Posts Tagged ‘Soft’

I am really sick and tired of reading about the rights of despicable monsters like Jon Venables who are allowed to hide behind a wall of secrecy created by this Labour Government to protect such vile people. Labour have totally failed to protect members of the public and their shielding of this monster only prove how out of touch with public opinion they are. Their liberal soft touch justice that sees children murdered and then the killers treated to holidays and the best of treatment is sickening.

Its quite clear that they treated the two Bulger killers with kid gloves all these years no doubt with the sympathy of the LibDems who help make a mockery of British justice and who pander to evil people and gloat about their ” Rights ” but its time that the ” Rights ” of ordinary people were put first.

With rights comes responsibilities !

Jim Ferguson

Child porn claims over Bulger killer

venables recalled over suspicions, report alleges

Published: 08/03/2010

James Bulger killer Jon Venables was recalled to prison on suspicion of child pornography offences, using drugs and fears he had revealed his new identity, it was alleged yesterday.

The claims about the 27-year-old convicted murderer, made in a Sunday newspaper, came after Justice Secretary Jack Straw refused to disclose the reasons for last week’s recall, saying only they related to “extremely serious allegations”.

Senior politicians yesterday lined up to support the government’s stance. The decision was backed by David Blunkett, who as then home secretary informed MPs of the Parole Board’s decision that Venables should be released in 2001.

Writing in a Sunday newspaper, he said: “The separation between judges and politicians is critical. The idea that we should abandon it in this case is understandable coming from James’ immediate family. Even with a general election pending, the Government cannot and must not bend on this – not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court.”

Leader of the Commons Harriet Harman declined to comment on the reason why Venables was returned to custody. She said: “If there is a question of an offence having been committed then it needs to be properly investigated and anybody who has committed an offence needs to be brought to trial.

“We don’t want anything to happen whereby they can’t be brought to a trial because it is said they can’t get a fair trial because all the media reporting has been prejudiced.”

James’s mother Denise Fergus, 42, said yesterday Venables should lose his anonymity if he was charged with a new offence.

Her spokesman, Chris Johnson, said: “If after that, depending on the outcome of the court case, the powers that be decide that he should have some new identity yet again, then we’ll deal with that when we come to it.

“But she can’t understand why he doesn’t appear in a dock under his own name, if that’s going to be where he ends up.

“She’s appalled. She doesn’t think that he should be at liberty anyway. He should really have served a sentence of something in the order of 15 years and should be coming up for parole now. In her mind, if there has been an offence committed, it means that that could have been avoided.”

Mrs Fergus has demanded to know why Venables was put back in jail, and is meeting Mr Straw to discuss the matter.

The killer and his accomplice Robert Thompson were aged 10 when they battered two-year-old James to death in Liverpool 17 years ago.

They were both released on lifelong licence in 2001 with new identities, requiring them to obey strict conditions such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.

Venables reportedly faces a looming return to court over the “extremely serious” allegations, causing a potential security nightmare for the authorities trying to preserve his lifelong anonymity order.

Justifying his decision not to disclose details of Venables’ recall, Mr Straw said: “I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables’ return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.

“That view was shared by the police and the director of public prosecutions. We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).”

Tweet this!