According to sky news he breached terms of his release. Which terms have not yet been released, as yet.

GOOD news then ! best place for the monster .

see link

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/4/20100303/tuk-bulger-killer-back-behind-bars-dba1618.html

Is he not "Jon Venables" anymore - I thought they changed his name to protect his identity?

.....with a story like this it seen to have worked

Best place for the little scrote!

Lets hope he rots this time.

Heard on the radio this morning he commited a "violent Assault" in his place of work. Real Radio News this morning.

JAMES BULGER MOTHER: TELL US WHAT JON VENABLES HAS DONE


MINISTERS were last night facing growing public fury over the secrecy surrounding the return to jail of one of James Bulger’s killers, Jon Venables.

Government officials have slapped a worldwide injunction on disclosure of any details about murderer Jon Venables breaching the terms of his release.

Despite the rising clamour for information they refuse to say whether he committed a new offence or which prison he was sent to.

But the British public, having spent £6.25million protecting the killers’ identities, insist they have a right to know exactly what Venables has done to be recalled to jail.

It is being claimed that drug taking and Venables’ increasingly violent temper were behind the latest events but James Bulger’s parents last night demanded firm answers from Justice Secretary Jack Straw. James’s mother, Denise Fergus, told friends: “Everyone should know the full circumstances surrounding the arrest of my son’s

murderer. Venables must have done something very serious to be in breach of his parole and if that is so everyone, especially me, should be told.”

Mrs Fergus, 42, added: “For Jack Straw to say Venables has been taken back into custody without explaining what he has done is callous and insensitive.”

James’s father Ralph Bulger, 43, said: “What has the Government got to hide? I only hope to God another
child has not been killed. We have a right to know why he is back in jail.” Confusion about the latest twist in the horrific case deepened yesterday when even Home Secretary Alan Johnson admitted the public had a “right to know” about the reason for the murderer’s return to custody.

He said: “I believe the public do have a right to know and I believe they will know all the facts in due course. But I must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings,” he said.

However, he was humiliated within minutes when the Ministry of Justice said Mr Johnson had only been speaking about cases in general.

Venables and fellow killer Robert Thompson were both aged 10 when they snatched James from a shopping centre in Liverpool on February 13, 1993.

The two-year-old’s battered and tortured body was later found on a railway line just two miles away. Venables and Thompson were convicted of murder and given compulsory life sentences.

But in 2001 they were both freed on life licences and granted life-long anonymity. However, they were warned they could be returned to jail for the rest of their lives if their release conditions were breached.

These conditions included not committing further offences, not contacting each other, not approaching the Bulger family and staying away from Merseyside.

Mr Bulger said he only learned of Venables’ return to custody, which is understood to have happened last week, when a police officer and Home Office officials called at his Merseyside home on Tuesday.

He said: “I always said that the judges and politicians who let James’s killers go free had his blood on their hands because they just didn’t care enough about the precious life of my little boy.

“Knowing one of them is behind bars again is little comfort when they won’t even tell us what he has done. It is one more kick in the teeth for James and his family. We campaigned long and hard and fought to keep both of James’s killers in prison but no one would listen.

“Our legal system danced on the grave of my innocent son without a hint of shame or compassion by letting these murderers go free.”

James Bulger’s uncle Jimmy Bulger also demanded to know what had prompted the return to custody. He said: “These boys were diagnosed as psychopaths and as far as I am aware there is no cure for that.

“We warned that they were not safe to be let out of jail but once again we were trampled on by a so-called justice system that seems to care more about James’s killers than this little boy’s life.

“The whole thing is disgusting and smacks of a cover-up. When is the Home Office going to tell the truth about what really happened?”

As public revulsion at the secrecy grew, former detective Albert Kirby, who headed the Bulger investigation, said it was unlikely Venables was recalled for a minor infringement of his licence conditions.

He said there “must have been a build-up of incidents” for the action to have been taken and he called for the Government to reveal the reason for Venables’ recall.

He said: “It would help to clarify and put this to rest once and for all if the public did have some indication of what it is he has done.

“Not where he is or details like that but the reason why his probation has been revoked and he is back inside. It’s going to be asking the questions why is he there and did the authorities fail in making the assessments of his suitability to come back into society.”

Venables, now 27, will appear before a hearing of the Parole Board within 28 days of being recalled, where the details of the breach will be examined. Such hearings are not normally open to the public.

In a statement yesterday, Mr Straw said: “I’m sorry that I cannot give more information at this stage on the nature of the alleged breach. “I know there is an intense public interest in why he has been recalled. I would like to give that information but I’m sorry that for good reasons I can’t and that’s in the public interest.

“But the public also need to be reassured that action was taken properly and promptly to recall him to prison and there will now be proceedings before the Parole Board to determine whether he should remain in custody.”

THE EXPRESS

What if he has not actually done as much as the papers are speculating? What if all he has done is gone into an area that he is not allowed or something as trivial as this?

