Jon Venables | Anorak

Posts Tagged ‘Jon Venables’

Jon Venables may never get out of prison

Jon Venables is back in prison. Venables, infamous for being the child who murdered a child, has been jailed for 40 months for possessing pornographic images of children and what the trial judge called with no little tautology, a “sickening” paedophile manual. The “Jazz Guide” as it was labelled on a laptop Venables kept hidden behind the headboard at his West Midlands home, showed what Mr Justice Edis called “vile” advice on how to rape children.

The Star says Edis thought the evidence show Venables was “at least contemplating carrying out sex attacks on children”. It’s worth looking at everything the judge said in summary. It might even be worth repeating what Venables told police as he was being driven to a police station: “This is my own fault. I’ve let people down. I’ve had stupid urges, inquisitive. I’m not going to be seeing this for a lot of years. It won’t be slap on the wrist for me.” He also claimed too having “no desire to have physical contact with children in real life.”

Is downloading images from the ‘dark web”, the same as seeing images in a book and storing them in your head? And has Venables, as the Sun declares on its front page and once again in page 5, “GOT AWAY WITH IT”? And there’s Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger, the parents of James Bulger, the two-year-old Venables and his friend Robert Thompson murdered. Mr Bulger calls the sentence “an insult”. He wants Venables’ new identity made known. “Unmask the monster,” says the Mail.

Here are the remarks – supplied by the Judicial Office – in full made by Mr Justice Edis at the Old Bailey as he sentenced Jon Venables.

The victim surcharge applies. I make a deprivation order for the laptop computer.

I make a sexual harm prevention order with the prohibitions set out in the order because those terms are necessary for protecting the public from sexual harm from you. That order will last indefinitely, that is to say until (if ever) the court discharges it.

You have been convicted of a sexual offence to which the Sexual Offences Act 2003 applies, and I certify that fact. You will therefore be subject to the notification requirements of that Act for an indefinite period.

The offences of which you have been convicted are such that you may be barred under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006. Jon Venables, you have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity to three counts of making indecent photographs of children contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, counts 1-3 on the Indictment, and one offence of possession of a paedophile manual contrary to s. 69(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015, count 4 on the Indictment. The relevant guideline suggests a sentence before plea discount of 12 months, or, after discount for the plea of guilty, eight months. The sentence I am about to impose will be much longer than that, but must remain proportionate to the offences with which I am dealing.

This case is unique because when you were 10 years old you took part in the brutal murder and torture of James Bulger. That was a crime which revolted a nation and which continues to do so, even after the 25 years which have passed since it happened. He was two-years old. The facts of what you did are notorious and there is no need for me to repeat them here. From all that I know about James’ parents it is clear that you not only took his young life, but have also devastated theirs.

You received a life sentence for that crime, and after serving about eight years you were released subject to licence. That licence lasts for life, and there are conditions attached to it. Breach of the conditions means that you can be recalled to serve a further indefinite period of imprisonment under the terms of the life sentence. The commission of criminal offences while on licence is a breach of the licence and you have now been convicted on two occasions since your first release. This is the second of those convictions. In 2010 you were convicted for the first time of similar offences to those which are before me, and received a sentence of two years’ imprisonment. Although entitled to release after half of that sentence, 12 months, you were detained until 2013 under the terms of the original life sentence. The immediate effect of the licence today is that you will not get credit for the time spent in custody awaiting today, and, more importantly, that there is no guarantee that you will be released when you have served the sentence I shall pass shortly.

The Parole Board is the body which has responsibility for deciding when you will actually be released in this case. What I have to decide is what punishment is appropriate for these offences. In that respect I am required to follow a guideline unless it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so. Because the legal language of the offences has a technical meaning I wish to explain exactly what you have been convicted of.

You have pleaded guilty to ‘making’ the images listed in counts 1-3. This means that you downloaded them from the internet for your own gratification. You did not yourself create the images and you were not present when someone else did that. You did not intend to distribute or sell them. The point about child pornography is that it involves films and images being made of very serious sexual offences being committed against defenceless children. It is heart breaking for any ordinary person to see this kind of material. The consumer of it, you, therefore does two things. First, he emerges as a threat to children from real harm caused by his own offences against them. A person with a perverted sexual interest in children plainly poses a higher risk than one without. Secondly, by being a consumer of this dreadful material he causes others to make it and thereby promotes the commission of very serious and damaging offences by others. These are the reasons why the offence is regarded so seriously.

