If it happened in Australia, he would still be in jail, with Thompson. In 1988, a 14 year old named Bronson Blessington participated in a murder of a 21-year-old and is still in jail now, 30 years later, with no parole date set and the original judge recommending no release at any future time. Later in 1997, the State Government of the state (NSW) where the crime was committed, enacted new legislation for a select group of high-level offenders, including Blessington (14 at the time of the gang murder), to "cement them in their cells for life". Prior to that legislation, they could have sought a release or parole date. America is not the only country which jails people under 21 for life without the possibility of parole, despite what Good Morning Britain will have you believe.
Do you know why they are in prison in Australia? Cause the law is young. I western Europe the law is very old, and property is more important than life. Thats why. A lawyer told me that and it sounded logic.
That's why I personally believe that Venables and Thompson should have done 35 years in jail, with a release date of sometime in 2028. There has to be a limit. They'd only be 45 when released anyway, still young enough to learn to adapt to the outside.
Thompson and Venables were hanging around considering taking another child but were caught doing so. They then took Jamie, I wonder if that is considered as malice of forethought. I like many people dont want revenge, I want justice. Why did they not serve time in a young offenders prison until they were old enough to be transferred to an adult prison ? To many people it seems like the state have given very special consideration to these people and it is cruel to the family and friends of Jamie to see such unfeeling decisions being made whilst he lies in a grave that should never had to be dug. No one will ever know the suffering and torture that they put poor Jamie through and what ran through his little mind, and that is what must run through the minds of the Bulger family every day of their lives. That is a life sentence with no parole.
What's he on about "they didn't really know what they were doing"? They took him on a 2 and a half mile walk, often dragging him and hitting him, then they used bricks, stones and an iron bar to beat him to death and then tried to make it look like an accident. How the hell did they NOT know what they were doing?!
By your same logic we could lower the age of sexual consent to 10. No one thinks rationally with a complete understanding of consequences, morality or empathy at that age, it's why children can be vicious to one another, their emotions and impulses are not fully mature yet.
Rob Fraser But it was proven that they knew the difference between right and wrong. Their intent was to kill, plain and simple. With the consent thing, it's usually an adult who isn't allowed to do anything sexual with a minor, but in this case we're talking about children who killed another child.
He obviously forgot about the confession of Venables at the police station where he said they were first going to just push him in the canal not far from the shopping centre. So the intent to kill was there from the beginning. Bleeding hearts!
They didn't know what they were doing Will? think again. His judgment stinks, you only have to listen to the audio interviews of the killers, they were so cunning, evil little bastards.
We only got to find out but a taste of what they did to him in through the media (thankfully). That was more than enough to work people up into a rage. It all came out in court. Read Ralph Bulger's book, if you have the stomach for it. Det. Albert Kirby had to explain everything in detail to Ralph before the trial so that he wouldn't be shocked on the day itself. People need to know the full facts before they make judgements and applaud other opinions. Some of the audience are clearly living in ignorant bliss.
My thoughts continue to be with the Jamie Bulgers family, they have shown remarkably strength and resilience. Despite having to deal with an English legal system that failed to give them anything close to real justice. Those murders continue to demonstrate they are danger to society and should never been have been released. This not a topic for QT!
@@manichairdo6346 I'm not quite sure what point your point is. The British Legal System passed an 'indeterminate' - LIFE sentence. So how - and why - on Earth did the European Court stop a fifteen year sentence from being imposed? Be careful with Wikipedia. It can be incredibly inaccurate.
CAROL is a smart savvy woman ,but your right ;I literally wanted to scream, what's your point woman ,get on it, lol ,it was painfull to watch and hear ,stick to countdown ,maybe !!!!!!
The little boy’s name was James. His Mum has stated on multiple occasions that he was never known as Jamie, why do people who never knew him insist on calling him Jamie?!
Everyone is arguing with emotion, he's arguing with logic and reason. Though he worded it not all that well it's very unlikely that either of them were mature enough to be able to grasp the gravity of what they were doing when they were doing it. Does that excuse them? No, is it something should be overlooked because of how horrible the murder was? also no.
I really don't see where Will Self is coming from here. Does he seriously believe that Thompson and Venables were somehow dissociated or unconscious when they killed Jamie Bulger? No malice aforethought? Maybe he thinks they had some form of psychosis as opposed to simply being cruel little savages?
They were 10, they didn't plan it out. They thought they would be back at school next week with no idea of the gravity of what they did. The police didn't have to conduct some deep investigation tapping bank accounts world wide to trace them. Yet that to you shows malice aforethought? I have ALWAYS found it strange how they are regarded as 'superEvil' Meanwhile we have mothers and fathers who kill their kids and give fake press conference appeals for help and their just 'evil' and are almost never charged with murder.
It doesn't matter if they didn't plan it out. Do you really think that for a killing to be classed as murder it has to be planned in advance? We are so lenient on children in this society. We use the excuse that 'they are young' to absolve them of moral responsibility as if they have no concept of right and wrong. I suppose you might put the murder down to 'boys being boys'?
PrimeM92 "Murder is the unlawful killing, **with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide** (such as manslaughter)." Wikipedia.
That makes sense but I am certain that definition would be more applicable to the type of killing that might occur in a fight, i.e. where a blow or series of blows in the heat of the moment might result in a death; albeit unintentional. Such a killing would certainly be classed as manslaughter. The case of Jamie Bulger was different, it wasn't some random skirmish or playground brawl. Thompson & Venables lead the boy away, tortured him and then killed him. Even among juveniles that would definitely constitute 'malice aforethought'.
CmdrTobs To quote Wikipedia: "Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[28] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later, on 14 February.[7] A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train." This is an abhorrent act of cruelty yet they intended to make it appear to be an accident. Therefore this act is classed as murder i.e. malice aforethought.
Jeremy Paxman is the master of this. I like Paxman, but when outside of Newsnight and on entertainment shows, if he goes on a political rant, there are often awkward pauses. I cringed when he appeared on Graham Norton's show. One person applauded, and Paxman turned to them shouting 'yeah!'. I bet far more people agreed with him, but light, filthy entertainment shows weren't really the place!
How easy it is for those members of the panel and audience, for whom this issue will never personally affect, to speak so pragmatically and so reasonably about those two child murderers and how we should all just let the law do it's job and it's none of our business. For those of you with any opinion on this, but haven't taken the time to burden yourselves with the gritty and harrowing details of what those boys did to that beautiful innocent child, then I would suggest you go ahead and read about it. Venables and Thompson may not be "evil" or psychopaths or even fully understand the gravity of their actions on that day, but what they did to that little boy was brutal, horrific and sadistic, and the media and the public have labelled it evil because frankly there are no other words to describe the horror they inflicted on a child so young and completely incapable of defending himself. Let us not be in any doubt that James suffered horribly by their hands. If any of you have ever heard a young child crying in pain for any reason, those would have been sounds that James made as he screamed, sobbed, cried and wailed for his mummy, but those boys didn't show him a single ounce of mercy or humanity as they bludgeoned, stripped, kicked, punched and tortured him to death. It takes a very specific kind of person to so personally and violently take the life of another helpless human being in this way. They covered his broken head with bricks and left him on a railway track to die, in pain and alone, until he was eventually hit by a train and torn in to two pieces. How any of us can talk of rehabilitation for those two murderers is beyond me. What they did was not normal or forgivable, it was not a mistake, a mistake would have been stealing sweets or toys, bunking off school or even having a fight, not the sadistic murder of an innocent child. I would ask that panel if they would they be happy to live next door to one of them, would they be happy to have a chat with them or shake their hands? Maybe they could go on to become teachers, or child minders, would any of us be happy with them looking after our children? Maybe they could run for public office and represent us? Would anyone like them to date their daughters perhaps? Where is the red line in their rehabilitation and their contribution to society? Would they be so pragmatic about it if it had been their child that had died so horribly? Any sympathy I could have had for those 2 boys and their difficult upbringings immediately evaporates the moment I think about the awful crime they committed. They don't deserve an ounce of our sympathy. I don't wish them death, or for them to be publicly executed as others have suggested, but they should still be in jail for the crime they committed. I hope that every waking moment of their lives is filled with sadness, pain and guilt for what they did. They knew right from wrong and they knew exactly what they were doing on that fateful day. Whether they had a reason to do it or not is by the by, they did it. And if they proved anything by their actions, it was that life is not fair. Why should it be any fairer for them than it was for little James Bulger?
Blame the press for making it feel like the end of the world in your mind. You have been completely played by the media circus and you dance to their tune.