What if he has done something really bad? Does this mean that the other brother should be put in prison 'just in case'?

Can people really be 'monsters' or 'evil'? Really? This is why they are not releasing the information. How can either side have a fair trial with the way the media portrayed the situation last time and possibly again if it is released?

Just thought i would try to spark actual disscusion on the topic

x x x

TBH it sounds pretty clear as to what he can / cant do. If he is stupid enough to breach these terms then he deserves to go back - hes been given a 2nd chance, conditions of this are clear, and if he decides to break these conditions then he must face the consequences as a 27 year old man!

That is very true StuyMac. If he has breached any conditions he should have to deal with consequences just like anyone else.

But people automatically think the worst, and I dont blame them with the way the media portrays everything.

Oh yes, people can be really evil, make no mistake.
In this case though he obviously has to be tried, as per normal or perhaps without a jury......and he will get his come uppance. If it is a really horrendous thing he has done then the people who mis-assessed him for release should be sacked, no pension, no pay-offs, no place to hide. Too many of these pillocks put the public in danger thru misguided senses of being do-gooders and seeing no evil in anyone.

The way the media portrays everything?
He tortured a child to death!!!!
How else are the media supposed to portray it? youthful high spirits? A practical joke?
Get a grip.

Marcus Steel Hi all , not got long so il throw my 2pence in and il start with this joobiuos person David calvert ....

There's a few heads running around discussing "iz it him or iz it not,,, let's talk FACTS for a second friends, let's discuss what we knw about these inuendos flyin about.

1. People have brought the name David calvert back from 2005 when a so called innocent man frm fleetwood was outed as being jon venables after a dicussion with a neighbour, to comform he wasn't the threat venables, he produced a "photo album" to put bayin avengers atrest.

Descrepance number 1, What 25 to 30yr old scally (to put it mildly). Has keept hold of there family photos,,,, I'm 30 and when I left home I didn't take 1 photo with me , never mind my familys family album...... Sounds more like he's been primed to use that as a blag to put people who have an inklin off the sent...

Suspicious. Fact number 2

if mr calvert isn't Mr venables, he "should be sat a home right now in fleetwood" watching all the media and not sat in prison in isolation.

If that the case why hasn't the papers been round to his house fleetwood to report dat he's at home while venables is rotting on jail..... I.e. Proving he's not venables,,, after all he can't be in two places at once.....

Suspicious fact number 3....

Why is there no reports by the big media mogals on this David calvert??? Everybody is talking about him, so why not the main stream papers, even if it's to confirm David Is not venables,,,
u'd ov thought an innocent man who'd been accused of being a shit bag tott killer would be running to the papers to collect his appoliges from 2005s "mistaken identity"
but no sign of him....

And the 4th fact is that the goverments anominity on venables brings reporting restriction on the media about jon venables and his new name,, i.e. They can't reveail his new I D,,, So this seems a bigg coincedence that. There's no new report on this David calvert from fleetwood,, all the reports are from 2005! There are no presant day reports or info on David calvert.... Not even to settle the 2005 rumors....
Seems the 2010 press sanction for jon venables has sumhow streched to David calvert from fleetwood

is there a picture from 2005 of david calvert?

This story has been picked up by sky news http://blogs.news.sky.com

tbh i would rather not know what his 'new name' is or alleged crime until he's been dealt with by the courts. Fair trial and all that. if he is guilty tthen I dont want him 'let off' due to not getting a fair trial. We'll get to find out this decade sometime...He'll probably be 'sugared' before any court case.

I went to school with a lad called David Calvert, he's 27. He was convicted of credit card fraud and sent to a yoi for it.

May be the same one being hounded? has he got the same colouring as Venables?

Yes, same colour hair as him.

Can't see there being 2 David Calvert's from Wirral/Liverpool area born in 1982.

If i can i'll dig an old photo out.

Someone I know said there's a David Calvert who's 28th birthday is today and lived/lives Eastham way... I'm not sure how accurate this is but don't want to start any witch hunts. The possibility of more than one is quite plausible in my opinion

He lived in Eastham so i'd bet bottom doller it's the same lad.

IIRC Polophil it was around 1999-2000 he lived in Eastham near the Hooton Arms area

All this interest in what they look like, where they are, whats their names, anyone ever thought if that information was revealed, one of the Bulger family might take revenge (and who could blame them) and they would end up doing 20 years. Another member of that families lives ruined. Best left for judicial system to take its course.

yer, i for one have been quite contradictory myself *hands up*

I agree Bert... I was trying to say that is highly possible there are lots of people of a similar age with that name living in the country... we don't even know if that is his name! Best left to the court to throw the book at him

There must be dozens of people who know the identity, it must drive them mad not being able to say.

Phil, Im 27 and from Eastham/Bromborough. What School did/david calvert you go to?

