.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:52 pm
The man who exposed JV may not be prosecuted for the breach of his identity because it could be argued that JV told people himself, hence how some people already knew, who then went on to inform him.
He will certainly be prosecuted for RT’s identity. His Facebook page is being watched, so he has decided to publish on his private account which requires a friend request. He appears, however, to have no way of ascertaining who is on his ‘side’ and who has requested just to monitor him. Anyone can have a bogus profile. He might as well have stuck to the public page, because it will be no secret when he does.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:05 pm
By the way that was my last comment, I win
May 6th, 2011 at 11:02 pm
Oh super let’s now hope they can both live in peace, grow old and have lots of children just like JAMES was allowed to, no more questions your honour apparently the defence rests!!!!!! Or according to some of you they have anyway, I think I speak for all parents an 99.99999% of the universe by saying this is not right the law was not invented for this, it is wrong and if you think not then I really can’t be bothered with your pathetic arguments, good night, god bless, Hey I bet the Bulger’s wish they could say that to James!
May 6th, 2011 at 9:24 pm
And to show that Facebook is subject to UK law, here is a case where the Attorney General has started proceedings against someone for Contempt of Court for what they placed on Facebook (precisely the offence of breaking the injunction against publication of anything which would identify Thompson and Venables)
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/04/28/silence-please-a-facebook-contempt-of-court-allegedly/
People recklessly posting things are playing with fire.
May 6th, 2011 at 9:11 pm
‘Well done, the Guy/Gal who exposed him will proberbly serve more time than JV ‘
Well he was aware of the injunction and he broke it. His fault. (And he won’t serve more time – the maximum is an 18 months sentence which means 9 months inside, 9 months on licence. Jon Venables has already been inside for more than a year).
May 6th, 2011 at 9:03 pm
Well done, the Guy/Gal who exposed him will proberbly serve more time than JV will for his latest re-offence, you must be so proud of yourselves, god help bus all if you are the future, perhaps that is why society only benefits a certain person
May 6th, 2011 at 8:44 pm
Apparently he has been warned that any attempt to publish Robert Thompson’s details will lead to action against him. He has been told that the injunction protecting their identities relates to individuals as well as media organisations. So in other words, he has ALREADY broken the law by revealing Jon Venables’ identity.
His lunatic friends are asking for him to email them Thompson’s details anyway, so they can publish en-masse. They don’t realise that Facebook has probably received a letter of a very similar nature (Facebook UK has its own server so it IS subject to UK law despite what people think).
May 6th, 2011 at 8:08 pm
Well the owner of the site has been served with an injunction apparently. So it will be interesting to see what becomes of it. Serves him right – he was profoundly stupid and reckless and has shown a complete disregard for the law (as have certain commentators on this very thread).
I’d be interested to see what the injunction said, if it tells him that he has to reveal who circulated the images/data to him, we could be seeing certain people other than him charged with Contempt of Court (which, by the way carries a maximum of 18 months in prison I believe).
May 6th, 2011 at 5:28 pm
Some states in the US make great use of intensive foster care for some offenders. We are only starting to introduce this concept. Rather than custody, children/young people who offend are placed with a foster carer who has been highly trained to deal with troubled (and troublesome) kids. They are usually the only child in the house so get specialised and individual attention. The child is placed quite far from their home area in order to minimise past bad influences. Strict boundaries are imposed in an environment which is more family-like. It has an enormous success rate. Oregon leads the way in this type of sentencing.
Believe it or not even kids who have killed have been sentenced in this way rather than placed in custody (so despite a belief that the US is always more punitive, in some cases the reverse is true).
May 6th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Good post June. Socialisation can be simple, small things. Family meals, bedtime stories, learning to care for pets, positive interests (clubs etc). Or just simply watching TV and discussing it as a group.
These may not seem much but there are many children who have none of these things and who grow up with a very skewed view of what is ‘normal’.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I live in a fairly nice leafy road, its a quiet sleepy backwater, however one of the neighbours fosters children, the usual reasons being because the parent(s) are ill or involved in accidents and are hospitalised and unable to be at home…the children are normally well behaved and well balanced if a little shellshocked by their parents temporary absence.