I wonder whether Will Self would be quite so fiercely defensive of Venables now? It wasn't a non-payment of fines. It wasn't a traffic offence. It was the making, downloading and distribution of the worst type of child porn imaginable. Lynch mob mentality is almost always wrong. But very occasionally I think that certain offenders don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve to be rehabilitated and given a second chance. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are two such people.
@@s1050 Oh, balls. It's a tragedy for all involved. The need for vengeance is a primitive instinct; incidents like this need to be approached intellectually if we're to maintain a civilised society.
The problem is James Bulger or his parent has never got the justice they deserve. The problem is that this country hasn't properly given the boys proper rehabilitation.
Exactly. All they appear to have done is give him an assumed identity. He is not even permitted to own his crime. Unsurprisingly he was confessing to just about anyone. And taking loads of drink and drugs in order to fuck it all away. How much money was spent and the best they could come up with was...be somebody else. Jon Venables was not a nice person at all. You're gonna have to become somebody else.
"No malice of forethought" when the two were actively eyeing other kids prior to leading Bulger away? Brilliant sutf Self, now Venables is back in jail for a second round.
Watching this again because of the latest developments re Venables. But I'm struck by the reminder that Boris J was once capable of being quite sensible.
I have a new found respect for Will Self.. not having a go at Carol Vorderman as I see where she is coming from but I think Will Self is simply correct on all points. Evil is a word I have always felt uncomfortable with as it is vague in matter.
Vorderman hasn't got a clue... Will Self speaks the truth here. People are worried about Venables being back on the streets... What about the other hundreds of prisoners released every year? Not worried about them being back on the streets? Thats odd?
But for example Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were never released and would never have been released. Any adult that abducted, and then tortured, perversely & severely, and then murdered, by stoning, a toddler, before leaving them to be cut in half by a train, would never be released. So it is not comparable with "ordinary" prisoner release. Similarly horrible child murders are few and far between and there certainly are not 100s of prisoners that have done things this shocking being released. The reason there was any chance of release, at all, is because of the age of the boys when they committed these acts. Both panelists misrepresent the issues in my opinion: Carol neglects to consider the age (10) matters - how much they understood what they did, and whether the causes were curable or not, which is presumably a matter for the professionals, not her. Will Self wants to make a smart point about our prejudices (doesn't he always) but unfortunately for him: The murder would still clearly be regarded as a "super evil" one if it was an adult that did it. Probably even more so. Not surprisingly & unlike "ordinary" prisoners being released, they are monitored every day. There are no guarantees it worked...
rorrt Thousands of prisoners are released. What are you going to do? Keep those who have committed a dishonesty, a robbery or a drug offence in prison?
Only Me Well, there's murder and there's murder. A bloke who clocks his missus in a crime of passion when she's in bed with another guy, has committed a crime of passion. He is unlikely to ever be a risk to anyone else, it was committed in a certain context (albeit inexcusable). That sort of murder is far different to a thrill kill, Fred and Rose West and the like.
The fact that someone on a life-license found guilty of such subsequent crimes can only receive a TWO-YEAR sentence goes a long way to explaining why the UK public have so little faith in the judicial system - especially when it comes to violent crime.
Aso Paso, people like you are what has brought this country too its knees. You are the sort of person who probably believes in no prisons, just community service. You probably applaud the unelected EMP's that are making many of our laws. I believe every dog has it's day, and James Bulgers parents deserve a proper sentence that fits the terrible crime them two committed.
Wrong! You do have an identity at 10 and you do know right from wrong! Absolutely absurd of you to state otherwise. Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? You speak as though children are nothing but empty headed robots who have no concept of themselves or others until they are adults. If that were true then they wouldn't even be on a par with juvenile chimpanzees. If ten year olds are so unaware of the consequences of their actions then surely we should keep every one of them locked up for fear that they might do something stupid! By your reasoning they are still toddlers who just cannot think for themselves.
***** your comments are based on a view that those who committed a crime 20+ years ago, represent an ongoing risk to the community. That view could be baseless. Do you read the Murdoch tabloids a lot, do you?
***** Will Self made the point about the lads being perceived as worse than other murderers. That's because they are children and by being child killers they violate the nice comfortable innocence that we associate with children. Could our child kill us? Unthinkable! By smiting Venables and Thompson, it restores the nice comfy notion of childhood in our idealizing minds.
***** Well, if the 2 kids didn't know the difference b/n right and wrong (which is a verbatim quote from you) then you're saying they couldn't have been tried because they knew not what they did! (Note the emotiveness of language? "Beasts" demons, devils, evil. The victim is usually portrayed as a little angel in heaven). The general public are a tv -saturated bunch of fools aren't they?
***** Well, you're probably not taking the age into account enough, which is a common tendency with this case. If the perpetrators had been 9, not 10, they would have been under the age of criminality and probably couldn't have even been tried. Did it have aspects of a 'thrill' killing? Don't know? Were the boys inured to violence? Don't know. But Christ, what are you proposing? Executing ten year olds?
BoJo: "I just want to agree with what Will, Shirley and Andrew are saying..." Boris recognises that Vorderman is bombing and shrewdly distances himself from her
I like Will Self but I think he is potentially wrong here. He is using childhood as a defence. The children don't know what they are doing argument. This is a wrong and dangerous assumption to make. There are children I have seen my own daughters play with and I have removed them and will not teave them alone with. Children can be as visceral and intent on knowlingly commiting harm as an adult. And the idea that a 10 year old could plan and wilfully kill someone should not be a surprise.
will self is sympathetic towards scumbags because he himself is one. With his past he cannot possibly attack criminal behaviour , it would be hypocricy of the highest order.
www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/preventing-involvement-crime "Please remember, many children have problems during their childhood but most of these do not go on to commit crime. The majority of those who do commit crime do not commit serious or multiple offences." Therefore there is something wrong with these boys, as the vast majority do not. Hence a genetic element involved. Series cases like murder, boys that age do know. Otherwise more children would have been involved in murder.
Sue Horrocks Well, in my country crimes committed by minors and crimes against minors which could identify them if the adult perpetrator is identified, have identity concealed. That is done for a purpose, it relates not at all to whether you, I or the old lady down the street pays tax or not! Irrelevant!
It also comes down to wether u think people r born evil. They were only 8 at the time, but as proved kids that age can at least DO evil things. It is a very tricky subject.
Super evil. Yes!!!! I'v read what they did. No adult has done what they did!!! The way they did it, no malice of for thought. It was a copy of a film. The were playing a game. Oh it so fun!!! Evil.
Monster LMA it's part of the conditions of the license for both Jon Venables and Robert Thompson that they are no longer allowed to enter Merseyside where Denise Fergus (James' mother) lives, therefore the chances of her running into them on a daily basis is almost nil anyway. Whether or not this would change if she moved to another area I don't know, but I would suspect that both her and the father would at least be informed of their whereabouts.
Will Self has his opinion, audience shocked and appalled. The audience and the rest of the panel then spend 5 minutes working out amongst themselves that Self was right all along.
Will Self isn't defending child killers, he's just being reasonable! If people are putting their hearts before their heads then the whole justice system goes out the window. He's saying that we have a system in place that punishes and reforms criminals, of course it often doesn't work, but we have to trust that people, especially ten year old boys with emotional problems, can change and have a life for themselves.
Why shouldn't he? He didn't say anything particularly controversial, he was just voicing a reasoned argument in the face of rabid populist mania from Vorderman and her ilk. Not everyone is a reactionary savage like you.
I agree with almost everything Will Self says here, apart from the issue of malice aforethought. The two boys were seen "checking out" different children in the shopping centre and once they had Bulger they walked him across Liverpool for 2.5 miles. When confronted by anybody wondering why they were with Bulger they lied and said that he was their brother or that he was lost and that they were taking him to the police station. They brought spray paint and batteries with them which they used in the subsequent torture of Bulger. Now, I haven't read the court transcripts but the above information is all true. I would be interested to know how the jury came to the conclusion that Bulgers abduction and torture wasn't premeditated. I understand that it would be difficult to prove that they planned the murder, but it seems obvious that the whole sequence of events was not done without some degree of planning behind it.
I can see the argument for the abduction being premeditated, but I don't necessarily think that applies to the murder too. Have you heard the interview tapes? When asked why they took James on such an ambling walk (that itself indicative of total aimlessness) Thompson's sincerity sounds real when he says he didn't know - they had no idea what to do. They knew they'd done something wrong, hence why they lied to the other people. I think it's so important to bear in mind the qualitative difference of children's thoughts; they'd have been terrified of getting into trouble had they told the truth. As for the paint and batteries: think you give them a bit too much credit when you say "bought", come on ;) They also stole toy soldiers, troll dolls, whatever they could get their hands on. Less intended instruments of torture than random acts of rebellion.
