jon venables
jon venables
has been charge with child porn offences
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
jon venables
el guapo;1317674 wrote: has been charge with child porn offences
wasn't he a former football manage in England, el guapo?
wasn't he a former football manage in England, el guapo?
Life is just to short for drama.
jon venables
You should change that to Jon Venables before you get into trouble young man.
jon venables
Barman;1317682 wrote: You should change that to Jon Venables before you get into trouble young man.
Maybe a mod can delete or edit it. It cant stay up
Maybe a mod can delete or edit it. It cant stay up
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
jon venables
Snowfire;1317687 wrote: Maybe a mod can delete or edit it. It cant stay up
it wont let me change it can a mod do it please thanx
it wont let me change it can a mod do it please thanx
"To be foolish and to recognize that one is foolish, is better than to be foolish and imagine that one is wise."
jon venables
I've PM'd a mod but to no avail
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
jon venables
I've pmed Betty but there's no guarantee that she's there to pick it up
oh good it's changed
oh good it's changed
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
jon venables
el guapo;1317688 wrote: it wont let me change it can a mod do it please thanx
to edit a title:
click 'edit', then click 'go advanced'
to edit a title:
click 'edit', then click 'go advanced'
Life is just to short for drama.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
jon venables
Odie;1317675 wrote: wasn't he a former football manage in England, el guapo?
:yh_rotfl
:yh_rotfl
-
Betty Boop
- Posts: 16987
- Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 1:17 pm
- Location: The end of the World
jon venables
theia;1317693 wrote: I've pmed Betty but there's no guarantee that she's there to pick it up
oh good it's changed
Phew :wah: it wasn't me, I was busy tossing pancakes and making ham rolls, the children were snapping at my ankles
oh good it's changed
Phew :wah: it wasn't me, I was busy tossing pancakes and making ham rolls, the children were snapping at my ankles
jon venables
Peter Lake;1317703 wrote: :yh_rotfl
the title was wrong, so i believe the question was accurate as it read.
the title was wrong, so i believe the question was accurate as it read.
I expressly forbid the use of any of my posts anywhere outside of FG (with the exception of the incredibly witty 'get a room already' )posted recently.
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
Folks who'd like to copy my intellectual work should expect to pay me for it.:-6
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
jon venables
flopstock;1317706 wrote: the title was wrong, so i believe the question was accurate as it read.
Whoever was right or wrong, it just tickled my funny bone that's all. I would've still laughed whoever posted that question so don't jump to conclusions so quickly.
Whoever was right or wrong, it just tickled my funny bone that's all. I would've still laughed whoever posted that question so don't jump to conclusions so quickly.
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
jon venables
Is there anything to point to the accuracy? i can't find anything on the net
nevermind found it
nevermind found it
-
fuzzywuzzy
- Posts: 6596
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 5:35 pm
jon venables
He is charged with making 57 indecent photographs of children between 24 February 2009 and 23 February 2010. It is further alleged that between 1 February 2010 and 23 February 2010 he distributed seven of the images.
It was explained that the "making" in this instance related to downloading from the internet, and that the "distribution" involved making the images available for other users to download using peer-to-peer internet software, although it is unknown if anybody actually did so.
Gavin Millar QC, for the prosecution, told the court: "A man known as Jon Venables has been charged with two offences. The first charge relates to downloading images on to his own computer. The second covers distributing through the internet seven indecent images, photos of children, downloaded by him by exposing them for acquisition for finite periods to other internet users who may have searched for the photos and had the search terms that would have enabled them to access these photos.
"But there is no evidence in the Crown's case to suggest or establish that anybody did acquire them by that route."
Jon Venables charged with child porn offences - Crime, UK - The Independent
I'm not understanding this at all. No matter what you think of the man it seems a little vague to me.
Just reading through a few things in the newpapers and something isn't quite clicking, something about this isn't quite right.
It was explained that the "making" in this instance related to downloading from the internet, and that the "distribution" involved making the images available for other users to download using peer-to-peer internet software, although it is unknown if anybody actually did so.
