FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

the jon venerables case

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

watchin this on the news and all i can say is the law is a complete ass!

a child murderer and now downloading child porn and makin contact with other pedophiles and gets 2 YR SENTENCE!!!!!!!

absolute mockery of justice and gets to keep his new identity why should he get to live all cosy and safe when the vile evil stuff he was distributing they werent or that poor little boy he murdered it really makes you sick

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *uss PussWoman
over a year ago

east cheshire

ahhh yeah but he cant use the internet for 5 years either....oooh that must have stung

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

love to see how they gonna monitor that once he back out! really makes me wonder at times you get more rights if you the scum of the earth!

then the cost to tax payer ie us of over 40 grand a yr to keep him in jail etc and those poor kids in the pics they will get fuck all to help them get over the trauma im not usually one of the hang them high brigade but in his case i would gladly pull the rope x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ixson-BallsMan
over a year ago

Blackpool

if you get 2 years...don't you just serve half??...so that ferkin nonce will just do a year...then more than likely go back to doing it again but bein more vigilant so as to not get caught...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *entscotscplCouple
over a year ago

falkirk ish

what this evil little scumbag done originaly he should have been locked up for life

after this latest offence he should be hung

grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

and he is still protected re pics in the press etc

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aucy3Couple
over a year ago

glasgow

in this country.criminals are given more help,and protected,more than the victims.the law really is an ass.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"if you get 2 years...don't you just serve half??...so that ferkin nonce will just do a year...then more than likely go back to doing it again but bein more vigilant so as to not get caught... "

..because he's on parole for the life sentence, he wont be subject to automatic release after serving 12 months, in fact he won't be released until he receives approval from the parole board

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The only decent thing to do with this vile excuse for a human being would be to ask Denise Bulger to to choose a suitable punishment for him.

I still remember the day that wee boy was killed 17 yrs ago. I bet the horror of that day still lives with his poor parents.

17 years of taxpayers money spent on so called rehabilitation for this scum is absolutely disgusting. Words cannot describe how sick I am that this man has been given the opportunity to go on and do this.

Is it not time to look at other countries and they way they deal with this scum? The judicial system here is nothing short of a joke!

Wilma (shaking head and sighing)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

[Removed by poster at 23/07/10 16:02:50]

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else

A couple of points -

1. He will serve the full 2 year term before being CONSIDERED for parole (which seems unlikely at this point, given his previous)

2. This sentence is unrelated to his previous crime(s).

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"A couple of points -

1. He will serve the full 2 year term before being CONSIDERED for parole (which seems unlikely at this point, given his previous)

2. This sentence is unrelated to his previous crime(s).

"

a couple of points...

he killed a child

he downloaded child porn

see a pattern here involving kids???

as in defenceless children??

for someone who was allegedly rehabilitated and a functionin member of society?

if the evil fucker hadnt been released it wouldnt have happened simple

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

The laws an ass and there is no justices, when will they see at it is only a matter of time before he does it again to some innocent. This one should be locked up.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *nnebellWoman
over a year ago

somewhere

He was out on lisence, therfore he maywell not be let out at the end of the two year sentence that the judge said he had to do all of. Out on lisence means that any person who is released on lisence can be re-called at any time to continue and complete their term. He may well not be let out its down to the parole board and the Home secretary can intervene to impose the full sentence.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I still believe in an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth , brought up the old-fashioned way

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else


"I still believe in an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth , brought up the old-fashioned way "

That's a good arse for 650...

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

And the court room was specially rearranged so only the Judge could see him and thus protect his identity + it has been revealed that he's been previously in trouble for fighting and posessing cocaine !!!!

Q) So what wasn't the wanker recalled then ?

A) Because the law is on the side of low life scum like him and will bend over backwards then jump through hoops to protect the little bastard - all at the taxpayers expense

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'm normally very opinioned on specific posts, very much a live and let live guy.....however....

I'm a 43 year old guy, the above scenario is a disgrace to the English justice system.

This 27 year old is a sex offender and will remain so.