They planned to take a toddler and push them into traffic. Police report states they deliberately went looking for a young child to kill. Yes, it was planned. "Venables had admitted to thinking about pushing a child into traffic and making the murder look like an accident" Just because the eventual act of murder wasn't exactly planned, they had planned to murder a child and cover it up. They repeatedly tried to kill James by pushing him into traffic and pushing him into a canal. And just because they kids were confused and overwhelmed in court- doesn't mean they were confused about the murder. If you listen to the interviews, Robert Thompson lied constantly and tried to cover up what he'd done. He was cunning and manipulative. Neither wanted to admit to the crime, but they were not confused about what they'd done. Thompson had even gone so far as to put flowers on James' tribute- and asked the policeman 'If I murdered James why did I go and put flowers down?' They had the presence of mind to try and cover up the murder to make it look like an accident- they knew what they did was wrong. They continued to lie and try to manipulate the police and blame each other. There was also a sexual element to the murder too- his pants had been removed and his genitals had been interfered with. (the sexual aspect was kept from the public, probably to spare Denise Bulgers' feelings)
From the interviewing officer- "If they had escaped detection they could have grown up into people like the Kray Twins, Sergeant Phil Roberts said. 'I believe human nature spurts out freaks. These two were freaks who just found each other. You should not compare these two boys with other boys - they were evil.' They carried out the murder because they had a fixation about causing tragedy or disaster. Robert Thompson, known throughout the trial as Child A, hoped to get a 'buzz' from killing James and getting away with it. 'The other kick was fooling the public and the police,' he added. Sgt Roberts recalled a terrible, chilling smile of Thompson's which shocked detectives. As the boys were leaving Bootle magistrates' court, Merseyside, after police applied for an extended warrant of detention, 'Thompson looked at Venables and smiled. It was a cold smile - an evil smile. I believe the smile said they knew they were responsible . . . and thought they were going to get away with it,' he said."
leopard prints - Sergeant Roberts is speaking out a hole in his backside. Pure speculation from his asinine analysis of what brought two boys to comit that awful crime (evil freaks are just born that way) to his interpretation of a smile. The average police Sargeant isn't particularly bright and this one less so than most.
Will Self……an adult trapped in an argumentative teenage state! The type of character who’d argue that water isn’t wet. He’d lose no sleep in leaving you raging with his platformed idiocy, try not to give him the fucking time of day!
"The parents of Jamie Bulger have a life sentence" One of the only truths i heard here. You got this other guy talking about , "no true evidence" R U KIDDING?
I think Will’s thoughts may have been accurate with regards to Thompson, but there is a lot out there that points to Venables knowing exactly what he wanted to do that fateful day.
Will says that perhaps the boys did not know what they were doing. I understand his point of view but I wonder if he knows that Thompson's footprint was imprinted deep into the skin of Jamie Bulger's face. According to the pathologist, it takes an incredible force for that to be possible. They stripped the baby naked, threw bricks at him while he was screaming for his mother. They also beat him with a 28 inch iron bar. Then when the baby was almost dead, they placed his body across the railway line so that the moring train would cut his body in half so that it looked like an accident. That did happen of course. Finally, they piled bricks on top of his face. Don't forget that the boys were only yards from the police station and could easily have left the boy there. Kind of puts into question them not know what they were doing.
simon w ...hell is a euphemism.......jon venables has been sent back to prison yet again for watching child porn on the internet ,he now is in his late 30s,he`s had so many second chances to reform ,james bulger RIP got no second chance,the concept of liberal rehabilitation seems to be working well here wouldn`t you say
I think Carol should probably stick to maths...real-world implications are not her forte. It's also interesting to wonder what gave these people these opinions too.
A word of advice to those who do not condone the murder, but do not advocate the death penalty: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME COMMENTING/REPLYING TO THOSE WHO SEEK RETRIBUTION FOR MURDER! No-one sadly will see this issue from a different perspective other than their 'I am always right and see the world in black and white'. You will likely be faced with a tirade of verbal abuse and unsubstantiated claims of lower murder stats. It seems UA-cam is the home of lonely, cretinous idiots who get off on abusing others merely expressing an opinion. Please don't bother, just ignore them. They WILL NEVER change!
I love watching this, Carol is like a robot that malfunctions every time she gets asked a question. Whilst preparing your nice little speech did you not anticipate a question or 2? The show is called fucking Question Time after all.....
To my view, if there're still outrage in the British society when talking about Thompson and Venables, it certainly has to do with the sentencing and their detention conditions. Balanced to this crime, which mixes barbarity and cruelty, an 8-year sentence was too lenient. Moreover, testimonies about the detention conditions, like they had everything they want (video games, TV, lots of sweets), is just sickening. Unlike little James, they could take A-levels and GSCEs. The outrage would have been less violent if they were sentenced 15 or 20 years.
youandwhosearmy? If anyone of any age did to my daughters what they did to Jamie Bulger I would kill them. That these boys are still breathing and being able to live a life, the most precious gift of all in the light of what they did is the grossest injustice. Bulger will never grow up, he will never fall in love, he will never have the opportunity to live out his life. This is because two 10 year old psychopaths wanted to see what it was like to kill someone and identified a younger child as their target. Psychopaths are predators regardless of their age. However, I have no brief for Vorderman and don't really agree with her position on this question as I don't even believe that Venables should ever have been released.
El Grande Gringo Fantastico Nailed it mate. There is something forensically revealing about the zeal with which people like this sprinkle their words with. There is a hidden little spike lurking underneath their make up. I'm sure rose is a lovely person and would borrow you a cup of sugar any day, but I'm also sure he or she would pedal the most draconian of nightmares.
El Grande Gringo Fantastico Most people can't put aside their emotions to be rational, that's a sad fact of life and it's why the public are so easily manipulated by politicians. Anyone who tries to be rational about this sort of topic will quickly find themselves being attacked on all fronts, likely accused of having something to hide etc. You see this on Question Time a lot when someone is making a very rational argument, their opponent will throw out an appeal to emotion and the audience clap like trained seals. These men should be in prison for life as they have shown themselves to be a continuing danger. I don't understand the hypocrisy of the people here who want to kill them because they killed someone. This was obviously worse when they were still kids and people were calling for it then. I do take issue with your commenting regarding the woman speaking about her daughters. It's a common response people have. They think of their children and what they would do if this happened to them, that's empathy in action.
clearly shown here, Carol didn't do a degree in the humanities. Her talents are looking good for her age, having a good figure, probably being a very nice person and amazing at maths
All the frothing "string 'em up!" brigade who have posted comments here should read "As If" by Blake Morrison, an extraordinarily good book on the Bulger case. But I suppose reading a book that sheds light on the heartbreaking nuances of the story doesn't provide the same intoxicating rush of indignant superiority as casting oneself in the role of Heroic Defender of Children and calling Will Self a wanker.
+Matthew Portelli so how does this make you any better than the two killers in question, at least they have the excuse that they were 10, you wish to murder people who don't agree with you, you call yourself strong but I suspect that what you really mean is big dumb caveman.
Kevin Haskins - Thats what it often boils down to. Not particularly impressive people who doubtlessly go through life commiting mundane acts of nastiness to their spouses and sprogs see a case like the Bulger one and feel a novel rush of (unearned) moral superiority and milk it for all it's worth.
Will self wasn`t convicted of possessing child porn. And what he says makes a lot of sense. We`re talking about 2 kids aged 10yrs old. The whole event is truly tragic, but why put the poor family of J Bulger through another nightmare every time one of those boys does something, they`re not a threat to the family. I think we should leave them in peace, but still offer help and support if they need it.
I've not read any comment that addresses the point that Will Self is making. The point is people seem to regard children who kill as "more evil" than an adult killer! Which is ridiculous when you think about it. It should really be the other way round given a 10 year olds lack of capacity for clear thinking, responsibility and ability to reflect on their actions. The Kray twins are celebrated by many yet as Self said the Bulger killers are seen as "super evil"! The same is applied to female killers, although not to such an extent. I personally believe that they should have spent much longer in prison and Venables should be behind bars for life given his re offending and the nature of those offenses. I must admit his argument about the terms under which you can be sent back to prison when under licence"smoking marijuana"!!??? As the girl said"it's still illegal" and Venables knew the criteria when he was released,so wills "most people in this audience would be returned to prison........" Argument is ridiculous. Those people in the audience hadn't murdered a child! However the point still stands..... children who kill are not more evil than adults who kill,if anything the reverse is true....so why the bias? It's a highly emotive subject which usually means people think from their emotions rather than logic. Difficult case and tragic all round, especially for Jamie's family. I think that once Venables re offended with the child porn it was a lock him up and throw away the key scenario. He was an adult by this time and clearly a danger to society.