Gavin Millar QC, for the prosecution, told the court: "A man known as Jon Venables has been charged with two offences. The first charge relates to downloading images on to his own computer. The second covers distributing through the internet seven indecent images, photos of children, downloaded by him by exposing them for acquisition for finite periods to other internet users who may have searched for the photos and had the search terms that would have enabled them to access these photos.
"But there is no evidence in the Crown's case to suggest or establish that anybody did acquire them by that route."
Jon Venables charged with child porn offences - Crime, UK - The Independent
I'm not understanding this at all. No matter what you think of the man it seems a little vague to me.
Just reading through a few things in the newpapers and something isn't quite clicking, something about this isn't quite right.
-
Peter Lake
- Posts: 1031
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2008 2:02 pm
jon venables
mad hatter;1318589 wrote: if you remember what was written about him in the AA grumpy column about this
i said and to quote myself what goes around comes around and that this b*****d
would get what is coming to him looks like the grumps was right after all.
what we dont need is the hand wring do gooders to prevent venables from being put back behind bars.
the jury must know the truth as to who he really is although it doesnt take much working out considering the offences and the presumed name = john venables.
the home secretary must not sweep this under the carpet like jack straw tried to
this must be honest and transparent throughout if we are to trust justice and the coilition government. AAG
It's apparent from many articles since his arrest that he not only downloaded child porn but breached his parole conditions.
I'm of the opinion that it matters not how many images he had but just one is suffice to prove beyond doubt that just eight years was not long enough for him. Just one image on his computer means one more victem and i agree with your post. If left unchecked, who knows what he may do in the future and no amount of the dogooders will change my mind. He was a menace at the age of ten and it appears he's still a menace but we'll no doubt never know the true extent of his crime as i understand the press still have reporting blocks on him issued by the home office at the time of his arrest.
There is no reason in this world that any human being would want to download images of child porn unless for their own perverse pleasure. Will we be told next that he downloaded this by accident?
i said and to quote myself what goes around comes around and that this b*****d
would get what is coming to him looks like the grumps was right after all.
what we dont need is the hand wring do gooders to prevent venables from being put back behind bars.
the jury must know the truth as to who he really is although it doesnt take much working out considering the offences and the presumed name = john venables.
the home secretary must not sweep this under the carpet like jack straw tried to
this must be honest and transparent throughout if we are to trust justice and the coilition government. AAG
It's apparent from many articles since his arrest that he not only downloaded child porn but breached his parole conditions.
I'm of the opinion that it matters not how many images he had but just one is suffice to prove beyond doubt that just eight years was not long enough for him. Just one image on his computer means one more victem and i agree with your post. If left unchecked, who knows what he may do in the future and no amount of the dogooders will change my mind. He was a menace at the age of ten and it appears he's still a menace but we'll no doubt never know the true extent of his crime as i understand the press still have reporting blocks on him issued by the home office at the time of his arrest.
There is no reason in this world that any human being would want to download images of child porn unless for their own perverse pleasure. Will we be told next that he downloaded this by accident?
jon venables
mad hatter;1318589 wrote:
the jury must know the truth as to who he really is although it doesnt take much working out considering the offences and the presumed name = john venables.
The problem with this is, however we may revolted by his crimes, when trying to find out whether he is guilty of child porn, the jury must have clear minds and not be persuaded of his guilt by his previous history. The fact he commited the first crime doesnt automatically mean he commited the second. Thats the law surely. Any evidence must be submitted and taken on its own merits. If he truly did it then a jury will find him guilty and he will be sentence accordingly. I'm sure a jury can come their own conclusions without you shouting in their lug'ole
You, I nor anybody else have access to the real evidence. We dont have trial by Newspaper yet, although it looks like we are halfway there
the jury must know the truth as to who he really is although it doesnt take much working out considering the offences and the presumed name = john venables.
