two men spared jail for FB pictures of venables and thompson the AA grumpy column

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 5:15 pm

good morning and welcome to another AA grumpy column

( is it that time already i,d better go home ED) yes goodnight mr editor

now where was i oh yes THE LAW IN THE UK IS A POMPUS ASS!!!

as you will see when you read this mornings column

Two men have been sentenced for publishing photographs on the internet that were said to show James Bulger's killers as adults.

Social media users Neil Harkins, 35, and Dean Liddle, 28, were given nine-month jail terms, suspended for 15 months.

In February this year, two days after the 20th anniversary of the toddler's murder, they put photos on Facebook and Twitter respectively, which purported to depict Jon Venables and Robert Thompson as adults.

Venables and Thompson were aged 10 when they killed two-year-old James in Bootle, Merseyside in 1993.

Liddle and Harkins admitted breaching a January 2001 injunction, that was binding on the whole world and imposed before Venables and Thompson were released and given new identities in June that year.

The injunction prohibits the solicitation or publication of any information purporting to identify their physical appearance, whereabouts, movements or new identities.

Sir John Thomas, the president of the Queen's Bench Division, and Mr Justice Tugendhat said Liddle, of Sunderland, Tyne and Wear, and Harkins, of Bridlington, East Yorkshire, knew what they were doing was wrong and it was no excuse that others were doing it.

Sir John said the court had considered a custodial sentence, not only to punish but also to deter others, but would take the exceptional course of suspending it in this case.

He warned there was very little prospect of an offender avoiding a very substantial and immediate custodial sentence if there was any similar publication in future.

Sir John said Harkins, a house husband, and graphic designer Liddle had both removed the offending pictures very quickly and apologised.

He added that a fine would be wholly inappropriate to the gravity of what was a serious contempt and an unprecedented case.

He also said the penalty had to make clear the determination of the court to protect the potentially numerous people at risk and the importance of upholding the rule of law.

The judges had heard Harkins had 141 friends on Facebook and his post had been shared 20,000 times. The father-of-three accepted he had been extremely foolish and had shown genuine remorse.

Liddle, who had 915 followers on Twitter, undertook various charitable activities, the court was told, and an immediate custodial sentence would have major consequences for his profoundly deaf son.

Harkins said "no comment" as he left the Royal Courts of Justice. Liddle said: "I am just going to go home and see my son."

The action against the two defendants was brought by Attorney General Dominic Grieve.

He said the public interest required the injunction's enforcement to mitigate the "very real risk of serious physical harm or death" to anyone who might be identified, whether correctly or incorrectly, as being either of the killers.

After the ruling, Mr Grieve said: "An internet posting takes seconds, but can have major consequences.

"These people were fully aware that there is an injunction in place which prevents publication of any images or information claiming to identify anyone as Jon Venables or Robert Thompson, yet they carried on.

"It has been in place for many years and applies to both media organisations and individuals.

"It is irrelevant whether the postings in this case were of who they claimed to be.

"The order is meant not only to protect Venables and Thompson, but also those members of the public who have been incorrectly identified as being either of them

AAG

not only is the law a pompus ass so is sir john thomas and dominic greive

this pair wouldnt have been sent down for this its all upper class hot air could you imagine the outcry if they had.

i have written about these two before and i write with these words stick your injunction up your pompus legal arses,

there should be no hiding place for these two or maxine carr

i know the forum garden gets a lot of visitors so i say this also

you have copies of the pictures of these two find them and put a rope around their necks thats proper justice and to the do gooder whistleblower shame on you its the do gooders like you that have got the country like it is and give carte blanche for murderers to hide their foul selves behind.

they took an innocent two year olds life its time they paid

i,ll keep the champers on ice and open it when i read of their demise.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Fri Apr 26, 2013 8:09 pm

So you want to put a noose around ten year old necks? Well done. they were murderers at ten. Not as adults.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:19 am

I would bet money that If this country had a vote, half the country would have voted to put a noose around Venebles and Thompson's necks.

It depends what side of the fence you are sitting on. Yes, they were 10 years old at the time but I read a report on the babies Injuries when they murdered him and they absolutely battered him. It could not be proven, but police always believed some of the Injuries had a sexual nature. If that was your baby that they kidnapped and battered to death, you would also be screaming for them to be strung up.... but It's OK hey? It was someone else's kid not yours.

One of them, Venebles Is back Inside prison for downloading child porn. A police officer stated It was the highest catagory child rape porn. He was also grooming a young single mother to get to her child.