One time i went to an outpatients apt at a.p.h and there were 50 ODD people with MY name, that showed up on p.c. I was gobsmacked!! And no, im not called Joanne Bloggs.

He moved to Eastham when he was around 13/14 iirc, not to sure on school. Don't know if you recognise his face? He's not changed much since I last seen him.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ther-accused-Bulger-killer-Facebook.html

if anyone had any intelligence about them they would realise that the real Jon Venables is in custody and David Calvert is at home with his family! The terms of Jon Venables release licence is that he is not to return to the Merseyside area at all. I highly doubt that this guy people are starting a witch hunt for, is in fact Jon Venables! use your heads! leave the innocent guy alone!

Any trial appearing in court now will be compromised purely from the media coverage alone! let the criminal law system do its job! and if you want him locked up, then it is in our best interests, as a community, as parents, as a country to keep his identity hidden so he can be tried fairly and recieve the maximum penalty!

sambalina we know it's not him, all the retarded people following each others FB status's/chain text messaging has done this.

I wish David luck in the future and that Venables is locked up and the key thrown away.

Sorry, but I don't even see any resemebelance between the two, anyone with an ounce of sense would realise he is not the same man.

its drivin me mad! everywhere i turn David Calverts there begging people to believe its not him! freakin retards need to get a grip!

As for Venables, prison is the best place for him! keep his identity secret as far as im concerned, let him get his sentance, let him do the time!
as yet its not confirmed what he did! tabloids started a rumour n ran with it! stop bloody diggin for info n let him get whats comin! the more the public demand to know, the more it will affect the trial ffs! x

Thats the thing Matt, peope were sending the text's etc without seeing the lad.

Bet the people who sent the texts in the 1st place don't resend one saying it's not him!! lol

Bandycoot -> I agree that people can do ‘evil’ things but not that they are born evil (Does he have horns too and big claws? (This is how the media portrayed him).

Why should the assessors be sacked? Yes an investigation would have to take place to make sure that everything was done correctly, and to find out why the assessor may have been wrong. What if the person followed everything through and did all the tests correctly?

If we sack everyone in positions of responsibility because they are not robots then we will have no one in those positions and all your so called ‘evil’ people will run free. This kind of talk deters people for training in jobs like these.

Scoops-> Do you realise that the media said that there was a monster, an animal on trial rather than facing the fact that it was a little boy.

Did the media report that social workers knew that there was a problem but didn’t act severely until another little boy had died?

Because of the media pushing for the animal with horns and a tail to be tried in an adult court our legal system was made a mockery of.

The media should portray the truth rather than a gruesome picture of the big bad wolf that actually was a little child on trial.

Did the media report that 30 odd people saw the children and ‘thought’ about intervening but did not?
What about the fact that the children are said not to have premeditated the murder, but thought about the prank of abducting the child, but could not think of a way of ending the prank?
Do you realise that is was said that the children did not understand the aspects of death properly?
It was also assessed that if an adult had of intervened the children would have handed over the little boy rather than get into trouble.

As for not doing their trial, if I am right the reason why they did not go into an adult prison is because they would have only been in there for a couple of years and an adult prison is a school on how to become criminal. All the work that the juvenile prison had done with them would have been un done and they would have been more of a danger to society.

Just to clarify I have no sympathy for the two boys who killed the young boy. I am only concerned with this witch hunt and the miscarriage of justice that occurred in the original trial.

The only miscarriage of justice in the original trial was that they virtually got away with it. When I was 10 I knew some of the things we did were wrong and we expected, and got, retribution when we were caught. It taught us several things: right from wrong, punishment would be meted out if caught, the worse the crime the worse the punishment, if it was a really bad thing you was contemplating then don't even do it. This attitude carried on into adult life, as many of my old skippers would testify. I did the crime and did the time, I knew what I was doing. Jenny, I hope that nothing as foul as this ever happens to you or one of yours. I think your tune would change a bit then, truly.

Thankfully not many of us are as rabid as the tabloids, they're very irresponsible. I couldn't care less what happens to either of the kids who murdered Jamie Bulger, but there's no way I'm getting riled because of manic speculation from The Star.
I know at that age it's very easy to step over the line, nobody knows what was going through their minds on that day.

It was cold blooded, premeditated murder!

(The below is what actually happened to Jamie on that day - in case anyon has forgotten over the years.... Ive included it as a spoiler as it may be distressing to some readers)

Read the spoiler Jenny, just read the fooking spoiler.
Then tell me he isn't a fooking monster.

The miscarriage of justice is only that the pair of them are still not in prison till the day they die. Unfortunately the word monster is not strong enough, but it will have to do for now. They carried out an evil act, that in my opinion does not stem from a deprived up bringing but stems from being born evil. I have heard and read a lot of arguments that people can not be born evil, but what triggers the switch to become evil if people are not born with it. It can't be an up bringing because there is evil in all social levels. As far as Venables and Thompson are concerned, they had no time at all on this earth, to learn that type of evil.

