Venables To Escape Charges Over Child Porn

#1
EVIL Jon Venables will escape prosecution for child porn offences but could still spend TEN YEARS in jail without trial.

That is how long the powerful parole board could cage him for breaching the conditions of his release on licence.

The News of the World has learned that Justice Secretary Jack Straw is being pushed by senior advisors to take the "easier option" of leaving the Venables case in the hands of parole chiefs.

The alternative is a trial which could blow Venables' cover if he has to face charges of possession of Category Four material - one of the worst levels of child porn.

A source told us: "There is a drive to persuade the Justice Secretary and the Crown Prosecution Service not to charge Venables as it would provide everyone with the easier option to manage.
Link
 
#3
Hold your horses sunny, it's not official about the allegations, they are rumors.

I, for one, think he should be placed back in jail. In reality he is safer there and there will be less agro, However, there is no official statement sanctioned for why he was recalled.

If you're going to quote from a newspaper, please use a reliable source :wink:
 
#4
Jenny_Dabber said:
Hold your horses sunny, it's not official about the allegations, they are rumors.

I, for one, think he should be placed back in jail. In reality he is safer there and there will be less agro, However, there is no official statement sanctioned for why he was recalled.

If you're going to quote from a newspaper, please use a reliable source :wink:
Rumours or not niether should be waking the streets in anycase
 
#5
Then we have that half-witted woman of a Children's Commissioner Dr Maggie Atkinson describing the horrifying murder as unpleasant, which is yet another example of those in high positions engaging gob before brain with no thought for the hurt her words may cause.



As for Venables, if he has committed a serious offence then he should be charged .
 
#6
As far as I recall, they were both sentenced to indefinate detention, therefore he is not being sentenced to 10 years without trial. He's already had a trial, and is (allegedly) only being recalled for breaking the conditions of his parole, and quite rightly so in my estimation.

2BM

PS. Thoroughly concur with Fink regarding that Atkinson woman.
 
#7
finknottle said:
Then we have that half-witted woman of a Children's Commissioner Dr Maggie Atkinson describing the horrifying murder as unpleasant, which is yet another example of those in high positions engaging gob before brain with no thought for the hurt her words may cause.



As for Venables, if he has committed a serious offence then he should be charged .
Could not agree more .even if she was right(which in my estmation she is not).It is a rather insensitive time to be spouting her gob off
 
I

In_my_day

Guest
#8
Jenny_Dabber said:
Hold your horses sunny, it's not official about the allegations, they are rumors.
Earlier, Mr Straw appeared to have inadvertently confirmed newspaper reports that Venables, 27, had been recalled over child pornography allegations, when he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that he was considering releasing more information “given that it is now out in any eventâ€. Telegraph 8/3/10
Mr Straw disclosed to MPs ...
He said: “Subsequently, information came to light that Venables may have committed a serious breach of his licence conditions. He was recalled to custody the same day.†Telegraph 9/3/10 from statement in the House. Will these do you as a source?

Do you mean the allegations are merely rumours, obviously not, or that they are allegations only at this stage? Either way the scrote should never have been released and I would happily see him do 10 years for ditching litter let alone any ALLEGED paedophile offense. It should be remembered that the evidence of the sexual abuse of James Bulger was suppressed in court to save more anguish for the family.


IMD
 
#9
Suppressed, yes and there are parts of that report that will never reach any public knowledge, due to the nature of it. Only a select few were allowed to read the full autopsy report and not every member involved in the original trial/case were given access to the full report and rightly so.
 
#10
Jenny_Dabber said:
Suppressed, yes and there are parts of that report that will never reach any public knowledge, due to the nature of it. Only a select few were allowed to read the full autopsy report and not every member involved in the original trial/case were given access to the full report and rightly so.
There can never be any justification for censorship.
Perhaps if the full story warts and all were in the public domain people would be able to determine if these two boys were truly evil or just extremely naughty.

Does Belson ring any bells?
Should we have been shielded from the facts?
 
#14
slim said:
Jenny_Dabber said:
Suppressed, yes and there are parts of that report that will never reach any public knowledge, due to the nature of it. Only a select few were allowed to read the full autopsy report and not every member involved in the original trial/case were given access to the full report and rightly so.
There can never be any justification for censorship.
Perhaps if the full story warts and all were in the public domain people would be able to determine if these two boys were truly evil or just extremely naughty.

Does Belson ring any bells?
Should we have been shielded from the facts?
Believe me, the full report is alot worse that what was made public, one lass I know who read it, actually threw up after reading it 8O

Jame's life was laid bare, least we could do was save him a little decency IMO
 
#15
finknottle said:
I assume that the jury were presented with all the evidence?
From what I recall, they were made to sign a privacy act thing, they were not allowed to discuss outside of the hearing/court etc of anything that was not placed in the public domain.
 
#16
Jenny_Dabber said:
slim said:
Jenny_Dabber said:
Suppressed, yes and there are parts of that report that will never reach any public knowledge, due to the nature of it. Only a select few were allowed to read the full autopsy report and not every member involved in the original trial/case were given access to the full report and rightly so.
There can never be any justification for censorship.
Perhaps if the full story warts and all were in the public domain people would be able to determine if these two boys were truly evil or just extremely naughty.

Does Belson ring any bells?
Should we have been shielded from the facts?
Believe me, the full report is alot worse that what was made public, one lass I know who read it, actually threw up after reading it 8O

Jame's life was laid bare, least we could do was save him a little decency IMO
Looks like they were little bastards and evil to boot

However I believe everyone has a right to know what the little bastards did without any censorship
 
#17
Jenny_Dabber said:
Hold your horses sunny, it's not official about the allegations, they are rumors.

I, for one, think he should be placed back in jail. In reality he is safer there and there will be less agro, However, there is no official statement sanctioned for why he was recalled.

If you're going to quote from a newspaper, please use a reliable source :wink:
And this is precisely why we need both a proper statement on what is actually going on, and there needs to be a court case. Secrecy simply fuels specualtion and if as is suggested he is just popped back in jail for some indeterminate time by some secret board how do we really know justice was done

Of course expecting justice from NuLabor is perhgaps asking too much consoidering what has happened recently.
 
I

In_my_day

Guest
#19
slim said:
finknottle said:
I assume that the jury were presented with all the evidence?
I would assume nothing!
My understanding is that they were not given the full details of the injuries, etc. This was agreed between the various parties in order that the family would not have to hear them. Obviously I'm no lawyer but I assume that if it wasn't presented in court they may not have had access to it (?). The linked report did say that the parole board would be made aware of the full facts.
Whilst I empathise with the anguish of the family, this is; I believe; of significant public interest in the sense that it goes to the core of the justice system and how decisions within it are influenced by European law, and probably interest groups.

IMD
 
#20
There were more than enough gory details made public to have kept the evil little bastards locked away for ever - sadly they werren't but that is a failing of the British judicial system rather than whether or not full details of pertinent facts were censored.

The list of acts perpetrated was extensive enough for these little sh1ts (now bit sh1ts) to have never been allowed to see the light of day outside a prison wall or secure mental facility. It sickens me that people like Straw, Atkinson and others are allowed to release this sort of scum back into society and especially that people like Atkinson are prepared to actually EXCUSE their behaviour on the basis that the poor wee lambs didn't know it was wrong to kill a 2 year old, commit foul sexual acts on him and lie his body over a railway line to be cut in half by the next train that came along.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
RNMA Blue Jokes 0
Jenny_Dabber Current Affairs 45
golden_rivet Diamond Lil's 9

Similar threads

Latest Threads