They're a very insular bunch, that's how i'd describe it. Remember Ken Bigley, Boris Johnson's 'self-pity' apology, Michael Shields, the 2 footballing disasters...

Relationships - no problem as long as they were legal ones.

Partner knowing who he is? I'd emphatically say that at some point he would have to come clean. Otherwise the whole relationship would be built on a mammoth lie.

Genetic? That's a difficult one. The first reaction is just "Nah!" but I think it can't be as simple as that. Just as a starting comment, given his subsequent conviction under his new ID, it seems clear Venables has a predilection for young children. We all find certain people sexually attractive and I do reckon that that's largely genetic; for example, it's at least about 50% genetic as most people are either gay or straight, and nobody (well, not nobody, but you know what I mean) would argue that they made a choice of sexuality.

Venables obviously found some attraction in the sight of the young James Bulger that spurred him to do what he did, so were those feeling essentially genetic, or learned? Maybe paedophile tendencies are indeed part of his genetic makeup. I suggest that if attraction to young children was something he had somehow earned, which could therefore be unlearned, then he wouldn't have been sentenced to 2 years in chokey for having what must have been some pretty vile films and images. This was at the age of 27. Given the millions spent on him since he was a young offender, and given the strenuous efforts that must undoubtedly have been made to re-educate and rehabilitate him away from a predilection for young children, maybe the fact that it plainly had no effect does support the view that he's just like that?

If any child abuser in the country should have been "cured" of their abusive feelings and inclinations, it would surely be Venables, and yet he plainly wasn't. I tend to the conclusion that he is genetically that way, and can't help himself.

He could, of course use his free will to choose to refrain from abusive behaviour, but that would just mean that he didn't do it - not that he didn't feel it. He would be a reformed abuser. I tend to the view that many notorious paedophiles will always be, genetically paedophiles, they will always find the thought of abusing young children attractive, and many go on to repeat offend. If one stops offending, I don't think, in most cases, that is because the feelings are likely to have stopped, and think this again supports the argument that they are just made that way. They will be paedophiles until they die. They may just choose to stop acting on those impulses. So maybe it is, basically, genetic?

I wasn’t leading anywhere with that question, it was an honest question I don’t know the answer to. It is very very difficult.

At what stage is he supposed to say this? How much would he be obliged to say? Can we blame him if this person then goes out and tells the world who he is? Who would he have to tell? Just his partner? His mates who would worry about leaving a kid with close friends whilst you nipped to the shops? How would we even know this person had been told?

Isn't that what being a parent is all about, making decisions, and having the ability who to trust around them?
There isn't a text book incidentally.
It's called life.
There'll be all sorts of good and bad decisions being made this very moment as I type..

Undoubtedly true. But if he didn’t have to tell, and were to then go on to do the unthinkable. Wouldn’t there being some blame for not giving that parent the full information on which to base their decision?

Can't say I'm unhappy with this outcome: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urder.html

Can't say I'm unhappy with this outcome: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... urder.html

At age 8, or whatever, he murdered James Bulger.

After everything done for him, at age 27 he is online chatting with paedophiles and downloading vile films and images and distributing them. And he knows the trouble he'll be in if caught, but arrogantly conceals his activity from those responsible for him (he was only caught when being rapidly moved, he was found trying to remove the hard drive with a knife and a can opener).

I would say that this means he is plainly unfit to be left alone with a young child. If he had a relationship, and they had a child, surely even the most liberal of folk would have to concede that a grave risk to that child from him must exist?

Is there anyone on this forum who would be cool with your own daughter having a baby with Venables and leaving him to babysit?

[iIf he didn't have to tell?[/i



How simplistic.

''Hello love'' (as he sidles over to the bar). Do you fancy a Babycham and a quick sh@g later? Bythe way, just to let you know if this turns out to be more than a one night stand, I murdered a young kid when I was ten and I've been convicted of downloading child porn...Go get your coat petal.''

Unfortunately, you would never know it was him, even if he did abuse them as he would be charged under his new identity. This is the problem, with allowing these types 100% anonymity. Perhaps the people in charge of these sicko's could just say 'look, I cannot say why, but keep clear of this bloke'

There would be a few nutters who would be excited by this, unfortunately.

Edited for accuracy

I was under the impression the age for criminal responsibility in England and Wales was 10

Exactly, therefore if he has the urge to procreate, it'll happen.
That's unless we have him constantly under surveillance by our secret services, ready to jump in whenever he gets a bulge in his kegs.

Are you surprised by this?

Mintball wrote:
On Venables....

He was nine when the murder was committed.


Thomson and Venables were both 10 when the murder was committed and 11 when they were tried. Tried, incidentally (and shamefully), as adults in an adult court.

At what point do you draw the line where do they become culpable, the abuse they suffered as children is not an explanation.

I have had a couple of cases recently which illustrate the pointlessness of your argument.