Some support for Jenny,

I DO NOT care nor want to know what their names are nowadays. If society cannot help bring two 10 year old children back from a very dark place then something is drastically wrong.

The murder was horrible and one which I hope we never see again, I blame the boys parents more than the two boys who committed the crime, If you are treated like an animal from birth than that will be how you turn out. I don't mean living in poverty I mean having no responsible adult around, no food, scrounging for what you can get, no punishment when you do wrong so then it becomes the norm, living like this your morals will be low and social services and other such people should shoulder some responsibility as they were known of at the time, why wasn't it reported that they were absent from school ? Surely these sort of troubled kids should be closely monitored.

The press have a lot to answer for too, they almost made it like a soap opera at times, do you think we would of had so much hate from them if an adult had killed a 2 year old. We hear this all the time where a parent kills a child and they are sectioned then released after anywhere between 2 - 5 years and live back amongst us in society, the press sold lots of papers by making out that we had to BORN EVIL children and that it could only happen in a poor estate.

I feel extremely sorry for Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger, as a parent I cannot even imagine and don't want to try and imagine how they must have felt and still be feeling. Listening to Denise she believes that they were released too soon, however when asked if she thought they should have stayed in for life she replied along the lines of " I think they should have served the 15 years originally given to them ".

I knew right and wrong at ten years of age and was punished if done wrong, however I don't believe that I truly knew what death was, I knew it meant dead but not sure I knew it meant you never woke up again. I think these kids were allowed to run riot at will and ended up like ferret's with no thought of any possible punishment or right and wrong.

Have watched and read lots about this case as I enjoy reading real crime books and watching tv documentaries on the subject so feel I know as much of what happened to little James Bulger as I need to know and still strongly feel that society reacted strangely as we never before had known a child killing a child before and it stirred emotions that were away from adult killing a child, surely we shouldn't be locking 10 year old's up for possibly 70/80 years without any hope at all.

if 2 domestic 'animals' had done what they did to another domestic 'animal' they would have been destroyed.
these two evil barstard should of been destroyed.
they don't deserve to breath the same air as we do.

I'm all for healthy debate / discussion but I'm starting to think that this thread had run it's course and should maybe be locked before emotions run too high?

StuyMac I have some information that doesn't so much as go against what your spoiler says but does suggest some different information to support my arguments. Unfortunately it will have to wait till tomorrow though (if the thread is not closed by then I will post it up) as its on my other comp.

Sorry for the quick response I am off out, reply tomorrow if the thread is not closed.
xxx

Quote:
What about the fact that the children are said not to have premeditated the murder, but thought about the prank of abducting the child, but could not think of a way of ending the prank?
Do you realise that is was said that the children did not understand the aspects of death properly?
It was also assessed that if an adult had of intervened the children would have handed over the little boy rather than get into trouble.end quote

Hey Jenny, these 'boys'walked little James 3 miles before murdering him, they had plenty of time to end their 'prank' as you put it. These kids had also been bought up on a diet of sick videos frequently showing death - they must have understood it and finally if an adult had intervened the adult would probably have been arrested.

Despite the media coverage at the time and since, and the fact James Bulger was almost the same age as my son, so I took particular interest in the case, I never knew any of these disturbing facts. I am utterly horrified and no excuses made for these children can ever justify what they did. They should have been locked away for ever because with all the help in the world there is no coming back from the evil place they where when this horrible crime was committed.

Its all right Softy, a debate like this is bound to be emotional, giving ones point of view is healthy and up to now no one has got personal or insulting, lets hope that's how it remains.

Softy I dont want it locked, I am on the different side to most but have not been insulted,

To clarify I did not say that I am making excuses for what they done as that can never happen, I am simply saying that surely mankind can help 10 year old's to a more stable state of mind and give them a chance in life.

Jenny, just read thru again and I am adamant that people who are not up to the job take flak when they are rumbled as being in a job beyond their competence. If this rule was followed then job performance would improve (especially when you stop their severence payoff and pensions). I love the German point of view that there is no such thing as an accident, someone is to blame. It's harsh but it works. Cut out the psychobabble and look at things they way they are. Bring kids up right and usually they will be alright when they get older. Stuy's spoiler was harrowing reading.

Bandy, your right, normally if we bring children up correctly in a loving environment, not necessarily in a wealthy environment, they normally turn out ok. That's because most children are born as we deem it, normal, and we should stand a better chance of raising a decent person. I believe there are people who have evil within and if its within, the likelihood its there from birth. What triggers that evil to come out, when and at what age, that we don't know. Whatever age evil raises its ugly head, it should be removed from society and not let back in.

I think the whole story points to 2 conclusions...

Either the system for rehabilitation has failed or he is a "bad egg" that is now beyond help

Jon Venables was released and given a second chance, his release was under conditions, which Im in no doubt were made very clear to him. Now at 27, he has made a conscious decision to break those conditions.

