James Bulger's Father Calls for Jon Venables' Anonymity to Be Lifted | Good Morning Britain

Is that Jeremy Kyle?

They can't lift the anonymity because some idiot will kill him or do a lot of damage.

Raggamuffin wrote:Is that Jeremy Kyle?

They can't lift the anonymity because some idiot will kill him or do a lot of damage.  

Its an interesting point Rags, here is another debate on this.

I certainly can understand the father feeling as he does, as I am sure you do

I think we have to weigh up the potential for risk, based on anonymity and he is certainly a huge risk

Which means he is a danger to society and people have a right to know such an offender that has the potential to cause harm to others. Is within their neighbourhood.

So what do we do in such a situation, when rehabilitation has never worked?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Is that Jeremy Kyle?

They can't lift the anonymity because some idiot will kill him or do a lot of damage.  

Its an interesting point Rags, here is another debate on this.

I certainly can understand the father feeling as he does, as I am sure you do

I think we have to weigh up the potential for risk, based on anonymity and he is certainly a huge risk

Which means he is a danger to society and people have a right to know such an offender that has the potential to cause harm to others. Is within their neighbourhood.

So what do we do in such a situation, when rehabilitation has never worked?

I do understand how Ralph Bulger feels, but I wonder if he's being completely honest about his motive for wanting the anonymity lifted.

I have my own theories as to why Jon Venables keeps reoffending. He's certainly a risk for downloading child porn but is he a risk for abducting another child?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Its an interesting point Rags, here is another debate on this.

I certainly can understand the father feeling as he does, as I am sure you do

I think we have to weigh up the potential for risk, based on anonymity and he is certainly a huge risk

Which means he is a danger to society and people have a right to know such an offender that has the potential to cause harm to others. Is within their neighbourhood.

So what do we do in such a situation, when rehabilitation has never worked?

I do understand how Ralph Bulger feels, but I wonder if he's being completely honest about his motive for wanting the anonymity lifted.

I have my own theories as to why Jon Venables keeps reoffending. He's certainly a risk for downloading child porn but is he a risk for abducting another child?

I think based on the evidence he is a huge risk of offending and as such to me such people based mentally are a risk to society and should not be free to live within society. Yes i know that sounds harsh, but this based upon the potential to cause harm based on risk and he is a high risk factor. Again many attempts to rehabilitate have failed and thus we have to weigh up the potential of risk to again cause harm.

I think the view here should be to safeguard and until there is clear evidence he is not a risk, he should never be allowed out into society.

I just don't know what can be done with him. He's had two further prison sentences since he was incarcerated for murder, but they're not very long sentences because of the guidelines. I don't think they can keep him in prison for ever, but perhaps he can be monitored more closely when he gets out.

I don't think he'll ever be "rehabilitated", whatever that means, because he's haunted by what he did.

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't know what can be done with him. He's had two further prison sentences since he was incarcerated for murder, but they're not very long sentences because of the guidelines. I don't think they can keep him in prison for ever, but perhaps he can be monitored more closely when he gets out.

I don't think he'll ever be "rehabilitated", whatever that means, because he's haunted by what he did.

I agree Rags, its a difficult case with this one, but to me, the risk factor and safeguarding must come first.

That means such people must remain in custody, for the safety of others

I'm highly suspicious of anyone who says that his anonymity should be lifted. These people know what woud happen to him, and they say they wouldn't condone it, but they know it will happen. What then is their motivation? I don't think it's to protect the public because knowing who Venables is wouldn't protect anyone.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I just don't know what can be done with him. He's had two further prison sentences since he was incarcerated for murder, but they're not very long sentences because of the guidelines. I don't think they can keep him in prison for ever, but perhaps he can be monitored more closely when he gets out.

I don't think he'll ever be "rehabilitated", whatever that means, because he's haunted by what he did.

I agree Rags, its a difficult case with this one, but to me, the risk factor and safeguarding must come first.

That means such people must remain in custody, for the safety of others

Well then they would need to give him a whole-life tariff, which they can't do because the crimes he's committed since the murder don't warrant that.