3 children growing up in a house full of Domestic violence. The best example is the dad who poured petrol on the the family cat and then set it on fire in front of the kids to scare and intimidate the family.
The eldest is 4 . When in foster care he tried to drown his sister aged 3 in the bath. Should he have been prosecuted for attempted murder

. Is his abuse not an explanation



3 children aged 7, 4 and 3. Living with a nutter ( my term rather than the PC version) who is mad on the military, martial arts etc. Brought his kids up to be tough. wants to go and live in America so he can get guns and live in a log cabin waiting for armageddon.

Kids in foster care now BUT are so violent towards each other they can NEVER live together or with other children, they have big problems at school fighting etc. The 3 year old has been assessed by child psychologist as having NO internal controls on his behaviour and an inability to respond to external controls. Are they to be prosecuted for what they have done

is there abuse an explanation.



In response to your comment about not every child who is abused goes on to abuse you are right. BUt reserach does show that of adults who have gone on to abuse children ( sexually) 50% were abused as children and 50% were not. It does however raise the issue of what else went on in their childhoods. It is not a justification but it is an explanaition of why things go wrong with kids.


Just out of interest a squaddie who comes back from Afghanistan suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome ( PTSD)and commits an offence is his PTSD and army experiences an explanation or a mitigation

This is stating the obvious, but despite that fact, sadly it isn't obvious to very many. The clearest example I can give is comparing abuse with religion. A child brought up within a fundy religious environment will very likely be a fundy religious case themselves. It is not genetic, it is learned behaviour. So I'd say that a child which learns that violence and torture is OK in that their parents do it, and/or is the way adults deal with things to get their way, may well grow up ingrained that that's just how life is, and that that's normal human behaviour.


It might to a degree be part of both, but I'd say suffering from serious PTSD would tend to stop the unfortunate squaddie from functioning normally or from interacting with society normally. The sort of crimes which might b associated with it would be crimes relating to loss of control. It isn't a "defence" in our system unless you can (and want to) prove "insanity" - not often a plus - so yes, mitigation and explanation is what it would be.

I've never understood this. Would accommodating a penis suddenly change a person's outlook on such matters? Does your outlook change in degrees according to the amount or size of the penis? I think we need to know.

I enquired about certain other delicate issues relating to this episode yesterday.


I believe they were removed from public consumption.

Few years ago, i wasn't sure where i stood on this issue.

Where they old enough to truly realise, was the punishment sufficient, was the pure hatred towards them justified? I was completely on the fence as i weighed things up. The fact is i didn't know what the justice system knew about them or their team of shrinks so just took for granted they knew best.

I think giving them new identities was the correct thing to do unfortunately because of the lesser class societies thirst for vengeance.
I also think that given their second chance that Venables should now be locked up until deemed fit for release and that Thompson should be left alone to live his life, a punishment was given and whether we agree or not it was served.

An interesting aside, has anyone seen a film called 'Boy A', it's very loosely based on this case in that two boys commit murder and it deals with the reintroduction of one of the boys back in to mainstream society.
It made me think long and hard on the Bulger case and probably changed my outlook on it.

Two photos appeared on my facebook last night. I don't know if they were legitimate or not (the alleged one of Robert Thomson bore the most similarity to that of the photograph of when he was 10). What if these two pictures were NOT of the adult Thomson and Venebals, if anybody sees the pictures and know who they are there could be serious trouble.

Should people really be spreading these pictures without any thought or is there just no reasoning with some people? There would probably be some who say 'it's their own fault for looking like them'.

Recently pictures have appeared on my Facebook feed of these two as they are now. Problem is I've seen two completely different people in photographs of venables.

Maybe these two didn't know or weren't fully aware of their acts all those years ago and maybe they deserve another chance but conversely I don't want them having that opportunity of a new life near me or anyone I know.

Not sure the poster's argument is pointless. You're taking a bit of an arrogant stand there DG, aren't you? You can cite examples. Good. That has shown some of us how terrible life can be and how behaviour can be nurtured.

But. You can give as many examples as you like and there are always other examples. We can only share our own experiences. And as you seem to be from a social science background, you probably know in psychology nothing is ever really black and white. There can be three sides and not two to a story.

I'll self-disclose something for the sake of this very interesting thread. I grew up in a DV environment. I have two older siblings. We grew up in an abusive environment. Myself and sister have been affected by it. I have responses that are nurtured. (Thankfully I'm not violent.) BUT. My brother hasn't. And there in one fell swoop shows that your examples are different to my own personal experience. Who's right? We both are.

As a result of my childhood, I have PTSD. This is why I have such a fascination with psychology.





As he is right, why didn't you just stop it at "you are right". You've then just CORRECTLY pointed out using stats, that the people who are found to abuse, were abused. But we don't know how many DON"T go on to abuse do we? Because that figure is not collected.

Again this is the fascinating debate of Nature v Nurture. Some people have it in them, some have learnt how to do it.


I do have to say though once again, that people do seem to have an understanding of how nurturing can produce murderers and people on here seem to understand how it "might" be a reason as to why a child kills another, but can't see that nurturing argument and have no compassion, when it involves people who have grown up having a different political opinion to theirs. Be they left or right wing.

Somebody chopped their cocks off?

I believe Amanda 'Lorena' Kendal was possibly the culprit.