Had he abided by his release conditions this whole story would have been left in the past by the media, so I have no sympathy as he continues to flaunt the law.

Stuymac:

I agree that he should be locked away now for a very long time after being given the second chance, but let's remember that from what we all know Thompson is living in society still and maybe he was the success and I believe he should be left alone now unless he commits further crimes, unlike some on here who I feel would have him still locked up today.

I do believe that Denise Fergus and Ralph Bulger have a right to know what is going on.

How nice it would have been if little Jamie could have had a second chance.

That could be said of any murder.

I read somewhere that the fella who killed the two boys in Eastham in 1995 ? can apply for parole soon, I class his as a lot worse than two 10 year olds however public perception is that the two kids must be evil as they were kids yet the adult could be having a bad time.

That's how stupid our Judaical system is, murder is murder and all murderers should serve life, without a hope of parole. One murder is no different from another, they have all ended someones life and should pay by losing their freedom for life.

They should serve life which means life, ie 100 years with no parole like in the USA. Oh, by the way, it is worse, the barstard who killed the two kids in Eastham should have hung like all adults who kill children.

I am sorry this is really long but I tried to answer everyone :S


Here is a link that supports some of my arguments. link

Please be aware that this was probably written by some sort of criminologist. It is not written with emotion and it is quite blunt at times.

Bandycoot  They did not ‘get away’ with anything. They were taken from their families. Their freedom was taken away and they were put under strict rules. They are unable to be ‘themselves’, see each other or their families and they are the targets of a witch hunt, of which if someone did find out who there are their lives would be at risk. Hopefully they also have to live with the guilt. Bear in mind that they would be back in society at some point, if we moulded them in to a further criminal people would have been even more at risk. The only other option is for us to be as bad as them and beat them up or kill them. What would you have done?

Yes I agree if this had happened to my child i would have a different view. But this would only be because my emotions would cloud my irrational thinking. I will also state that I ‘did’ have this view until I looked further into the aspect of this case when I was doing my degree.

I myself would not leave a child of 10 alone in the house because I do not feel they are ‘old enough’ to be alone. Therefore I would also not expect them to be tried in an adult court as if they are not ‘old enough’ to do adult things then why should we try them in an adult court? You may say ‘because it was horrendous’ and yes you are correct but it was still a horrendous act committed by a child, not a monster, not and an adult, a child, therefore that equals a child court.

In fact the children should have by law been given incapax dominae which means because they are so young they have no criminal responsibility for their act. So now we have both the boys and the courts breaking the law. Where do we draw the line for the age of criminal responsibility? Does a 2yr old have it? Should we lock up a three year old if they have done the same thing? Or maybe even hang the 3yr old? Bear in mind we have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. I think it’s the second lowest in the world, the lowest is Scotland with age of 7.

In Norway the age of criminal responsibility is 15. A girl of 8 years was killed by a group of young boys. This case was treated totally different. I have read quite a few cases where even the mums of the child that has been killed has said how disgusted she was with how England treated Venables and Thompson. There was no criminal trial. The boys where sent back to school and helped by psychologists to understand what they had done and how to deal with the consequences. Not even the girl’s mother could find it in her heart to despise them.
She states: “I do not understand why those boys killed my baby and I will never recover. But I do not hate those boys. They understood what they had done but not the consequences, not the terrible pain they had inflicted on those close to Silje.”

Stuymac I assure you I have not forgotten what it was that happened. I also assure you that I have researched other aspects than just what the media said. I sympathize with the Bulger family and the families of the two boys who are also being punished for what their two sons have done. But what I am talking about is two boys not the monster that your link suggests. If we make out that the children are monsters then it will be okay to kill, hang, or stone them to death. But if we see them as children, well who is going to copy them and kill a child. Not many because that would make us as bad as them wouldn’t it? Do they deserve it? I don’t think that any living person deserves to have their life taken away from them.

Bert1 So then was it in fact evil that condemned them? Maybe they thought the child was evil? Maybe it was a cry for help? Maybe they did not understand it? If you believe that Satan was in the child, then would you have had them killed? Would this make you an evil person too? I do not agree that someone can be born evil and as I have studied child development I really don’t think it is possible. Children can have mental issues and if this is the issue then why had they not been picked up in school? I know that social workers where already working alongside the boys so there must have been some issues, but these must not have been dealt with properly. I agree what is it that makes one child react to a situation differently than another? For instance if someone mentioned the idea of competition to me I would get scared/shy and walk out of the room, whereas my sister would be raring to go. What is the difference? Well personality is a factor and then there are other tiny factors that have led to this difference, maybe bullying or a bad experience. Sometimes underlying issues are at hand. I have seen children that set fires in school and these are thought as ‘evil’ but really it is a cry for help and therefore it is our fault for not seeing that that child is suffering and not coping with life, for some of those kids if the fire doesn’t work then suicide may be next.

