Jon Venables Recalled To Prison

Ezri Dax wrote:

What's wrong with the Sun... except for it being a tabloid paper?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Knorg wrote:

I can see it now

"Do you know a criminal scouser? Call The Sun's news desk immediately!"

10 minutes after the edition goes on sale the telephones melt from overuse.

The joke would be on them, as they are Sun readers to begin with. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I knew an old mate of mine in the road I used to live in whose keen Liverpool supporting parents used to read The Sun. Truly baffling!

Knorg wrote:

Rabid Badger wrote:

Well, it's nice to see the UK newspaper industry operates pretty much the same way as the American.

The same company owns big names in both. Rupert Murdoch, come on down!

Dammit, can't we extradite that man back to Australia from whence he came? He's getting up in years-a couple of good-sized 'security guards, and I can't see him putting up much of a fight.

Or is he like those ancient Chinese emperors who never went anywhere without half an army to protect them?

Brilliant scathing satire, or standard Daily Mail reader? I can't work it out.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Knorg wrote:

Rabid Badger wrote:

Well, it's nice to see the UK newspaper industry operates pretty much the same way as the American.

The same company owns big names in both. Rupert Murdoch, come on down!

Dammit, can't we extradite that man back to Australia from whence he came? He's getting up in years-a couple of good-sized 'security guards, and I can't see him putting up much of a fight.

Or is he like those ancient Chinese emperors who never went anywhere without half an army to protect them?

Sorry, Keith but "Unca Rupes" became a U.S Citizen in order to acquire 20th Century Fox, & as he now lives in the U.S, it would be pretty hard to extradite him to Australia...
As for James Murdoch, he is definitely a "Chip off the Old Block", with regards to his Father's Anti-BBC policies...
(As Private Eye has mentioned, James somehow managed to forget in his latest rant about BBC salaries, when comparing his salary to the BBC Director General, Mark Thompson, the £3 million "tax free" lump sum that Daddy gave him as a gift, when he became head of Sky Television in the U.K...)

ZoZo wrote:

Brilliant scathing satire, or standard Daily Mail reader? I can't work it out.

WHO HANGS THE HANGMEN?

UPDATE: John Venables had child porn on his computer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since for some strange reason you don't trust The Sun, the link I'm providing is for The Times.

Ezri Dax wrote:

UPDATE: John Venables had child porn on his computer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since for some strange reason you don't trust The Sun, the link I'm providing is for The Times.

... Which is also run by Murdoch.

Then perhaps take a look at what the Daily Express has to say:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Or the Guardian

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here is another link primarily for the interests of people who are not British and may be wondering about the history of the James Bulger murder:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Ezri Dax wrote:

Links

I'm going through those and I can't find a single solid claim that Venables has been detained over child porn. So far it is still unconfirmed.

Seriously, look at the opening line of the Times article:

Quote :

Jon Venables, one of the killers of James Bulger, was recalled to custody over a claim about child pornography.

Then the 2nd line:

Quote :

Ministers have refused to confirm allegations that he is in prison on suspicion of committing child-porn offences.

So is he held on child pron charges or isn't he? Make the claim in the first line, then withdraw it in the second. What's the point? Aside from realising that many will simply scan the first line and take that as a summary of the whole article. That's the Mail's forte.

The Express (often refered to as 'the slow readers Daily Mail' and run by a porn baron) is having loads of fun poking at Jack Straw, its strongest arguement comes from this line:

Quote :

Mr Straw then slipped up by confirming the child abuse story, adding: “What I want to do is to look at what has already been made public – not officially – given that it is now out in any event.”

Presenter John Humphrys then interjected: “Forgive me for saying but you kind of have already confirmed that what is in the newspapers is accurate, because you have said that it is ‘out’.”

Mr Straw hesitated and said: “Let us come to that in due course.” He later backtracked and would only tell Parliament that Venables was recalled to prison following “extremely serious” allegations.

Without hearing the interview in context, the 'out' Straw is refering to here could easily be just the fact that Venables is back in the slammer.

The Guardian article still only makes references to 'very serious allegations'.

The Mirror is the only paper to state out and out that it beleives in the child porn claim. Refering to probation officers.

I can't remember who broke the story, but I have a sneaking suspicion that this was the Mirror also... From this story:

Quote :

The 27-year-old was hauled back to jail for breaking conditions set when he was released in 2001. The recall was announced by the Ministry of Justice after being contacted by the Mirror.

Link

If this is the case, and The Mirror has a contact in these probation officers, and the child porn charge is true. I do hope that some probation officers somewhere get a jolly good kicking for a breach of public trust and client confidentiality. Evedently, if not for them, we wouldn't have this shitstorm.

Ezri Dax wrote:

Well, if he is convicted of either assault or a sex offence he should be kept in jail for a lot longer. In my opinion he should never have been released so soon in the first place, a ten year old knows not to torture and murder another child, because such things are typically considered both evil and contrary to human nature.

Well, considering the fact that they were children, I do very well think the've done their time. That's what punishments are for, teaching someone not to commit a crime again, and robbing a child of their childhood is a pretty damn serious punishment that will hopefully be engraved in their mind for a long time. I also blame the parents to some extent, though I could very well be wrong, I'm just stating my opinion on the matter.

Quote :

I also think that the Bulger family deserve to know the truth, after all it is their sons killer that was let loose.

Though I do agree with you on that point.

WD40, have I told you lately that I love you?