Are you for real? Saying these two had no malice aforethought yet they tried to abduct a little girl 2 weeks before and another little boy the same day before they got James?!!! That your idea of common sense? You're as mental as he is.
I agree with Will Self mostly but I'm having a hard time not calling those kids (now men) evil. They knew what they were doing, and what they did was evil.
Rory Riddell - Carole Vorderman was a bit of a dissapointment, another Mensa moron - a dab hand at doing the puzzle page in the paper but otherwise as thick as two planks. Seems to be auditioning for a column in The Daily Wail - sub-editor will be run ragged if she writes like she speaks.
Carol makes it difficult for me because I try to be a nice calm person, but every time I see this clip I'm filled with incandescent hate and contempt for her.
I used to have a real crush on Carol vorderman but after hearing her dumb daily mail style rantings I feel terrible. Because now I'd do her even more...
Carol calls refers to the boy as 'Jamie' at one point, which is one of the most disturbing aspects of the case. This is the name she will have read in the tabloids- a name which was never used by his parents, but used by the press in a disgustingly cynical appeal to the "hearts" of the readers by appropriating his name in this way. On behalf of the press there is no genuine concern for the victim - there is nothing we can do for the victim- it's worth remembering that
@CunningStunt777777 But he said he read the transcriptions Venables said that it was Robert's idea to kill him where as Robert keeps trying to blame Jon for it which proves that Robert was the leader.
***** OK, keep your tin foil hat on!!! Regardless of what you think of his writing he is a hugely intelligent and insightfull man. You might have a point if they were all saying the same thing but they aren't. They have different types of people on so they can examine things from all angles. Would you not think it strange if they were all agreeing with each other? There is absolutely nothing extreme about what self said (vorderman is the nutter here). You don't get to say someone is sending "messages" from "puppet masters" just because some disagrees with you. How is the media using self to form my opinions when I held the same opinion before I heard him? Surely vorderman is there to give her opinion, what happens when the "puppets" extol completely contrary opinions? MESSAGE??? what fucking message.
Ya'll think this is crazy in the US two 12 year old girls stabbed there best friend 12 years old too 19 times because Slender Man told them to kill the 12 year old. SLENDER MAN if a fictional character.... Thank God she survived the 19 stabbings.
+carl123 I don't accept the death penalty - see Hislop demolishing it on QT. I think Prison should mainly be to keep the dangerous from others. Punishment? A load of shit, I'm interested in solutions to problems not wallowing around in self pity and lashing out. I think something went wrong with Bulger's killers, I don't hate them, I pity them. I don't think about them unless I stumble upon the sort of small minded cunts that obsess about them, I pity those people too. And before you raise the issue, that one of them downloaded child porn doesn't surprise me - it's the sort of thing damaged people do.
chris reynolds jon venables has been sent back to, prison yet again recently 2017 for watching child porrn on his computer he is now 35 years of age james bulger RIP had no second chances jon venables has had 3 chances to reform, so how is will self spot on
Chris Reynolds how he bang on!? Jon venables is called back into prison! Will self probably still going to defend thinking he’s brought back to prison smoking a joint! The kind is a idiot defending those child killers!
He’s that bang on that. Jon venables has now been recalled back to prison for the second time for having child abuse pictures. He was really rehabilitated wasn’t he? This sick fucker is a danger to children which he keeps proving and keeps getting such ridiculous sentences for. He is going to kill a child again these judges and whoever keeps letting him free will have blood on their hands. Kill a baby get 8 years in a home get let out get new identity given a home and whatever else. Get recalled for sick pictures of kids, go away for two years get a new identity and home and then do the same thing and get 40 Months. How many chances is he going to get it makes me so angry
I think the public has a right to know who is living next to them. If the courts fear that giving his identity will cause him harm then he should be kept in jail for his own safety. I just don't understand how you can kill someone and then go free.
Well done Carol, I am angry how you were shut down, That moron Boris was clearly being a politician at the time and weve all seen how he worked out in hindsight. Here nor there, you had a strong point that was very relevent and you were oppressed. I've lost a lot of respect for question time looking back on this. Good for you Carol, you could see clearly and you had the low ground and you still fought against those morons. Good for you my lady, I have the greatest respect for you from this video
There was a rumour he’d been let out in the town I was living in at the time, I’d only just arrived and was on way to work when I was exposed to, then 2 days later same guy tries to follow and push in past my door. I phoned cops gave description and they went” oh we got an idea who that is.” Just seen his face on google . It’s not just cp he’s into. I’d recognise that gormless face anywhere. This was in 2008.
Jon Venables should never have been allowed to leave prison.
If it happened in Australia, he would still be in jail, with Thompson. In 1988, a 14 year old named Bronson Blessington participated in a murder of a 21-year-old and is still in jail now, 30 years later, with no parole date set and the original judge recommending no release at any future time. Later in 1997, the State Government of the state (NSW) where the crime was committed, enacted new legislation for a select group of high-level offenders, including Blessington (14 at the time of the gang murder), to "cement them in their cells for life". Prior to that legislation, they could have sought a release or parole date.
America is not the only country which jails people under 21 for life without the possibility of parole, despite what Good Morning Britain will have you believe.
Do you know why they are in prison in Australia? Cause the law is young. I western Europe the law is very old, and property is more important than life. Thats why. A lawyer told me that and it sounded logic.
That's why I personally believe that Venables and Thompson should have done 35 years in jail, with a release date of sometime in 2028. There has to be a limit. They'd only be 45 when released anyway, still young enough to learn to adapt to the outside.
I agree. And also to save others from beeing violated by them. That would have the top priority in my mind.
completely agree, the justice system GOT IT WRONG.
Thompson and Venables were hanging around considering taking another child but were caught doing so. They then took Jamie, I wonder if that is considered as malice of forethought. I like many people dont want revenge, I want justice. Why did they not serve time in a young offenders prison until they were old enough to be transferred to an adult prison ? To many people it seems like the state have given very special consideration to these people and it is cruel to the family and friends of Jamie to see such unfeeling decisions being made whilst he lies in a grave that should never had to be dug. No one will ever know the suffering and torture that they put poor Jamie through and what ran through his little mind, and that is what must run through the minds of the Bulger family every day of their lives. That is a life sentence with no parole.
Beautifully presented.
Totally agree.
What's he on about "they didn't really know what they were doing"? They took him on a 2 and a half mile walk, often dragging him and hitting him, then they used bricks, stones and an iron bar to beat him to death and then tried to make it look like an accident. How the hell did they NOT know what they were doing?!
By your same logic we could lower the age of sexual consent to 10. No one thinks rationally with a complete understanding of consequences, morality or empathy at that age, it's why children can be vicious to one another, their emotions and impulses are not fully mature yet.
Rob Fraser But it was proven that they knew the difference between right and wrong. Their intent was to kill, plain and simple.
With the consent thing, it's usually an adult who isn't allowed to do anything sexual with a minor, but in this case we're talking about children who killed another child.
@@krashd There's a difference between "not fully matured yet" and murdering and raping a child.
He obviously forgot about the confession of Venables at the police station where he said they were first going to just push him in the canal not far from the shopping centre. So the intent to kill was there from the beginning. Bleeding hearts!
ILOVEYOUSHIMA They were 10 and very mentally deranged. They had no idea of the consequences.
They didn't know what they were doing Will? think again.
His judgment stinks, you only have to listen to the audio interviews of the killers, they were so cunning, evil little bastards.
too right. and they did'nt just kill the young lad, they tortured him to death.
👏👏👏👏👏
We only got to find out but a taste of what they did to him in through the media (thankfully). That was more than enough to work people up into a rage.
It all came out in court. Read Ralph Bulger's book, if you have the stomach for it. Det. Albert Kirby had to explain everything in detail to Ralph before the trial so that he wouldn't be shocked on the day itself.
People need to know the full facts before they make judgements and applaud other opinions. Some of the audience are clearly living in ignorant bliss.
Given Venables' recent arrest for possession of Category A child pornography, Will Self was seriously wrong here.
How was he wrong?
It was not a minor offence
@@greyarea6688
the fact they tried to obscure the wounds and cover it up shows they knew what they did was wrong.
adlovett98 and it was clearly planned, they tried to kidnap another boy but fortunately for him his mum saw them.