DizDazDoz Just to reiterate at 10 I don’t think I would have understood the pain that death causes on not only the child but other people too like his mother and father. I also don’t think I understood that it meant not ever wake up again either. Also it was not the first time a child had killed another but it was the first time the media had gone crazy on it.

Tilly So you would destroy two young boys? Is that not the same as what they did? What if it was an adult that killed the 2yr old? It happens more often but no witch hunt is put on their heads. What about those 30 people who saw but did ‘nothing’?

Aegaen  I agree that one of the reasons that adults may not have intervened may be because they may have been arrested. But would you save a boys live and risk the arrest or leave him to die. One woman said she would have intervened but no one would hold her dog for her so she walked on. When you where ten how easy was it to step over the line. Even when having fun in school kids step over the line and end up hurting others. It may be true that this was a prank but the boys took it too far and unfortunately that led to horrific death of 2yrs old boy. The video theory has almost totally been squashed, but if you are right then in the movies people get back up so maybe this could show how the children could not understand the extent of death. Part of a child’s development is realizing the difference between TV and reality.

Capt_America  If there is no way of coming back from doing something ‘evil’ then God help society. I would like to hope that you are wrong; otherwise we may as well give up on every person that has ever done anything wrong, because they cannot come back from it. In Canada the age of criminal responsibility is twelve, whereas in most of the states of the USA the age is either sixteen or eighteen. So if we go by America rules they would not have gone through an adult trial and proceedings never mind 100 years in prison.

Oh dear, the dreaded sociology degree???
You say yourself that social workers were already working with them but did not deal with them properly....sack them and their bosses, they are working beyond their competence.
You say it was a prank that went too far: some prank, some too far. It wasn't a prank, it was something that was premeditated and was a well thought out sequence of events. They knew what they were doing and how to go about it.
When 10 year olds give younger ones a Chinese burn they understand what pain is, they have had one done to them. That is part of maturing in a rough and tumble life. So it's really just what degree of pain and suffering you are willing to inflict on someone.
Personally I don't give a stuff how they do things in other countries. If someone does something which attracts retribution in one form or another, and it doesn't matter how minor the misdemeanour or the punishment, it is done consciously.
I take it you are a Social Worker? If that is the case I understand, you are only protecting your industry.

First of all in replying on my section, welcome to the forum, I don't want anyone killed, i have never believed in capital punishment and never will, i do believe however that murderers should be taken out of society. I also believe that people with mental illness should be afforded all the help society can give them. In my view, there are evil people and it is in them from birth, now we can put them under any umbrella we like as far as the wide ranging mental illnesses go. These two boys was not on this earth long enough to learn this type of evil, normal behaviour in my view, if the prank went wrong, would have been to leave Jamie alone at the side of the road or to that effect and to have scarpered, at 10 years of age they would be fully aware that he could not have gave a description, instead they carried out the plan they had hatched to the end. In your studies of child behaviour, is evil on the list of mental issues, i doubt it. We as a society, either can't or refuse to recognise it in those so young, yet we can easily recognise it in adults, such as Brady and Hindley etc. I don't believe anyone wakes up one morning and says, for the rest of my life I'm going to be evil. The hard part is finding out what triggers it. I'm afraid for now, their loss of freedom is the only way to deal with them, that way we keep society safer.

To me, doing something wrong is getting on the bus without paying, stealing an apple from the greengrocers, or filling out a fraudulent tax form. Doing something evil is killing someone, raping someone, or maiming someone. There is a massive gulf between doing something wrong and doing something evil. People who do evil have a propensity to do evil which can never be removed. One of the things that makes me most angry about the world are the number of people who kill or rape again after being released from prison after “rehabilitation”. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine how it would feel to lose a loved one to someone who had been rehabilitated by the liberal do-gooders, who seem more concerned with the rights of the perpetrator than with those of the victim or their surviving family.

I cannot post again in this thread because the thought of what some families go through upsets me too much. I only hope that those who have the view that evil people can be transformed never have to go through the pain of seeing a loved one lost to one of these people, as many families do.

I would have intervened and said something or alerted someone. If Venables and Thompson didnt know the meaning of right from wrong or life or death then, they almost certainly should know it by now. Quite frankly they dont deserve to know the difference. They havent been punished enough.....

The opportunitiy should never have existed for little Jamie Bulger to be abducted from the Strand shopping centre. Venables and Thompson and their families deserved to be monitored for the rest of their lives. Unfortunately, if the media jump on reporting 'heresay' (or anything else at all, until their trial) as this will result in trials which are NOT 'fair and just' - hence they may not event be tried at all.

Bandycoot - No not a sociology degree I did a Psychology with Criminology degree which was more science based than a sociology degree. Okay maybe not sack them but investigate why they were able to go so far. I agree any adult involved with the children should at least have been under investigation. But I read somewhere that the psychologist’s report said it was not premeditated.