There were 1170 images, and moving images were included. 392 were in category A which is the most serious class of image. These include multiple images and films of penetration of children and also some images where the young victim appears to be in physical pain. Some of them were babies. Given your history, it is significant that a number of the images and films were of serious crimes inflicted on male toddlers. You did this using a browser called ‘TOR’ which allows anonymous browsing on the internet and access to what is called the dark web. It was designed to enable you to obtain these images without being detected.

In addition, you had a paedophile manual, which you acquired in the same way. This is a vile document which gives detailed instructions on how to have sex with small children, as it puts it, ‘safely’. The use of that word in that document reveals the cynical brutality of its author. This manual was created by someone with some detailed anatomical knowledge and is designed to encourage its readers to perpetrate the most serious sexual offences against very small children. It is a direct incitement to do this. Although the maximum sentence for this offence is far lower than the maximum penalty for the other three offences, it is, in my judgment, no less serious.

Offences contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 are specified offences and the court should consider whether an extended sentence should be imposed. Is there a significant risk of serious harm to the public from the commission by you of further specified offences? I accept that downloading images for private viewing does not directly cause serious harm to the public.

The existence of a market for this kind of depravity undoubtedly causes serious offences to be committed by others against children so that the images can be created. This does cause children all over the world to be seriously harmed. That dreadful fact does not appear to trouble your conscience at all. As a consumer of the products of this barbarous evil, you, along with many others, indirectly cause it to happen. The commission of these offences and the possession of the manual suggest that you have a compulsive interest in serious sexual crime against small children. The possession of the manual also suggests that you were at least contemplating the possibility of moving on to what are called ‘contact offences’, that is actual sexual crime against children. This is against a background where you know the very substantial penalties you face if you are caught.

The incentive for you to live a quiet a law abiding life out of the public eye does not just come from penalties imposed by the criminal justice system, which is why there is an injunction in place to protect your life. You took a very great risk when you committed these offences and this suggests to me a compulsive desire which you could not control. You did this on a day when you were undergoing assessment in the contact of your life licence. This shows how manipulative and dishonest you are. There is no evidence that you have ever actually embarked on the commission of any contact offence. There is no evidence of grooming or, in this set of material, of you having been in contact with other men with a view to gaining access to children.

The pre-sentence report was prepared by someone who has had significant dealings with you. Its author concludes that you present a high risk of serious harm to children. It is agreed that the threshold for an extended sentence is met but submitted on both sides that the question is academic since the extended period of licence would add nothing to the powers which the Parole Board already has and will have for the rest of your life because of the life sentence.

I conclude that the risk you pose to the public is fully addressed by the fact that you are subject to a life sentence. That is a far more potent long term protection for the public than anything I can do today. I have read a pre-sentence report which contains information which, in conjunction with this conviction and sentence, will cause the Parole Board to examine the case when considering release with particular care. I have referred to the opinion of its author already, which will be part of the material on which any release decision will be made. Any evidence at all that you had turned your attention to any children in what I shall call ‘the real world’ would, of course, change this assessment and would probably also result in additional offences being charged with more extensive sentencing powers available.

The relevant guideline suggests a starting point of one year with a range going up to three years. However, the paedophile manual requires an uplift as do the previous convictions in 2010 for offending of this kind. It is a different kind of thing from the images and films because its purpose is to inspire actual offending. It is probably not designed to excite or to achieve sexual gratification simply by being looked at, but to give practical advice. It is extremely important that possession of this kind of thing should be clearly punished and I consider that a consecutive term is required.

Further, there are aggravating features as identified in the guideline. The offences were committed whilst on licence and in breach of a number of the terms of that licence. For the reasons I have stated already, this is a particularly serious aggravating feature in this case. Your breach of licence was manipulative, persistent and dishonest as well as seriously criminal in itself. The children depicted were often very young and vulnerable, there is discernible pain and distress suffered by some of the children depicted and the collection includes moving images.

The number of images is substantial, though much larger collections are routinely encountered in these cases. The proportion of category A images, almost exactly one third, suggests deliberate searching for and collection of this most repulsive material. In doing that, you accessed the dark web. For these reasons the sentence can properly be increased into the next category range within the guideline, which is usually reserved for offences involving distribution of images of this kind. This involves following the guideline by using its ranges, but by doing so flexibly when confronted with a wholly exceptional case such as this.

