Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Woot

Bulger Killer Jon Venables Faces Child Porn Charges

Recommended Posts

One of the two killers of Merseyside toddler James Bulger has been charged with possession and distribution of indecent images of children.

Jon Venables, who killed James in 1993, was released from jail in 2001 and given a new identity and anonymity for life under a special court order.

But Venables, now 27, was recalled to prison in February after allegedly breaching the terms of his licence.

He is charged with two offences under the 1978 Protection of Children Act.

Early stage

It is alleged that he downloaded 57 indecent images of children between February 2009 and February 2010.

He is secondly accused of distributing seven images between 1 and 23 February this year by allowing other people to access files on his computer through a peer-to-peer network.

The case is at a very early stage and will return to court on 23 July. That hearing will be the first opportunity for Venables to indicate whether he will be pleading guilty or not guilty to the alleged offences.

The Bulger family lawyer says there is "relief" Venables has been charged

Were he to plead not guilty, he would eventually appear before a jury under his new name. If he pleads guilty, the case will quickly move to sentencing.

Why was he released? Was he considered to be rehabilitated; was it for soft-PC reasons - ie the view that a child is unsullied, making mistakes not choosing abhorrent behaviour; had he 'paid his dues'?

Who gets to make these decisions and on what basis - experience, training, quango appointment?

This whole issue raises so many questions however one wonders whose interests his release has served. Not the victim's, or their family. If he is found guilty of these new charges then one must ask whether these new victims could have been protected by his continuing detention. Also, how many other similar offenders go on to re-offend? Do others really go on to lead blameless lives - if Venables the exception or was he just unlucky in being caught?

Does anyone have any 'right' answers to this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why was he released? Was he considered to be rehabilitated; was it for soft-PC reasons - ie the view that a child is unsullied, making mistakes not choosing abhorrent behaviour; had he 'paid his dues'?

Who gets to make these decisions and on what basis - experience, training, quango appointment?

This whole issue raises so many questions however one wonders whose interests his release has served. Not the victim's, or their family. If he is found guilty of these new charges then one must ask whether these new victims could have been protected by his continuing detention. Also, how many other similar offenders go on to re-offend? Do others really go on to lead blameless lives - if Venables the exception or was he just unlucky in being caught?

Does anyone have any 'right' answers to this?

Parole boards and, ultimately, the courts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it deliberate or accidental? Does the law discriminate between a file being put on your computer by a network and later copied to another machine from yours (quite possibly without your knowledge) - and one you deliberately take from one virtual network and deliberately distribute onto another? Many cases that make it to press seem a little flakey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it deliberate or accidental? Does the law discriminate between a file being put on your computer by a network and later copied to another machine from yours (quite possibly without your knowledge) - and one you deliberately take from one virtual network and deliberately distribute onto another? Many cases that make it to press seem a little flakey.

IIRC from an earlier story, the criterion that the police use to decide whether or not to prosecute in most cases is whether you've used your credit card to buy the images. Sooner or later there'll be a virus that downloads kiddie porn to your PC, though, I guess; and if and when there is, it'll make prosecutions a lot more difficult because the reasonable doubt will become well known and plausible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mrs Bradley

Why was he released? Was he considered to be rehabilitated; was it for soft-PC reasons - ie the view that a child is unsullied, making mistakes not choosing abhorrent behaviour; had he 'paid his dues'?

Who gets to make these decisions and on what basis - experience, training, quango appointment?

This whole issue raises so many questions however one wonders whose interests his release has served. Not the victim's, or their family. If he is found guilty of these new charges then one must ask whether these new victims could have been protected by his continuing detention. Also, how many other similar offenders go on to re-offend? Do others really go on to lead blameless lives - if Venables the exception or was he just unlucky in being caught?

Does anyone have any 'right' answers to this?

I have oft pondered how they decide a child molester/killer is rehabilitated. How does one test - whilst he is still incarcerated - whether she or he still has abnormal attitudes to young children?

It isn't as though you can wheel some kiddies in and let him loose with them to study their interactions.

I always was concerned about the Bulger killers. not so much 'cos they killed a younger child - 'cos as we all know children have weak control of impulses so might lash out in the heat of the moment where an adult would restrain themselves, having learned so to do.

No it was the way they selected him, then walked round with him for ages, then took him to a quiet spot, then tortured him.

That to me goes way way beyond what could be explained away by a heat of the moment impulse. It shows a cold callous deliberate approach to the suffering of another human being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IIRC from an earlier story, the criterion that the police use to decide whether or not to prosecute in most cases is whether you've used your credit card to buy the images. Sooner or later there'll be a virus that downloads kiddie porn to your PC, though, I guess; and if and when there is, it'll make prosecutions a lot more difficult because the reasonable doubt will become well known and plausible.

So, basically.

1. You buy something from an online retailer whose payment processor is compromised

2. Your stolen credit card details are subsequently used to purchase child porn

3. Police come knocking, ruin you life, and potentially you end up in prison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically.