However from time to time the reason changes and children from backgrounds which are abusive or otherwise harmful are staying with them and the kids are beyond control, absolutely feral.. from their neglect or sometimes from being directly affected by drugs or drink. There is no upbringing evident at all, they don’t know even how to use a loo or what soap is for, and pizza seems to be the only food they know.
Now and then there is an incident where its necessary for the police and ambulance to be called, its so sad that they know what a knife can be used for and how to break into cars. These children are almost always even younger than 10, and then they are taken away by the authorities.
I agree the Sate must intervene, people do have the right to have children but they MUST understand their responsibilty starts with its birth instead of stopping just after conception
May 6th, 2011 at 4:45 pm
crossed posts Emma!
May 6th, 2011 at 4:44 pm
I would of course hand my child in to the police…
I was talking about the posters who said they should have been ‘shot in the balls and left to slowly bleed to death….’ while he/she watched & laughed. Or handing them over to the baying crowd.. etc etc etc. would anyone do that to their own children? If not then why any other child?
Good homes can produce bad kids and vice versa but sadly more children end up in care/on the streets/on drugs/in prositution/in the prison system if they come from abusive homes.
This should be dealt with before there’s no room left in the system anywhere. Its a huge problem that is increasing daily and one that we will all regret in the not too distant future.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
‘If it were a child of mine who committed a similar crime he/she would have been turned in by me without a second thought! ‘
That was not his (her?) question. The question was aimed at the people on this discussion who were taking pleasure in telling us of all the sick and twisted acts they would like to personally perform on Venables and Thompson. Including laughing while they hanged them and giving them fatal sexual injuries and watching them bleed to death.
I would hope we all would turn our child in to the authorities if s/he commited a dreadful act like this. That would be the right and CIVILISED thing to do.
‘the age old agument that people can excuse bad/poor/criminal behaviour by saying they come from a bad/abusive childhood and home makes me sick to the stomach’
No-one is ‘excusing’ it. Stop reading stuff that isn’t there. All we are saying is that bad behaviour does not just come out of a vaccuum.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:26 pm
I do wonder when victims of crimes will be treated as fairly as the criminals? At 10 years old these wicked children should have been given help and anonimity BUT as soon as they re-offend (as an adult) that should have been removed.
How can we (as June put it) back a system which helps the criminal and fails the victims, Denise and Ralph, so dreadfully?
Also, Coolandcalm……I will answer your question, If it were a child of mine who committed a similar crime he/she would have been turned in by me without a second thought! I would be filled with self doubt and loathing regarding any fault that lay with me in their up bringing for the rest of my days but there is NO WAY that I wouldnt have turned them in to the authorities.
Lastly, the age old agument that people can excuse bad/poor/criminal behaviour by saying they come from a bad/abusive childhood and home makes me sick to the stomach. I have known people who come from what society would term the dregs of humanity and become lovely, decent law abiding people who love their children and know right from wrong.
People are responsible for their own actions regardless of age/background.
May 6th, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Alina, I’m not sure Red Bank was ever that great to be honest. I haven’t read Gitta Sereny’s book but I know Mary Bell claimed to have been raped by both staff and inmates. Given that she was the only girl at the time and some of the offenders she would have been locked up with no doubt in for a sex offence, I am inclined to believe her. There was also a very large enquiry into sexual abuse at the facility which apparently went back years.
I was unsurprised when it was revealed that Venables had an inappropriate relationship with a key worker – it was consistent with other stuff I’ve heard about it. I believe that Thompson got by far the better placement. Barton Moss is much smaller (with virtually none of the facilities that Red Bank has) but it has an excellent reputation. One of the problems with Red Bank is that it is very big and includes the secure section plus a normal, bog standard children’s home. They share resources and this creates inevitable conflict.
