Today I'm angry about.....

[Raven]

Yep, can't even speak proper!

[Verbal]

This absolute gem on the Daily Mail comments section, on an article regarding Jon Venables.

We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ulger.html

[Bruce Rioja]

Electric wheelchair thingies, why the hell are so many of them about, I've nowt about disabled using them but people who are just too fat or too lazy to walk and why do they all think they have right of way and can go at any speed they like.........what are they doing in a pedestrian area too One old dear in Nuneaton is well known for thinking she is in a remake of Deathrace 2000, miserable old cow!

I always seem to see these things parked outside pubs. Oh, I see - nowt wrong with your legs when there's a pint involved!

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

This absolute gem on the Daily Mail comments section, on an article regarding Jon Venables.

We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ulger.html

That is priceless.

[Lord Kangana]

This absolute gem on the Daily Mail comments section, on an article regarding Jon Venables.

We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ulger.html

To be fair and balanced to the Daily Mail (I believe in ironic punishment) somebody also commented this:

I know I will get a load of "red arrows" for this but why does anyone believe they have the right to know all about Jon Venebles. Is this not just nosiness? Jack Straw is correct in not divulging any details. Whatever happened to "a fair trial for everyone". Whatever the man has done, it is totally separate from his wicked past and what good will it do anyone, including him and his family, if details are divulged - other than satisfy our morbid curiosity.

Which I agree with.

[KeeeeeeeBaaaaaaab]

I agree too. Have they been banned from the DM site yet?

[Bruce Rioja]

Which I agree with.

As do I. I've kept schtum though in the belief that I stood alone amongst all the 'burn-him' hysteria.

[Verbal]

Indeed, the Daily Mail has gone against the grain on this issue. Take Melanie Phillips' tuppence, for instance. Most odd (and rather balanced)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ublic.html

as an aside, I agree with LK, KB and BR too.

[Hoboh]

This absolute gem on the Daily Mail comments section, on an article regarding Jon Venables.

We should have hung them when they were ten. Killing children is wrong and should be punished by death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ulger.html

To be fair and balanced to the Daily Mail (I believe in ironic punishment) somebody also commented this:

I know I will get a load of "red arrows" for this but why does anyone believe they have the right to know all about Jon Venebles. Is this not just nosiness? Jack Straw is correct in not divulging any details. Whatever happened to "a fair trial for everyone". Whatever the man has done, it is totally separate from his wicked past and what good will it do anyone, including him and his family, if details are divulged - other than satisfy our morbid curiosity.

Which I agree with.

What a load of cobblers!!!!
If someone had not blown the whistle on Venables recall over what may turn out to be a very serious crime after costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands over the years for his new identity and monitoring etc. etc. ADDED to the fact it will make the decision by some pratt to release him in the first place look like a monumental dropped bollocks, and we have no right to know!!!! TOSH!

We live in a country were justice is seen to be done not the old USSR, trials are public unless there is a security to the realm threat but here we have a government hell bent with super injunctions (which from what I heard on legal program we are not even meant to acknowledge exist) to protect a sadistic child killer who allegedly goes on to re commit another vile crime!! Could this be to hide embarrassment espeacily now with an election looming!
What's next? Suttcliffe working part time on day release in a battered woman's refuge?

For crying out loud I realise any lawyer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

[Lord Kangana]

The sadistic child killing child is that?

Perhaps we'd have saved money by just throwing him to the crowd after the trial and have done with it?

[Hoboh]

The sadistic child killing child is that?

Perhaps we'd have saved money by just throwing him to the crowd after the trial and have done with it?

Sorry but I thought you were an adult at 27

[Lord Kangana]

So what crime has he committed now then?

[William the White]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

[Hoboh]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

A bullet!

Stop being pious for a moment, Venables committed an atrocious crime when he and his mate tortured and killed James Bulger and if anyone thinks that was an "innocent spur of the moment" thing then God help us all.
At that point Venables was detained indefinitely and so he should have been. It seems since then a series of cock ups by paid public officials or people acting on their behalf as been in place. The decision to release Venables has proved to be incorrect if reports are accurate, he has consistently broken the terms of his release culminating in an alleged serious crime, does this not show a pure evil louse? He was given a chance 99% of offenders never get and blew it. I would have him shot.
There is a need to know all the details of what's gone on because the public purse and public servants are involved up to their necks in this, none more so than Blunkett who took the original decision to release him. If we let Straw and his cronies hide behind injunctions why bother with the Iraq inquiry or any others? This to me looks like politicians meddling right from the word go when Venables was convicted in matters of criminal justice, they should all face the music and account for their decisions.

[Prufrock]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

A bullet!

Stop being pious for a moment, Venables committed an atrocious crime when he and his mate tortured and killed James Bulger and if anyone thinks that was an "innocent spur of the moment" thing then God help us all.
At that point Venables was detained indefinitely and so he should have been. It seems since then a series of cock ups by paid public officials or people acting on their behalf as been in place. The decision to release Venables has proved to be incorrect if reports are accurate, he has consistently broken the terms of his release culminating in an alleged serious crime, does this not show a pure evil louse? He was given a chance 99% of offenders never get and blew it. I would have him shot.
There is a need to know all the details of what's gone on because the public purse and public servants are involved up to their necks in this, none more so than Blunkett who took the original decision to release him. If we let Straw and his cronies hide behind injunctions why bother with the Iraq inquiry or any others? This to me looks like politicians meddling right from the word go when Venables was convicted in matters of criminal justice, they should all face the music and account for their decisions.