There is very limited mitigation apart from the plea for which you will receive full credit following the guideline. It is true that you were immediately candid with the police when arrested, but, as is common in this type of case, you did not have much choice. Your difficulties in living in the community are obvious, but you do not have the mitigation that you only offended on one day. Your offending went back some months and required ingenuity to keep it hidden. The offending is so serious that only an immediate custodial sentence will suffice. That sentence must be above the usual range in the guideline to which I have just referred for the reasons I have given. But for your pleas the total sentence would have been five years.

Giving you full credit of one third for those pleas as I am required to do, the sentence on you is as follows: Count 1: 32 months; Count 2: 2 years; Count 3: 18 months; Count 4: 8 months consecutive. This makes a total term of 40 months. At the half way point of this sentence you will be released from this sentence. Whether you will actually be released from prison at that point depends on what action is taken in relation to your life sentence.

There are many horrific crimes. But not of them were used by politicians and press for a cause.

Posted: 8th, February 2018 | In: News, Tabloids | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables’ dating profile: Everton, GSOH and sexual deviancy get the sleuths hunting

Right now hundreds of people are scouring dating websites for Jon Venables, one of Jamie Bulger’s two killers. Find the man will nto easy, given that he has new identity and no longer looks like the 10-year-old who sat in the dock.

Go on a date with Venables. Then sell your story.


Screen shot 2015-01-26 at 08.37.07



The Mirror reports that Venables is not on a dating website for ghouls who fancy killers. He’s on a mainstream site open to anyone:

Jon Venables has joined a popular dating website – where women who contact him have no way of knowing they are letting the James Bulger murderer into their lives.

Well, no. He’s not allowed to reveal his true identity.  He has to live a lie. The Mirror does not include this salient point. So. Anyone who meets him socially won’t know he’s Jon Venables.

We cannot also identify the website, which has many young single and divorced mums among its users, who will not know his background if they contact – and possibly meet – the killer.

Well, anyone can be anyone online:

* Mary Kay Beckman first met Wade Ridley after the online service paired the two up in September 2010, and knew him for only 10 days before breaking up with him. Four months later, according to Courthouse News Service, on the night of Jan. 21, 2011, Ridley hid in her garage and eventually attacked her, stabbing her 10 times and kicking her in the head…

*45 and date-raped: One woman’s online dating warning…

The Mirror adds:

…but experts told of their shock that he is allowed free rein to trawl the web chatting up young single mums – just five years after admitting downloading and distributing child abuse material, for which he was jailed for two years.

Is he free? Is he not being supervised? Is he not meeting his handler? The Mirror’s “expert” is guessing.

The Sunday Mirror discovered Venables inviting women to contact him online in a joint probe with TV investigative reporter and child protection expert Mark Williams-Thomas. He said: “The horrific nature of James’s murder should mean that his killers should remain under constant supervision and be unable to freely roam the internet.”

But we don’t know that he isn’t.

The Mirror then provides clues to help sleuths track down Venables.

In his dating profile, Venables claims his best quality is his sense of humour. He tells of his love of music and ­football – he supports Everton – and asks women to contact him via his social media account.

So. If we all find out who is is, then he will need yet another identity. How is this helpful?

Venables pays a monthly fee to be featured on the dating site and is able to exchange messages and photographs with any women who choose to contact him. The site also has a feature allowing him to video himself and share clips with any of the site’s thousands of members, some of whom have young children.

There was outrage when it emerged in 2013 that Venables had been released from jail after downloading and distributing child abuse images after posing as a mum on a chatroom online.

Videos he downloaded showed girls said to appear as young as eight being raped. Other images found on Venables’s computer involved children as young as two.

And after that, and the story that he’s been shagging his hander at Red Bank prison, maybe the justice department is being litle more cautious with Vanables.

No story of Venables is complete without a word from his victim’s mother. In the Mail, Denise Fergus is quoted:

Denise Fergus, 47, said it was frightening women may have unwittingly contacted Jon Venables without having any idea of his true identity… “It’s quite disgusting that a child murderer and paedophile can have access to online dating websites. I feel so sorry for the girls and women who do not know who they’re chatting to. He’s capable of anything. Who’s to say that he’s not prowling the internet, looking for mothers and targeting their children? That’s the most frightening thing.”

Well, he’s under observation. He can look at legal material. He can talk to people. He can do anything that does not break the law and the terms of his sentence.

“The Parole Board should have some kind of system where they can watch what he is doing on the internet. He seems to be left to his own devices and getting away with it all the time.”

Seems to be. But isn’t.

Mr Williams-Thomas then adds:

 ‘The thing about child sex offenders is that their behaviour does not change – he will always be a child sex offender.’