Raggamuffin wrote:I'm highly suspicious of anyone who says that his anonymity should be lifted. These people know what woud happen to him, and they say they wouldn't condone it, but they know it will happen. What then is their motivation? I don't think it's to protect the public because knowing who Venables is wouldn't protect anyone.

I think there is two motives

Those on one spectrum, looking to ensure there is a safeguard here and others with a vindictive motive

So being as we hav talked about safeguarding here, that will be their primary motive and only an extreme element would look to have that person exposed to cause harm.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

I agree Rags, its a difficult case with this one, but to me, the risk factor and safeguarding must come first.

That means such people must remain in custody, for the safety of others

Well then they would need to give him a whole-life tariff, which they can't do because the crimes he's committed since the murder don't warrant that.

Well then we have to look at how the law has to adpat to safeguard people when they are still a risk to society

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well then they would need to give him a whole-life tariff, which they can't do because the crimes he's committed since the murder don't warrant that.

Well then we have to look at how the law has to adpat to safeguard people when they are still a risk to society

Lots of people reoffend when they come out of prison - some of them several times. What do you suggest?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Well then we have to look at how the law has to adpat to safeguard people when they are still a risk to society

Lots of people reoffend when they come out of prison - some of them several times. What do you suggest?

Base releasing people on the potential of risk to cause harm to others

It means are present system is wrong

We are realeasing people that go on to further offend

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lots of people reoffend when they come out of prison - some of them several times. What do you suggest?

Base releasing people on the potential of risk to cause harm to others

It means are present system is wrong

We are realeasing people that go on to further offend

Yes, but how do you assess what the risk is? Those being released aren't going to admit that they're likely to reoffend. Re Venables in particular, he has downloaded child porn and been caught on two occasions, but does that mean he's likely to actually attack a child?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

Base releasing people on the potential of risk to cause harm to others

It means are present system is wrong

We are realeasing people that go on to further offend

Yes, but how do you assess what the risk is? Those being released aren't going to admit that they're likely to reoffend. Re Venables in particular, he has downloaded child porn and been caught on two occasions, but does that mean he's likely to actually attack a child?

There are already many psychological tests Rags

I mean we already do this with mental health patients that are a risk to the public

If they release his identity, he'll be hounded, or killed.  He committed that crime when he was a kid himself, but....he knew what was right or wrong...but...like most kids of ten, his capacity to empathise with his victim was limited by physiology.   The same cruelty is seen in bullying by children all over the country.   The difference with Venables and Thompson was they managed to abduct their victim who was too young to fight or run and that cruelty developed a momentum generated by their own damaged selves.

I'm not sure what good it would do for Venables to be exposed, other than result in his death or suicide.   It won't bring Jamie Bulger back.   Or change what happened.  And I don't think it will give the parents closure.   The only thing that gives you closure is finding the strength to forgive what was done...not for the perpetrators but for yourselves.

As for his continued use of paedo images....for that he should be locked away.

HoratioTarr wrote:If they release his identity, he'll be hounded, or killed.  He committed that crime when he was a kid himself, but....he knew what was right or wrong...but...like most kids of ten, his capacity to empathise with his victim was limited by physiology.   The same cruelty is seen in bullying by children all over the country.   The difference with Venables and Thompson was they managed to abduct their victim who was too young to fight or run and that cruelty developed a momentum generated by their own damaged selves.

I'm not sure what good it would do for Venables to be exposed, other than result in his death or suicide.   It won't bring Jamie Bulger back.   Or change what happened.  And I don't think it will give the parents closure.   The only thing that gives you closure is finding the strength to forgive what was done...not for the perpetrators but for yourselves.

As for his continued use of paedo images....for that he should be locked away.

The point here is on risk and I get your points

So do you believe he is a risk or not to be released into society?

So for example, would you feel happy, with 8 members of a grooming gang known to be living within your neighbourhood?

I know its going to push buttons here, but how would anyone feel, knowing they preyed upon children?

He did the same and was also well aware what he did

All that aside this is based on risk

I would never allow anyone back into society, if they posed a risk

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:If they release his identity, he'll be hounded, or killed.  He committed that crime when he was a kid himself, but....he knew what was right or wrong...but...like most kids of ten, his capacity to empathise with his victim was limited by physiology.   The same cruelty is seen in bullying by children all over the country.   The difference with Venables and Thompson was they managed to abduct their victim who was too young to fight or run and that cruelty developed a momentum generated by their own damaged selves.

