2 Bloody Years!

just blame the last government... what was his statement... was it softer on crime or education edducaton or .... what the ...
Bulger was killed in 1993 which was a Tory government. The judge at the original trial stipulated their release to after a minimum of 8 years. This was increased to 10 years by the lord chief justice.

and when was he released.....

think now....
I don't like it any more than you, but I struggle to see why this is a party political point :confused:
 
Sponsored Links
just blame the last government... what was his statement... was it softer on crime or education edducaton or .... what the ...
Bulger was killed in 1993 which was a Tory government. The judge at the original trial stipulated their release to after a minimum of 8 years. This was increased to 10 years by the lord chief justice.
You are entering into a discussion with a deviant (geraint).
 
Just trying to clarify his point. I'm no fan of the previous administration, but that doesn't mean that everything that happened during their time in office was their fault.
 
You are entering into a discussion with a deviant (geraint).

Back to top
well you have shown your true colours... and to insult me again... never mind..

can you not see what i was saying... why was he released... should have been shot...

but tone and gorden let the little ****e out...

now do you understand....
 
Sponsored Links
just blame the last government... what was his statement... was it softer on crime or education edducaton or .... what the ...
Bulger was killed in 1993 which was a Tory government. The judge at the original trial stipulated their release to after a minimum of 8 years. This was increased to 10 years by the lord chief justice.
You are entering into a discussion with a deviant (geraint).



you should stop reading and believing wiki....

how sad... the only words you can think of are of the threatening variety. so you use that as a defence.... :eek:
 
What you must remember here is that when the crimes were commited originally the offenders themselves were only ten years old.
There will have been some disbelief that children that young could be evil.
That is what prompted the relatively short original terms and the case for making a new life for them.
Sadly this has proven to be a mistake and in the case of venables at least he has proven to genuinely be rotten to the core.
In this instance rehab should be ditched and an admission that we really have a wrong un here should be made and the strongest punishment available should have been applied.
When Jamie Bulger was killed there was planning and unbelievable cruelty and sadism involved. If anyone doesn't know he had objects forced in his mouth. he was beaten and his head was crushed with concrete blocks before he was lain on the train track deliberately to make it look as if he had been killed by a train whereupon a train indeed come and sever him in half.

Evil does exist in boys of ten years old. In fact I have proof it exists in boys of six years old. My best friend at infant school was drowned by being pushed into the canal by a boy called steven Pinder. A classmate who was surly and antisocial and of whom everyone was scared even at our young ages. He had a young brother called George I believe who was only 2 years old at the time but whom Steven blamed on pushing my friend into the canal. He wasn't even capable of pushing anyone into the canal he was tiny.

Venables should have been given a maximum sentence for his child porn offences. What is even more disturbing is the fact that his identity will be kept secret again when he leaves jail and his new neighbours will have no idea they have both a murderer and a peadophile in their midst.

What does venables actually have to do before the authorities wake up?
Have sex with a newborn before eating it?

Its the ony combination left for him to shock. I for one would not put a bet on against it happening.
 
whatever you might say about me or the filth in this world...

the boy is evil.. as the law stands he served his sentence,,

on leaving prison he would have been murdered.. which is illegal.

so he was given a new life.. that was not for his sake.. its democracys sake...

however bad it sounds.. thats it..
 
The age of criminal responsibility was set at 10 years old many, many years ago. These days children are far more advanced in their intellect, (possibly part due to parents wanting to 'dress' them up to copy celebrities and act more mature etc), and therefore know at an earlier age what is right and what is wrong. I don't hold with this reasoning that 'they were only 10'. They knew what they were doing was wrong! Plain, simple and undeniable!
Stuff this nonsense about them coming from broken homes, living in squalor, watching violent prnography! It doesn't wash with me! I lived, (still do but different home), very close to where they lived and where they commited this evil act. I was friends with one of the officers on the case and he has told me things that were never in the press and things that were exaggerated by the press. Their defence was a load of blox!
They should have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole at the very start! If my son had done it he would have been disowned by me and made to face the full consequences of his actions!
 
The age of criminal responsibility was set at 10 years old many, many years ago. These days children are far more advanced in their intellect, (possibly part due to parents wanting to 'dress' them up to copy celebrities and act more mature etc), and therefore know at an earlier age what is right and what is wrong. I don't hold with this reasoning that 'they were only 10'. They knew what they were doing was wrong! Plain, simple and undeniable!
Stuff this nonsense about them coming from broken homes, living in squalor, watching violent prnography! It doesn't wash with me! I lived, (still do but different home), very close to where they lived and where they commited this evil act. I was friends with one of the officers on the case and he has told me things that were never in the press and things that were exaggerated by the press. Their defence was a load of blox!
They should have been sentenced to life with no chance of parole at the very start! If my son had done it he would have been disowned by me and made to face the full consequences of his actions!


what ever you might say.. it is the rule of the land.... that we all have to live with.. simple...
 
I was friends with one of the officers on the case and he has told me things that were never in the press and things that

either say.. or shut up....

name your mate and what he said

if you cannot... we are back to the ifs and not ifs...

if you cannot say fact you should keep your mouth shut..
 
name your mate and what he said

When I am told something in confidence because someone has to talk about what they have been through then I keep that confidence. Even my wife doesn't know the details and I certainly won't be satisfying your curiosity.
Before you go on to ask how do I know it wasn't a fabrication, (though no doubt you would put it in a much cruder tone of question), I have also heard VERY similar accounts from other officers involved in the case.
 
kids are inheretantly cruel..

there's not one of us out there that didn't use a magnifying glass on an insect once we knew that the spot of focused light was hot..

there's not one of us out there that never broke something for the fun of it..

I must admit that as a child of somewhere between 9 and 11, I once dropped a house brick on a bird that had been got at by some animal or other.. part of me now wants to rationalise that I was putting it out of it's mysery, but part of me also knows that I wanted to see what would happen and what the final results would be..
 
name your mate and what he said

When I am told something in confidence because someone has to talk about what they have been through then I keep that confidence. Even my wife doesn't know the details and I certainly won't be satisfying your curiosity.
Before you go on to ask how do I know it wasn't a fabrication, (though no doubt you would put it in a much cruder tone of question), I have also heard VERY similar accounts from other officers involved in the case.

If you can't say or won't say, then why bring it up in the first place?
the only reason is to make yourself seem more important.. it's the equivalent of chanting "I know something you don't know..." on the playground..
 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top