Plain Talker Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 Speaking up in defence of a baby killer is quite a step, even for you That is offensive, MW... don't we have laws in this country that say someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? I've never said what he and Thompson did was right, or even palatable, but what the pitchfork-wavers conveniently forget is that T & V were both only TEN at the time. or perhaps p/t they just knew he would all along No, I really think that they were just waiting, eagerly for him to fall, just so they could say "I TOLD you so!" and I suspect this might be something of a self-fulfilling prophesy. How could people hound him when he had a new identity and no-one knew who he was? Does he not deserve to be in misery PT? I am not sure people are gloating nor rubbing their hands "gleefully" when children are at the centre of his evil doings yet again. bobcat, the mere mention of the boys' names, and the fact that the press were ever-eager to splash sensationalist (and usually untrue) stories about the two boys, and their alleged "doings" or their whereabouts meant that they were never allowed to rest. Isn't that misery, as an existence? Constantly having to be looking over your shoulder for the media, a vigilante, or someone close who might betray your identity? T & V served their time, after being minors, who were, don't forget,tried as adults. Folk seem to be baying for his blood yet again, despite the fact that he has not yet even been tried, let alone had a verdict delivered, for or against him. As boyfriday sagely pointed out above, (in his post at 11.33) people are crowing at him, and conveniently ignoring the many offenders who are rehabilitated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 PT, what would you say if those in the know who dealt with Venables on a daily or weekly basis knew that he was not rehabilitated and it was just a matter of time before something would happen, but their hands were tied because of "the system" and media restrictions? I wish I could say much more on the subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 PT, what would you say if those in the know who dealt with Venables on a daily or weekly basis knew that he was not rehabilitated and it was just a matter of time before something would happen, but their hands were tied because of "the system" and media restrictions? I wish I could say much more on the subject. I would say I'd want you to give me proof, and not what, unfortunately, currently amounts to no more than hearsay or speculation... (with a little bit of pitchfork-waving, from the peripheries) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 As I've "known" you for some time I was going to PM you my "proof" but you've got PMs disabled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 22, 2010 Share Posted June 22, 2010 As I've "known" you for some time I was going to PM you my "proof" but you've got PMs disabled. oh,sorry... my apologies, Alchresearch, that's true... I disabled PMs some time ago (about a year) after receiving some very unpleasant emails from some of the "Nicer" *cough* element on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 That is offensive, MW... don't we have laws in this country that say someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty? I've never said what he and Thompson did was right, or even palatable, but what the pitchfork-wavers conveniently forget is that T & V were both only TEN at the time. Venables is a convicted baby killer and you are clearly defending him. That much is beyond doubt and there for all to see. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I suspect Jamie Bulger's mother might find your comments a whole lot more offensive somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carly83 Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Latest from Sky News The development comes after a judge at the Old Bailey lifted some media restrictions. Venables was found guilty along with Robert Thompson of murdering the two-year-old boy in 1993. The pair were both 10 years old at the time. Venables now faces one charge of making 57 indecent images of children on his computer. He has also been charged with distributing seven indecent images of children. Sky's Martin Brunt said: "You could argue that today has been a victory for James Bulger’s parents and the media, who wanted to report these charges. "We now know there is a very realistic prospect of a court hearing because he has been charged. "But if he was to fight these charges then there would be a trial." my ex had 102 images of class 2 (class 1 being practicaly murdering a child, class 2 coming close) the most offensive one reported being a 2 year old child having an adult penis forced upon her) he got a measly 100 weeks got released after 45 weeks and with in a fortnight was back infront of the judge having tried to get 2 young child to go of with him, using a puppy as bait sicko's like these only get worse as they age with there need ?!? growing as times goes by. personaly think they should be tagged upon being released so the police are at least aware of the convicted monsters out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Venables is a convicted baby killer and are defending him. That much is beyond doubt. I suspect Jamie Bulger's mother would find that a whole lot more offensive somehow. I'd hardly call pointing out the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" nor pointing out that T & V were only ten years old at the time of the murder offensive, nor would I say it's actually defending him.. unless, of course, you are trying to insinuate something libellous against me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojoworking Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 I'd hardly call pointing out the legal principle of "innocent until proven guilty" nor pointing out that T & V were only ten years old at the time of the murder offensive, nor would I say it's actually defending him.. unless, of course, you are trying to insinuate something libellous against me? Ten years old or not, are you aware of exactly what those animals did to that baby? Let's speak again after the latest court case is concluded and see how you feel then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted June 23, 2010 Share Posted June 23, 2010 Venables is a convicted baby killer and you are clearly defending him. That much is beyond doubt and there for all to see. I'm sorry if you find that offensive, but I suspect Jamie Bulger's mother might find your comments a whole lot more offensive somehow. I find your insistence on referring to the dead boy as 'Jamie' rather offensive. It's disrespectful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.