I'm not sure what good it would do for Venables to be exposed, other than result in his death or suicide.   It won't bring Jamie Bulger back.   Or change what happened.  And I don't think it will give the parents closure.   The only thing that gives you closure is finding the strength to forgive what was done...not for the perpetrators but for yourselves.

As for his continued use of paedo images....for that he should be locked away.

The point here is on risk and I get your points

So do you believe he is a risk or not to be released into society?

So for example, would you feel happy, with 8 members of a grooming gang known to be living within your neighbourhood?

I know its going to push buttons here, but how would anyone feel, knowing they preyed upon children?

He did the same and was also well aware what he did

All that aside this is based on risk

I would never allow anyone back into society, if they posed a risk

I think he's a risk. So, I think he should be locked up if he's a danger to kids.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:

The point here is on risk and I get your points

So do you believe he is a risk or not to be released into society?

So for example, would you feel happy, with 8 members of a grooming gang known to be living within your neighbourhood?

I know its going to push buttons here, but how would anyone feel, knowing they preyed upon children?

He did the same and was also well aware what he did

All that aside this is based on risk

I would never allow anyone back into society, if they posed a risk

I think he's a risk.  So, I think he should be locked up if he's a danger to kids.  

Agreed Horatio and that should be the case until evidence proves he is not a risk

The reason I raised the points i did. As I doubt any here, would like it, if they knew that a number of people convicted of child sex  abuse were living within their area. Until this effects you. Its far easier to debate on this, until it could possible do so. When that arises, then peoples perceptions will always change.

I ask, when a person has committed a crime,why then should they have anonymity?

The view to do so is to protect them, when they never once showed any view to care fo the victims they abused. Hence the view here is to protect them. I mean seriously?

WTF?

Can you imagine a survivor of the Holocaust not knowing that their abuser was living next dooor to them and then to find this out? As they would eventually find out. How they would then feel?

This view is not giving one thought to the victims here but to actually safeguard the abusers here. Unless they come foward and openly say sorry for the crimes they committed. Then how else can anyone forgive their acts. To hide their identity, is basically showing no remorse on their part.

People have the capacity for forgiveness, but how can they do this, when those criminals are not open on what they did?

I do agree. It's the unfairness. But, the powers that be are not going to take the risk of being responsible for Venables getting killed. He wasn't an adult when he committed that crime? So, how culpable is he, really? He is totally responsible for what he's done as an adult, or even a teenager, but as a ten year old? That's a moot point.

HoratioTarr wrote:I do agree.  It's the unfairness.  But, the powers that be are not going to take the risk of being responsible for Venables getting killed.   He wasn't an adult when he committed that crime?   So, how culpable is he, really?   He is totally responsible for what he's done as an adult, or even a  teenager, but as a ten year old?   That's a moot point.

I agree he has paid his crime, but like anyone that is a risk with mental health issues. We in the main (not alll sadly) have them in controlled mental institutions

I believe that people who pose a  risk, should fall under this category. As we already hold people that pose a risk

So this is not about what he did when 10. Its about what he is capable of now

I take the view that his crime of downloading child porn is connected to his crime of murder. I think he's re-living what happened because he's haunted by it. Perhaps he's trying to convince himself that other people do bad things too. Perhaps he thinks he should be in prison because he wasn't punished enough for the murder. Perhaps he thinks that looking at children being abused would help him understand why he did what he did. The question is - would he go beyond looking at stuff on the internet?

The other thing is - as I mentioned before - can he be locked up for ever anyway? Other people who download child porn aren't locked up for ever, so I don't think he could be either.

I agree with Horatio that taking away his anonymity would do no good, and that Jamie's parents might get some relief if they tried to forgive him. Not easy I know but it would be for their own sakes.

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:I do agree.  It's the unfairness.  But, the powers that be are not going to take the risk of being responsible for Venables getting killed.   He wasn't an adult when he committed that crime?   So, how culpable is he, really?   He is totally responsible for what he's done as an adult, or even a  teenager, but as a ten year old?   That's a moot point.

