Our Home Secretary admits "I'm sorry I can't provide more details for this great story but the law forbids me to do so. Like everyone I'm furious that the public and, in particular, the tabloids cannot feast their lust for vengeance and hatred with greater details of cruelty and nastiness. Isn't it dreadful that we cannot whip up hatred and blood lust like we ought to be able? Surely the public needs to know as much as possible" or words to that effect.

one should read Gita Sereny's book about Mary Bell the child killer. Extraordinary insight into a very similar case.

Everyone is a victim in the Bulger case..just horrible.

Victim Impact statements... the Bulger mum will be making one - I really don't think the impact on the friends or families of victims should become a part of the decision - clearly, those close to victims, or victims themselves, deserve care and sympathy and attention (and even, in some cases, compensation) but their emotions should never be a part of justice.

victim impact staements are an anathena. Justice and punishment should be dipsassionate or one person may face a geater penalty because of a families grief and another a far less penalty for the same crime.

The statements should be reserved for compo claims and aid in health issues. It's been shown in heaps of studies that victim statements do littlwe to help those making themy.

yet more tabloid driven lunacy.

The same story on the news two days running. I note that he was jailed for a breach of a condition of his licence, yet people are talking as though he has committed a further crime. For all we know he might only have missed an appointment, or failed to register a change of circumstance.

He was ten when he committed his crime. I'm sure he is now nothing like when he was ten. Which of us are? (and I don't mean appearance.)

In the shop today I overheard two women fuming about the case, and one was saying how they'd kill that Bulger kid if they got their hands on him. I didn't bother correcting her.

I love that Emma - sums it all up really, doesn't it?

Interesting case has just happened in Oz that sums up situations like this and shows how terrible it is when the media begin to have unjust power in respect to the law.

A great heart surgeon Victor Chang was gunned down about 20 years ago in a botched kidnap case. (Princess Diana's last ever charity event was in his honour).

The 3 killers were eventually jailed.

One killer was released 6 months ago by the parole board after 17 years jail.

The media outcry was defeaning..and the government re-arrested him and put him back in jail. 2 days ago he was released again and deported back to Malaysia after a judge ruled that the government had broken it's own laws by illegally reincarcerating him with absolutely no power except an outraged Murdoch driven frenzy. Now his lawyers are suing for compensation for the 6 nmonths he was banged up for.

A group of top lawyers and barristers banded together and issued a scathing statement on the whole affair.

Putting aside whatever peope think of the Chang case which was horrible..they succinctly say the whole matter was a dreadful insult to every other murder victim who was just an ordinary citizen and Chang's death had been elevated to such a level that it reduced the realtives of others who are murdered to second class citizens. And it's true.

They want victim statements banished as they have become another media exercise.

That nearly everyone I meet can't see the wood for the trees is beginning to get me down. It's getting to stage when eductaion is nigh on pointless, people CANNOT think for themselves (certainly not the U21's anymore) and I am beginning to have a problem with even breathing the same air as these idiots.

Let's be honest - is there a single person who cannot see the true agenda here? The media want Venables exposed, punished and hopefully mutilated so their GOOD STORY can continue, preferably with blood, pain, harm, damage and death... just like everything that happened to poor Jamie Bulger.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained by all this coverage except nastiness and feeding their readers and viewers with more vicarious thrills.

I actually think the time is fast approaching when the Internet - which, sadly, can reflect the unpleasant side of humanity as much as the tabloids, if not more - gets used to bring down the media lusting - on our behalf - after pain, torture and agony.

Can we stop feeding Christians to lions please?

What would have been the point of keeping those 2 boys in jail after they reached majority?
A terrific crime,and yes of course they had to be locked up as a punishment,deterrent & for our protection.This however has to be kept in context.Is there any point in trying to rehabilitate children if we then expose them to the world of the adult criminal?
These kids paid the price of loosing their own childhoods,for cruelly destroying that of another.They continue to pay a heavy price,that of a life of secrecy and fear.Fear that a wrong word could mean exposure,& death.

So what if Venables has commited some small crime? Had it have been major no doubt we'd have known about it,he would have been tried.The fact it was a revoke of a licence tells me it was more minor...wow The press should get real,perhaps learn how to be real investigative journalists like say Paul Foot,not indignant pen pushing sensationalists with nothing better to do than stir up hatred,that just belongs in the past.

"I can completely understand the public outrage in this case"... says Gordon Brown; quite honest and fair.

But what he doesn't say, but we all know, is that the public outrage is only because of blood lust and a desire to peer at a car crash and has nothing to do with decency, common sense or justice.
What good will it do to know details about Venables? None.
What gratification will it give us and our pandars, the media? Lots!

I do hope there's SEX involved.

very well said, JK.

The thing I can't understand is why there had to be an announement about this matter at all. He was given a new identity so that should be the name etc under which he is detained.
I'm guessing any new inmate in the last couple of weeks who fits the right age etc will be suspected of being Venables. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already been "outed" somewhere but the press can't publish.

JK is spot on.

I recall 1993. A mob of baying Liverpudlians attacking the police van holding the two boys.

As JK says...what society have we become that would applaud and whoop with delight at watching and participating in a public beating to death of two children?

The kind of society that created Thompson and Venables in the first place.

Blue Boy wrote:
The thing I can't understand is why there had to be an announement about this matter at all. He was given a new identity so that should be the name etc under which he is detained.
I'm guessing any new inmate in the last couple of weeks who fits the right age etc will be suspected of being Venables. I wouldn't be surprised if he's already been "outed" somewhere but the press can't publish.

I guarantee most of the media knows exactly what his new identity is and are beside themselves that they cannot publish.

The Fat Controller wrote:
JK is spot on.

I recall 1993. A mob of baying Liverpudlians attacking the police van holding the two boys.


How do you know they were Liverpudlians. The court case actually took place in Preston. I know this because I was working in Preston at the time for a year, so unless people specifically made a 40 mile trip to Preston, I would say they were probably not Liverpudlians.

There was just a report on Yahoo saying that the breach was in fact a fight that Venables had a work with a colleague. The news item has now been taken down. This narrows his identity down, even further. any 27 year old that has been recently dismissed from their work because of a fight will be suspected of been Venables.

I was reading some of the threads on the Fratton Faithful Footy Mad board and they were pretty grim reading. They were even trying to associate the case with the recent murder of a mother and child in Southampton even though the arrested man in that case was only 21.

Venables should now lose his right to anonymity. He was granted that for the horrendous crime he committed in 1993 whilst still a child. He is now a fully grown 27 year old adult who has breached the terms of his licence by committing a further offence. How many chances does he deserve?
Too many do-gooders on here, I would guess from the comments that very few of you have children of your own, if you did have I'm sure your opinions would be somewhat different.
Try thinking of the victims and their families instead of bending over backwards to protect the rights of criminals.

Well Carl, Venables is somebody's child and a victim of narrow minded people who love being cruel to others but need an excuse to justify it to their consciences.

You are quite welcome to believe it is right and just and noble to bully and hate and spit at other human beings. Some of us think it's as bad doing it to Venables as it was him doing it to Bulger and your attitude of vengeance and poison simply illustrates a more cunning style of nastiness.

James Bulger was also someones child and a victim of having his skull smashed open and his body cut into two pieces on a railway line.
It's not about vengeance, its about justice, Venables had a choice, he did not have to abduct a child from a shopping centre and murder him, he chose to do it, James Bulger was the innocent victim who had no choice in what happened to him.
When someone committs a crime of that magnitude they forfeit their human rights in my opinion.