You believe in evil? Really?

What trial is it you want publicising?

When it happened they were ten, hoboh, ten years old. They'd be doing the Tudors in history, and learning Scotland was up from England, and by many accounts the case notes suggest they didn't understand what they were doing or what they had done. Unless of course you believe a pair of ten year old criminal masterminds could learn how to outwit the police and entire legal system after watching Scooby Doo? You talk about the principles of the British legal system versus that of the USSR, not only in doing so demanding a show trial, but in forgetting principle number one, innocence until proven guilty. You can bet your last can of superbow, if he has commited something bad, and it does go to trial, we will know about it, so I don't see the fuss. Wait and see.

[Hoboh]

For crying out loud I realise any layer worth his salt would have the case against him thrown out due to being unable to get a fair trial but his sentence was indefinite so just lock the louse up for ever. You lot know what I'd do with him but the law does not unfortunately have that option.

I don't. So, tell us, what would you do, what is the option that 'unfortunately' is not allowed? And when would you apply the punishment, and for what crime?

I'm curious. Do tell.

A bullet!

Stop being pious for a moment, Venables committed an atrocious crime when he and his mate tortured and killed James Bulger and if anyone thinks that was an "innocent spur of the moment" thing then God help us all.
At that point Venables was detained indefinitely and so he should have been. It seems since then a series of cock ups by paid public officials or people acting on their behalf as been in place. The decision to release Venables has proved to be incorrect if reports are accurate, he has consistently broken the terms of his release culminating in an alleged serious crime, does this not show a pure evil louse? He was given a chance 99% of offenders never get and blew it. I would have him shot.
There is a need to know all the details of what's gone on because the public purse and public servants are involved up to their necks in this, none more so than Blunkett who took the original decision to release him. If we let Straw and his cronies hide behind injunctions why bother with the Iraq inquiry or any others? This to me looks like politicians meddling right from the word go when Venables was convicted in matters of criminal justice, they should all face the music and account for their decisions.

You believe in evil? Really?

What trial is it you want publicising?

When it happened they were ten, hoboh, ten years old. They'd be doing the Tudors in history, and learning Scotland was up from England, and by many accounts the case notes suggest they didn't understand what they were doing or what they had done. Unless of course you believe a pair of ten year old criminal masterminds could learn how to outwit the police and entire legal system after watching Scooby Doo? You talk about the principles of the British legal system versus that of the USSR, not only in doing so demanding a show trial, but in forgetting principle number one, innocence until proven guilty. You can bet your last can of superbow, if he has commited something bad, and it does go to trial, we will know about it, so I don't see the fuss. Wait and see.

The point is we wouldn't!. Venables would have been charged under his new name and no one would be any the wiser so the bodies who are supposed to make sure a, he keeps his trap shut and works within strict guide lines, b. ensure the public is safe and he is not committing new offences would have got off with a dereliction of duty.

Yes I do think there is a degree of pure evil or whatever around, sorry but I and all my mates knew what was right and wrong at 10 so does everyone else, hell nowadays some would teach a lawyer the law.
The offence he is alleged to have been involved in is reported to be Child Pornography, given his record, how long for his sadistic gratification would it be before children were at risk? if they already have not been.
I have a gut feeling and so do others that there was a sexual element to the original Bulger case and questions are being asked why apparently Venables and Thompson were not quizzed more about that.

I'm thinking in this new liberal world we live in why not let Rose West open a youth hostel Brady become a scout leader Nilsson, organise cave tours, hell there's a few jobs for all these cons THEN TELL ME YOU'D BE HAPPY YOUR SON/DAUGHTER /GRANDCHILD WAS ANY WHERE NEAR THEM!

Thought not

[Lord Kangana]

The offence he is alleged

I have a gut feeling

We live in a country were justice is seen to be done not the old USSR

You've answered your own points there.

[BWFC_Insane]

People seem to have a hard job separating the legal system from politics.

The law is being applied. I don't see what the fook it has to do with anyone else, other than those involved.

Why the hell should anyone know what he's alleged to have done? What business is it of anyone?

I just cannot comprehend the seeming lust for "public justice".

Its scarmongering of the worst kind.

It's as bad as "Sarah's law". What if I'd like to know how many arsonists live near me? Or folk with dangerous dogs? Or vegetarians.

What a load of utter daily mail reading bullshit.

[Hoboh]

People seem to have a hard job separating the legal system from politics.

The law is being applied. I don't see what the fook it has to do with anyone else, other than those involved.

Why the hell should anyone know what he's alleged to have done? What business is it of anyone?

I just cannot comprehend the seeming lust for "public justice".

Its scarmongering of the worst kind.

It's as bad as "Sarah's law". What if I'd like to know how many arsonists live near me? Or folk with dangerous dogs? Or vegetarians.

What a load of utter daily mail reading bullshit.

Some one moves into your street, you know nowt about them, they may turn out to be friendly invite you and your folk to BBQ etc, one day you have minor words, he burns your house down with your wife and kids inside asleep, turns out he done this before along with a few other torchings, I'd bet your ass you'd play feck demanding to know why he was free to live in your midst!!!
Reality and debates about freedoms and rights are not the same!

Folk always forget victims have rights!!!!

[Lord Kangana]

Its interesting that you're always talking about communism Hoboh, as you seem to want everyone to be watching everyone else.