Yes but knowing the feeling of pain and the aspects of death are two different things. Kids kick other kids and laugh but they still get back up even if they’re crying. Am not saying it was not horrible to inflict pain on a small child but as you say this at a lower level is part of life. What I would like to ask them is what exactly it was that did take them so far? I read in one report that the boys said that they carried on because he kept getting back up. I wander if maybe the young child had of stayed on the ground if they may have stopped! I agree it was done consciously and I agree with punishment the only thing I don’t agree with is that they are evil, monsters and the way everything was dealt with by the ‘so called’ adults. I am not a social worker. But I am looking to become one with the reason to try and notice the signs of troubled children and to help them before they go too far. If I cannot believe in rehabilitation then I may as well give up now.

Bert1- Thankyou. Of course a child of 10 can learn good and bad. They obviously knew what they were doing was wrong, so as for learning evil, if you can learn morality then you can learn ‘evil’. According to Piaget’s theory children acquire memory at 7months and at two years should be able to use simple verbal and non-verbal language so a description could in fact have been got from the child. I do not recognise ‘evil’ as being born into an adult or a child. People decide what they want to be, but an adult is able to understand the differences more than a child. If ‘we’ as society did not believe this then a child would have the same responsibilities as an adult. If they really really understood it all as an adult would then we would trust a child of 10 to be the judge in the court. I don’t believe anyone wakes up and decides to be evil either I think a lot of factors put together are result in unwanted behaviour. Yes in studying mental health the word evil has been used to address certain mental issues but it does not mean that this cannot be changed, cured, rehabilitated. I agree about the loss of freedom at the moment being the best way to deal with people who are a threat to society, but because I believe in rehabilitation especially at such a young age I think that if they passed the tests and where not thought to be a threat anymore they were right to be given a second chance under strict rules. If this boy has broken those rules or shows signs that he may again be a threat to society then I agree he should face the consequences. But what about the other boy? Maybe he is proof that rehabilitation can work! Or maybe we should go and arrest him too just in case.

Capt_ America – (I know this person has said that they will not post again and I respect that but I will answer their post anyway)

I agree there are two forms of wrong doing; one is less severe than the other. I also agree that many adults that have formed their own identity in their teenage years and above will not listen to someone else’s point of view never mind be rehabilitated, hence the saying ‘set in their ways’. But how many times has this saying been used on a ten year old, who has not yet formed their identity, a child can change its point of view on something over and over again until eventually they understand it totally and form an opinion. I believe that some children’s attitudes, ways of life etc can be changed; ‘we’ in society use the saying ‘minds to be moulded’. Can they be moulded to be bad and good? Maybe, hopefully some that are bad/evil can be moulded to being good. If you believe in born ‘evil’ like Satan do you believe in God? Maybe if we preach to them then they will become good? If not where does this evil come from?

I think you underestimate the social workers involved in rehabilitation. Some (depending on the circumstances) even involve the victim in the rehabilitation of the criminal, giving the victim some sense of clarity and also some sense of justice. I would hope that all social workers sympathise with the victim but there are particular social workers that work with victim support whereas those working with the offender have a lot of work on their hands and really have to concentrate on that particular job. It’s not the rights of the perpetrator that they are thinking of; it’s the safety of society without having to isolate people from it. Many people go to prison and come back out AFTER they have served their time with more contacts and more ideas; the idea of rehabilitation is not to let this happen. I believe in trying my best to transform others because I do not want to see people loose loved ones to offenders that either would not have offended with help or to offenders that have become an even better criminal in prison while they serve their sentence.
Aegean – I am glad that you would have taken action. I hope that I would do the same. I agree they should know it by now and therefore if they do know the difference I hope they have a lot of emotion towards the Bulger family. And also I hope that they will not do it again due to that understanding. How would you have them punished? Stripped and hung? They served most of their time. If we had of allowed them in an adult prison for the last couple of years of their sentence then they may be an even bigger danger to our society than you think they are now.

Gloria – I totally agree the opportunity should never have existed. The children obviously had some issues and these where obviously not thought to be this severe, someone was wrong, and why where they wrong is a question I would like to ask. Unfortunately the media created witch hunt meant that they did not have a ‘lawful/fair trial’ the first time round, and if this time round it happens again you are right he may not be tried, or they may automatically be guilty to anything the media says without proof and without a proper trial.

Jenny, that should have read "science based". Science obeys rules and laws, theories about behaviour don't obey laws, there are no constants. Doctor Spock the child behaviour "scientist" has changed his views as he learned through life experience instead of theory, he has admitted he'd got it wrong. A brave man to admit that but wrong none the less.
It's fair enough to try and help people when they are having a bad time, can't cope, have an illness which they can't do anything about etc. These folk need all the assistance we can give them, but those who truly rebel for rebellions sake, because they don't like the rules the rest of us live by, ditch 'em. Your posts have made me think back to when I was their age and the crowd I was knocking around with and I realise some of them were intrinsically bad. That's why by the time I was about 10 I changed my peer group. What I thought then has been illustrated to me over the years since. The bad ones stayed bad, and I'm no saint believe me, but I knew the difference between good, bad and downright evil.