Why is the sex now seen as more notable than the killing? We live in changed times, where child sexual abuse is always the top story.

In other news, Jon Venables is a cottage industry

A prison officer has pleaded guilty to selling information about one of James Bulger’s killers to the Sun newspaper. David Hobbs, 67 and from Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, pleaded guilty at the Old Bailey to misconduct in a public office between February and April 2010. The charge is understood to relate to a single payment of £750 for information about Jon Venables while he was in prison. No story was published as a result…

Last year, ex-prison officer Scott Chapman was convicted of conspiracy to commit misconduct in a public office for selling details about Jon Venables to a journalist for up to £40,000…

A former News of the World journalist, who cannot be named for legal reasons, was given a six-month suspended prison sentence for the same offence.

The journalist said:

 “He had been taken in by the prison service, given millions of pounds for a new identity and then repeat-offended, and the prison service deal with it by making his life as comfortable as possible. Public interest. What sort of message are they sending out to him that it’s OK to look at two-year-olds being raped?..

“I think I would have been thinking about the public interest of the story rather than the impact on Jon Venables’s mental state.I would have thought the fact he had to live with the fact he murdered a two-year-old would have more affected his mental state than a piece in the News of the World that he may or may not have seen.”

The child who killed a child never moves on…

Posted: 26th, January 2015 | In: Reviews | Comment (1) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

James Bulger: John Venables is free again

jon venables free

HE’S coming out. One of James Bulger’s killers, Jon Venables, will be freed from prison. The parole board said the man who killed two-year-old James Bulger when he was 10 will be released from prison – he was put away for accessing child pornography on his computer. It also emerged that he had been arrested for drugs offences, had sex with a woman on a “parent” team looking after him and broke the teems of his parole by visting Merseyside.

James’s mother Denise Fergus tweeted:

“Venables is getting released. Just don’t believe what I’ve got to go through again.”

The Ministry of Justice spokesman says Venables can “be safely managed in the community”.

 “Their life licence lasts for the rest of their lives, and they may be recalled to prison at any time for breaching their licence conditions. Additionally, they will be subject to strict controls and restrictions for as long as their risk requires them.”

A huge debate erupts.

Posted: 4th, July 2013 | In: Reviews | Comments (2) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Bulger Killer Jon Venables is back to put the Government on trial


JON Venables is back in the news. One of the two boys who murdered James Bulger, aged 2, is the subject of the Sun’s front-page story:

“Bulger killer’s secret release”

He’s out? The newspaper report begins:

“A feared plot to free James Bulger’s killer…”

So. Venables is not of prison. He’s inside. What’s the fear?

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 4th, July 2013 | In: Reviews | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables knew my mother: James Bulger’s killer unites country in hate

James Bulger - videograb

IS Venables “my dad?” So asks a “young mum” from the cover of the Daily Mirror. The answer should come in two words: Jeremy Kyle. This televised patenity test would pack them in.

The story is, however, thinner than the aforesaid Kyle’s prayer book:

A young mum fears James Bulger murderer Jon Venables could be the father of her son.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 9th, March 2013 | In: Reviews | Comments (11) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables: the sexting tapes

LET’S see how this one pans out: the Sun follows up its news that Jon Venables, one of James Bulger’s killers, once sent a picture of his penis to a woman he’d been flirting with online.

Sexting is pretty much the norm. But when you’re Jon Venables, who killed a very young child when he was a ten-year-old – an act the trial judge called “unparalleled evil” – the thing takes on meaning. So. One day after Ralph Bulger, James Bulger’s father, said the sexting was a sign that Venables was a danger, the Sun quotes the victim’s mother, Denise Fergus.

The mum of James Bulger yesterday demanded that her son’s killer Jon Venables should be prosecuted over X-rated images.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 4th, March 2013 | In: Reviews | Comments (51) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

James Bulger: What do you do with Thompson and Venables’ ‘unparalleled evil’?

JON Venables is front-page news. One of two-year-of James Bulger’s two ten-year-old killers is the subject of the Sun’s story:


Groomed? Like paedos groom? Grooming is the word the UK authorities use to describe a paedophile’s online communication with a child they plan to meet and abuse.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 3rd, March 2013 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comments (4) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables: those who tweeted his photo are charged with contempt of court

THIS was predictable. Anyone who tweeted photos allegedly of James Bulger’s killer Jon Venables are being charged with contempt of court. Bulger was two when 10-year-olds Venables and Robert Thompson killed him

Anyone who knows the case and who cares about justice should not have broadcast the pictures.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 26th, February 2013 | In: Reviews | Comment (1) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Pssst! Want to see what Jon Venables looks like now?