I actually think Red Bank may well be the only former approved school left (most other local authority secure children’s homes were built more recently) but yes the secure part of it is a full on secure facility these days and I think, like Barton Moss; that it only takes kids who are either subject to a secure remand or are serving a criminal sentences (some secure units hold children on welfare grounds). Like all secure units of this kind, the security is extremely tight (of Category A prison standard – multiple doors are locked and every time a child enters a door it is locked behind them).
May 6th, 2011 at 3:33 pm
Emma: I agree. I’m curious, now that the Approved School system has gone and has been renamed ‘community homes’, in what ways is Red Bank and the like different to how it used to be in Mary Bell’s day? Has it placed more emphasis on the incarceration? It does obviously have educational facilities. Having read ‘Cries Unheard’ by Gitta Sereny, it seemed like an excellent institution before (despite the lack of psychiatric facilities.) Anyone know how it’s changed?
May 6th, 2011 at 2:34 pm
C&C – I agree. In fact, I’d be happy to see an updated, improved, more caring and more progressive return to the old ‘approved schools’ system where youngsters can be taken out of a toxic environment, socialised, made to adhere to boundaries and given a proper education (for those who are not academic, moved into a work-based education stream).
May 6th, 2011 at 2:18 pm
I know I’ve said this before but the Children’s Act hasn’t helped the situation. Keeping families together at all costs sounds ideal but in practice it means that its very hard for Social Services to intervene. Their hands are tied.
Forceful education and the reinforcing of consequences needs to begin in school as young as possible… there is a generation of youngsters who have babies for all the wrong reasons, several babies by different fathers and realise too late that its not a barrel of laughs. They then end up raising another generation of lost souls, some of whom will grow up be the new Venables and Thompsons. Everyone is so hung up on two little boys who did something so awful that they’re doing nothing to avoid it happening again.
Scary……
May 6th, 2011 at 1:51 pm
Yes June – that was the Edlington case. Again, products of an extremely violent home with little love and few boundaries. Thankfully, however, their names were not released to the media so they at least don’t have the stress of living under assumed identities when released and the taxpayer won’t have to fork out for their protection.
Thing is, I don’t WANT to say that taking children away from their natural families is a good thing – I’d rather the parents engaged from the start which is why they should be told from the beginning – work with us or we have to act in the child’s (and society’s) best interest.
Robert Thompson had the lot when it came to dreadful upbringings. He witnessed brutal domestic violent by his father on his mother; had violence by both meted out on him; grew up in a house where alcoholism was rife; witnessed his mother’s mental breakdowns and suicide attempts; was sexually abused by an older relative; had sibilings taken into care. My god, even their house burned down at one point. How bad can it get?! He wasn’t just failed by his parents – the family had been known to social services for years yet nothing appeared to be done. The school he went to also failed him – I can’t for the life of me understand how a child can truant 50% of the time without the school taking serious action (no action was taken at all IIRC). If action HAD been taken, Thompson wouldn’t even have been at the Strand shopping centre that day – he’d have been in school.
May 6th, 2011 at 1:04 pm
A licence to become a parent and parenting classes would be the ideal, sadly many of these children are just conceived behind the bike shed on pub window ledges , what have you, like as not don’t attend ante and post natal clinics, and possibly done their level best to abort the foetus, which could have caused damage too.
I’ve spent a large part of my life rescuing animals from abusive owners, and a similar end product too, vicious and unsocialised, unless caught really early on.
There was a case last year (human) of two boys sexually abusing two other younger boys, and left one for dead.
But it all boils down to crap parenting, its a shame conception can be so easy at times
May 6th, 2011 at 12:56 pm
response to post 70, i put “@ 10 / 11 yrs old you KNOW right from WRONG” i also put that my children know right from wrong, and @ 10/11 yrs old they knew right from wrong. Explain how that is contradictory? I think that you should read June post. Some could learn from putting their point of view across, without being rude and insulting….