No amount of counselling/therapy will deter his utmost feelings, he will repeat.

What happened happenend.

Lock the man away.

People that take another innocent life, deserve too suffer for their entire life.

Give the Parents of the Victim, closer finally.

Paddy x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I meant closure

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *harpDressed ManMan
over a year ago

Here occasionally, but mostly somewhere else


"I'm normally very opinioned on specific posts, very much a live and let live guy.....however....

I'm a 43 year old guy, the above scenario is a disgrace to the English justice system.

This 27 year old is a sex offender and will remain so.

No amount of counselling/therapy will deter his utmost feelings, he will repeat.

What happened happenend.

Lock the man away.

People that take another innocent life, deserve too suffer for their entire life.

Give the Parents of the Victim, closer finally.

"

He *will* suffer for his entire life - he effectively can't form any relationship (because if he did, he'd have to reveal his original identity and that would end that), so will probably never have an emotional connection to anyone. In addition he has already spent 7 years as a child behind bars, 10 years since release in constant fear of being exposed, and will now (as I've said before) almost certainly spend the rest of his life behind bars.

*I AM NOT SAYING THIS IS A BAD THING*

I am saying that he *is* suffering - not like his victim did - thankfully we are a civilised society - but nevertheless it will be a horrendous existence.

As for closure for Mrs Bulger....no comment.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"And the court room was specially rearranged so only the Judge could see him and thus protect his identity + it has been revealed that he's been previously in trouble for fighting and posessing cocaine !!!!

Q) So what wasn't the wanker recalled then ?

A) Because the law is on the side of low life scum like him and will bend over backwards then jump through hoops to protect the little bastard - all at the taxpayers expense "

No, no, no, nooooooooooooo

The law is on the side of the lawyers, didn't you know the poor wee things have a living to make.

And to make matters worse, he'll most likely be protected in prison at additional expense.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

he wont suffer enough in my eyes!!

did he care about those kids involved in those pics?

did he care when he shared them or downloaded them?

would he have abused a child if he had the chance? would he have cared then?

he tried to destroy his hardrive he is not stupid by no means!

he can form a relationship with the 6ft 25 stone guy in prison who i hope rapes him every night of his life!

it makes me sick to think of what he did to that poor kid and what happened to those kids in the pictures and i wonder just how far he would have went child porn is not a victimless crime its kids involved who also may never go on to form a lovin relationship and end up fucked up by a system that cares more about scum than victims x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"he wont suffer enough in my eyes!!

did he care about those kids involved in those pics?

did he care when he shared them or downloaded them?

would he have abused a child if he had the chance? would he have cared then?

he tried to destroy his hardrive he is not stupid by no means!

he can form a relationship with the 6ft 25 stone guy in prison who i hope rapes him every night of his life!

it makes me sick to think of what he did to that poor kid and what happened to those kids in the pictures and i wonder just how far he would have went child porn is not a victimless crime its kids involved who also may never go on to form a lovin relationship and end up fucked up by a system that cares more about scum than victims x"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

iv never had to use a laywer and hope i never will!

i suppose it boils down to money, and the idea of justice and rights that have been around for years.

when you think of some of the high profile cases such as that scum , peter tobin, fred west etc it must be nausaiting for them too but its their job same as its some unfortunate gits job to be the parole officer or whatever! but i imagine if it got that bad they could change jobs... but thats where the money bit comes in x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought. "

Just because a solicitor defends them doesn't mean they agree with the person they are defending. Are you seriously suggesting that someone go without legal defence? If people were to punish solicitors for defending the guilty shouldn't you also punish the ones who prosecute the innocent? Or are you suggest we put it to public vote in the manner of the X-Factor? That's the sort of ridiculous way this thread and the country seems to be going

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought.

Just because a solicitor defends them doesn't mean they agree with the person they are defending. Are you seriously suggesting that someone go without legal defence? If people were to punish solicitors for defending the guilty shouldn't you also punish the ones who prosecute the innocent? Or are you suggest we put it to public vote in the manner of the X-Factor? That's the sort of ridiculous way this thread and the country seems to be going"

there are times i honestly think the public would do a better job than some judges xx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought.

