View Full Version : World wide ban?

tony draper
26th Apr 2013, 11:29
Just been a item on the News re someone on FB getting into serous trouble for revealing the new identities on the two involved in the murder of James Bulger.
The news cove said that there was a 'Worlwide Ban'on revealing this info.:confused:
Worldwide? now I can believe it could be enforced wihin the borders of the UK perhaps even in member countries of the EU? but world wide? I think not.

26th Apr 2013, 12:03
Yes Mr. D. Total shoite


Ballywalter Flyer
26th Apr 2013, 12:14
Though I am still Confused... And very much Irked over why we are giving 2 Murderers lifetime global protection over their new identity.
I mean... Why even give them a new identity.
Do the crime. Do the time. Then parole.
Do we give all other criminals a new identity?

tony draper
26th Apr 2013, 12:20
Agree they should have been kept banged up until they were eighteen then hanged.

Stoney X
26th Apr 2013, 12:37
Do the crime. Do the time. Then parole.

Then a vigilante group hunts you down. Then the police/cps/etc have to pursue that group. Then there's public outrage over that because the public hate you, etc etc etc. Perhaps it is better for all that they are hidden.

26th Apr 2013, 13:19
Back on thread. I believe that the court is saying that anyone under its jurisdiction is banned from publishing the information anywhere in the world.

26th Apr 2013, 13:28
Agree they should have been kept banged up until they were eighteen then hanged.

There are 8 redundant words in your statement. I've re-written it for you .... and I'm a bit of a liberal compared to some!

Lon More
26th Apr 2013, 14:19
and I'm a bit of a liberal compared to some!

and here's me thinking you were an arch Conservative

blue up
26th Apr 2013, 14:45
Agree they should have been kept banged up until they were eighteen then hanged by the scrotum over a raging coal fire.

Capetonian. Would this be a more acceptable set of 8 words?:ok:

26th Apr 2013, 14:52
Capetonian, would you personally have been prepared to string them up?


Erwin Schroedinger
26th Apr 2013, 14:58
Found this searching the recent news on the topic.

Read it and ask yourself if you'd be prepared to hang the culprits.

Hanging would be too quick, I reckon.

James Bulger suffered multiple fractures: Pathologist reveals two-year-old had 42 injuries including fractured skull. Jonathan Foster reports - UK - News - The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/james-bulger-suffered-multiple-fractures-pathologist-reveals-twoyearold-had-42-injuries-including-fractured-skull-jonathan-foster-reports-1503297.html)

26th Apr 2013, 15:07
The problem with simply releasing the names, is that there are many people with the same name. I was surprised to find at least 8 people with the same name as me, just in my state - and I don't have a common name.
So it could easily lead to an innocent person being victimised. Now if the said scrotes were accurately identified and pointed out, instead ..... :E

26th Apr 2013, 15:12
So I gather none of you think those kids were themselves victims of their parents neglect, or anything like that? How old were they at the time? 8 and 10? was that it?

Should parents not hold the responsibility for criminal actions of their own young children? Kids aren't just born rotten, are they?

26th Apr 2013, 15:16
If you kill a murderer then you have descended to the same level as he/she.

26th Apr 2013, 15:26
Kids aren't just born rotten, are they?
I firmly believe a small number are. Once again, you're raising the vexing question of whether innate character traits or upbringing are the reason for vicious, callous, criminal activity.
The consensus amongst scientific research appears to roughly agree, that it's around 60% character traits and 40% upbringing. This means that character traits are the ruling factor.

26th Apr 2013, 16:08
If you kill a murderer then you have descended to the same level as he/she.

Utter nonsense. There are some murderers that do not deserve to live, as they will just keep killing, even while in prison.

Even people incarcerated in prison have the right to be protected from a murderer and there is only one way to do that. Rid the world of that murderer.

Again, that is for some murderers, not all and in fact not that many of them, but there are some that need to be removed from society permanently.

26th Apr 2013, 16:12
Kids aren't just born rotten, are they?

Actually all kids are wild animals when they are born. Parents are supposed to house-train them, then society-train them. Many can't or don't bother. They should be prevented from having kids. Then this sort of thing would not happen.