Will Self is thoughtful and well-informed as usual. Whilst Carol Vorderman appears to have been exposed as an aggressive, sanctimonious simpleton.
bengregory76 shutup nonce sympathizer
My thoughts continue to be with the Jamie Bulgers family, they have shown remarkably strength and resilience. Despite having to deal with an English legal system that failed to give them anything close to real justice. Those murders continue to demonstrate they are danger to society and should never been have been released. This not a topic for QT!
It was the European Court that stopped the sentence being 15 years. Plenty info via Wikipedia.
@@manichairdo6346
I'm not quite sure what point your point is. The British Legal System passed an 'indeterminate' - LIFE sentence. So how - and why - on Earth did the European Court stop a fifteen year sentence from being imposed?
Be careful with Wikipedia. It can be incredibly inaccurate.
Carols verbal flows like tomato sauce through the eye of a needle.
Yes but have you seen her bum....whoaaa.....
lol
portlandstone3mw yes her arse would get it. 😂
CAROL is a smart savvy woman ,but your right ;I literally wanted to scream, what's your point woman ,get on it, lol ,it was painfull to watch and hear ,stick to countdown ,maybe !!!!!!
THIS IS THE WORST METAPHER I VE EVER HEARD
or read
ARE U NUTS?????
The little boy’s name was James. His Mum has stated on multiple occasions that he was never known as Jamie, why do people who never knew him insist on calling him Jamie?!
It sounds more childlike...
Will Self clearly doesn't know what this guy did and got away with. He broke the terms of his license over and over.
No one did at the time this program originally aired.
Will Self is the only evil one on this show! What a evil man defending them!
denwo1982 totally agree
denwo1982
I have my own suspicions of Will Self.
Just have a feeling about this weirdo.
Everytime i see Will Self i see Pete Townshend
Everyone is arguing with emotion, he's arguing with logic and reason. Though he worded it not all that well it's very unlikely that either of them were mature enough to be able to grasp the gravity of what they were doing when they were doing it. Does that excuse them? No, is it something should be overlooked because of how horrible the murder was? also no.
Will Self owns this panel.
You just can’t “fix” evil
I really don't see where Will Self is coming from here. Does he seriously believe that Thompson and Venables were somehow dissociated or unconscious when they killed Jamie Bulger? No malice aforethought? Maybe he thinks they had some form of psychosis as opposed to simply being cruel little savages?
They were 10, they didn't plan it out. They thought they would be back at school next week with no idea of the gravity of what they did. The police didn't have to conduct some deep investigation tapping bank accounts world wide to trace them. Yet that to you shows malice aforethought?
I have ALWAYS found it strange how they are regarded as 'superEvil'
Meanwhile we have mothers and fathers who kill their kids and give fake press conference appeals for help and their just 'evil' and are almost never charged with murder.
It doesn't matter if they didn't plan it out. Do you really think that for a killing to be classed as murder it has to be planned in advance? We are so lenient on children in this society. We use the excuse that 'they are young' to absolve them of moral responsibility as if they have no concept of right and wrong.
I suppose you might put the murder down to 'boys being boys'?
PrimeM92
"Murder is the unlawful killing, **with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide** (such as manslaughter)."
Wikipedia.
That makes sense but I am certain that definition would be more applicable to the type of killing that might occur in a fight, i.e. where a blow or series of blows in the heat of the moment might result in a death; albeit unintentional. Such a killing would certainly be classed as manslaughter.
The case of Jamie Bulger was different, it wasn't some random skirmish or playground brawl. Thompson & Venables lead the boy away, tortured him and then killed him. Even among juveniles that would definitely constitute 'malice aforethought'.
CmdrTobs To quote Wikipedia: "Before they left him, the boys laid Bulger across the railway tracks and weighted his head down with rubble, in the hope that a train would hit him and make his death appear to be an accident. After Bulger's killers left the scene, his body was cut in half by a train.[28] Bulger's severed body was discovered two days later, on 14 February.[7] A forensic pathologist testified that he had died before he was struck by the train."
This is an abhorrent act of cruelty yet they intended to make it appear to be an accident. Therefore this act is classed as murder i.e. malice aforethought.
Id love to hear Will selfs response to this video after this weeks news........Go Carol!!!
Exactly what I was thinking! Sometimes taking the unpopular stance just for the heck of it can really backfire.
He'd probably still defend him. He may be intelligent, but his morals are appalling.
It's always amusing when someone waits for applause and doesn't get any.
Jeremy Paxman is the master of this. I like Paxman, but when outside of Newsnight and on entertainment shows, if he goes on a political rant, there are often awkward pauses. I cringed when he appeared on Graham Norton's show. One person applauded, and Paxman turned to them shouting 'yeah!'. I bet far more people agreed with him, but light, filthy entertainment shows weren't really the place!
How easy it is for those members of the panel and audience, for whom this issue will never personally affect, to speak so pragmatically and so reasonably about those two child murderers and how we should all just let the law do it's job and it's none of our business.
For those of you with any opinion on this, but haven't taken the time to burden yourselves with the gritty and harrowing details of what those boys did to that beautiful innocent child, then I would suggest you go ahead and read about it. Venables and Thompson may not be "evil" or psychopaths or even fully understand the gravity of their actions on that day, but what they did to that little boy was brutal, horrific and sadistic, and the media and the public have labelled it evil because frankly there are no other words to describe the horror they inflicted on a child so young and completely incapable of defending himself. Let us not be in any doubt that James suffered horribly by their hands.
If any of you have ever heard a young child crying in pain for any reason, those would have been sounds that James made as he screamed, sobbed, cried and wailed for his mummy, but those boys didn't show him a single ounce of mercy or humanity as they bludgeoned, stripped, kicked, punched and tortured him to death. It takes a very specific kind of person to so personally and violently take the life of another helpless human being in this way. They covered his broken head with bricks and left him on a railway track to die, in pain and alone, until he was eventually hit by a train and torn in to two pieces. How any of us can talk of rehabilitation for those two murderers is beyond me. What they did was not normal or forgivable, it was not a mistake, a mistake would have been stealing sweets or toys, bunking off school or even having a fight, not the sadistic murder of an innocent child.
I would ask that panel if they would they be happy to live next door to one of them, would they be happy to have a chat with them or shake their hands? Maybe they could go on to become teachers, or child minders, would any of us be happy with them looking after our children? Maybe they could run for public office and represent us? Would anyone like them to date their daughters perhaps? Where is the red line in their rehabilitation and their contribution to society? Would they be so pragmatic about it if it had been their child that had died so horribly?
Any sympathy I could have had for those 2 boys and their difficult upbringings immediately evaporates the moment I think about the awful crime they committed. They don't deserve an ounce of our sympathy. I don't wish them death, or for them to be publicly executed as others have suggested, but they should still be in jail for the crime they committed. I hope that every waking moment of their lives is filled with sadness, pain and guilt for what they did. They knew right from wrong and they knew exactly what they were doing on that fateful day. Whether they had a reason to do it or not is by the by, they did it. And if they proved anything by their actions, it was that life is not fair. Why should it be any fairer for them than it was for little James Bulger?
Well said
👏
Blame the press for making it feel like the end of the world in your mind.
You have been completely played by the media circus and you dance to their tune.
I wonder whether Will Self would be quite so fiercely defensive of Venables now? It wasn't a non-payment of fines. It wasn't a traffic offence. It was the making, downloading and distribution of the worst type of child porn imaginable.
Lynch mob mentality is almost always wrong. But very occasionally I think that certain offenders don't deserve the benefit of the doubt. They don't deserve to be rehabilitated and given a second chance. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson are two such people.
Stick to adding up numbers Carol
Venables and Thompson should of been put to sleep.
They should be forced to watch Question Time then.
'Have'.
Agreed. The crime was heinous. They deserve death I don’t care if they were 10. When I was 10 I knew right and wrong, so did they.
@@s1050 Oh, balls. It's a tragedy for all involved. The need for vengeance is a primitive instinct; incidents like this need to be approached intellectually if we're to maintain a civilised society.
@@jnicholls21 There has at no point been a civilised society on this earth.
The problem is James Bulger or his parent has never got the justice they deserve. The problem is that this country hasn't properly given the boys proper rehabilitation.
Exactly. All they appear to have done is give him an assumed identity. He is not even permitted to own his crime. Unsurprisingly he was confessing to just about anyone. And taking loads of drink and drugs in order to fuck it all away. How much money was spent and the best they could come up with was...be somebody else. Jon Venables was not a nice person at all. You're gonna have to become somebody else.
What does that even mean?
"No malice of forethought" when the two were actively eyeing other kids prior to leading Bulger away? Brilliant sutf Self, now Venables is back in jail for a second round.
come back to liverpool boys we will find you both its a matter of time rip james
Watching this again because of the latest developments re Venables. But I'm struck by the reminder that Boris J was once capable of being quite sensible.