Just because a solicitor defends them doesn't mean they agree with the person they are defending. Are you seriously suggesting that someone go without legal defence? If people were to punish solicitors for defending the guilty shouldn't you also punish the ones who prosecute the innocent? Or are you suggest we put it to public vote in the manner of the X-Factor? That's the sort of ridiculous way this thread and the country seems to be going

there are times i honestly think the public would do a better job than some judges xx"

What, using their emotions to govern what happens within the legal system instead of reason and an in-depth understanding of the legal system? Where a person is prosecuted for all his previous offences every time he commits a crime (btw not defending this guy at all, what he did was wrong)

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *iamondsmiles.Woman
over a year ago

little house on the praire

He is suffering because he cant have a "long term relationship" whoopy fucking do, less chance of him becoming a parent and the possibility of them having the same traits as their father. How can anyone ever say he is suffering. Hes been rehoused, new name, new life and either a job or money from somewhere. When he was released first time (which he shouldnt have been) he had the chance to make something of his life unlike lots of poor ordinary people who cant get a normal start in like. Hes "suffering" unlike jamie bulgers parents i suppose

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought.

Just because a solicitor defends them doesn't mean they agree with the person they are defending. Are you seriously suggesting that someone go without legal defence? If people were to punish solicitors for defending the guilty shouldn't you also punish the ones who prosecute the innocent? Or are you suggest we put it to public vote in the manner of the X-Factor? That's the sort of ridiculous way this thread and the country seems to be going

there are times i honestly think the public would do a better job than some judges xx

What, using their emotions to govern what happens within the legal system instead of reason and an in-depth understanding of the legal system? Where a person is prosecuted for all his previous offences every time he commits a crime (btw not defending this guy at all, what he did was wrong)"

how many cases do you read of where the sentence has been completely stupid? how many go on to reoffend and harm or injure someone?? raul moat?? jon venerable the list goes on and on! how many chances do we give people?? maybe if human emotion and common sense played a stronger part in the sentencin of some of the scum we got around then maybe, just maybe a lot of people would still have their lives and not have been victims. take for example, a d*unk driver who kills someone gets out then does the same again? would a longer sentence maybe have prevented him from doin this?? or if life had meant life would it deter other people?

do jurys not have emotions?? x

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ugby 123Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

O o O oo


"He is suffering because he cant have a "long term relationship" whoopy fucking do, less chance of him becoming a parent and the possibility of them having the same traits as their father. How can anyone ever say he is suffering. Hes been rehoused, new name, new life and either a job or money from somewhere. When he was released first time (which he shouldnt have been) he had the chance to make something of his life unlike lots of poor ordinary people who cant get a normal start in like. Hes "suffering" unlike jamie bulgers parents i suppose "

I have to agree with you totally.

I don't feel sorry for the person at all, the only people I feel sorry for is the victims in all of this, and that includes from his first crime and the recent one. Those children on the pictures on his PC are someones child being raped, they and the Bulgers are the victims here, not scum like this who have had thousands spent on him so called rehabilitating him.....it didn't work, throw away the key.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ushroom7Man
over a year ago

Bradford


"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought.

Just because a solicitor defends them doesn't mean they agree with the person they are defending. Are you seriously suggesting that someone go without legal defence? If people were to punish solicitors for defending the guilty shouldn't you also punish the ones who prosecute the innocent? Or are you suggest we put it to public vote in the manner of the X-Factor? That's the sort of ridiculous way this thread and the country seems to be going"

Definitely should prosecute the lawyers who falsely prosecute the innocent.

If you believe that the lawyers, or police for that matter , tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in Court, and that the Judges act within the law and in the best interests of the public then

a) welcome to the real world which has been allowed to happen, sinking fast as you say, and

b) good luck to you if ever you are in court

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought.

