The John Venables identity leak

[McWigglebum3rd]

DAVEVO9 said:

Bluebarge said:

So you would happily murder a child. Well done you.

I don't see it as a child, just vermin, look what it turned into!

2 question both of which you will ignore

1 At what age and for what offensives shall we allow the state to kill children?

2 What about the other one who hasn't surfaced. Should he be killed also?

[StottyZr]

Oakey said:

StottyZr said:

I'd be more than willing. I'd be disgusted, embarrassed and very angry at my child for doing what they did. What I wouldn't do is stand shouting "it wasn't their fault" when it was.

Similarly my mother has always made it very clear to me, if I do something very bad she will shop me in in a heartbeat. Because its the right thing to do.

Yeah, aren't you the lunatic who said he'd happily execute his 10yr old child if they'd done it?

right.

No, as your post seems to imply, I didn't say I would execute my own 10year old child with a smile on my face if he did something bad.

I thought the News, Politics and Economies section of PH was about debating issues in a grown up manner and getting your point across with reasoned posts as apposed to twisting quotes with daily mail style shenanigans.

Obviously not in this case.

(for clarity in the other thread my first comment was an off the cuff response to "what would you do with the purps" I said "put him down" which was then met many posts later with "what if was your own son" to which I said "I'd be even more outraged than if it was a complete stranger" which Oakey has taken about, chosen to ignore many other posts in the thread and depicted I would cut my childs head off with an axe if he stepped out of line)

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DAVEVO9 said:

It was just the first thing that came to mind.

Well it must be lonely in there.

[Oakey]

StottyZr said:

(for clarity in the other thread my first comment was an off the cuff response to "what would you do with the purps" I said "put him down" which was then met many posts later with "what if was your own son" to which I said "I'd be even more outraged than if it was a complete stranger" which Oakey has taken about, chosen to ignore many other posts in the thread and depicted I would cut my childs head off with an axe if he stepped out of line)

That's not what you said at all, this is what you said, in case you've forgotten;

StottyZr said:

I don't have a problem with the execution of 10year old kids who torture and murder other kids.

If it was my child who had comitted this heinous crime, I think my viewpoint would be even stronger.

Your 'viewpoint' being the execution of 10yr olds, no?

[DAVEVO9]

McWigglebum3rd said:

2 question both of which you will ignore

1 At what age and for what offensives shall we allow the state to kill children?

2 What about the other one who hasn't surfaced. Should he be killed also?

1 When it's old enough to drag a little toddler onto a railway track for a start.

2 If you have to ask!

[pork911]

DAVEVO9 said:

pork911 said:

now if you could just give some thought to my question above it would be most appreciated

Go and patronise someone else, you asked the same question on the other bulger thread.

i know, its a serious question - if you can put aside your hatred and desire to kill kids for a moment - i know its inconvenient but..

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DAVEVO9 said:

1 When it's old enough to drag a little toddler onto a railway track for a start.

I imagine a 2 y/o could drag a newborn baby on to a railway track. Execute 2 y/olds?

[pork911]

Kateg28 said:

Whilst I haven't read the transcripts I know someone who was involved in the prosecution, they haven't said anything directly but they have alluded to some of what they know and I found it deeply disturbing.
There certainly was abuse.
Whilst the two boys certainly carry guilt, at that age they may know what is wrong but a lot of the responsibility must rest with the parenting they received.

i won't go in to details and i know its splitting hairs (in the post saville world) but iirc what was heard at trial only indicated there may have been

[Baldy881]

McWigglebum3rd said:

2 question both of which you will ignore

1 At what age and for what offensives shall we allow the state to kill children?

2 What about the other one who hasn't surfaced. Should he be killed also?

Easy.

1 - We do not carry the DP in the UK so question null and void. I think this question being repeated many times in different forms comes down to this. There is a personal question as to if you were handed a loaded gun and those two monsters were put in front of you, would you happily pull the trigger? Clearly there are those who would and those who wouldn't. You will NEVER bridge these views. But it's just a fantasy scenario, nothing more.

2 Both should have been improsoned for life as who they were. It would cost a lot which is not ideal (then again umpteen new identities is costing the tp a fair whack!), but would have been the best outcome for the two worthless pieces of st.

I've already said in the other thread that one (JV) sounds like he's starting to want being outed. Both, I hope, are stting bricks.

[StottyZr]

Oakey said:

StottyZr said:

(for clarity in the other thread my first comment was an off the cuff response to "what would you do with the purps" I said "put him down" which was then met many posts later with "what if was your own son" to which I said "I'd be even more outraged than if it was a complete stranger" which Oakey has taken about, chosen to ignore many other posts in the thread and depicted I would cut my childs head off with an axe if he stepped out of line)

That's not what you said at all, this is what you said, in case you've forgotten;

StottyZr said:

I don't have a problem with the execution of 10year old kids who torture and murder other kids.