WHAT utter fool published a photo of one of James Bulger’s killers, Jon Venables, online?

There is a worldwide ban on publishing anything revealing Venables’ current identity.

Of course, the powers that be can’t say for certain that it is Venables. But the photo is of somebody. If it’s not him, that who would want to be that person? And if it isn’t him, Venables will need yet another new identity and possibly a new face should he ever be released from prison. That will cost.

A selection of reactions on Twitter:


Zac ‏@Zaka_No_7 – Hope this picture of Jon Venables is real & he gets done in. Deserves a slow & painful death. Not £100,000 a year of tax to keep him alive!

Ronnie ‏@RonnieLeiigh I hope somebody leaves Jon Venables on a train track, alive, with paint in his eyes and having been beat across the head with an iron bar.
James Moorhouse ‏@FromBellToBell – What’s sickening is the person who posted that pic of JonVenables will go to prison while that murderer walks free
James Bulger was two when he was murdered on 12 February 1993. Thompson and Venables were 10.
Laurence Lee represented Jon Venables. He recalls:

“The vast majority of Liverpool children probably had a worse upbringing than Venables. Thompson was the Pied Piper. Venables was transfixed by him. On the day they took James, Venables had been planning to go into school and pick up the class gerbils to look after during half-term. Thompson told him ‘Sod the gerbils, let’s go robbing’.

“They committed the most evil of acts but I said to Venables ‘If you were born in Las Vegas you would probably have ended up in the film industry’. I think it depends on circumstances as well as make-up. It’s about nature and nurture. Venables was brought up well, but he must have had a mental quirk. And it must also have been about the chemistry of the two of them together.”

As for himself, Mr Lee says: “Twenty years on I find it more difficult to believe I could have taken on the case – now that I’ve got three children.

“Once the case was over I had nightmares that I was being run over by a train. No case could tempt me back into court – until the bank manager phoned up and said ‘You’d better do some work’.”

Posted: 14th, February 2013 | In: Reviews | Comments (4) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables: Ralph Bulger’s new book sheds light on James Bulger’s killer

THE murder of James Bulger is still news. Ralph Bulger, father of the two-year-old murdered by twn-year-olds Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, has written a book. My James by Ralph Bulger and Rosie Dunn centres on the events of February 12, 1993. The parts about he and wife Denise Ferguson’s unbearable pain are horrible, like being invited to look at survivors’ slides from a fatal car crash. The parts about the child’s body and wounds are grim. They offer nothing new. What is interesting is the story of the criminal case, particularly how Jon Venables comes across: 

‘Is that you on that video, son?’ Ann Thompson demanded. ‘Nah, it’s got nothing to do with me,’ he replied. As if to prove his point, Robert went to a makeshift memorial near the railway in Walton and later took some flowers. When he got home he said to his mother: ‘Why would I take flowers to the baby if I had killed him?’ At another home nearby, Jon Venables told his mother, Susan: ‘If I’d seen them kids hurting the baby, I’d have kicked their heads in.’

Jon’s father, meanwhile, asked his son about the blue paint that was splattered on his mustard-coloured coat. He said that his friend Robert Thompson had thrown it at him.
I later learned that on the Wednesday evening an anonymous woman went to Marsh Lane Police Station. She said she was a friend of the Venables family and knew that the son, a boy called Jon, had skipped school with a friend called Robert Thompson on the Friday that James went missing. He had returned home with blue paint on his jacket.

Jon was having lunch when his mother held her son in a tight embrace and said: ‘I love you, Jon. I want you to tell the truth, whatever it might be.’ He started to cry, and just blurted out: ‘I did kill him.’ The boy looked across the room at the detectives and said: ‘What about his mum? Will you tell her I’m sorry.’ Jon continued to blame everything on Robert. He said they found James outside the butcher’s shop. He said it was his idea to take him, but it was Robert’s idea to kill him. They took him to the canal, where Robert planned to throw him in. James would not kneel down to look at his reflection in the water as they wanted, so Robert picked him up and threw him on the ground. This was how James had first injured his head. He said that James kept crying: ‘I want my mummy.’