Yes you are right sort of. Some of Psychology is totally scientific, for instance most of Biological Psychology, which measures things like if you see a happy picture your brain will react and then it will cause you to smile. The way in which this is measured is scientific as it uses rules and laws. Some of psychology relies on science based testing,, using similar rules and laws, like developmental psychology whereas some of psychology is sociologically based and is more to do with theries and experiences. There are constants and scientific rules in some of psychology. Child behaviour tends to be covered in developmental psychology and therefore you are right his work will be science based. Psychology is much more than just what we see on TV. When you start talking about neurons in the brain and scientific studies and investigations its a whole different thing and most of the time different behaviours go across different types of psychology.

Any way slightly off topic there.

SOme people that we think are intrinsically bad though have many underlying issues. I was told a story by a social worker about a boy of 8 years who was his mum's carer, He would get up, get his mum up and his two sisters feed them all, distribute medicine, and then take his siters to school. He would barely feed himself and would look tatty and may not have had time to do his homework. He was said to be a trouble maker by his teacher because when he was given detention for looking tatty etc, he could not turn up as he had to pick up his sisters and go care for his mother. He eventually stood up in class and told the teacher where to go, he ended up in prison at the age of 16 (i was not told what he had done but it must have been bad to be in prison at that age). There is no way that anyone can say that this child was born evil. This is what really upsets me, this child could with support have finished school and been a fantastic part of society. The way this story relates is because this boy was not born evil but he ended up doing an evil thing because society let him down.

Bandy coot the reason why the age of criminal responsibility is 10 is because the law recognises that some 10 year olds do grasp more than others but some really do not. Under 10 it is doli incapax which means they can not be trialed. Until 1999 a child under 14 could not be convicted unless the court was totally satisfied he knew what he was doing.

Jenny, First of all, as your probably aware by now, i wouldn't have let Thompson and Venables out in the first place, as they are, i don't believe in moving the goal posts now and bringing back in to detention without reason. This being out on licence has some worry, they are either a threat to society or not, if they are and need to be monitored, what are they doing free. If they are not a threat, why the monitoring. I am fully aware from childhood we can learn many things, good, bad, love, hate and of course much more. If we are born evil, what is there to learn, only how to carry out evil deeds, this is were we probably differ,
Mainstream thinking think that circumstances produce evil deeds, were as i think its only a matter of time they find the evil deed to commit. I refuse to accept it has anything to do with social standing, upbringing, deprivation, if that was the case, half the world would be mass murderers. I do accept however the world of science and medicine like to call it something different, after all how could we when we find out for sure call a baby evil.

Measuring and highlighting brain activity in the different areas of the brain is Biology, a science. Making up theories to cover peoples actions is psychobabble. A for instance is where someone will be thinking and believing in one direction but can then have that direction altered by someone presenting a cogent argument to counteract the belief and persuade them change direction. The brain activity in that part of the brain will hardly show any different patterns or activity, it will just show the same reactions via the sensors and monitoring equipment. If ever we find a way to deconstruct the impulses that trigger thoughts and actions then we really will be amongst the black arts. The guy this week who can "see through his tongue" shows that things are working towards this, frightening. But to get back to the discussion, a bad 'un is a bad 'un and should be treated as such and without a method of reconstructing his grey matter I will always believe that. The lad who was acting as carer was let down, along with his family, by the "Social Services", who are good at theories and getting degrees but not much good when it comes down to doing the job.

There is actually a psychological study that suggests that people can be born with a 'more likeliness' to do things against society. This does not mean that they will definitely do something bad it just means that there is a link to their biology. Like for instance if someone hit me I would probably not hit them back, if that was another person they may act differently. But you would not support this right? As psychology is just babble.

Measuring and highlighting brain activity in the different areas of the brain is Biology, a science. Linking this to Behaviour is Biological Psychology. When you are scared do you feel the adrenaline? your heart pumps faster? Do you freeze, fight or run? This is psychology because its why you behave, its not a theory its using science to explain why you might run and the processes that run up to your reaction. Talking about neuroscience is babble to you? How about figuring out which part of the brain to cut in epilepsy to do the least damage? If someone suffers brain damage if a particular area of the brain would it not be good to know that maybe they can not communicate via words anymore but if we give them a piece of paper they can draw it? Is this really babble? This is all biological psychology.

Well I hope to be good at my job thank you very much, the degree in social work which i have applied for is to be even better at helping people who are in need. Please don't label everyone under the same name. You would be surprised at how many social workers really do help people.

I will come back in a bit and answer a bit more sorry for going a lil off topic...although it is sort of related