In a documentary, a senior detective described Thompson as being In the presence of evil and Britain has not heard the last of him'.

It's about protecting future victims and those two should never have been let out.

Forget the sentimental clap trap of oh they were only 10 years old and look at what they did and what Venebles has continued to do upon his release.

James Bulger suffered multiple fractures: Pathologist reveals two-year-old had 42 injuries including fractured skull. Jonathan Foster reports - UK - News - The Independent

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 9:54 am

We still apparently live in a civilised society. One which outlawed capital punishment a long time ago. Do we really want to see 10 year old children swinging from a rope. Is that the sort of people we are, that we think that's appropriate ?

There's no question that what these two did was an appalling and horrendous crime and if either one of them are still a danger to the public, they should not be free (Venables at the very least) but once a sentence is carried out, we, the public are not free to additionally mete out our own extra "justice" The law, quite rightly does not allow for that, so I agree that the two men should be held accountable for publishing the photographs. They are not the law

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 10:24 am

All I can add to that Is this:

I watched a heartbreaking Interview with Sarah Payne one night and why she got the law changed.

Her words at the end were this:

" If I had known that Roy Whiting, a convicted child abuser had been released Into the area where we were visiting relatives, would I have let my children out to play that day? NO, NEVER "

I believe the public does have a right to know where they are living and what they look like. It's about protecting future victims.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:32 am

Do you really want to live in a country where the press and people like this whip people in to a frenzy to go out and lynch people? Because that is exactly what you are advocating, the last time the press went on a moral crusade about paedophiles innocent people found themselves being victimised - there was even a a case where a paediatrician had her home fire bombed sun and daily mail readers not exactly being the brightest match in the box.

While we're at it why do papers and people like these not publicise the names of all the catholic priests who molested children or it that kind of thing somehow acceptable if you are a man of god - good people who made a mistake or something daft like that. They weren't ten years old they were calculating manipuklative adults who deliberately out themselves in a position where thet could abuse children with impunity. Why not call for a boycott of the churches till they do something about it.

posted by oscar

I would bet money that If this country had a vote, half the country would have voted to put a noose around Venebles and Thompson's necks.

I would bet money that if this country had a vote half the country would have voted NOT to give thatcher a state funeral.

We have a legal system for very good reason - so that mobs can't lynch anybody they feel like.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 11:40 am

What's Thatcher's funeral got to do with the price of fish?

If Sarah Payne knew Roy Whiting was In the area, It's an almost foregone conclusion that her child would not have been snatched, raped and murdered.

If the police hadn't of arrested Venebles at the time they did, who knows the outcome of the child who's Mother he was grooming.?

The government holds some responsibility to protect Innocents and If making people aware of who has been released and where they are living saves other children like Sarah Payne, why should anyone give a toss about the sex offender? Because certainly they never gave a toss about the children they killed or the misery they put their families through.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:31 pm

oscar;1425501 wrote: What's Thatcher's funeral got to do with the price of fish?

If Sarah Payne knew Roy Whiting was In the area, It's an almost foregone conclusion that her child would not have been snatched, raped and murdered.

If the police hadn't of arrested Venebles at the time they did, who knows the outcome of the child who's Mother he was grooming.?

The government holds some responsibility to protect Innocents and If making people aware of who has been released and where they are living saves other children like Sarah Payne, why should anyone give a toss about the sex offender? Because certainly they never gave a toss about the children they killed or the misery they put their families through.

posted by oscar

What's Thatcher's funeral got to do with the price of fish?

Merely pointing out the pointlessness of the point you were making. Plus winding you up:D

why should anyone give a toss about the sex offender?

It's not to protect the sex offender it's to protect innocent people who might find themselves the victim of a hate campaign if they are wrongly identified as such. Look at your own case, you were pilloried as a thug beating up innocent teenagers you would think it would give you some understanding of the reasoning.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 12:45 pm

gmc;1425506 wrote: posted by oscar

Merely pointing out the pointlessness of the point you were making. Plus winding you up:D

It's not to protect the sex offender it's to protect innocent people who might find themselves the victim of a hate campaign if they are wrongly identified as such. Look at your own case, you were pilloried as a thug beating up innocent teenagers you would think it would give you some understanding of the reasoning.

Oh Contraire... As you brought It up, let me first of all correct you.

