There were many aspects of the Jamie Bulger killing that I found entirely incomprehensible: from the video footage showing the boys leading Jamie out of the shops by the hand to what happened subsequently to the very idea that these two people could be released back into society. Surely, someone capable of such behaviour at such a young age could never be regarded as sane enough. People would wonder for decades how two young boys could be so completely dysfunctional as to do such a thing.

But seventeen years on, it’s a reflection of just how broken Britain actually has become that the current matter of discussion is what on earth Jon Venables could have done to merit being put back into gaol.

Jack Straw is being astoundingly coy about the whole thing:

As pressure grew for more information in the case of Jon Venables, the Justice Secretary insisted that it was in the public interest to withhold details of the breach of the terms of his release that prompted the recall.

But surely the inevitable consequence of not being forthcoming is that terrible speculation will follow?

There’s certainly no end of speculation going on in my mind! Or in the minds of others:

Among the conditions placed on Venables and Thompson when they were released were a ban on contacting each other or any member of the Bulger family and a prohibition on returning to Merseyside without written consent from their probation officers.

They were told that they could be sent to an adult prison if their behaviour deteriorated or they started using drugs and that if they were convicted of another crime they could face a life sentence.

So it could be something as trivial as him being caught with a small quantity of dried marjoram in his home, or he could have murdered another child. And given the leniency of the courts nowadays, it’s almost certainly closer to the “killing a child” end of the scale than it is to the “herbacious naughtiness” end of the scale.

But there’s another factor to consider, one which really made me wonder if I shouldn’t just leave now and never come back. What if Venables did something relatively trivial, but Jack Straw thought: “If we bang him up again, it makes us look tough on crime and that could be worth a few votes”?

Combined with the sabre-rattling from Argentina, it makes for a good headline, doesn’t it? Especially when Labour ministers are courting controversy by not releasing details about the reasons. It helps “create a media narrative”, doesn’t it? Can you imagine living in a country like that? Unfortunately, I can.

I don’t know what I find more horrifying: the idea that Venables and Thompson could be released in the first place or the idea that politicians could treat their subsequent liberty as something that could be sacrificed for a couple of days’ of headlines. Imagine feeling relief that they had “just” got the decision to release him wrong.

It is all just so completely wrong.

1
Majic March 4, 2010 at 08:55

In total agreement, as far as I am concerned these two can never pay their debt to society back. They should remain locked up for life, as to his breach, I see the Mirror hacks are reporting that he had a fight at his place of employment – surely it’s best for them to admit that releasing them is a big mistake and just keep them under lock and key.

2
Uncle Marvo March 4, 2010 at 09:03

“… in the public interest to withhold …”

is that the new euphemism for

“if the public knew what cockamamy idea we’ve come up with this time they might lynch us”

or

“if we re-jail Vanables we might pick up a few more votes”

?

3
Anna Raccoon March 4, 2010 at 09:09

I have always been disturbed by the stories that Venables was allowed to join the army.
I realise that the army provides discipline and structure for many ‘lost’ young men who thrive there – but is a professional killing machine, which is what the army ultimately is, really the best place to house such a damaged mind?
I’m with Thaddeus on this one, I reckon he has been charged with something, which is why, in the interests of a fair trial, we are not allowed to know more details at the moment.

4
JuliaM March 4, 2010 at 09:21

“What if Venables did something relatively trivial, but Jack Straw thought: “If we bang him up again, it makes us look tough on crime and that could be worth a few votes”?”

You have a horribly jaundiced view of the nature of our elected politicians.

Which is just as well, since they consistently live down to it…

5
JohnRS March 4, 2010 at 10:04

I notice that various papers are now claiming to have info about what Venables has done. I’m sure that, no matter how coy the useless Strawman tries to be, we’ll know fairly soon what got him arrested and put back in jail.

Personally, I wouldnt have let either of them out in the first place, but we are where we are. Well, he’s had his chance (and his very expensive new identity), so that’s it. Now he stays there – hopefully forever.

6
Clarinda March 4, 2010 at 11:04

Labour’s pretence at “transparency” is becoming more fugged up. I did wonder why Mr Straw was actually smiling as he was questioned over this re-imprisonment. Did he think he was on an election winner – “Tough on crime,…………..” etc.?
How terrible for the parents of Jamie to have his death dragged into the public domain once more.

7
English Viking March 4, 2010 at 11:54

I think I may have mentioned this before, but bullets really are exceptionally good value.

Don’t forget to save one for Straw, and one for the probation/parole officer that recommend release. Oh, and one for the Judge, too. Oh, then there’s….. tell you what, just get loads and a semi-automatic assault rifle and I’ll see what I can do.

8
Majic March 4, 2010 at 12:06

I’m sure it must have crossed Straw’s mind about the votes in having Venables banged up again, he is after all a very slimy and odious individual. I fall short of the Viking’s solution in a bullet, I would prefer we pull the other one in anyway and just bang them up for life. Bread and water and 60 minutes each day excercise. No TV. No music and no knowledge of the outside world, they are after all in prison, not at a bloody holiday camp.

9
jailhouselawyer March 4, 2010 at 12:25

Anna in this case with all the right wing media baying for blood… Jon Venables: A sense of perspective

10
Old Slaughter March 4, 2010 at 14:51

Top marks JHL.

In response to those who suggest they should never have been released. I would state my discomfort in locking up people for life for a crime committed at the age of 10 as punishment. What crimes are so serious that we consider a 10 year old of responsible enough mind to pay for it for the rest of their lives? Is it just the crimes that make us foam at the mouth with righteous anger?

The simple fact is, we don’t give 10 year olds the responsibility for their own actions. Therefore all the decisions post this are based on assessments of threat, not justice or punishment.

Anna, none of us are informed enough to decide whether or not he was fit for the army. The people that were though obviously came to a decision. Surely though, serving in the army is the greatest act of civil responsibility, what better thing is there for a person who has wronged society so acutely to do?

11
John Pickworth March 4, 2010 at 15:10

I’m with JHL’s opinion too…. and have been similarly minded since the original trial.

No one denies that what this pair did was wrong but when are we, as a society, going to allow them to make the best of themselves? Surely, its in all our best interests that they become fully rehabilitated? That is they become normalised, ordinary, productive citizens.

Clearly though, if one of them has strayed or broken the terms of his licence then the matter should be dealt with… which, on the information we have, appears to be happening. So unless (or until) we’re told its more serious I suggest we pack up the gallows and go about our other business.

12
Vimes March 4, 2010 at 15:26

According to The Herald:

http://breakingnews.heraldscotland.com/breaking-news/?mode=article&site=hs&id=B511324421267671078A0

A pinch of salt may be required.

13
Ancient and Tattered Airman March 4, 2010 at 18:55

Some people are just evil. Why not put him in the care of those high-minded do-gooders who bleat on about rehabilitation, on the understanding that they will not only be responsible for him but be charged when he again goes off the rails? Dear me, the queue seems to have shortened.

14
jailhouselawyer March 4, 2010 at 21:38

Old Slaughter and John Pickworth: My thanks. This is not a time for knee-jerk reactions and a risk averse Parole Board making a mountain out of a mole hill.

15
Colin March 5, 2010 at 21:35

I agree that they shouldn’t have been released (especially since Robert Thompson reportedly tried to strangle another inmate shortly before he got out), but I don’t see how their age at the time means they’re less “sane” than someone who commits a similar crime as an adult. Children are no less wantonly malicious than adults. They kill people less frequently because they’re physically weaker, not because they’re nicer.