The problem with this is, however we may revolted by his crimes, when trying to find out whether he is guilty of child porn, the jury must have clear minds and not be persuaded of his guilt by his previous history. The fact he commited the first crime doesnt automatically mean he commited the second. Thats the law surely. Any evidence must be submitted and taken on its own merits. If he truly did it then a jury will find him guilty and he will be sentence accordingly. I'm sure a jury can come their own conclusions without you shouting in their lug'ole
You, I nor anybody else have access to the real evidence. We dont have trial by Newspaper yet, although it looks like we are halfway there
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
jon venables
mad hatter;1318843 wrote: ok i agree on that point the jury will surely work out who,s standing before them on trial.
however its the hand wringing do gooder attitude with which you write we can do without .
venables took the life of an innocent child how can you have any feeling whatso ever
for this scum think of jamie crying for his mummy as this animal did what he did
i cannot write too much as the thought is still painfull even now.
i hope they cage this b*****d for a very long time and that he either does the decent thing and hangs himself or another prisoner does it for him.
8 years was nowhere long enough for jamies life and he should still be serving his original sentence in fact i hope they continue his life sentence after this one for breaking his parole and keep venables behind bars where he belongs.
personally if he hung himself or was got at by another prisoner i would rejoice and would personally p*ss on his grave.
maybe this post is a bit hardline and a vicious attack at venables not yourself but this is how i feel personally and as a parent with a child of 4 years of age and any parent would go to any lengths to protect their children from these sort of people.
AAG
Did you at any point read what I posted ? I never at any point showed any feelings for him. As a father and grandfather, I am as revolted as anybody at his crimes.
What I have issue with is your contention that the jury should know a defendants previous in order to find him guilty. Evidence and facts put before a jury will make him guilty. You cant ! The papers cant ! Neither you or the papers have the facts and regardless of the heinousness of his crime against Jamie and despite our desire to find him guilty of child porn, he must have a fair trial, otherwise he will be sentenced for something he may not have done. If and when he is found guilty, his previous should have a bearing on his sentence
however its the hand wringing do gooder attitude with which you write we can do without .
venables took the life of an innocent child how can you have any feeling whatso ever
for this scum think of jamie crying for his mummy as this animal did what he did
i cannot write too much as the thought is still painfull even now.
i hope they cage this b*****d for a very long time and that he either does the decent thing and hangs himself or another prisoner does it for him.
8 years was nowhere long enough for jamies life and he should still be serving his original sentence in fact i hope they continue his life sentence after this one for breaking his parole and keep venables behind bars where he belongs.
personally if he hung himself or was got at by another prisoner i would rejoice and would personally p*ss on his grave.
maybe this post is a bit hardline and a vicious attack at venables not yourself but this is how i feel personally and as a parent with a child of 4 years of age and any parent would go to any lengths to protect their children from these sort of people.
AAG
Did you at any point read what I posted ? I never at any point showed any feelings for him. As a father and grandfather, I am as revolted as anybody at his crimes.
What I have issue with is your contention that the jury should know a defendants previous in order to find him guilty. Evidence and facts put before a jury will make him guilty. You cant ! The papers cant ! Neither you or the papers have the facts and regardless of the heinousness of his crime against Jamie and despite our desire to find him guilty of child porn, he must have a fair trial, otherwise he will be sentenced for something he may not have done. If and when he is found guilty, his previous should have a bearing on his sentence
"He has all the virtues I dislike and none of the vices I admire."
Winston Churchill
Winston Churchill
jon venables
A slight diversion but, wouldn't it be totally devastating to find that one of your children had committed a terrible crime, like the murder of Jamie?
Live the questions now. Perhaps you will then gradually, without noticing it, live along some distant day into the answers...Rainer Maria Rilke
jon venables
theia;1318849 wrote: A slight diversion but, wouldn't it be totally devastating to find that one of your children had committed a terrible crime, like the murder of Jamie?
Nearly unbearable I would think. Hopefully we never experience such a tragedy.
Nearly unbearable I would think. Hopefully we never experience such a tragedy.