Tina Malone Summonsed Over Bulger Killer Venables Id Case

[naomi24]

Actress Tina Malone is facing contempt of court proceedings over a social media post allegedly showing images of James Bulger killer Jon Venables. Ms Malone revealed she had received a High Court summons in a series of Facebook posts on Thursday.

There is a global ban on publishing anything revealing the identities of Jon Venables and Robert Thompson. The Attorney General's Office (AGO) confirmed it had summonsed the actress to appear at the High Court.

Venables and Thompson were convicted of murdering two-year-old James in 1993. They have been living under new identities since they were released in 2001.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-46994353

Should Venables’ (who has since been convicted and imprisoned for possessing indecent images of children) identity continue to be protected?

[murraymints]

ditto New Judge... I'd happily out the scrote !!

[choux]

Is this a "damned if you do/damned if you don't" question?

If I answer with a "no" will I be marked as a vigilante or someone who doesn't care what actions another may take and therefore have to face the consequences of those actions?

If I answer with a "yes" will I be vilified as do-gooder not capable of seeing the wider possibilities?

I have sympathy with some of the points already made here and the truth is I would not afford any special treatment, whatsoever, to a person so incapable of showing remorse or a changed view on precious life.

[hereIam]

NO ! And I don't give a jot who this offends !!

[chelle7272]

Agreed New Judge

[dannyk13]

Should we protect the identities of all time served convicted killers.I think not, so why should these two be protected?

[JF85]

Because they were children at the time of the offence. Despite the shameful decision to try them in an adult court, they were children. Everything they did was based on what they had learnt from the adults around them.

[Rockrose]

I’d happily see anyone who outed someone covered by identity protection fined heavily and for repeated offenders banged up

[Canary42]

/// New Judge: I believe that people are entitled to know what sort of creatures they have living amongst them.///

Even if it leads to vigilantes murdering them - street justice prevailing over H M Courts.

[dannyk13]

Canary //Even if it leads to vigilantes murdering them - street justice prevailing over H M Courts.//
But is this not a possibility with any released killer? I agree that their identities should have been protected when they were children but they are adults now.

[JF85]

Agreed, Canary. If we have ever seen a newspaper we know there are bad people out there, and they rarely spend their entire life in prison. We know, then, that there are thousands of people who have committed crimes walking amongst us, some even representing us in Parliament, or performing 'duties' as members of a family of inherited privilege.

Adding one name to those many thousands will make no difference at all to public safety, but will endanger the life of one person, whose introduction to a criminal life came when he was too young to be held fully responsible.

It also risks making criminals of ordinary citizens whipped into a frenzy by others telling them it would be 'the right thing' to harm the person named.

[ludwig]

NJ //I'd have a little more sympathy towards his argument for anonymity if he kept his head down and did not continue to break the law. His lenient sentence and treatment since were based on him being very young when he committed the atrocity. That excuse has now passed and I believe that people are entitled to know what sort of creatures they have living amongst them. //

Exactly.

[Baldric]

He was given a second chance and he screwed it up, so no!

[youngmafbog]

No, Venables should be inside, IMHO he is a real danger to society so if allowed out on the streets people should be aware of him. Thomson I accept has earned is anonymity and if Venables is kept inside for the rest of his natural then he too can have anonymity as I accept there is a very high chance of him being attacked.

As for the vigilante arguments, you all seem more concerned over the criminal then over the very real possibility of victims to come. Strange.

[retrocop]

ymf

// you all seem more concerned over the criminal then over the very real possibility of victims to come. Strange//

Twas ever thus

[Rockrose]

// you all seem more concerned over the criminal then over the very real possibility of victims to come. Strange//
Rubbish!
Where?

[youngmafbog]

I'm afraid so Retro.

[naomi24]

Rockrose, you think he poses no danger?

[Rockrose]

I haven’t said that have I?

[youngmafbog]

Clearly not Naomi.

[naomi24]

Rockrose, so when you said ....

//Rubbish!
Where? //

...what did you mean?