Tuesday, 22 June 2010

Two Views on John Venables

Travelgal:

Because some people are just deeply unpleasant little bastards who deserve to rot in jail forever. I'm sure he had a deeply troubled past before he tortured and killed that child. Ain't going to bring the child back. The question exists on where right and wrong is formed in his unpleasant little mind. So he was feral, so what. So are a bunch of streetkids in the Favelas of Rio who ain't sticking batteries up babies arses before torturing and killing them. When do we decide that a shit break stops being an excuse and the action punished? An Octagenarian could have a blameless life and get tanked one night - in one moment of stupidity kills someone in a car, should he avoid jail, or is it just children that get a free pass? Because nobody is any less deader in either case.
Just because I’m a libertarian doesn’t mean that I believe that criminals should be left free to wander. If I did I’d be a Liberal Democrat. And – this is aimed at you Mr Kenneth Clark M.P. - just because you have to talk to the Liberal Democrats doesn’t mean you always have to listen to every bat-shit weird intellectually incontinent idea they come up with.

Jackart:

Great picture. But.

It is the mark of a civilised society that we react with justice rather than vengeance (Labour MPs are excepted from this morality). Venables was already a very damaged little boy when he tortured and killed Jamie Bulger. He should not be asked to accept full responsibility for his actions because he was 10 years old. His parents who failed in their duty of care must also accept their share of the blame.

That he was let out early reflects the fact that he was a little boy who did a terrible thing. Giving such people a second chance is also the mark of a civilised society. And we went a long way backwards when politicians like Michael Howard or Any of the Interchangeable New Labour savages started pandering to the mob.

We've been asked to Condemn Venables for taking drugs, going to night clubs and chatting up women. Sometimes he gets into a scrap, but read this mirror Article and say that whilst I wouldn't want him dating my daughter, his actions as described do not seem abnormal for a 27 year old. He was, however thrown back into Gaol for behaviour that in anyone else would not result in even a caution.

As for the downloading of child porn, my understanding is that we are talking about 57 images - the sort of volume you could achieve accidentally. Have a look at your images history in your browser. There will be hundreds of images (hopefully no illegal ones). Immagine you've been surfing for porn... (and if you're male and you say you haven't you're lying) there will be more than that and there is always the possiblity that some are borderline. Some pictures (the ones of a naked 10 year old Brooke Shields, for example) are fine hanging in a gallery, but illegal on the web. What about a parent's insecure flickr stream with pictures of their kids on the beach? Under what context are things illegal. Self posted pictures from Facebook? Where's the victim?

We don't know what the images are but his "distributing" images is simply a facet of how he obtained them: Pirate bay (probably) and a Bit Torrent Tracker. If you download a file and the 57 images could be just one torrent, you probably share it too.

If someone has a serious interest in child porn, like Gary Glitter, pictured, there will be many thousands of images on the hard drive, systematically collected. Paedophiles also groom using chatrooms to target children for abuse.
The law does not differentiate between a single accidental download from clicking a link and receiving images - even ones never displayed on the screen, and a systematic and extensive collection. This level of activity cannot in all justice be taken as indicating a sexual interest in children. I am prepared to bet that next to 57 illegal images there were thousands of images of adult women.

Because of the media hype surrounding Venables' crime, and paedo baiting more generally, Venables, or whatever he's called now, is not going to be able to get a fair trial. Most people, Like Travelgal, have condemned him already. No smoke without fire and all that.

The poor kid never stood a chance.



9 comments:

Sofia said...

57 images of child pornography and you think accidental can be a plausible excuse, what planet do you live on Jackart??? Child pornography is viewed by the mentally disturbed.

Travelgal you're bang on right!

Jackart said...

Read the post. 57 images could be one page downloaded or a single torrent.

So yes. It could be accidental.

JimmyGiro said...

When the law treats men as guilty before proof, then this is a direct assault upon democracy.

And if you support pre-emptive guilt, including thought crime, then your views regarding the function of the Iraqi and Afghan wars, based primarily upon 'democratization', become fallible.

Or is democracy only suitable for wogs?

Sofia said...

Strange how all the years I've downloaded torrents I have yet to come across such deeply offending items. Nothing even close. If you have 'accindentally' stumbled across such material, what vulgarity were you searching for? It's said one can only understand a crime if one is capable of it. I sincerely hope that is not the case!

JimmyGiro said...

"Strange how all the years I've downloaded torrents I have yet to come across such deeply offending items."

By the time you have decided to be 'offended', it's too late, the files are on YOUR PC.

And whether you were 'turned on' or simply morbidly curious, as was Chris Langham regarding 15 images, you will be automatically guilty by this 'thought crime' of vision.

Sofia said...

"Morbidly Curious" Puhleaze!!!! Anyone with even a slight interest or curiosity needs to be locked up. Would you be so excusing if it were pictures of your young son or daughter they were "morbidly curious" about? How about if they thrashed one out? Sounds more like DENIAL! The 57 images were not one page. As for jon V. HANG HIM!

JimmyGiro said...

""Morbidly Curious" Puhleaze!!!! Anyone with even a slight interest or curiosity needs to be locked up."

So those police, social workers, and feminist support charities and quangos, whose personnel show an active interest in the issue, should they be severely scrutinized, or even locked up?

And most of the targets for so called paedophiles, are in fact sexually active boys, which would make the perpetrators, homosexuals. But the police, social services, and feminist organizations, bend over backwards to protect homosexuals, and indeed campaign actively to legalize 'man-boy sex'.

I think the whole game of paedophilia is an elaborate, and in feminist cases, lucrative, hoax, created to destroy families, and institutionalize children, by separating them from parents, and older family and friends. The hand that rocks the cradle, governs the 'democracy' of the future.

P.S. The other group of so called paedophiles, are young boys who show sexual desires with girls their own age. It's as though the Marxist-Feminists mean to destroy future families from even forming.

In Harriet sugar-and-spice Harman's brave new world, the labels "Mummy" and "Daddy" would have been illegal and pejorative; and "Uncle" would be code for sex offender.

banned said...

Some years ago I was searching Limewire (sp?) for an LL Cool J vid, I recieved a pornographic vid with people, adults, doing some very bizzar things.
Despite 'deleting' it immediatly I remain well aware that it would remain on my hard-drive indefinitly.

Point being that malicious folk can dress up illegal porn in any way they want and get kicks out of turning normos into cyber pervs.

Anonymous said...

if i do a complete erase and install on my Mac,
erasing 300 Gb of files, reboot ..yada,yada.
I am led to believe my hard drive will have a
record of every image, every TV programme
that I have streamed, and of course every image from that. Every grabbed image etc. Even just site URLs.
Do they have an infinite capacity to hold onto data
that may be years old.
I simply do not believe it.
A simple history of sites visited, overlain by
subsequent re booting, re installing, trashing.
A ghost of a chance, though I have never come across something that it is deemed illegal to view.
If I were younger, had been brought up in a male borstal: and a condition of my parole was that I must tell my girlfriend that I killed Jamie Bulger.
In those circumstances my browsing might have been different.

There was an error in this gadget