I agree he has paid his crime, but like anyone that is a risk with mental health issues. We in the main (not alll sadly) have them in controlled mental institutions

I believe that people who pose a  risk, should fall under this category. As we already hold people that pose a risk

So this is not about what he did when 10. Its about what he is capable of now

That is the real issue, yes.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:


I agree he has paid his crime, but like anyone that is a risk with mental health issues. We in the main (not alll sadly) have them in controlled mental institutions

I believe that people who pose a  risk, should fall under this category. As we already hold people that pose a risk

So this is not about what he did when 10. Its about what he is capable of now

That is the real issue, yes.

Agreed, so what do we do to safeguard people?

Its a like a Kobayashi Maru situation. With this offender, That no matter how muchy we try, he will always reoffend

Raggamuffin wrote:I take the view that his crime of downloading child porn is connected to his crime of murder. I think he's re-living what happened because he's haunted by it. Perhaps he's trying to convince himself that other people do bad things too. Perhaps he thinks he should be in prison because he wasn't punished enough for the murder. Perhaps he thinks that looking at children being abused would help him understand why he did what he did. The question is - would he go beyond looking at stuff on the internet?

The other thing is - as I mentioned before - can he be locked up for ever anyway? Other people who download child porn aren't locked up for ever, so I don't think he could be either.

I agree with Horatio that taking away his anonymity would do no good, and that Jamie's parents might get some relief if they tried to forgive him. Not easy I know but it would be for their own sakes.

God knows why people become paedo's. Perhaps Venables was wired wrong from birth. Perhaps he's just a bad un, and won't ever reform. But it's not worth the risk to some poor kid if he's let out roaming around. Could he ever be trusted to behave like a normal human being? Is he psychopathic? His mental health has never been revealed, has it?

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

That is the real issue, yes.

Agreed, so what do we do to safeguard people?

Its a like a Kobayashi Maru situation. With this offender, That no matter how muchy we try, he will always reoffend

Sadly, the world is full of people like him, some just hide it better than others. He's stigmatised for life. If he's exposed, he may as well kill himself and have done with it. It's all about notoriety. Look at the Moor's Murderers. They didn't do anything worse than some others had done, but they were never let out. They were too infamous.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:

Agreed, so what do we do to safeguard people?

Its a like a Kobayashi Maru situation. With this offender, That no matter how muchy we try, he will always reoffend

Sadly, the world is full of people like him, some just hide it better than others.   He's stigmatised for life.   If he's exposed, he may as well kill himself and have done with it.    It's all about notoriety.   Look at the Moor's Murderers.   They didn't do anything worse than some others had done, but they were never let out.  They were too infamous.

I doubt anyone will misss him, but take on your point. My point is simple this and its good that you use the Moor's murderers. Would we even look to release them from Jail? I know he is dead now, but the point still stands. She is still in jail and to me, life should mean life on such crimes

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Sadly, the world is full of people like him, some just hide it better than others.   He's stigmatised for life.   If he's exposed, he may as well kill himself and have done with it.    It's all about notoriety.   Look at the Moor's Murderers.   They didn't do anything worse than some others had done, but they were never let out.  They were too infamous.

I doubt anyone will misss him, but take on your point. My point is simple this and its good that you use the Moor's murderers. Would we even look to release them from Jail? I know he is dead now, but the point still stands. She is still in jail and to me, life should mean life on such crimes

Yes, life should mean life. But you see over and again murders of children getting out of jail in a few years. You see murders/rapists let out of jail who re-offend. It's just awful. But when you have notoriety, they tend to keep you locked up. They obviously have only let Venables free because he was a kid when he offended. But if he's got kiddie porn on his computer and is that way inclined, he should be locked up, not wait until he takes his twisted fantasies into real life and molests someone.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Thor wrote:

I doubt anyone will misss him, but take on your point. My point is simple this and its good that you use the Moor's murderers. Would we even look to release them from Jail? I know he is dead now, but the point still stands. She is still in jail and to me, life should mean life on such crimes

Yes, life should mean life.  But you see over and again murders of children getting out of jail in a few years.   You see murders/rapists let out of jail who re-offend.  It's just awful.  But when you have notoriety, they tend to keep you locked up.    They obviously have only let Venables free because he was a kid when he offended.   But if he's got kiddie porn on his computer and is that way inclined, he should be locked up, not wait until he takes his twisted fantasies into real life and molests someone.

