here he is again, school holidays and his social workers let this manc twaaaat loose on the internet yet again.when will they ever learn about giving idiots like him access to computers.

and again. so predictable.
thats mancs for you though.

Bless.

In amongst this lake of crocodile tears, it is surprising to read that not one of our easily offended and concerned posters has stepped up, and boldly proclaimed that they would be happy to see either Venables, or Thomson standing on their doorsteps alongside one of their daughters.

And I'm sure that it is concern for future property values, nothing else, which prompts others to wave the NIMBY flag. No Really.

Ironic is it not, that it is only the much maligned Kirkstaller, who I suspect has the courage of his convictions (no pun intended), who would actually have no problem with having a neighbour like the child killer Venables, whose CV includes an arrest for affray after a drunken street fight ; was cautioned over possession of cocaine; convicted of distributing indecent 42 images in February 2008; convicted of distributing indecent photographs in February 2010; convicted of loading 57 pornographic pictures of children oto his computer between February 2009 and February 2010;
Was ordered to sign the sex offenders register for 10 years as a convicted paedophile, and is subject to a sexual offences prevention order for five years.
have been barred from working with children for life. (Thanks to FA for info)

As an agnostic myself, whilst I think he is wrong, I have to give credit to him for the strength of his Christian compassion, which contrasts sharply with the rank hypocricity displayed by the other Talking Heads.

Which means that vigilantism is fine, does it?

He's that tough, he'd be leading the posse.

It means exactly what I have written. An oasis of common sense in a dessert of hypocritical platitudes, with no mention of vigilantism, or anything else which may upset the more delicate amongst us.

Perhaps someone less excitable will step up and defend their nimbyism.......

Is it that good you could eat it?

you really are a prize one

Has no one questioned what the public are being told? Apart from the child porn trial, I cannot find any other info about his trials. Just maybe, he wasn't arrested for child porn, maybe his Id was rumbled, he panicked , called the police and they put him straight into a safe house. Just maybe his family were also moved from their safe house in a nearby town. Which prison is he in? It's convenient for all concerned, especially the public, that he's locked up. Apparently he's up for parole this summer, which no doubt, will be denied. Just maybe, he's in another safe house, in another town and working for another "friendly" employer. And all the time, he's not in prison, but living amongst us. In time his "parole" will come through, by which time, just maybe, he'd have already been living in public for the last 5 years. Don't believe everything you read in the papers

I suppose Myra's not dead either

Indeed. That good that it merited an extra S......

Thought it may have been part of a special congratulatory feast after you and the posse had meted out some summary justice to them childkilling children?

How about we show the same compassion to the racist woman on the tram in Croydon? Or more importantly, the child that was with her.

Is she worse than someone who deliberately killed a 2 year old child?

She probably needs her methadone hit increasing?

Is her Addiction due to an abusive childhood then?

No, but I do partially blame that on her life of prostitution.

How unempathetic of you. Maybe if she murdered a two year old with a friend, she'd be worthy of your empathy?

No, but if arrested and convicted I would hopefully be satisfied that our legal process would serve it's due purpose.
How's about you?

Indeed.

Common sense?
The thread is about [uvigilantism[/u and you are waffling about people's daughters hooking up with Venables.
I think the excitable one is you.

The "dessert" you mention is preferable to your Smörgåsbord of irrelevance.

You have completely ignored what I wrote. All that you say above was considered and the case against them was made that they a) knew what they were doing i.e. deliberately led the victim away to be killed with that act in mind and b) knew what they were doing was wrong. How old they were doesn't alter that is what the case was built on.



What crimes did Bin Lid commit that you are a victim of? Taking on the role of "proxy victim" doesn't count and in any case you can't even say he was responsible for (say) the deaths of British Soldiers in Afghanistan (that would be the Afghan Taliban and Bin Lid was holed up in Pakistan). Just what did he do that directly affected you personally?



The taking out of an offender is unrelated to a topic about vigilantism? Really?

The question was put. Yes, you would be happy to see one of your daughters with Venables, or having him as a neighbour, or no you would not.

A simple reply, from a simple man like yourself would suffice.

Kudos for spelling smorgasbord though.

A slight thread drift, or at least a change of tack.

The point has been raised on this thread, if Venables starts dating, and moves on to perhaps a possible long term relationship, should the partner of his choice be kept in ignorance of who he really is, and is it reasonable that they should live their life with him based on official lies as to his identity?

How would they feel if, say in 10 years, they found out the truth?

The question is relevant because in the news today is the inquiry about a situation where just this actually happened, except the official fake identity was that of a police officer who infiltrated an activist group.
Report: [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21629991[/url

Reading the harrowing accounts of how learning the truth affected the women concerned, the years of their life which they can't replace that they had 'wasted' by putting their energies into a realtionship with someone who wasn't who they thought he was, where is the balance of fairness? Would it have somehow made it OK, as long as the women had never found out the truth? Or is there a difference between the state providing fake identities for officers, as opposed to for offenders?

I think there is a difference as police officers will always assume this identity temporarily whereas an offender would have to 'become' that new identity.

Still a very difficult one though

I'd think from the womans point of view, 'temporarily' would be worse than 'permanently'