Venables allegedly possessed child porn

[IforB]

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

[LJTS]

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

[IforB]

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

[stigmundfreud]

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

[LJTS]

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

Thanks for the compliment!

Nice to know that people like Venables are supported by people like you.......

[IforB]

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

[IforB]

LJTS said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

Thanks for the compliment!

Nice to know that people like Venables are supported by people like you.......

Point proven.

I must be a Grauniad reading, lentil knitting social worker simply because I think that the facts of this case should be known before getting my torch and pitchfork out...

Muppet.

[LJTS]

IforB said:

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

So Venables had nothing to do with Jamie Bulger being killed then?

Spill the beans then with all your knowledge of facts on Venables!

[IforB]

LJTS said:

IforB said:

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

So Venables had nothing to do with Jamie Bulger being killed then?

Spill the beans then with all your knowledge of facts on Venables!

What is your knowledge on this current case? Do you know what he has done? Do you know what crime he has been accused of?

No?

I don't and nor does anyone else here. What you are doing is assuming that he must be guilty of some heinous crime and he might well be, but at the moment, you have no idea and so are convicting him in your own mind without any recourse to facts.

All you are doing is proving Jack Straw right. If you ended up on the jury, do you think he would get a fair trial? Or do you not care about that sort of thing?

He might be a monster, but that doesn't change the fact that all people in this country have the right to a fair trial and to be judged on the evidence and argument presented, not on the rabid rantings of a bunch of tabloid reading reactionary idiots.

[LJTS]

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

So Venables had nothing to do with Jamie Bulger being killed then?

Spill the beans then with all your knowledge of facts on Venables!

What is your knowledge on this current case? Do you know what he has done? Do you know what crime he has been accused of?

No?

I don't and nor does anyone else here. What you are doing is assuming that he must be guilty of some heinous crime and he might well be, but at the moment, you have no idea and so are convicting him in your own mind without any recourse to facts.

All you are doing is proving Jack Straw right. If you ended up on the jury, do you think he would get a fair trial? Or do you not care about that sort of thing?

He might be a monster, but that doesn't change the fact that all people in this country have the right to a fair trial and to be judged on the evidence and argument presented, not on the rabid rantings of a bunch of tabloid reading reactionary idiots.

Very strange reply!

You are arguing about someone that has already been convicted of the murder of Jamie Bulger!!!

How many more crime has Venables got to commit before you think he is guilty?

[TASS]

He's referring to the current accusations not the one he was convicted of.....jeeezz

[LJTS]

TASS said:

He's referring to the current accusations not the one he was convicted of.....jeeezz

Yes, I know that!

But do we just let murderers do what they want in society because of the flawed justice system?

[TASS]

LJTS said:

TASS said:

He's referring to the current accusations not the one he was convicted of.....jeeezz

Yes, I know that!

But do we just let murderers do what they want in society because of the flawed justice system?

Yes, he's served his time and, unless you are a motorist, you are innocent till proven guilty regardless of your history.

[LJTS]

TASS said:

LJTS said:

TASS said:

He's referring to the current accusations not the one he was convicted of.....jeeezz

Yes, I know that!

But do we just let murderers do what they want in society because of the flawed justice system?

Yes, he's served his time and, unless you are a motorist, you are innocent till proven guilty regardless of your history.

I'm sure Jamie Bulger's mother wouldn't agree with you..........

[AndrewW-G]

LJTS said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

So Venables had nothing to do with Jamie Bulger being killed then?

Spill the beans then with all your knowledge of facts on Venables!

What is your knowledge on this current case? Do you know what he has done? Do you know what crime he has been accused of?

No?

I don't and nor does anyone else here. What you are doing is assuming that he must be guilty of some heinous crime and he might well be, but at the moment, you have no idea and so are convicting him in your own mind without any recourse to facts.

All you are doing is proving Jack Straw right. If you ended up on the jury, do you think he would get a fair trial? Or do you not care about that sort of thing?

He might be a monster, but that doesn't change the fact that all people in this country have the right to a fair trial and to be judged on the evidence and argument presented, not on the rabid rantings of a bunch of tabloid reading reactionary idiots.

Very strange reply!

You are arguing about someone that has already been convicted of the murder of Jamie Bulger!!!

How many more crime has Venables got to commit before you think he is guilty?

Venables was found guilty of the Bulger murder and has completed the sentence handed down to him as such he was released on licence, something that happens to ALL criminals on their release, has now allegedly been accused of breaches of this licence.

As despicable as the Bulger murder was, it is nothing to do with the current mess Venables has managed to get himself into, a mess that at least in the eyes of the law, he is innocent until proven guilty of, would you rather a system of automatic conviction for previous offenders?