I do agree with Will Self..
I have a new found respect for Will Self.. not having a go at Carol Vorderman as I see where she is coming from but I think Will Self is simply correct on all points. Evil is a word I have always felt uncomfortable with as it is vague in matter.
If Jon Venables is released they should release his updated mugshot ‼️
Vorderman hasn't got a clue...
Will Self speaks the truth here. People are worried about Venables being back on the streets... What about the other hundreds of prisoners released every year?
Not worried about them being back on the streets? Thats odd?
Yeah, people are worried about murderers being back on the streets, regardless of age. You moronic fool.
But for example Myra Hindley and Ian Brady were never released and would never have been released. Any adult that abducted, and then tortured, perversely & severely, and then murdered, by stoning, a toddler, before leaving them to be cut in half by a train, would never be released. So it is not comparable with "ordinary" prisoner release.
Similarly horrible child murders are few and far between and there certainly are not 100s of prisoners that have done things this shocking being released. The reason there was any chance of release, at all, is because of the age of the boys when they committed these acts.
Both panelists misrepresent the issues in my opinion:
Carol neglects to consider the age (10) matters - how much they understood what they did, and whether the causes were curable or not, which is presumably a matter for the professionals, not her.
Will Self wants to make a smart point about our prejudices (doesn't he always) but unfortunately for him: The murder would still clearly be regarded as a "super evil" one if it was an adult that did it. Probably even more so.
Not surprisingly & unlike "ordinary" prisoners being released, they are monitored every day. There are no guarantees it worked...
rorrt Thousands of prisoners are released. What are you going to do? Keep those who have committed a dishonesty, a robbery or a drug offence in prison?
Only Me Well, there's murder and there's murder. A bloke who clocks his missus in a crime of passion when she's in bed with another guy, has committed a crime of passion. He is unlikely to ever be a risk to anyone else, it was committed in a certain context (albeit inexcusable). That sort of murder is far different to a thrill kill, Fred and Rose West and the like.
Murder is murder ...
I don't trust Will Self
The fact that someone on a life-license found guilty of such subsequent crimes can only receive a TWO-YEAR sentence goes a long way to explaining why the UK public have so little faith in the judicial system - especially when it comes to violent crime.
Such a great piece of words
Aso Paso, people like you are what has brought this country too its knees. You are the sort of person who probably believes in no prisons, just community service. You probably applaud the unelected EMP's that are making many of our laws. I believe every dog has it's day, and James Bulgers parents deserve a proper sentence that fits the terrible crime them two committed.
Wrong! You do have an identity at 10 and you do know right from wrong! Absolutely absurd of you to state otherwise.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you people? You speak as though children are nothing but empty headed robots who have no concept of themselves or others until they are adults. If that were true then they wouldn't even be on a par with juvenile chimpanzees.
If ten year olds are so unaware of the consequences of their actions then surely we should keep every one of them locked up for fear that they might do something stupid! By your reasoning they are still toddlers who just cannot think for themselves.
***** your comments are based on a view that those who committed a crime 20+ years ago, represent an ongoing risk to the community. That view could be baseless. Do you read the Murdoch tabloids a lot, do you?
***** Will Self made the point about the lads being perceived as worse than other murderers. That's because they are children and by being child killers they violate the nice comfortable innocence that we associate with children. Could our child kill us? Unthinkable! By smiting Venables and Thompson, it restores the nice comfy notion of childhood in our idealizing minds.
***** Well, if the 2 kids didn't know the difference b/n right and wrong (which is a verbatim quote from you) then you're saying they couldn't have been tried because they knew not what they did! (Note the emotiveness of language? "Beasts" demons, devils, evil. The victim is usually portrayed as a little angel in heaven). The general public are a tv -saturated bunch of fools aren't they?
***** Well, you're probably not taking the age into account enough, which is a common tendency with this case. If the perpetrators had been 9, not 10, they would have been under the age of criminality and probably couldn't have even been tried. Did it have aspects of a 'thrill' killing? Don't know? Were the boys inured to violence? Don't know. But Christ, what are you proposing? Executing ten year olds?
I love how Carol Vorderman puts on glasses to make herself look more respectable.
BoJo: "I just want to agree with what Will, Shirley and Andrew are saying..." Boris recognises that Vorderman is bombing and shrewdly distances himself from her
shes a mother so she is bound to feel this way!!
I like Will Self but I think he is potentially wrong here. He is using childhood as a defence. The children don't know what they are doing argument. This is a wrong and dangerous assumption to make. There are children I have seen my own daughters play with and I have removed them and will not teave them alone with. Children can be as visceral and intent on knowlingly commiting harm as an adult. And the idea that a 10 year old could plan and wilfully kill someone should not be a surprise.
Can you prove any of that?
will self is sympathetic towards scumbags because he himself is one. With his past he cannot possibly attack criminal behaviour , it would be hypocricy of the highest order.
www.nidirect.gov.uk/articles/preventing-involvement-crime
"Please remember, many children have problems during their childhood but most of these do not go on to commit crime. The majority of those who do commit crime do not commit serious or multiple offences." Therefore there is something wrong with these boys, as the vast majority do not. Hence a genetic element involved. Series cases like murder, boys that age do know. Otherwise more children would have been involved in murder.
also John has re offended as well... something to take into consideration.
If WE the public who pay our taxes of course we should know the identity and the reason behind his return to prison!
Sue Horrocks Yeh thanks for that meaningless drivel, Sue Bollocks.
Why? What are you going to do with that data?
sourcescience It gives them something to gossip about down the bingo.
billiepipersteeth Bingo? I doubt they can count...
Sue Horrocks Well, in my country crimes committed by minors and crimes against minors which could identify them if the adult perpetrator is identified, have identity concealed. That is done for a purpose, it relates not at all to whether you, I or the old lady down the street pays tax or not! Irrelevant!
It also comes down to wether u think people r born evil. They were only 8 at the time, but as proved kids that age can at least DO evil things. It is a very tricky subject.
Super evil. Yes!!!! I'v read what they did. No adult has done what they did!!! The way they did it, no malice of for thought. It was a copy of a film. The were playing a game. Oh it so fun!!! Evil.
Voldermort…sorry vordeman, couldn't answer the question "how would it help them in their loss?" …seems quite a pertinent question to me.
Monster LMA Sigh...Well if the parents don't recognise him (in your highly unlikely scenario) what's the problem?
Monster LMA it's part of the conditions of the license for both Jon Venables and Robert Thompson that they are no longer allowed to enter Merseyside where Denise Fergus (James' mother) lives, therefore the chances of her running into them on a daily basis is almost nil anyway. Whether or not this would change if she moved to another area I don't know, but I would suspect that both her and the father would at least be informed of their whereabouts.
And that's the end of will selfs career
Thank goodness for that.
Will Self has his opinion, audience shocked and appalled. The audience and the rest of the panel then spend 5 minutes working out amongst themselves that Self was right all along.
Will Self isn't defending child killers, he's just being reasonable! If people are putting their hearts before their heads then the whole justice system goes out the window. He's saying that we have a system in place that punishes and reforms criminals, of course it often doesn't work, but we have to trust that people, especially ten year old boys with emotional problems, can change and have a life for themselves.
Typically bleeding heart loser.
I've never been a fan of Will Self but he has gone up in my estimation. A very brave, and inevitably unpopular, contribution.
It’s unpopular because it’s a disgusting evil opinion
The parents has suffered enough. Let them know why he is out there.
I never thought I'd agree with Boris!
Worst appearances in the history of Question Time:
1. Carol Vorderman
2. Nick Griffin
Would will self say that in front of Jamie Bulger's mother
no
he would NOT
Why shouldn't he?
He didn't say anything particularly controversial, he was just voicing a reasoned argument in the face of rabid populist mania from Vorderman and her ilk.
Not everyone is a reactionary savage like you.
@@mickswann357 so you and will self go and say that to Jamie bulgers mother
@@mickswann357 may I ask your age
Oh, Will Self. I'm going to go read your columns now, Will Self. You great thing.
"Hard cases make bad law." How true, how very true.
I agree with almost everything Will Self says here, apart from the issue of malice aforethought. The two boys were seen "checking out" different children in the shopping centre and once they had Bulger they walked him across Liverpool for 2.5 miles. When confronted by anybody wondering why they were with Bulger they lied and said that he was their brother or that he was lost and that they were taking him to the police station. They brought spray paint and batteries with them which they used in the subsequent torture of Bulger.