‘He wanted him dead, probably,’ he responded. ‘Robert was probably doing it for fun because he was laughing his head off.’ For his part, though, Robert refused to admit any involvement in the attack. ‘He never actually told me the truth in the end – far from it,’ said DS Roberts. ‘He lied from the minute we started to interview him.’ ‘When he was charged, he had no problem with it. I suppose he knew that if he was found guilty he would have a better life than he would outside. I thought to myself, “This boy has caused so much misery and evil.” I didn’t look for the three sixes on the back of his head, but at that moment I thought he was the devil.’

It may oversimplify the arguments, but that to my mind makes them evil beyond belief.

You never do hear much of Robert Thompson…

Posted: 3rd, February 2013 | In: Books, Reviews | Comments (21) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

James Bulger lies, Denise Fergus and sense on child crime from the Centre for Social Justice

KNOW that between 2005 and 2010, 346 children aged 10 and 11 were found guilty of sex crimes. The Sun produces this news under photos of James Bulger and his two killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, and the headline:

Children in rape Torture & Arson

You might have heard the news back in 2010, when the Daily Telegraph reported:

A total of 346 youngsters were either convicted in a court or handed a reprimand or formal warning, according to the Youth Justice Board.

Why has the Sun reproduced this news and passed it off as something new? The figures were produced by the Youth Justice Board in response to the arrests of two brothers in Edlington Yorkshire in April 2009. They were jailed for five years for subjecting their victims to torture and sexual humiliation.

So. Why is this news now? And why is it illustrated with pictures of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables, the boys who murdered two-year-old James Bulger? Well, the Sun’s editor Dominic Mohan told the Leveson Inquiry that the biggest story of 2011 was James Bulger. So. The murdered toddler is once more presented to satisfy the readers’ needs. And where James Bulger is mentioned, his mother Denise Fergus is sure to feature.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 25th, January 2012 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comments (34) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Another crap story about Jon Venables

JAMES Bulger stories are popular with readers. Sun editor Dominic Mohan tells the Leveson Inquiry that the biggest-selling story of the past 18 months was about the killer of James Bulger – and by definition that of his two killer: Jon Venables and Robert Thompson.

Mindful of that, we turn to the Daily Star’s story:


Tom Savage is in the toilet cubicle:

FATTY Jon Venables scoffed so much festive grub he needed emergency treatment for constipation.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 11th, January 2012 | In: Reviews | Comments (5) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables Gets No New Identity And Stays In Prison, Says Source

JON Venables, one of James Bulger’s killers is back in the news. He’s behind bars, where he will stay for his own safely. Well, so says the official report.

Venables is in jail for possessing child pornography. And due to his “fragile mental state” and having told some friends his true identity, he will remain prison.

We learn:

The Daily Telegraph has also been told that if Venables does eventually regain his freedom, he will not be given a second false identity because it has been deemed too costly.

A “source” tells the paper:

“His progress is being reviewed every six months at the moment. He won’t be released until he can be trusted not to disclose his identity again. But because of his fragile mental state it doesn’t look as though he is going to be released in the near future. For his own safety, it is better that he is kept behind bars.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 8th, November 2011 | In: Reviews | Comments (2) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables Will Be Released In June 2013: Then He’ll Disappear

JON Venabales, one of James Bulger’s killers, has lost his parole bid. He wanted to be released halfway through his two-year sentence for downloading child porn. Anorak now rounds up the media’s reactions to justice:

A Parole Board spokesman said:

“The Parole Board has now completed its review of the continued detention of Jon Venables in order to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to his suitability for a move to open prison conditions or direct his release.

“A three-member panel of the board, chaired by a judge, held an oral hearing to review the case and come to a decision. That decision has been communicated to the two parties to the proceedings – the prisoner, the Secretary of State and also, via the Secretary of State, to the families of the victim in this case.”

He went on: “It is the policy of the board not to comment on or confirm its decisions or reasons in individual cases. Such information constitutes personal data within the definition of the Data Protection Act 1998 and its disclosure to unauthorised persons would contravene one or more of the data protection principles. It is the duty of the Secretary of State to notify appropriate authorities who may have a role in supervising an offender in the community of the outcome of the Parole Board hearing.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 27th, June 2011 | In: Reviews | Comments (5) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Ralph Bulger Makes Plea For Jon Venables Never To Be Released

JON Venables, one of James Bulger’s two killers, is back in the news. James Bulger’s father, Ralph Bulger, has made an victim impact statement to a parole board, who are considering the rehabilitation of Jon Venables. Mr Bulger says the murder of his son “transformed” him.