Whilst the Bulger case was sickening and people are rightly digusted at the actions of the children who murderd him, there are people who have committed far far greater atrocities walking free and easy in the UK, Gordon Brown and Tony Blair for example, have been responsible for the murder of THOUSANDS of innocent children.......................yet they are still allowed to sleep in their own beds!

[IforB]

LJTS said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

So Venables had nothing to do with Jamie Bulger being killed then?

Spill the beans then with all your knowledge of facts on Venables!

What is your knowledge on this current case? Do you know what he has done? Do you know what crime he has been accused of?

No?

I don't and nor does anyone else here. What you are doing is assuming that he must be guilty of some heinous crime and he might well be, but at the moment, you have no idea and so are convicting him in your own mind without any recourse to facts.

All you are doing is proving Jack Straw right. If you ended up on the jury, do you think he would get a fair trial? Or do you not care about that sort of thing?

He might be a monster, but that doesn't change the fact that all people in this country have the right to a fair trial and to be judged on the evidence and argument presented, not on the rabid rantings of a bunch of tabloid reading reactionary idiots.

Very strange reply!

You are arguing about someone that has already been convicted of the murder of Jamie Bulger!!!

How many more crime has Venables got to commit before you think he is guilty?

Oh good God.

He might have been convicted of one crime, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of any others.

Do you think he should be locked up indefinately if he is accused of anything?

He has been arrested and is being investigated, but that doesn't mean that he actually did anything in this case.


stigmund, do you now see why I didn't really want to continue this discussion?

Edited by IforB on Sunday 7th March 12:15

[LJTS]

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

stigmundfreud said:

IforB said:

LJTS said:

IforB said:

odyssey2200 said:

Nolar Dog said:

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I thought it was because he had served his sentence and was deemed suitable to release on licence.

Looks like they were wrong...again.

Not necessarily. Do you know that he has committed these offences? (Whatever they are) Or do you not believe in the principle of innocent until proven guilty? Bearing in mind that this principle should be extended to everyone, no matter what their past history.

Innocent until proven guilty!

He's already been found guilty of murdering Jamie Bulger

Lets give a few million pounds & a new life in another country because it's not his fault

I'm not even going to bother, I'll just end up calling you a muppet.

because you've run out of argument?

I am right so you are wrong lalalalalalaa end of no come backs - that sort of thing?

Edited by stigmundfreud on Sunday 7th March 11:35

Unlikely. I've learnt that trying to argue with some people on here is like trying to convince a chimp not to throw poo. Especially when they're all het up on moral outrage, without even the remotest knowledge of any facts.

So Venables had nothing to do with Jamie Bulger being killed then?

Spill the beans then with all your knowledge of facts on Venables!

What is your knowledge on this current case? Do you know what he has done? Do you know what crime he has been accused of?

No?

I don't and nor does anyone else here. What you are doing is assuming that he must be guilty of some heinous crime and he might well be, but at the moment, you have no idea and so are convicting him in your own mind without any recourse to facts.

All you are doing is proving Jack Straw right. If you ended up on the jury, do you think he would get a fair trial? Or do you not care about that sort of thing?

He might be a monster, but that doesn't change the fact that all people in this country have the right to a fair trial and to be judged on the evidence and argument presented, not on the rabid rantings of a bunch of tabloid reading reactionary idiots.

Very strange reply!

You are arguing about someone that has already been convicted of the murder of Jamie Bulger!!!

How many more crime has Venables got to commit before you think he is guilty?

Oh good God.

He might have been convicted of one crime, but that doesn't necessarily mean he is guilty of any others.

Do you think he should be locked up indefinately if he is accused of anything?

He has been arrested and is being investigated, but that doesn't mean that he actually did anything in this case.

He was convicted of beating to death Jamie Bulger!

How much pain do you think Jamie Bulger suffered when he was killed?

His parents suffer that pain everyday of their lives!!!

No, I agree he might be guilty of any other crimes but he shouldn't be given any chance of offending again!

Why should someone convicted be given anonymity & a free pass in life?

Are we going to get to a point where murderers are classed as celebrities in society & invited on strictly come dancing

[Nolar Dog]

LJTS you are a first class fully basted oven ready cock end.
You don't have a fking clue.

Don't let your emotions get in the way of facts.

[Bing o]

LJTS demonstrating beautifully why you shouldn't enter an intelligent debate unarmed.

[LJTS]

Nolar Dog said:

LJTS you are a first class fully basted oven ready cock end.
You don't have a fking clue.

Don't let your emotions get in the way of facts.

Thanks!

I'm sure Jamie's mother hasn't got a clue either..................

RIP Jamie!