After my trial, I found If my memory serves me correctly, 71 sites discussing my arrest and trial. Only 2 were derogatory. One was unaware of a retraction printed by my local newspaper two nights after the trial. Upon seeing the retraction, derogatory comments were deleted. The other one refused to believe It. I can send you a link to that retraction should you wish.

Regardless, and back to topic. One woman grabbing hold of the collar some 5 ft 9 In yob squaring up to her husband Is hardly a convicted child abuser such as Roy Whiting who on release, kidnapped, raped and murdered a 10 year old child.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:35 pm

oscar;1425508 wrote: Oh Contraire... As you brought It up, let me first of all correct you.

After my trial, I found If my memory serves me correctly, 71 sites discussing my arrest and trial. Only 2 were derogatory. One was unaware of a retraction printed by my local newspaper two nights after the trial. Upon seeing the retraction, derogatory comments were deleted. The other one refused to believe It. I can send you a link to that retraction should you wish.

Regardless, and back to topic. One woman grabbing hold of the collar some 5 ft 9 In yob squaring up to her husband Is hardly a convicted child abuser such as Roy Whiting who on release, kidnapped, raped and murdered a 10 year old child.

I stand corrected, I've never actually heard about your case until it came up on this forum. The cases are admittedly on a different level but the basic principle is the same. The l;egal system is far from perfect but it's still better than mob justice and the pillory.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 1:54 pm

gmc;1425515 wrote: I stand corrected, I've never actually heard about your case until it came up on this forum. The cases are admittedly on a different level but the basic principle is the same. The l;egal system is far from perfect but it's still better than mob justice and the pillory.
I beg to differ... there Is a world of difference.

Venebles and Thompson had decided to snatch a child when they headed Into the shopping Mall. That was premeditated. On release, Venebles was grooming a young Mother to get to her child, that Is premeditated. A child killer Is actively looking for a child to snatch, that Is premeditated.

Going to the chemists to get a prescription and stopping to ask yobs to stop vandalising a war memorial Is not premeditated. The situation turning nasty when suddenly 25 of his mates appear, Is not premeditated. In fact, It could happen to anyone. So, No It's not the same.

If anyone has killed or sexually abused a child by premeditation, they should never be let out. That solves the problem of protecting them and maybe Sarah Payne would be alive today.

http://www.humberside.police.uk/advice- ... sarahs-law

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:01 pm

lets hope that what goes around comes around eh oscar and these two are found hanging from the nearest bridge.

i just hope it doesnt take the death of another child to put venables back behind bars.

even now i couldnt read the path report you posted as its too distressing.

AAG

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:12 pm

I will always remember the words of that senior muder detective who said Interviewing Thompson was being In the presence of pure evil.... and his final words.... " I don't think Britain has heard the last of Thompson".

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:20 pm

Oh and by the way... It's a bit late... the pics of Thompson and Venables were all over Facebook. I saw them and Thank God, I feel safer knowing what they look like now.

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:32 pm

You feel safer knowing what they look like? MY GOD. you must seriously be in a complete state of terror 24 hours a day not knowing what every murderer, burglar, rapist, facist dictator looks like presently.

BTW saw black caviar in her new 'retirement village'.... 6 star if ever I've seen one.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sat Apr 27, 2013 4:36 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1425539 wrote: You feel safer knowing what they look like? MY GOD. you must seriously be in a complete state of terror 24 hours a day not knowing what every murderer, burglar, rapist, facist dictator looks like presently.

BTW saw black caviar in her new 'retirement village'.... 6 star if ever I've seen one. That was badly worded I agree... my families children may be safer for seeing them on Facebook.

Rumours are abound that she's to have a romantic liason with our Frankel.

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 6:12 am

oscar;1425538 wrote: Oh and by the way... It's a bit late... the pics of Thompson and Venables were all over Facebook. I saw them and Thank God, I feel safer knowing what they look like now.

as a column writer oscar dear i stand by every word i said

lets hope these pictures got to those who matter in liverpool.

if they do get him you can be assured of a news blackout

but the net is closing venables:yh_devil:yh_ghost:yh_beatup:yh_party

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 9:28 am

When you read about something In the news, It's very easy to become detatched.

I believe future victims should always be considered over and above the convicted In child murder cases. If they are ever released, I believe the public has every right to know what they look like and where they are living. If they feel unsafe, then tough, move to India where no-one knows you. But Instead, governments put future victims at risk to pander to the likes of Venebles and Thompson.