At Liverpool Crown Court, Mr Bulger’s solicitor, Robin Makin, says the move to release Venables was “crassly stupid”. He added:

“Ten years ago this month, in June 2001 a decision was made by the parole board to release Jon Venables. Trying to put somebody like Jon Venables back out into society in an area adjacent to Merseyside … was crassly stupid, it was never going to work.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 24th, June 2011 | In: Reviews | Comments (15) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

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.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 4th, May 2011 | In: Reviews | Comments (133) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables: Albert Kirby And Denise Fergus Are Bled By A Rapacious Media

JON Venables, one of James Bulger’s killers, is causing a “storm”, says the Daily Star. Only, he isn’t. It’s just the media that wants him to. Before we hear from former Det Supt Albert Kirby, who led the investigation and who features on the BBC TV show Jon Venables: What Went Wrong?, here’s a quick look at the story so far:

On 12 February 1993 two-year-old James Bulger was abducted and murdered by ten-year-old boys Robert Thompson and Jon Venables. In November 1993, Venables and Thompson were jailed. Venables went to Red Bank unit in Newton-le-Willows. Thompson went to Barton Moss secure children’s unit in Eccles, Greater Manchester.

In 2001, they were released on lifelong licence. Venables broke his licence and in 2010 was recalled to jail. He was then found guilty of downloading and distributing child porn.

Before the details of Venables’ crimes were knows, Kirby speculated.

“Was it a social offence, drink or drug related, was it dishonesty or was it violence, heaven forbid?”

The man who led the case to catch Bulger’s killers was speculating.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 21st, April 2011 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comments (20) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables: Aged 17 He Had Sex With An Adult In Jail

JON Venables: One of James Bulger’s killers is alleged to have had sex with a woman who worked on him at Red Bank prison on Merseyside as his “substitute parent”, the Sunday Times reports. He was 17.

She was suspended from her job. The matter was not mentioned in official reports.

Today, the Mail lads with:


Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 28th, March 2011 | In: Key Posts, Reviews | Comments (9) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables Only Has Himself To Blame: There Is No Whitewash

JON Venables is back in the news. The investigation into how one of James Bulger’s killers was able to download child porn has cleared officials of any wrongdoing.

Justice Secretary Ken Clarke says Jon Venables “was properly supervised“. The Sun says this has sparked “fury”. But it hasn’t.

Still, the Sun likes to confuse the crime with the system and ads that it has “emerged Mr Clarke has refused to see James’s mum Denise Fergus again”.

Why should he meet with Denise Fergus, James Bulger’s mother? Whatever the reasons, the Sun does not make the same error. Denise Fergus is the voice of the woman whose son was taken was murdered. So, if we want reason, who better to turn to than the young victim’s mother? Says she:

He is making a big mistake by trying to brush this under the carpet… Ken Clarke wants to wash his hands of me. He wrote earlier in the year say he will no longer deal with me direct and I must go through the probation service. I feel betrayed. This report is a classic cover- up. But he should think it through.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 24th, November 2010 | In: Reviews | Comments (21) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

How Would-Be Dad Jon Venables ‘Horrifies Every Parent In Britain’

JON Venables wants to be a dad. Well, so says the Star’s Martin Coutts of one of James Bulger’s killers.

TWISTED Jon Venables has stunned prison officers by telling them: “I’m going to start a family.’”

Coutts says this news is “sickening”. It “will horrify every parent in Britain”.

What, even the ones who shag their children; the ones who have served time for rape and murder; the ones who neglect their children? These parents will all be horrified that a child who killed a child wants a life ahead?

A source said: “He just blurted it out to a prison officer last week.

“They were trying to establish how likely he was to try to harm himself and he used it as a pointer of why he wanted to live.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 28th, October 2010 | In: Reviews | Comments (2) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables, Andy Coulson And Sources Say

JON Venables has not committed suicide. The Mirror’s Tom McTague says that one of James Bulger’s killers is no longer on suicide watch.

As he told a guard:

“Life is better in jail. It’s never been so good. I’ve got everything I need and I’m far happier in here than out there.”

Did he really say that? How do we know he told this to a guard? Is a guard talking to the pres on the QT, dropping stories, perhaps in exchange for cash? If so, that would be illegal. And the Mirror hates illegality.

Since September 9 2010, the Mirror has published 32 stories on Andy Coulson, the former NoTW editor who now works as David Cameron’s spin doctor.

On Coulson’s watch at the NoTW voicemails were hacked. The Mirror is hot on that story from four years ago.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 21st, September 2010 | In: Reviews | Comments (3) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables Gets More Protection From Lags Who Can’t Reach Him

JON Venables: One James Bulger’s killers – the one being kept in isolation apart from all other prisoners – is being threatened by other prisoners.