Just because a solicitor defends them doesn't mean they agree with the person they are defending. Are you seriously suggesting that someone go without legal defence? If people were to punish solicitors for defending the guilty shouldn't you also punish the ones who prosecute the innocent? Or are you suggest we put it to public vote in the manner of the X-Factor? That's the sort of ridiculous way this thread and the country seems to be going

Definitely should prosecute the lawyers who falsely prosecute the innocent.

If you believe that the lawyers, or police for that matter , tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" in Court, and that the Judges act within the law and in the best interests of the public then

a) welcome to the real world which has been allowed to happen, sinking fast as you say, and

b) good luck to you if ever you are in court"

No I don't believe that at all and it would be very naive if anyone thought that, they are only human and humans do silly things.

But you can't judge people for just doing their job.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

As a parent i feel nothing but anger at this so called sentence, what a laughing stock out justice system has become over and over again we hear about people such as this being given a new life because they need help!

Dont make me laugh, these people dont want help, what they need is a reality check to what they are doing is unacceptable in society.

This person and others like him walk among us everyday near our schools, parks and beaches with one thing on their minds to get close enough to our kids to befriend, talk, and touch but ultimately abuse in any way they can get away with.

Locking this vile creature up does nothing apart from letting him meet others of his kind to form a bigger network of friends to show him how to get around the internet undetected, He has shown that he cannot be reformed and has to be locked away for life along with anybody else found to have abused children xxx Lois xxx

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I still believe in an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth , brought up the old-fashioned way "

so because he kills someone, that means he should be killed? but does that mean someone has the rights to kill his killer and so on and so on

Its a subject thats always going to real people up, because no decent person like the thought of children being hurt, but i have to admit to kill someone for killing just seems a bit hypercritical to me

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"He is suffering because he cant have a "long term relationship" whoopy fucking do, less chance of him becoming a parent and the possibility of them having the same traits as their father. "

sorry but i think thats very unfair, theres nothing at all to suggest that being a killer and a phedophile is heredatory, and that any of his children would do any of the things he has done, to be honest as far as him having kids goes id be more worried about the life they could lead at the hands of someone with his background

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


" slightly off topic, but one thing has always puzzled me.

Why don't the general public form a backlash against the lawyers who defend these sort of people, both years ago and now? Organise say a boycott of people and/or firms who defend them and even those companies that use the same lawyers?

Just a thought. "

Everyone is entitled to a defence in a court room regardless of who they are or whether they have committed previous offences. It is our way of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ans ensuring that the person being deprived of their liberty is the person who committed the crime. It's not an infallible system though and it has often sent innocent men & women to prison, but in the main it works well.

Where the system breaks down is in the offices of the Parole Board who steadfastedly refuse to believe that their rehabilitation programmes are a shocking failure. If you consider that if no convict was released on parole, the parole board would be forced to admit that they are a worthless entity and it would bring about the closure of that particular dept of law & order. Which is their worse case scenario.

So what do they do?

They have no choice but to release prisoners in the fervent hope that they don't reoffend and can be held up as pillars of success of rehabilitation and parole. And by releasing high profile prisoners, such as Venables, they are placing a lot of faith in their own system. Sadly, it has failed spectacularly.

Let's hope they get it right the next time Venables is up for parole. I doubt they will though as the same principle of proving the system is working will apply, and as said by someone above, if kiddie porn is his thing then no amount of rehabilitation will ever eradicate that.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Wasn't going to comment on this soapbox thread as, well, don't really give a fuck but bought the Times today and found the headline interesting:

"Bulger killer jailed after posing as web pedophile".

Found this very odd. I mean, it implies he wasn't doing it. After all, a policewoman "posing" as a hooker, isn't a hooker.

Very strange choice, I thought.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

just found out that this murdering scumbag will get another identity change when he is released from prison,this is going to cost the tax payer £250,000. what a load of bollocks.

i hope somebody gets him in prison and he never sees the light of day again.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"

I hope somebody gets him in prison and he never sees the light of day again."

I second that - Him and a few more of his type

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top