Venables allegedly possessed child porn

[amir_j]

On radio 4 just now, a paper is alleging Venables was taken in with police investigating " a serious sex offence"...

Jack straw has threatened to sue if they say anymore but has agreed to meet James Bulger's mother. He had confirmed the offence was extremely serious

Edited by amir_j on Saturday 6th March 08:11

[turbobloke]

Why can't somebody sue Jack Straw for being a useless twt instead.

[turbobloke]

Yesterday the DM reported on his alleged 'career' as a nightclub bouncer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1255824/Ja...

[amir_j]

It's the sun, they advise the drugs and fight story were off the mark,.unable to print any more details as government believe will affect the trial and his identity so will take an injunction and gag them

[turbobloke]

amir_j said:

It's the sun, they advise the drugs and fight story were off the mark,.unable to print any more details as government believe will affect the trial and his identity so will take an injunction and gag them

The Guardian has a pop at The Sun today.

Decided early on that it wasn't worth the effort of ploughing through the usual Grauniadista social bks. The article seems to imply up front that those two poor ickle misguided childwen were a teensy bit naughty because they were educated under a Conservative government and are merely victims of society deserving new designer trainers and a safari each year. Then again they got more than that already.

[Nolar Dog]

I read somewhere online yesterday afternoon that he had raped someone. I don't do idle speculation though

[Westy Pre-Lit]

Don't you have to have a licence to be a bouncer ?

How the hell did that fker get issued one.

[amir_j]

Straw had been forced into making a statement. He has confirmed its "an extremely serious offence" and due to investigation and trial prejudice won't reveal more

[Jasandjules]

amir_j said:

Straw had been forced into making a statement. He has confirmed its "an extremely serious offence" and due to investigation and trial prejudice won't reveal more

FFS.

Hang on, what happens when it comes to the question of previous offences being raised at trial? Is it going to be a closed hearing then?

[turbobloke]

Jasandjules said:

amir_j said:

Straw had been forced into making a statement. He has confirmed its "an extremely serious offence" and due to investigation and trial prejudice won't reveal more

FFS.

Hang on, what happens when it comes to the question of previous offences being raised at trial? Is it going to be a closed hearing then?

Does that also mean before a judge only as can happen in other circumstances e.g. when jury nobbling is rife?

[Puggit]

Why does he need another trial? He's out on licence - lock him away for ever.

[LJTS]

Justice system seems to be working well as usual

[amir_j]

True, suppose will be an investigation then some kind of hearing board

[B17NNS]

Does the government seriously think it can keep a lid on this?

I'm starting to understand why they want to take control of the internet now.

[DocJock]

Puggit said:

Why does he need another trial? He's out on licence - lock him away for ever.

Err, to decide if he actually did breach the terms of his licence?

[T_Pot]

Westy Pre-Lit said:

Don't you have to have a licence to be a bouncer ?

How the hell did that fker get issued one.

i would "guess" his new identity does not link him to any crime?

[FarleyRusk]

For all the fking namby-pamby wkers who think that toddler-torturing child-killers deserve to have their rights respected : If need be, hope you are all prepared to go and humbly apologise to the victims and explain why a brutal criminal's rights are so important? Or is now the time to put your hands over your ears and mumble "la-la la-la I'm not listening" and just keep on going with your wrong-headed lefty PC bks thinking?

I mild rant by PH standards, I'll grant you, but I had to get that off my chest.

[Puggit]

DocJock said:

Puggit said:

Why does he need another trial? He's out on licence - lock him away for ever.

Err, to decide if he actually did breach the terms of his licence?

He's guilty of the horrific murder of a toddler, more than enough reason to lock him away regardless of any terms of licences.

[DocJock]

Well that's not what you asked in your OP...

If he's let out on licence, his licence can't be revoked without the court establishing whether or not he broke the terms of his licence . You can't send him back inside on the say of some random police officer or member of the public.

That's why he 'needs another trial'.

Whether or not he should have been released on licence in the first place is an entirely different question.

[Puggit]

But if he is out on licence, then his is still technically serving his original term. I profess I'm no expert on these matters, but surely this means he can be locked away again very quickly.

AFAIK there are no courts for dealing with criminal offenses inside a prison which could effect the length served - so why would this be treated differently?

(not having a pop, I'd like someone who knows the ins and outs to explain!)