An ounce of prevention.....


G&T ice n slice
26th Apr 2013, 16:27
Did I detect some left-wing pinko liberal commie hand-wringing appologists ?

Shouldn't they have been flogged before they were hanged?

You're all getting soft!

26th Apr 2013, 16:29
The two miscreants that are being protected are being protected by a legal duty of care as they were under age when the crime was committed. I'm assuming that the UK legal system didn't have any choice in the matter and that they are now adults the anonymity is continuing because of their previous status. Most likely messed up for life and will always be a burden on the state. Little comfort to the family torn apart by the crime :(


air pig
26th Apr 2013, 17:43
My mother was what they called a 'lay visitor' not long after the case and spoke to one of the custody officers who processed one of the little bastards, said he'd never come across someone so evil.

The SIO Superintendent Albert Kirby after the case had to have all his team counselled due to the nature of the injuries to James and the harrowing details of the crime.

Those two little bastards should have been hung at 18, knowing that everyday after that would not exist, or tossed into the general population at the age of 21with NO protection and NO parole for a whole life sentence, also add in the parents of both, they had a responsibility as well.

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 18:11
I doesn't matter what caused those two to be evil. The point remains that they are evil and the world would be a better place without them. Maybe the parents may be at fault, but the parents didn't do the killing.

If a dog persistently bites, you shoot it. Doesn't matter whether it was innately aggressive, or just reacting to how it was treated: you can no longer trust it, it has to go. Same with evil people. You can try maybe to stop them becoming evil, but once they are then the only thing that matters is the protection of the general population. The rights of the those who kill are irrelevant. They have none.

26th Apr 2013, 18:39
Now let's keep this in balance for pro and con against hanging and releasing into society after rehabilitation.

At that age cruelity is but an experiment

how much different than shooting the eyes out of a kitten with a BB gun?

or cremating ants with a magnifying glass?

or substituting aspirin for your older sister's day after pills?

How should we measure the punishment or should it simply be against the standards of the law "accidental, irresponsible or intentional death? I don't see where cruelity gets into it as long as the punishment stays within the codes as agreed by the courts under laws we agreed to.

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 18:57
However, murder is not an experiment.

26th Apr 2013, 20:02
However, murder is not an experiment.

Agreed, for all forms of murder (State sanctioned or otherwise)

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 20:19
You are indulging in word play. A state sanctioned execution of a criminal is, by definition, not murder

26th Apr 2013, 20:45
If a dog persistently bites, you shoot it

And if an eight year old persistently beats up on other kids, with extreme violence and cruelty, you hang it, so as to avoid it committing murder at a later stage.

Oh, sorry, that's not what you inferred. Even remotely.

26th Apr 2013, 20:49
This thread is about the extent of UK judicial rulings, and if they have world-wide application.

If you want to debate the use or lack of use of the death penalty, please start another thread. I promise I will ignore that other thread.

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 20:55
No I didn't

But now you are asking the question, there would be a very good case for removing such a child from general population. Incarceration in a secure home maybe. Doesn't really matter as long as the population as a whole do not have to suffer his violence.

26th Apr 2013, 21:01
these two needed new indents to protect them from others.
IMHO, they would have been chopped if released without
new idents.

On the other hand, I think they should have been kept in
jail far longer past the 18th birthdays, regardless of
whether they knew what they were doing.

26th Apr 2013, 21:03
And who will be the judge in such circumstances, Milo? You, or somebody better qualified than you? And who judges those who appoint the judges?

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 21:11
definitely someone better qualified than me
In fact I can think of several legally minded people known personally to me who would be well qualified to make such a decision. Most of the judges I know are well balanced people. They have to be.
However in most cases such behaviour would be obvious enough leave little room for argument.

But remember it was not I who brought up this twist to the discussion - I was talking about murderers, you extended the discussion to executing violent chldren, something which I have not suggested. All I said was they should be removed from the general population. Somehow.

26th Apr 2013, 22:03
This thread is about the extent of UK judicial rulings, and if they have world-wide application.

not any more.

once it gets posted in JB it's fair game for any titilating discussion that pleases the members as long as it stays within bounds as administered under Prune.