Now, I haven't read the court transcripts but the above information is all true. I would be interested to know how the jury came to the conclusion that Bulgers abduction and torture wasn't premeditated. I understand that it would be difficult to prove that they planned the murder, but it seems obvious that the whole sequence of events was not done without some degree of planning behind it.
I can see the argument for the abduction being premeditated, but I don't necessarily think that applies to the murder too. Have you heard the interview tapes? When asked why they took James on such an ambling walk (that itself indicative of total aimlessness) Thompson's sincerity sounds real when he says he didn't know - they had no idea what to do.
They knew they'd done something wrong, hence why they lied to the other people. I think it's so important to bear in mind the qualitative difference of children's thoughts; they'd have been terrified of getting into trouble had they told the truth.
As for the paint and batteries: think you give them a bit too much credit when you say "bought", come on ;) They also stole toy soldiers, troll dolls, whatever they could get their hands on. Less intended instruments of torture than random acts of rebellion.
They planned to take a toddler and push them into traffic. Police report states they deliberately went looking for a young child to kill. Yes, it was planned.
"Venables had admitted to thinking about pushing a child into traffic and making the murder look like an accident"
Just because the eventual act of murder wasn't exactly planned, they had planned to murder a child and cover it up. They repeatedly tried to kill James by pushing him into traffic and pushing him into a canal.
And just because they kids were confused and overwhelmed in court- doesn't mean they were confused about the murder. If you listen to the interviews, Robert Thompson lied constantly and tried to cover up what he'd done. He was cunning and manipulative. Neither wanted to admit to the crime, but they were not confused about what they'd done.
Thompson had even gone so far as to put flowers on James' tribute- and asked the policeman 'If I murdered James why did I go and put flowers down?'
They had the presence of mind to try and cover up the murder to make it look like an accident- they knew what they did was wrong. They continued to lie and try to manipulate the police and blame each other.
There was also a sexual element to the murder too- his pants had been removed and his genitals had been interfered with. (the sexual aspect was kept from the public, probably to spare Denise Bulgers' feelings)
From the interviewing officer-
"If they had escaped detection they could have grown up into people like the Kray Twins, Sergeant Phil Roberts said. 'I believe human nature spurts out freaks. These two were freaks who just found each other. You should not compare these two boys with other boys - they were evil.'
They carried out the murder because they had a fixation about causing tragedy or disaster. Robert Thompson, known throughout the trial as Child A, hoped to get a 'buzz' from killing James and getting away with it. 'The other kick was fooling the public and the police,' he added.
Sgt Roberts recalled a terrible, chilling smile of Thompson's which shocked detectives. As the boys were leaving Bootle magistrates' court, Merseyside, after police applied for an extended warrant of detention, 'Thompson looked at Venables and smiled. It was a cold smile - an evil smile. I believe the smile said they knew they were responsible . . . and thought they were going to get away with it,' he said."
leopard prints - Sergeant Roberts is speaking out a hole in his backside. Pure speculation from his asinine analysis of what brought two boys to comit that awful crime (evil freaks are just born that way) to his interpretation of a smile. The average police Sargeant isn't particularly bright and this one less so than most.
@@simonw1313 perhaps
Will Self……an adult trapped in an argumentative teenage state! The type of character who’d argue that water isn’t wet. He’d lose no sleep in leaving you raging with his platformed idiocy, try not to give him the fucking time of day!
Give me a !shush now" please Carol.
Will Self actually saying something sensible for a change.
Jon venables is the reason we need the death penalty
"The parents of Jamie Bulger have a life sentence" One of the only truths i heard here. You got this other guy talking about , "no true evidence" R U KIDDING?
I think Will’s thoughts may have been accurate with regards to Thompson, but there is a lot out there that points to Venables knowing exactly what he wanted to do that fateful day.
Will says that perhaps the boys did not know what they were doing. I understand his point of view but I wonder if he knows that Thompson's footprint was imprinted deep into the skin of Jamie Bulger's face. According to the pathologist, it takes an incredible force for that to be possible. They stripped the baby naked, threw bricks at him while he was screaming for his mother. They also beat him with a 28 inch iron bar. Then when the baby was almost dead, they placed his body across the railway line so that the moring train would cut his body in half so that it looked like an accident. That did happen of course. Finally, they piled bricks on top of his face. Don't forget that the boys were only yards from the police station and could easily have left the boy there. Kind of puts into question them not know what they were doing.
I think just the main action of killing a baby in the way he did is enough to say that such as animal is come out from hell
+Donald Trump So?
¿Qué?
Grecia Carolina Hernández Cajeiro - Where is this hell you talk of? is it near Eastbourne?
simon w ...hell is a euphemism.......jon venables has been sent back to prison yet again for watching child porn on the internet ,he now is in his late 30s,he`s had so many second chances to reform ,james bulger RIP got no second chance,the concept of liberal rehabilitation seems to be working well here wouldn`t you say
I think Carol should probably stick to maths...real-world implications are not her forte.
It's also interesting to wonder what gave these people these opinions too.
thank goodness for that...
Boris Johnson actually said something I agreed with there, albeit very briefly
A word of advice to those who do not condone the murder, but do not advocate the death penalty: DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME COMMENTING/REPLYING TO THOSE WHO SEEK RETRIBUTION FOR MURDER! No-one sadly will see this issue from a different perspective other than their 'I am always right and see the world in black and white'. You will likely be faced with a tirade of verbal abuse and unsubstantiated claims of lower murder stats. It seems UA-cam is the home of lonely, cretinous idiots who get off on abusing others merely expressing an opinion. Please don't bother, just ignore them. They WILL NEVER change!
ildottoreno46 Hear hear
I love watching this, Carol is like a robot that malfunctions every time she gets asked a question.
Whilst preparing your nice little speech did you not anticipate a question or 2?
The show is called fucking Question Time after all.....
BobCat agreed. Vorderman is a typical celebrity who makes speeches to ultimately aid her career growth.
To my view, if there're still outrage in the British society when talking about Thompson and Venables, it certainly has to do with the sentencing and their detention conditions. Balanced to this crime, which mixes barbarity and cruelty, an 8-year sentence was too lenient. Moreover, testimonies about the detention conditions, like they had everything they want (video games, TV, lots of sweets), is just sickening. Unlike little James, they could take A-levels and GSCEs. The outrage would have been less violent if they were sentenced 15 or 20 years.
Carol Vorderman fucking gets under my skin, always did.
youandwhosearmy? If anyone of any age did to my daughters what they did to Jamie Bulger I would kill them. That these boys are still breathing and being able to live a life, the most precious gift of all in the light of what they did is the grossest injustice. Bulger will never grow up, he will never fall in love, he will never have the opportunity to live out his life. This is because two 10 year old psychopaths wanted to see what it was like to kill someone and identified a younger child as their target. Psychopaths are predators regardless of their age. However, I have no brief for Vorderman and don't really agree with her position on this question as I don't even believe that Venables should ever have been released.
myroseaccount I wasn't talking about the Bulger case. I just said I can't stand Carol Vorderman so come down off your high horse
youandwhosearmy? Thats because she is thinking mans totty
El Grande Gringo Fantastico Nailed it mate. There is something forensically revealing about the zeal with which people like this sprinkle their words with. There is a hidden little spike lurking underneath their make up. I'm sure rose is a lovely person and would borrow you a cup of sugar any day, but I'm also sure he or she would pedal the most draconian of nightmares.
El Grande Gringo Fantastico
Most people can't put aside their emotions to be rational, that's a sad fact of life and it's why the public are so easily manipulated by politicians. Anyone who tries to be rational about this sort of topic will quickly find themselves being attacked on all fronts, likely accused of having something to hide etc. You see this on Question Time a lot when someone is making a very rational argument, their opponent will throw out an appeal to emotion and the audience clap like trained seals.
These men should be in prison for life as they have shown themselves to be a continuing danger. I don't understand the hypocrisy of the people here who want to kill them because they killed someone. This was obviously worse when they were still kids and people were calling for it then.
I do take issue with your commenting regarding the woman speaking about her daughters. It's a common response people have. They think of their children and what they would do if this happened to them, that's empathy in action.
clearly shown here, Carol didn't do a degree in the humanities. Her talents are looking good for her age, having a good figure, probably being a very nice person and amazing at maths
6:17 how did Boris manage to be in two place at once ? Lol
He probably lied about it,
Notice Boris chipping in after checking which way the wind is blowing
An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind
I wonder if anyone on the panel changed their minds on this matter when they knew the real reason for Venables return to custody?
