Jon Venables back in prison

[Dave_ST220]

micky g said:

Dave_ST220 said:

Parrot of Doom said:

micky g said:

Parrot of Doom said:

monthefish said:

Parrot of Doom said:

Dave_ST220 said:

A 10 year old, no matter what the upbringing, knows what they did was serverly wrong. I have a daughter about the same age as James, how anyone, no matter what age, could do what those evil bds did is beyond me.

Of course they knew it was wrong.

They simply didn't care, and that is entirely as a result of their horrific upbringing.


I'm amazed at how often this simple but important fact needs to be repeated.

I know what you are tyring to convey, however no upbringing can over-ride the human instincts with regards to not torturing a small child.

What they did was more evil and extreme than any 'ubringing' or 'social issues' could ever begin to justify/explain.

Prove it.

Why do you think the army recruit at the earliest age possible?

The atrocities carried out in the name of war?

'...overide the human instincts...'?

The mind can be a fragile thing, particularly the mind of a child.

Oh look, the army. Lets also bring whales into the discussion, and while we're at it, cardboard boxes.

Or even McDonalds and their scolding hot tea in not fit for purpose cups eh? Tit.

Perhaps I was too vague for some of the simpler thinking folk on here. The relevance of the army is that they train young minds to kill. Unfortunately, you don't have to go back far in history to see countless women and children slaughtered in the name of war.

I struggle to comprehend how anyone is capable of such atrocities, but capable they are, and they do it in the belief that they are right.

It's a fair analogy and remember, when you call me a tit, it's you that drives the Mondeo

Edited by micky g on Thursday 4th March 23:12

& now maybe learn how the quote sytem works & check who i was quoting. Tit indeed.

ETA, you've been a member that long & don't understand quotes? & you call me simpler thinking? I'll edit the original quote to make it very easy for the "simpler thinking" as you put it. ie, you.

Edited by Dave_ST220 on Friday 5th March 08:19

[monthefish]

Parrot of Doom said:

I've offered enough evidence to support my assertion,

Where, exactly, have you proven that

parrot of doom said:

They simply didn't care, and that is entirely as a result of their horrific upbringing.

If indeed you have managed to prove this, perhaps you should get in touch with Venables/Thompson, as you will have achieved more than their legal representation managed to.

[BoRED S2upid]

Well if you ask me if you can't abide by the law when out on licence you don't deserve the anonimity the law has worked hard to give you. God damn lucky hes been given it and how does he say thank you. By being a little prick. Throw him out of prison and make sure the press know, that might straighten the tt out a little being hounded by them 24/7.

[bonsai]

What they should do is drop him off in Bootle with a sandwich board nailed to him, proclaiming "I AM JON VENABLES"

Then see how long he lasts. Would make a good game show, sort of like a scouse version of The Running Man.

Edited by bonsai on Friday 5th March 09:24

[YAD061]

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

[Halb]

YAD061 said:

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

I think that is sadly true.

[Parrot of Doom]

monthefish said:

Parrot of Doom said:

I've offered enough evidence to support my assertion,

Where, exactly, have you proven that

parrot of doom said:

They simply didn't care, and that is entirely as a result of their horrific upbringing.

If indeed you have managed to prove this, perhaps you should get in touch with Venables/Thompson, as you will have achieved more than their legal representation managed to.

What am I, your personal evidential proof assistant? If you disagree with my assertion then fine, but at least I supported it with evidence.

[Parrot of Doom]

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

[esselte]

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

[YAD061]

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

So why aren't non criminals awarded the same level of concern in the face of known danger, and please quote where I said I support vigilanteism

[okgo]

bonsai said:

What they should do is drop him off in Bootle with a sandwich board nailed to him, proclaiming "I AM JON VENABLES"

Then see how long he lasts. Would make a good game show, sort of like a scouse version of The Running Man.

Edited by bonsai on Friday 5th March 09:24

Good scene.

[Parrot of Doom]

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

[Parrot of Doom]

YAD061 said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

So why aren't non criminals awarded the same level of concern in the face of known danger, and please quote where I said I support vigilanteism

Non criminals presumably as notorious as those two?

By the way, I didn't say anything about you supporting vigilantism. Please quote where I did?

[monthefish]

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

I think he has a point anyway - who is more entitled to protection from the state/police - killers or an innocent lady & her daughter?

[tinman0]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[esselte]

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

The stress the woman was being put under drove her to it...I thought you may have been a bit more sympathetic given the stance you've taken on here...so you think it right that she got no protection from plod...?

[Parrot of Doom]

monthefish said:

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

I think he has a point anyway - who is more entitled to protection from the state/police - killers or an innocent lady & her daughter?

Those most at risk of criminal activity that might result in serious harm or death.

[Parrot of Doom]

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

The stress the woman was being put under drove her to it...I thought you may have been a bit more sympathetic given the stance you've taken on here...so you think it right that she got no protection from plod...?

I know nothing of the case, or the people involved, or how much support they were given, and frankly I find your insinuation that I have no sympathy for their plight, offensive.

[esselte]

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

The stress the woman was being put under drove her to it...I thought you may have been a bit more sympathetic given the stance you've taken on here...so you think it right that she got no protection from plod...?

I know nothing of the case, or the people involved, or how much support they were given, and frankly I find your insinuation that I have no sympathy for their plight, offensive.

So sue me For your information

Edited by esselte on Friday 5th March 16:15

[monthefish]

Parrot of Doom said:

monthefish said:

Parrot of Doom said:

esselte said:

Parrot of Doom said:

YAD061 said:

Could anyone explain to me why this pair were given such extreme measures of protection after they commited horrendous crimes when an innocent mother and her daughter recieved nothing despite years of sustained violence against them?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mot...

Clearly we are incapable of agreeing about the punishment for V&T but surely the expense and effort gone into protecting them is a kick in the teeth for innocent crime victims

Because there are people out there who would become vigilantes, and Venables and Thompson are entitled to the protection of the law.

Or maybe you'd rather see those vigilantes murder them, and then pay for the subsequent trial and prison sentence?

Compare and contrast to the woman who ended up killing herself and her disabled daughter because they could get no protection from the state/police....there's something wrong somewhere..

If they'd been killed by the scrotes, you'd have a point.

I think he has a point anyway - who is more entitled to protection from the state/police - killers or an innocent lady & her daughter?

Those most at risk of criminal activity that might result in serious harm or death.

OK - specifics then - who is (was) more entitled to protection from the state/police - Venables/Thompson or Fiona Pilkington & her daughter Francecca Hardwick?