1. You buy something from an online retailer whose payment processor is compromised

2. Your stolen credit card details are subsequently used to purchase child porn

3. Police come knocking, ruin you life, and potentially you end up in prison.

Correct. That was alleged to be the case in that big operation a few years back. Also, by giving your details to one of the larger 'normal' pr0n outfits it may subsequently be found to be held in an umbrella corp that does the less normal stuff.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/10/ore_credit_card_fraud/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correct. That was alleged to be the case in that big operation a few years back. Also, by giving your details to one of the larger 'normal' pr0n outfits it may subsequently be found to be held in an umbrella corp that does the less normal stuff.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/05/10/ore_credit_card_fraud/

It's an interesting line in speculation, but have you heard anything to suggest that that is what has happened in this case? Apparently he's been charged with providing content to others - that would seem, at face value, to suggest a little more direct engagement that being the victim of a trojan attack or having his machine cloned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it deliberate or accidental? Does the law discriminate between a file being put on your computer by a network and later copied to another machine from yours (quite possibly without your knowledge) - and one you deliberately take from one virtual network and deliberately distribute onto another? Many cases that make it to press seem a little flakey.

This is an interesting point. The report says he downloaded 57 images and distributed 7 over the course of a year or thereabouts. Every other report of someone being prosecuted for kiddie porn offences that I have read (or at least remembered) has involved hundreds or thousands of images/files. This seems an unusually low number so it could, I suppose, lead you to believe whether he'd been set up.

Then again, we don't know the facts surrounding the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, basically.

1. You buy something from an online retailer whose payment processor is compromised

2. Your stolen credit card details are subsequently used to purchase child porn

3. Police come knocking, ruin you life, and potentially you end up in prison.

This has happened. I think there was an item on the news about it withing the last fortnight or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting line in speculation, but have you heard anything to suggest that that is what has happened in this case? Apparently he's been charged with providing content to others - that would seem, at face value, to suggest a little more direct engagement that being the victim of a trojan attack or having his machine cloned.

What he has been accused of was sharing on a peer to peer network.

This involves software that you don't really have any expectation of being able to fully control, passing files onto and off your pc, automatically sharing them.

Whether he deliberately took images from one network and published them on another is one thing, but having the files move through his pc on the way round a network, or clicking download without knowing what it is - and fundamentally anytime you click on something on the internet you have no real idea what is going to be on the other side - and had it downloaded from him while he was downloading it is a quite different matter. Not how the law seems to see it though.

I would imagine that someone posting on internet forums to know a little about the way these things work, if you don't it might be worth your while looking into it.

In the old days 'making' indecent images involved getting people to pose, photographing it, developing and printing and then distribution. Nowadays 'making' and image is done as soon as it shows on your screen - mentally the equivalent of looking at a picture, but due to the way the law works it is now a copy, on your kit, therefore you have made the image. If someone downloads it from your computer you have now distributed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an interesting line in speculation, but have you heard anything to suggest that that is what has happened in this case? Apparently he's been charged with providing content to others - that would seem, at face value, to suggest a little more direct engagement that being the victim of a trojan attack or having his machine cloned.

The tiny number of images (relatively speaking) though seem to suggest otherwise. Has any other case involved so little content?

As I say though, this is why we have trials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The tiny number of images (relatively speaking) though seem to suggest otherwise. Has any other case involved so little content?

As I say though, this is why we have trials.

Yeah, there was a bloke with a picture on his phone. I'll see if I can find it. The case not the pic...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK

If it is a miscarriage of justice, it couldn't happen to a nicer bloke. Let's not look into the details too far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting.

What about the times when you google image some porn (Safe search off) and something a bit dodgy looking comes up ? Would that class as downloading ?! blink.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting.

What about the times when you google image some porn (Safe search off) and something a bit dodgy looking comes up ? Would that class as downloading ?! blink.gif

yeah. Or you click on a thumbnail that then pulls a different image. Or you click on something that looks like it should be some political analysis and turns out to be something else.

If you download on p2p, the file is usually then reseeded on yours - and subsequently downloaded even before you see it - before you know anything more about the file than the short name you are provided... thats distribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is all very interesting.

What about the times when you google image some porn (Safe search off) and something a bit dodgy looking comes up ? Would that class as downloading ?! blink.gif

Yes - and in fact downloading is the same as "making" in the eyes of the law since you've "made" an electronic image on your pc.

So use google images, find a picture of a young looking girl (overage), but it could still be used by police to try and incriminate you and/or blackmail you.

This new CP witchhunt is a hidden nightmare for many innocent blokes, a nice little earner for the cops, and a great way of introducing more internet censorship. There was even a case where some bloke got down for CP when in fact it was an adult port actress in a normal film, and he had to fly her over to his trial to testify his innocence. The police or CPS don't care about justice, it's just another collar to them.

For more reading :-

http://ore-exposed.obu-investigators.com/Innocent%20Man%20In%20Ore%20Nightmare.html

http://www.obu-investigators.com

http://forum.obu-investigators.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The PTB do this sort of thing on purpose. It damages society some more and makes us all take our eyes off the voncanic mud they are pretending is an oil spill in the gulf.

They are like magicians. While you are watching the right hand move about with the handkerchief, the left hand is dipping into your wallet and tightening the shackles you have not noticed attached to your legs.

Napolean was wrong, it is not incompetence. It is a very well planned and well executed plan of malice. They just use incompetence as the cover when the inquiry stage starts. This stage is also when the CCTV footage dissapears and people misteriously die while out for a walk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 145 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.