Anyway, revealing the identity of these guys at this juncture is a terrible idea. We've seen the hysteria in the news. Take a look at the trend on Twitter if you dare. There is a baying mob out there, and someone will take the law into their own hands. And murder is still wrong, even if you're murdering someone who did a murder many years ago.

As much as I hate refering to the Mail to add weight to my arguement, here at least, they highlight the sort of clamour this case is causing:

Link

Quote :

A young father was in fear for his life today after he was falsely accused of being Jon Venables on Facebook.

*shivers* I feel dirty...

Mind you, I'm partially convinved that the even-handedness of this article only exists out of the Daily Mail's personal fear/hatred of social networking sites, facebook in particular... It causes cancer, dontchaknow?

WD40 wrote:

As much as I hate refering to the Mail to add weight to my arguement, here at least, they highlight the sort of clamour this case is causing:

Link

Quote :

A young father was in fear for his life today after he was falsely accused of being Jon Venables on Facebook.

*shivers* I feel dirty...

Mind you, I'm partially convinved that the even-handedness of this article only exists out of the Daily Mail's personal fear/hatred of social networking sites, facebook in particular... It causes cancer, dontchaknow?

I just saw this comment at the bottom of the article and I don't think I've had such a good laugh in ages:

Quote :

I'm so glad I cancelled my account on Facebook a few months back. It's full of attention seeking, uneducated sheep. It's liberating to be in the REAL world. I suggest other people do the same. Facebook is more trouble than its worth.
- Jake, Runcorn, England, 9/3/2010 10:43

Yup, Daily Mail comments are the best reflection of reality there is.

WD40 wrote:

As much as I hate refering to the Mail to add weight to my arguement, here at least, they highlight the sort of clamour this case is causing:

Link

Quote :

A young father was in fear for his life today after he was falsely accused of being Jon Venables on Facebook.

*shivers* I feel dirty...

Yes. See, that right there is the problem with vigilante justice: innocent people being swept up into the furor.

As for the real Venables, if he's committed another serious offense, he should go to prison for either the rest of his natural life or for a very long time. He's had his chance for as normal a free life as possible, and if he's stupid enough or vicious enough to harm someone else again after becoming one of Britain's more notorious child criminals, he deserves as long a sentence as can be given to him.

"I am Cinna the poet, I am Cinna the poet."

[/Shakespeare reference]

Ezri Dax wrote:

UPDATE: John Venables had child porn on his computer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since for some strange reason you don't trust The Sun, the link I'm providing is for The Times.

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...
In theory, if you put your holiday snaps onto your computer, or online, you could be proscuted under said laws...
(One possibility is that Venables had some Hentai images on his computer, that somebody discovered/reported to the police, resulting in his licence violation...)

Grimley Fieendish wrote:

Ezri Dax wrote:

UPDATE: John Venables had child porn on his computer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since for some strange reason you don't trust The Sun, the link I'm providing is for The Times.

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...
In theory, if you put your holiday snaps onto your computer, or online, you could be proscuted under said laws...
(One possibility is that Venables had some Hentai images on his computer, that somebody discovered/reported to the police, resulting in his licence violation...)

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...

Wait a minute. So if you take pictures of your kids at the beach in their swimsuits, it's technically considered child porn? Or your sixth month old splashing in the bath? Because 'not fully clothed' sounds rather fuzzy.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And now the cops are coming.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Grimley Fieendish wrote:

Ezri Dax wrote:

UPDATE: John Venables had child porn on his computer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since for some strange reason you don't trust The Sun, the link I'm providing is for The Times.

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...
In theory, if you put your holiday snaps onto your computer, or online, you could be proscuted under said laws...
(One possibility is that Venables had some Hentai images on his computer, that somebody discovered/reported to the police, resulting in his licence violation...)

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...

Wait a minute. So if you take pictures of your kids at the beach in their swimsuits, it's technically considered child porn? Or your sixth month old splashing in the bath? Because 'not fully clothed' sounds rather fuzzy.

I'm in the states and I know a guy who wanted to become a cop who refused to work the photo developing center at Target because he didn't want them to look at his past history and go, "Oh hey this guy developed film of a three year old naked in a bathtub. He aided in producing child porn!"

I have no idea if this is a legitimate fear or not but it's creepy to think about.

Rabid Badger wrote:

Grimley Fieendish wrote:

Ezri Dax wrote:

UPDATE: John Venables had child porn on his computer

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Since for some strange reason you don't trust The Sun, the link I'm providing is for The Times.

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...
In theory, if you put your holiday snaps onto your computer, or online, you could be proscuted under said laws...
(One possibility is that Venables had some Hentai images on his computer, that somebody discovered/reported to the police, resulting in his licence violation...)

Note: under the U.K definition of Child Pornography, which some above argued is extremely Draconian, any image of a person under the age of 18, which is not fully clothed, can be legally classified as "Child Porn", and any person with such images on their computer, can be prosceuted for possession and/or trafficking in such...

Wait a minute. So if you take pictures of your kids at the beach in their swimsuits, it's technically considered child porn? Or your sixth month old splashing in the bath? Because 'not fully clothed' sounds rather fuzzy.

In short, it could be considered as such, though legally, it has not been tested in court...
Example: the ITN Newsreader Julia Summerville barely escaped prosecution, by the CPS for this, when she sent in her holiday snaps for processing, which included some of her young daughter, playing in the swimming pool at her rented villa, wearing a bikini bottom...
However, one of the staff at said lab, saw the images & called the police.
As a result, I suspect she was cautioned, although eventually the case was dropped...
Nevertheless, her carrer took a hefty hit, as the result of the Tabloid "feeding frenzy" over this case...