May 6th, 2011 at 12:32 pm
C&C I think in Thompson and Venables’ cases, it was a cycle of poor parenting going back generations. Certainly Thompson’s family history is deplorable. His parents were abusive but they in turn were abused by their parents – there seems to have been an inability to understand how to resolve conflict by any other means than violence. Both Thompson’s mother and father grew up in horrendously violent homes. Thompson’s mother also suffered from severe mental health problems – likely contributing to the neglect of her children. Venables’ mother also suffered mental health problems and was investigated by the police at one stage for abandonning the children for hours (remember Venables’ sibilings had severe learning disabilities so this effectively was rendering Jon the carer).
For me, intervention needs to come much earlier – during pregnancy. Such families need to be identified and more or less told – ‘ accept our help to deal with your parenting skills or your children will be taken away – it is your choice’. Yes it will require costs at the beginning but the long-term costs (both in financial and human terms) will be far less.
May 6th, 2011 at 12:22 pm
I think its so easy to overlook the damage that can be (and is) done to children by their abusive parents.
Many of the teens running amok on inner city estates with knives and guns, battering, raping and killing were ten year olds once. and two year olds and newborn babies.
Many of these were abused, humiliated and brutalised and as a result became angry themselves. The only way they can get ‘revenge’ for this is to do it themselves to someone else. and so the circle continues……….
Society needs to look to the parents of ten year olds who commit crimes like these and deal with them before screaming for the blood of children.
May 6th, 2011 at 12:11 pm
And sorry, my point was, that crime was committed by boys who had no access to TV/video games etc.
Mary Bell also presumably had no access to these sorts of things. One thing does link all of them – childhoods blighted by neglect and abuse.
May 6th, 2011 at 12:04 pm
June, these crimes are very rare (ie 10 year olds murdering people) but they are not unheard of. Indeed, there was practically a carbon copy of the Bulger murder around 130 years earlier in Stockport – two kids abducted a two year old child they didn’t know, walked him for miles (encountering adults on the way who did nothing) and then for some unknown reason, they took him to a secluded spot, stripped him and battered him to death.
It caused a stir but there was one word that wasn’t used – evil. Even if the days of Victorian sensationalism where real belief in the devil still existed, there was a feeling that a child’s criminal mens rea was shaky at best. They could NOT be considered responsible in the way that an adult could. For that reason, they were found guilty of manslaughter (not murder) and sentenced to five years in a reformatory school (one of them was released early). The media was restrained, with The Times saying that it was right that these children were treated with compassion and that it didn’t believe children could be guilty of murder. After release, they went on to have quiet, uneventful lives.
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/a-child-murdered-by-children-1616746.html
Perhaps we should progress to 1861.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:54 am
C&C
I’ll attempt to answer your questions – I’d be absolutely horrified if someone I was responsible for committed crimes of this seriousness, (in fact any crime at all).
Its a matter of parental responsibility in monitoring every thing a child does from watching tv,to contacts inside and outside the home, including the internet in this as children are subjected to grooming etc. So many people do use the tv as a child minder and don’t actually supervise what is on and it can allow brain washing in that violence at any level is acceptable.
Would I inform the police, yes I would have to.
In all honesty vigilanteism isn’t going to go away anytime soon and neither is the bloodbath that public opinion can turn into.
BUT, the Media should have a responsiblity in their reporting and coverage of any serious crime.
The victims, if still living, and their families should receive counselling and support, and privacy to try to heal as much as they can. I didn’t like the knocking that Denise Bulger was getting, which is why I haven’t joined in on this topic, she has been failed by Society, the same Society that is protecting her son’s killers.
However I hope the book is thrown at the irresponsible git who has revealed the identity of Venables, not because of the risk of his life and limb but because of the cost to the rest of us in yet more protection, and the cost of trial and jail of said git.
May 6th, 2011 at 11:47 am
Missed Andrea’s response in among the self-righteous screed.
I note now you said your children would never do anything like that because they know right from wrong yet in an earlier post you stated that at ten years old JV & RT knew right from wrong…. .
contradictory.
All I can say is be careful of sweeping statements. ‘There but for the grace of God go I’…… is a pretty good mantra for all parents. Far better than ‘mine would never do something like that’.
who knows??