Let me make this point clear Horatio. I do believe people can make amends, but the reality is a small percentage that do so. Again my view is on risk and with this twisted arse, he is a risk and we agree. Let loose, he would abuse someone else. Hence why that should be the bases on parole. He certainly has mental health issues, to the extent, he should never be let out.

Thor wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

Sadly, the world is full of people like him, some just hide it better than others.   He's stigmatised for life.   If he's exposed, he may as well kill himself and have done with it.    It's all about notoriety.   Look at the Moor's Murderers.   They didn't do anything worse than some others had done, but they were never let out.  They were too infamous.

I doubt anyone will misss him, but take on your point. My point is simple this and its good that you use the Moor's murderers. Would we even look to release them from Jail? I know he is dead now, but the point still stands. She is still in jail and to me, life should mean life on such crimes

Myra Hindley died in 2002.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

I doubt anyone will misss him, but take on your point. My point is simple this and its good that you use the Moor's murderers. Would we even look to release them from Jail? I know he is dead now, but the point still stands. She is still in jail and to me, life should mean life on such crimes

Myra Hindley died in 2002.

And may she rot

Besides that, my point still stands

My mistake Rags, I was not aware that evil bitch was still alive

The point is that there's a sentencing guide for those convicted of possessing child porn, and it's not a whole-life prison sentence, even for those who have been convicted of it more than once.

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is that there's a sentencing guide for those convicted of possessing child porn, and it's not a whole-life prison sentence, even for those who have been convicted of it more than once.

You are confusing the issue here

Its about safeguarding


D0 you think he should be released?

HoratioTarr wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I take the view that his crime of downloading child porn is connected to his crime of murder. I think he's re-living what happened because he's haunted by it. Perhaps he's trying to convince himself that other people do bad things too. Perhaps he thinks he should be in prison because he wasn't punished enough for the murder. Perhaps he thinks that looking at children being abused would help him understand why he did what he did. The question is - would he go beyond looking at stuff on the internet?

The other thing is - as I mentioned before - can he be locked up for ever anyway? Other people who download child porn aren't locked up for ever, so I don't think he could be either.

I agree with Horatio that taking away his anonymity would do no good, and that Jamie's parents might get some relief if they tried to forgive him. Not easy I know but it would be for their own sakes.

God knows why people become paedo's.   Perhaps Venables was wired wrong from birth.  Perhaps he's just a bad un, and won't ever reform.  But it's not worth the risk to some poor kid if he's let out roaming around.  Could he ever be trusted to behave like a normal human being?  Is he psychopathic?   His mental health has never been revealed, has it?

I think it's directly linked to the murder of James - probably the result of the murder.

I think he simply can't cope with normal life. I'm not surprised by that at all. He was told he had to totally reinvent himself and pretend his first ten years never happened. He's been told in the press over and over again that he's a pervert, a devil, an evil person who will never change. He's read that people are out to get him, that he will be killed if anyone finds out who he is. Would you be normal under those circumstances?

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The point is that there's a sentencing guide for those convicted of possessing child porn, and it's not a whole-life prison sentence, even for those who have been convicted of it more than once.

You are confusing the issue here

Its about safeguarding


D0 you think he should be released?

My point is that he will be released, whether anyone likes it or not. There are loads of people who have downloaded or possessed child porn who have been released, and nobody knows where they are, and they probably don't care.

Raggamuffin wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

God knows why people become paedo's.   Perhaps Venables was wired wrong from birth.  Perhaps he's just a bad un, and won't ever reform.  But it's not worth the risk to some poor kid if he's let out roaming around.  Could he ever be trusted to behave like a normal human being?  Is he psychopathic?   His mental health has never been revealed, has it?

I think it's directly linked to the murder of James - probably the result of the murder.

I think he simply can't cope with normal life. I'm not surprised by that at all. He was told he had to totally reinvent himself and pretend his first ten years never happened. He's been told in the press over and over again that he's a pervert, a devil, an evil person who will never change. He's read that people are out to get him, that he will be killed if anyone finds out who he is. Would you be normal under those circumstances?