This is not new news. Venables has been lined up for an attack, or two before. The Star news that prisoners want to hurt Venables “because of his VIP treatment”.

Today, the Star’s Tom Savage tells readers that Venables is so in the line of fire that he…

“…has been placed under increased security in his secret cell after prisoners threatened to kill him.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 11th, September 2010 | In: Reviews | Comments (2) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables Dates Young Mum And Turns To Tom Cruise And Islam

THE good news is that Jon Venables,. One of James Bulger’s killers, is dating. He’s won’t need to embark on “seedy sex holidays across Europe” became as the Sun’s front page scream:


Venables, long a tabloid favourite, is doing his utmost to press all the right buttons. Having killed a two-year-old when he was ten, Venables has had his name linked with: paedophilia (he’s in jail for possessing child porn), drugs, football, Big Brother, Oasis, the World Cup, a fictional TV show, upskirt porn and, most unforgivably, being fat. Now he with a woman, and not just any woman but a “SINGLE MUM”.

And what are single mums but pariahs?

Tom wells tells us that: Venables is “said to have had a one-night stand with the mum when he was free.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 1st, September 2010 | In: Reviews | Comment (1) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables Is Demonised Because He Was A Child When He Killed

JON Venables Watch: Anorak’s look at one of James Bulger’s killers in the news: Today Venables is bedding a “string of hookers on seedy sex holidays across Europe”.

How disgusting. The Star’s Tom Savage and Jerry Lawton are right to tell us of this.

Seedy sex with prostitutes is awful. Why? Well, for starters, why wasn’t it filmed and then broadcast on Red Hot TV, the Star’s sister publication you can catch on the telly.

And why-oh-why didn’t Venables do as decent, normal Daily Star readers do and phone a “TEEN YANK” for “FULL AND TOTAL SEX RELIEF”. Or why not partake of “GRANNY SEX RELIEF” and “UNLOAD WITH AN OLDIE”?

As for the story:

Warped Venables trawled the continent for prostitutes during his nine years of freedom after serving his jail sentence for killing James Bulger.

Read the rest of this entry »

Posted: 27th, August 2010 | In: Reviews | Comments (6) | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0

Jon Venables In TV Murder Plot

JON Venables, one of James Bulger’s killers, adheres to the 4th Rule of Tabloid Journalism that states: All jailed paedos, child killers, nuters and rapists must be subjected to death threats from prisoners, who if they are also paedos, child killers and rapists must not be identified as such.

Ian Huntley, Steven Barker, Jon Venables, Ray Whiting, Craig Meehan and Karen Matthews all have lags lining up to kill them, so say the tabloids.

Venables has been lined up for an attack, or two before.

So to the Star’s news that prisoners want to hurt Venables, but not for the reason you might suppose:

JAIL villains are forming “a queue a mile long” to bump off child killer Jon Venables because of his VIP treatment.

Jerry Lawton looks at the murder mile:

A prison source said last night: “There’s a queue a mile long to do him in. It’s not just what he did to poor little James or the fact he’s a child porn freak.”

Kiddie fiddlers, killers and sex fiends are the stuff of jail. This is worse:

“He’s also king of the castle in here. Anything he wants he seems to get.”

Jealousy. The lags are forming a queue a mile long because they are jealous of Jon Venables, you know, the convicted killer who lives in solitary confinement.

In other news, this in the Sun:

Denise Fergus, the mother of James Bulger – who was murdered by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson after they abducted the toddler – has hit out at a planned storyline for Law & Order: UK.

Oh? Fact and fiction mingling once more:

The plotline will mirror aspects of her child’s horrific murder in that in season three, an episode will depict two young girls abducting then murdering a young boy.

What says Denise?

“It’s virtually a direct copycat of what happened to James. I’m certain they knew it would rub salt in the wounds for me and my family.”

Hard for her and James Bulger’s family. But, unless you are directly affected, what’s on the telly is for the rest of us is just entrainment, and that includes the news.

ITV spokesperson reportedly denied that the episode was inspired by James’ murder. It seems the spokesperson claims the storyline is “loosely based” on the real-life case of 10 year old Mary Bell who murdered two boys in the late ‘60s.

That’s much better.

In episode 2, look out for a lag inside for perving at kids getting knifed to death.

Posted: 24th, August 2010 | In: Reviews | Comment | Comments RSS feed:RSS 2.0