If it was my child who had comitted this heinous crime, I think my viewpoint would be even stronger.

Your 'viewpoint' being the execution of 10yr olds, no?

"I don't have a problem" in the same way that the car thieves burnt to death. It doesn't make me sad (but I'm not going to celebrate it)

I wouldn't be sitting here now wishing Venebles hadn't have been lethally injected if he had been. nor would I be happy about it, infact, my wish would be that he never did what he did. Although I can tell you knowing what I know now, I sure as st wouldn't be sad.

[DAVEVO9]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I imagine a 2 y/o could drag a newborn baby on to a railway track. Execute 2 y/olds?

Venables knew what he was doing was wrong. That's the difference between a 2 yr old as you so stupidly tried to compare with.

Venables is/was an evil little , end of. Just the same as an evil dangerous dog that will never change and so should be put down.

[pork911]

Baldy881 said:

2 Both should have been improsoned for life as who they were. It would cost a lot which is not ideal (then again umpteen new identities is costing the tp a fair whack!), but would have been the best outcome for the two worthless pieces of st.

not sure how this would be the best outcome for them?

[TwigtheWonderkid]

DAVEVO9 said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I imagine a 2 y/o could drag a newborn baby on to a railway track. Execute 2 y/olds?

Venables knew what he was doing was wrong. That's the difference between a 2 yr old as you so stupidly tried to compare with.

Venables is/was an evil little , end of. Just the same as an evil dangerous dog that will never change and so should be put down.

At last, we're getting somewhere.

So it's nothing to do with dragging a kid, as you stated previously, as a 2 y/o could do that. It now comes down to knowing what you're doing. I wish you'd make your mind up.

So...a 2 y/o doesn't understand, but a 10 y/o does. So can you now give us an age at which kids should be executed. 9? 8? 5?

[DAVEVO9]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

So can you now give us an age at which kids should be executed. 9? 8? 5?

10 will do for me based on the Bulger case.

Part copied from the other thread.

At ten, I would suggest that V+T knew that beating a 2 year old with bricks, bars, fists, and feet, before stripping, sexually abusing, covering in paint, murdering and leaving on a railway track to be cut in half by the next train was a serious thing, with big consequences if they got caught.

"normal kids" don't do st like that.

Pure evil.

Get rid end of.

[McWigglebum3rd]

DAVEVO9 said:

10 will do for me based on the Bulger case.

Part copied from the other thread.

At ten, I would suggest that V+T knew that beating a 2 year old with bricks, bars, fists, and feet, before stripping, sexually abusing, covering in paint, murdering and leaving on a railway track to be cut in half by the next train was a serious thing, with big consequences if they got caught.

"normal kids" don't do st like that.

Pure evil.

Get rid end of.

So we should allow the state to kill 10 year olds

What about 9 year olds?

[LaurasOtherHalf]

DAVEVO9 said:

Just the same as an evil dangerous dog that will never change and so should be put down.

Disregarding the word "evil", it's an interesting point.

[Dimbo]

pork911 said:

if you can put aside your hatred and desire to kill kids for a moment - i know its inconvenient but..

Pathetic.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

McWigglebum3rd said:

DAVEVO9 said:

10 will do for me based on the Bulger case.

Part copied from the other thread.

At ten, I would suggest that V+T knew that beating a 2 year old with bricks, bars, fists, and feet, before stripping, sexually abusing, covering in paint, murdering and leaving on a railway track to be cut in half by the next train was a serious thing, with big consequences if they got caught.

"normal kids" don't do st like that.

Pure evil.

Get rid end of.

So we should allow the state to kill 10 year olds

What about 9 year olds?

Nope, he's clearly said that 10 is the age. If V&T had been 9, he would have had an entirely different viewpoint on it.

[StottyZr]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

McWigglebum3rd said:

DAVEVO9 said:

10 will do for me based on the Bulger case.

Part copied from the other thread.

At ten, I would suggest that V+T knew that beating a 2 year old with bricks, bars, fists, and feet, before stripping, sexually abusing, covering in paint, murdering and leaving on a railway track to be cut in half by the next train was a serious thing, with big consequences if they got caught.

"normal kids" don't do st like that.

Pure evil.

Get rid end of.

So we should allow the state to kill 10 year olds

What about 9 year olds?

Nope, he's clearly said that 10 is the age. If V&T had been 9, he would have had an entirely different viewpoint on it.

You could just look at each case independantly and make the decision based on the findings.

[DAVEVO9]

McWigglebum3rd said:

So we should allow the state to kill 10 year olds

What about 9 year olds?

In the Bulger case yes def. evil scum put them down.

9 yr olds? then 8? 7? doubt they would be like that much younger than 10.

My views are on those 2 evil s that murdered that little toddler, not whether it should be any younger or not.

It was no accident what they did.