Its not based on the media Rags

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

You are confusing the issue here

Its about safeguarding


D0 you think he should be released?

My point is that he will be released, whether anyone likes it or not. There are loads of people who have downloaded or possessed child porn who have been released, and nobody knows where they are, and they probably don't care.

His release is not based on downloading porn

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I think it's directly linked to the murder of James - probably the result of the murder.

I think he simply can't cope with normal life. I'm not surprised by that at all. He was told he had to totally reinvent himself and pretend his first ten years never happened. He's been told in the press over and over again that he's a pervert, a devil, an evil person who will never change. He's read that people are out to get him, that he will be killed if anyone finds out who he is. Would you be normal under those circumstances?

Its not based on the media Rags

Oh I think it is. They need to stop the media circus surrounding Venables and they need to stop asking Denise and Ralph what they think. We know what they think already. In fact, it would have been better if his arrest for child porn had not been in the press.

Venables never had a chance after he was released to be a normal person because nobody would let him be normal.

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

My point is that he will be released, whether anyone likes it or not. There are loads of people who have downloaded or possessed child porn who have been released, and nobody knows where they are, and they probably don't care.

His release is not based on downloading porn

Eh? What it is based on then? He has been sentenced to a certain amount of time, so how do they justify keeping him in for longer?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

His release is not based on downloading porn

Eh? What it is based on then? He has been sentenced to a certain amount o time, so how do they justify keeping him in for longer?

If he has not been realised its for a reason, based on risk

You are trying to confuse this based on porn.

It has little factor on the threat he poses

Night Rags, am off out now

Have a good evening

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eh? What it is based on then? He has been sentenced to a certain amount o time, so how do they justify keeping him in for longer?

If he has not been realised its for a reason, based on risk

You are trying to confuse this based on porn.

It has little factor on the threat he poses

How am I confusing this with porn? That's what he was convicted for, not anything else. Are you saying that he should be kept in prison for the murder of Jamie?

What is the real question here? Does downloading child porn mean that the person who does it is likely to go out and do something bad to a child? Have there been any studies on that? Does looking at adult porn mean that someone will go out and sexually assault someone?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:

If he has not been realised its for a reason, based on risk

You are trying to confuse this based on porn.

It has little factor on the threat he poses

How am I confusing this with porn? That's what he was convicted for, not anything else. Are you saying that he should be kept in prison for the murder of Jamie?

You keep bringing up crimes on peadophile porn today that he does and not anything on the risk that he does  pose

I am saying he should be kept in prison based on the risk he is to society. Just as other people are with mental health issues that are on a risk factor

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

How am I confusing this with porn? That's what he was convicted for, not anything else. Are you saying that he should be kept in prison for the murder of Jamie?

You keep bringing up crimes on peadophile porn today that he does and not anything on the risk that he does  pose

I am saying he should be kept in prison based on the risk he is to society. Just as other people are with mental health issues that are on a risk factor

The risk is based on the paedophile porn crime he committed isn't it? If not, what are you basing this risk on?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


You keep bringing up crimes on peadophile porn today that he does and not anything on the risk that he does  pose

I am saying he should be kept in prison based on the risk he is to society. Just as other people are with mental health issues that are on a risk factor

The risk is based on the paedophile porn crime he committed isn't it? If not, what are you basing this risk on?

Its based on a culmination of factors, not just porn Rags

The risk he poses to children

Again this is a person who has no intention to reform

Thor wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The risk is based on the paedophile porn crime he committed isn't it? If not, what are you basing this risk on?

Its based on a culmination of factors, not just porn Rags

The risk he poses to children

Again this is a person who has no intention to reform

What factors? The murder was 25 years ago, and he hasn't shown any inclination that he will kill another child.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thor wrote:


Its based on a culmination of factors, not just porn Rags

The risk he poses to children

Again this is a person who has no intention to reform

What factors? The murder was 25 years ago, and he hasn't shown any inclination that he will kill another child.

Has he not?

Show me the psychological records to prove that?

Show me the records to prove he is not a risk to children?