There Is a very Interesting series on one of the Sky channels and I can't for the life of me remember what It's called and who the Investigator Is but he examines killers In the UK and he believes that once a risk, always a risk.

When Sarah Payne was murdered, It hit so many people In the area real hard. Peter and I lived In Ferring just half a mile down the road from the lane In East Preston where Sarah was snatched by Roy Whiting. I felt anger for a long time that exactly the same as the Payne family, our family visited and our grandchildren went out to play In those fields not knowing that he had been released and was working in the area. My brother was deeply upset that when Sarah's body was found, he realised he'd been driving past the little girls body on his way to work. Then I remember a police officer admitting at the time that convicted child offenders are released Into the Worthing area because It's considered safer due to the large elderly population. I can state that under no circumstances would we have allowed our grandchildren out to play In those fields If we had know Roy Whiting was In the area and neither would the Payne family.

I believe we have every right to know exactly what has been released Into our area and what they look like.... stuff the loony left who want their ID's protected. Yeah, until It's their kid !!!

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:03 am

oscar;1425517 wrote: I beg to differ... there Is a world of difference.

Venebles and Thompson had decided to snatch a child when they headed Into the shopping Mall. That was premeditated. On release, Venebles was grooming a young Mother to get to her child, that Is premeditated. A child killer Is actively looking for a child to snatch, that Is premeditated.

Going to the chemists to get a prescription and stopping to ask yobs to stop vandalising a war memorial Is not premeditated. The situation turning nasty when suddenly 25 of his mates appear, Is not premeditated. In fact, It could happen to anyone. So, No It's not the same.

If anyone has killed or sexually abused a child by premeditation, they should never be let out. That solves the problem of protecting them and maybe Sarah Payne would be alive today.

Child Sex Offender's Disclosure Scheme: Sarah's Law » Humberside Police

You really don't get the basic principle do you. We have developed a legal system to prevent mob justice and the wrong people being lynched and the constant blood-letting that there used to be, an eye for an eye just doesn't work in a justice system. The notion of open courts, and dispassionate sentencing has a long tradition for very good reason. You may not be happy with the way things are then campaign to change them - maybe there's a case for imprisoning those who attack children indefinitely but that is something to be discussed. Personally I don;t think venables should evr be released again, he had his chance and abused it. Grumpy old men gibbering in their porridge while reading the morning paper just give themselves heartburn and achieve little else.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:04 am

oscar;1425517 wrote: I beg to differ... there Is a world of difference.

Venebles and Thompson had decided to snatch a child when they headed Into the shopping Mall. That was premeditated. On release, Venebles was grooming a young Mother to get to her child, that Is premeditated. A child killer Is actively looking for a child to snatch, that Is premeditated.

Going to the chemists to get a prescription and stopping to ask yobs to stop vandalising a war memorial Is not premeditated. The situation turning nasty when suddenly 25 of his mates appear, Is not premeditated. In fact, It could happen to anyone. So, No It's not the same.

If anyone has killed or sexually abused a child by premeditation, they should never be let out. That solves the problem of protecting them and maybe Sarah Payne would be alive today.

Child Sex Offender's Disclosure Scheme: Sarah's Law Humberside Police

You really don't get the basic principle I'm on about do you. We have developed a legal system to prevent mob justice and the wrong people being lynched and the constant blood-letting that there used to be, an eye for an eye just doesn't work in a justice system. The notion of open courts, and dispassionate sentencing has a long tradition for very good reason. You may not be happy with the way things are then campaign to change them - maybe there's a case for imprisoning those who attack children indefinitely but that is something to be discussed. Personally I don;t think venables should evr be released again, he had his chance and abused it. Grumpy old men gibbering in their porridge while reading the morning paper just give themselves heartburn and achieve little else.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:12 am

You can say that again.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 10:15 am

So what you are actually saying, Is that you'd rather protect child killers than protect little girls like Sarah Payne when they are released ?

How about this :.... We never release them In the first place rather than expect the nation to pander to their murdering sick needs and just pray and hope with fingers crossed that they don't claim another victim?

Snowfire · Post by **Snowfire** » Sun Apr 28, 2013 11:04 am

oscar;1425577 wrote: So what you are actually saying, Is that you'd rather protect child killers than protect little girls like Sarah Payne when they are released ?

How about this :.... We never release them In the first place rather than expect the nation to pander to their murdering sick needs and just pray and hope with fingers crossed that they don't claim another victim?

Thats not at all what he said. You couldnt of read gmc's post properly to come to that conclusion