All the frothing "string 'em up!" brigade who have posted comments here should read "As If" by Blake Morrison, an extraordinarily good book on the Bulger case. But I suppose reading a book that sheds light on the heartbreaking nuances of the story doesn't provide the same intoxicating rush of indignant superiority as casting oneself in the role of Heroic Defender of Children and calling Will Self a wanker.
+Kevin Haskins Yawn.
+Matthew Portelli so how does this make you any better than the two killers in question, at least they have the excuse that they were 10, you wish to murder people who don't agree with you, you call yourself strong but I suspect that what you really mean is big dumb caveman.
Kevin Haskins - Thats what it often boils down to. Not particularly impressive people who doubtlessly go through life commiting mundane acts of nastiness to their spouses and sprogs see a case like the Bulger one and feel a novel rush of (unearned) moral superiority and milk it for all it's worth.
Phil White - poor Phil thinking is such a tiresome bore isn't it.
Kevin Haskins
Thank you for the info.
I will get the book. There's no black and white in the case of James Bulger.
Will self wasn`t convicted of possessing child porn. And what he says makes a lot of sense. We`re talking about 2 kids aged 10yrs old. The whole event is truly tragic, but why put the poor family of J Bulger through another nightmare every time one of those boys does something, they`re not a threat to the family. I think we should leave them in peace, but still offer help and support if they need it.
thank you
This video just bolsters the stereotype that middle-aged women love gossip.
Carol , Wonga Woanga Wonga, you have no moral voice!
I've not read any comment that addresses the point that Will Self is making. The point is people seem to regard children who kill as "more evil" than an adult killer! Which is ridiculous when you think about it. It should really be the other way round given a 10 year olds lack of capacity for clear thinking, responsibility and ability to reflect on their actions. The Kray twins are celebrated by many yet as Self said the Bulger killers are seen as "super evil"! The same is applied to female killers, although not to such an extent. I personally believe that they should have spent much longer in prison and Venables should be behind bars for life given his re offending and the nature of those offenses. I must admit his argument about the terms under which you can be sent back to prison when under licence"smoking marijuana"!!??? As the girl said"it's still illegal" and Venables knew the criteria when he was released,so wills "most people in this audience would be returned to prison........" Argument is ridiculous. Those people in the audience hadn't murdered a child! However the point still stands..... children who kill are not more evil than adults who kill,if anything the reverse is true....so why the bias? It's a highly emotive subject which usually means people think from their emotions rather than logic. Difficult case and tragic all round, especially for Jamie's family. I think that once Venables re offended with the child porn it was a lock him up and throw away the key scenario. He was an adult by this time and clearly a danger to society.
Shit! I was having fun watching and then Boris pops up out of nowhere (as usual). Good times!
Vordeman a woman who stood up on a gameshow holding cards Vs Will Self a top intellect, critical thinker and writer.
Can YOU explain Newtonian physics? Called out here, pressure is on.
***** At least he's got a job that he can get off his head everyday.
***** Fucking idiot.
***** Then get the fuck off my page.
No it does not,
Will is just so down to earth with his reasoning.
Are you for real? Saying these two had no malice aforethought yet they tried to abduct a little girl 2 weeks before and another little boy the same day before they got James?!!!
That your idea of common sense? You're as mental as he is.
I agree with Will Self mostly but I'm having a hard time not calling those kids (now men) evil. They knew what they were doing, and what they did was evil.
Self. wow, what a mind.
vorderman is a dope. cant be taken seriously
This is very true!!!
Rory Riddell - Carole Vorderman was a bit of a dissapointment, another Mensa moron - a dab hand at doing the puzzle page in the paper but otherwise as thick as two planks. Seems to be auditioning for a column in The Daily Wail - sub-editor will be run ragged if she writes like she speaks.
Carol makes it difficult for me because I try to be a nice calm person, but every time I see this clip I'm filled with incandescent hate and contempt for her.
I used to have a real crush on Carol vorderman but after hearing her dumb daily mail style rantings I feel terrible. Because now I'd do her even more...
Why? She is correct.
***** fair point mate. Not sure I'd put enya next to Isis mind you! I think we're all on the same song sheet more or less
***** I have more than enough hate to share around.
***** You keep replying. You care.
Carol calls refers to the boy as 'Jamie' at one point, which is one of the most disturbing aspects of the case. This is the name she will have read in the tabloids- a name which was never used by his parents, but used by the press in a disgustingly cynical appeal to the "hearts" of the readers by appropriating his name in this way. On behalf of the press there is no genuine concern for the victim - there is nothing we can do for the victim- it's worth remembering that
@CunningStunt777777 But he said he read the transcriptions Venables said that it was Robert's idea to kill him where as Robert keeps trying to blame Jon for it which proves that Robert was the leader.
Stick to maths Vorderman, your's is not a speaking part.
Will Self, only person I ever heard speak with reason and intelligence about this case. Carol Vorderman needs her IQ rechecked.
being good at sums sadly does not make someone smart .
Paul Morris Explain with reasonable and logical reasoning exactly why self is wrong. Simply stating he is wrong does not make it so.
***** wich extremists would that be?
***** Surely that same stupid question could be asked of anyone?
***** OK, keep your tin foil hat on!!! Regardless of what you think of his writing he is a hugely intelligent and insightfull man. You might have a point if they were all saying the same thing but they aren't. They have different types of people on so they can examine things from all angles. Would you not think it strange if they were all agreeing with each other?
There is absolutely nothing extreme about what self said (vorderman is the nutter here). You don't get to say someone is sending "messages" from "puppet masters" just because some disagrees with you. How is the media using self to form my opinions when I held the same opinion before I heard him? Surely vorderman is there to give her opinion, what happens when the "puppets" extol completely contrary opinions?
MESSAGE??? what fucking message.
Ya'll think this is crazy in the US two 12 year old girls stabbed there best friend 12 years old too 19 times because Slender Man told them to kill the 12 year old.
SLENDER MAN if a fictional character....
Thank God she survived the 19 stabbings.
Neither Venables nor Thompson should have EVER walked the earth as free men.
Will Self is, as usual, bang on.
+carl123 I don't accept the death penalty - see Hislop demolishing it on QT. I think Prison should mainly be to keep the dangerous from others. Punishment? A load of shit, I'm interested in solutions to problems not wallowing around in self pity and lashing out.
I think something went wrong with Bulger's killers, I don't hate them, I pity them. I don't think about them unless I stumble upon the sort of small minded cunts that obsess about them, I pity those people too. And before you raise the issue, that one of them downloaded child porn doesn't surprise me - it's the sort of thing damaged people do.
chris reynolds jon venables has been sent back to, prison yet again recently 2017 for watching child porrn on his computer he is now 35 years of age james bulger RIP had no second chances jon venables has had 3 chances to reform, so how is will self spot on
Chris Reynolds how he bang on!? Jon venables is called back into prison! Will self probably still going to defend thinking he’s brought back to prison smoking a joint! The kind is a idiot defending those child killers!
charlie sanderson exactly! That will self is as evil as the child killers for defending them!
He’s that bang on that. Jon venables has now been recalled back to prison for the second time for having child abuse pictures. He was really rehabilitated wasn’t he? This sick fucker is a danger to children which he keeps proving and keeps getting such ridiculous sentences for. He is going to kill a child again these judges and whoever keeps letting him free will have blood on their hands. Kill a baby get 8 years in a home get let out get new identity given a home and whatever else. Get recalled for sick pictures of kids, go away for two years get a new identity and home and then do the same thing and get 40 Months. How many chances is he going to get it makes me so angry
Carol is out of her depth.
Yep. Stick to sums Carol. Words clearly aren't for you
I think the public has a right to know who is living next to them. If the courts fear that giving his identity will cause him harm then he should be kept in jail for his own safety. I just don't understand how you can kill someone and then go free.
Oh dear, is it?
Glad to see you hang onto my every word.
Well done Carol, I am angry how you were shut down, That moron Boris was clearly being a politician at the time and weve all seen how he worked out in hindsight. Here nor there, you had a strong point that was very relevent and you were oppressed. I've lost a lot of respect for question time looking back on this. Good for you Carol, you could see clearly and you had the low ground and you still fought against those morons. Good for you my lady, I have the greatest respect for you from this video
He didn’t just smoke marijuana Will, he was looking at serious chid pornography.
Really grasping the issue there champ.
There was a rumour he’d been let out in the town I was living in at the time, I’d only just arrived and was on way to work when I was exposed to, then 2 days later same guy tries to follow and push in past my door. I phoned cops gave description and they went” oh we got an idea who that is.” Just seen his face on google . It’s not just cp he’s into. I’d recognise that gormless face anywhere. This was in 2008.