Course I could be wrong and have my response deleted by a moderator :)

then again no harm in anybody trying to bring it back to subject (you can lead a horse to water ....

26th Apr 2013, 22:46
So, question: did the person who disclosed their names say where they're living? There were reports at the time of their release that, in a curious return to days gone by, they might have been given a new home "in the colonies", in particular the ex-colony I live in.

Given many of the other unbelievably bad decisions made by our current government over the last five years, I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that this turned out to be true.

Milo Minderbinder
26th Apr 2013, 22:51
I think you'll need to try and Google that. It wouldn't be legal for anyone in the UK to post the answer (if they knew it - I don't)
This may be a USA website, but no-one in the UK could safely legally answer you.

26th Apr 2013, 23:17
The 'judge' (Attorney General, actually) has hinted that the information 'published' was incorrect, and innocent people were placed at risk.
A High Court injunction prohibits the publication of any images or information claiming to identify or locate the pair- even if it is not actually them. The order also covers material published on the internet.

27th Apr 2013, 00:04
If you kill a murderer then you have descended
to the same level as he/she.

No you haven't. There's murder and then there's justice.

I've always been against painful and inhumane execution
as I believe it lowers ourselves to that of the murderer
being punished. Lethal injection or a bullet to the back
of the head is acceptable IMHV.

In James Bulger's case ref his torturers and murderers
I hope their new identities are one day revealed and
the appropriate justice eventually dealt.

IIRC weren't they shipped out to Oz when they were let

27th Apr 2013, 00:58
Worldwide? now I can believe it could be enforced wihin the borders of the UK

Worldwide? Not hardly.

Remember the English wet effort to ban publication of Peter Wright's "Spycatcher" in Australia some years back? About Good Ol' Sir Anthony Blunt, Upper Class English twit, spy and traitor? I think the English Attorney General went out to Oz to show the jailbirds a thing or two, but their courts sent him packing.

"... borders of the UK"? Many the English injunction is mocked in Scotland as the marriage takes place.Ah! That dear old "marriage by promise subsequente copula", Heh! Heh!

27th Apr 2013, 01:17

Dear Sir - It is obvious that your view of the inhabitants of the Great South Land has been seriously coloured by the fact some convicts and British soldiers commenced the first "civilisation" of this now world-leading country.
May I remind you that such a view is unsupported by the facts; that attest to the point that less than 8% of the Australian population can nowadays lay any claim to convict ancestors.
As my dear Mother was fond of saying to people who expressed a view similar to yours; "I arrived on an assisted passage, not an insisted passage, thank you!".
Sincerely Yours,


27th Apr 2013, 02:26
One of the two murderers had his parole cancelled and was recalled to jail for downloading child porn, I believe. May be out again now.

27th Apr 2013, 03:15
that attest to the point that less than 8% of the Australian population can nowadays lay any claim to convict ancestors.And strange as it may seem to some if not most back in the UK, quite a few of the 92% who can't lay claim to a convict ancestor wish they could.

27th Apr 2013, 04:50
Dear Sir - It is obvious

Dear Sir - Oh Dear! It is obvious that you are lacking.

Lacking what? A sense of irony for one thing, and imaginative and reading insights for two others.

27th Apr 2013, 21:07
Venables (http://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/408282-venables.html).

Mothers abused by children (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22307887).

27th Apr 2013, 21:34

"quite a few of the 92% who can't lay claim to a convict ancestor wish they could."

No, the 92% would prefer Aboriginal ancestry, as it is far more lucrative :O

28th Apr 2013, 02:13
500N - reminds me of "Livin' Next Door To Alan" by KBW.

It was funny but certainly not too far from the truth.

28th Apr 2013, 02:56

Yes, LOL :O

I was trying to find a web site which has a photo of a white woman,
a very white woman who is classed as Aboriginal. She someone got
classed as having Abo so can now access the gravy train - which is
what it is.

Milo Minderbinder
28th Apr 2013, 07:53
surely for the 92% who can't, its because they're relatively recent immigrants who got out of their countries before being picked up by the police

you know who I mean - the Lebanese, the Italians, the various south east Asians / illegals......