Talk:Murder of James Bulger/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

WPC

"A Merseyside WPC was awarded £100,000" -- What's a WPC? --C3o 08:16, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Woman Police Constable.  (ie. Female police officer).

Expansion

Well, I've expanded the section on the murder (needs copyediting). I found more details of the murder, which should go in the article if true, like that James's was naked from the waist down, and that there was possibly a sexual motive. There's all sorts of details of the backgrounds of Venables and Thompson as well, which could potentially be included, or they could get their own articles? See for example [1] and even longer (12 pages): [2], though I can't tell if these are 100% accurate, or sensationalised. Also, perhaps we should use (fair use) the mugshots of the two boys (on the BBC link for instance), these are a very good illustration of how young the boys were. fabiform | talk 13:02, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

We have several untagged images on this page already. They are bound to be copyrighted, with the possible exception of the one of James at the top, which might be considered to have been released into the public domain by the family. I don't think it would fair use to have so many copyrighted images on the page.. maybe should select the most appropiate. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As for the new content, my initial suspicion is that it tends towards the sensationalist "pure distilled evil" POV. The court reports also suggested that many of the injuries inflicted by the boys were a result of blind panic in trying to get James to be quiet and to stay still. I don't think anyone will ever know the true story, but I think the current iteration leans towards The Sun's way of presenting things, more than what the courts and psychological reports have hinted at. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:43, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You think? It was based on the content of stories in the Guardian, and I tried to keep the tone neutral and the descriptions short. Please rephrase it, I wouldn't like this page to be sensationalised, but simply skirting over the brutality of the attacks isn't good either (as noted on featured article candidates). You should add any mitigating factors you can find, or alternative explanations for motive etc. fabiform | talk 13:50, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I will do that, may take a little while. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That Guardian archive is exceptionally good, particular as it goes back to 1993. I had read mostly newer reports, and time seems to have softened the reporting. I think maybe I should backtrack on what I just said, or at least wait for others to weigh in. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that archive is great (found through google), it's really useful being able to read some of the stories from the time. I first went to the BBC (always my first port of call) forgetting that BBC News Online didn't even exist then. Oh, and you're right about the number of fair use pictures we've got. I guess no one's claiming copyright on the CCTV footage (it was shown everywhere), similarly I think there's a good case for using police mug-shots, and they're important as they're the only clear pictures of the two boys we're going to have. I saw that the recently added pictures all appear to be from time.com [3]. It's probably harder to make a case for things like the photo of the banner, since that's bound to have been taken by a professional photographer for profit. fabiform | talk 14:21, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I remember a report detailing what those boys did to him in The Telegrapgh and it was as graphic as the Guardian. I raised the issue of including this graphic this content, but I was unsure of whether it was appropriate and how to include it without it appearing either insensitive or sensationalist. Mintguy (T) 14:56, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think it's appropriate to include the details, as long as the tone is right (no "savagely attacked" or things like that, when listing how he was attacked is sufficiently clear). Plus, since the page has been moved to "James Bulger murder case" is seems appropriate, whereas when it was just called "James Bulger" this could be seen as insensitive. But, my additions no doubt need polishing and checking for tone. I was feeling quite sickened by the time I wrote them and did it quickly. I didn't remember the specifics of the case; perhaps I didn't even hear about them at the time, as I was only 11 or so myself. fabiform | talk 15:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The article is very good, but does not mention the aspect of cruelty to animals that saw the perpetrators move on from mistreating animals such as stray and pet cats to thinking of abducting a child, to attempting to take a child, and then finally succeeeding. Andy, Merseyside Andy Ford 09:25, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Images

Proposal:

Keep: CCTV image and photo of James at top. These were widely reprinted all over the place and can probably be considered public domain (they were released by police), although formally speaking we may have to claim fair use as the police are unlikely to have made a formal announcement that they are PD.

Include: Police mugshots of Thompson and Venables. Same reasons as above.

Remove: Shot of football stadium and shot of James' parents entering court. Professional photographs, likely to be under copyright incompatible with our licence. Fair use is a fairly weak argument as we don't really need them to make this article.

Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:09, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This sounds just right to me. fabiform | talk 15:16, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, done. Thanks for all the fantastic work you've been doing on this article, fabiform. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i was just wondering that with the brutal killing of a 2 year old boy by two 10 yr olds kids the court and some of the people in England take some consideration more on these two days. i think its best implemented the US court ruling that minor can be sent to boystown and when they reach 18 yrs of age will be tried as adult. That is more fair cause a 2 year old kid lost his life from the hands of these 2 monsters regardless that they are 10 years old they know what they are doing compared to a 2 year old kid. Let us not forget that these two had been a harm to society when they were 10 years old how can we be sure that they will no longer be at harm when they get out of prison at age 20? they are going to do more harm, and who wants to have another toddler killed by these two monsters again? they do not deserve a life cause they took a baby's life and they did not consider that in any way while killing him so let us not consider them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallenangel mae (talk • contribs) 08:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Red links

When I initially wrote this article there were a lot of red links. I have mitigated this somewhat by starting articles on the Parole Board, Lord Goldsmith, Peter Taylor, Baron Taylor of Gosforth, Child's Play and the Liverpool Echo. I would be delighted if contributors could improve those articles as dramatically as you have done this one. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 16:17, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And now Manchester Evening News. And Morwen has done Lord Woolf. We're nearly red-free - any takers for Walton, Merseyside? Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 07:44, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I just added Press Complaints Commission. The stub I created for life licence is also in need of some TLC. fabiform | talk 10:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. I think it an important part of an article being "good" is that it is correctly linked and that the linked-to articles are fairly good too (or at least not red!). I played around with life licence a little bit. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, excellent additions, I didn't find anything nearly as official as that. And, er, all my spelling mistakes are a conscious effort to lure others into editing articles (I wish that were true!). fabiform | talk 11:45, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ok, I have bashed out 700 words on the PCC. I didn't proof-read it, so there are bound to be loads of typos and what not. Consider yourself lured. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:03, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I strongly recall that it was the trial judge who decided to name the culprits at the time of their setencing, not a case that their names 'leaked out'

i was just wondering that with the brutal killing of a 2 year old boy by two 10 yr olds kids the court and some of the people in England take some consideration more on these two kids. i think its best implemented the US court ruling that minor can be sent to boystown and when they reach 18 yrs of age will be tried as adult. That is more fair cause a 2 year old kid lost his life from the hands of these 2 monsters regardless that they are 10 years old they know what they are doing compared to a 2 year old kid. Let us not forget that these two had been a harm to society when they were 10 years old how can we be sure that they will no longer be at harm when they get out of prison at age 20? they are going to do more harm, and who wants to have another toddler killed by these two monsters again? they do not deserve a life cause they took a baby's life and they did not consider that in any way while killing him so let us not consider them too.

Defence

Pete, what do you mean by "The boys, who offered no defence" - they each had legal representation, so surely the defense made some case? I know they didn't take the stand - is that what you meant? fabiform | talk 08:19, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It means (I presume) that no evidence was offered in their defence. Mintguy (T)

Exactly that. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:34, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This seems a bit misleading to me as both pleaded not guilty, and both their lawyers spoke in defence of their clients (throwing the blame onto the other boy in each case) [4] - they didn't just accept the prosecution's case, each lawyer tried to discredit it. (I'm surprised they didn't introduce any evidence of their own, I would have expected them to highlight the fact they had no pattern of violence in their pasts, etc - where did you read this?) fabiform | talk 08:48, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

From http://www.guardian.co.uk/bulger/article/0,2763,195276,00.html

The Bulger trial lasted 17 days, 13 dedicated to examining the movements of Thompson and Venables as they walked James from Bootle shopping centre for more than two miles to the scene of his death in Walton. The defence offered no evidence.

The only mitigation offered was a reminder from Brian Walsh, QC, acting for Venables, that the boy had shown remorse as he confessed to killing James. 'What about his Mum? Tell her I am sorry,' he had said

However I agree that the wording is not really compatible with the other Guardian report you cite. What I wrote clearly needs to be expanded upon a little more to get the precison required. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As an aside, where are good places to look for other descriptions of the trial? The Guardian's archive is great, but most papers seem to charge for archives, and the BBC doesn't go back as far as the original trial. fabiform | talk 09:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You can always go to the library and look at The Times on microfilm. Mintguy (T)

Academics at plenty of universities will get free electronic access as far back as is available. I know one provider is www.lexis-nexis.com who have an arrangment with Athens (see www.athens.ac.uk). Unfortunately my university, whilst it does give me Athens access, (and I have uncovered lots through it) but not nexis access. The Open University is definitely one of those whose Athens access extends to nexis... maybe students of OU get that level of access... but it might just be postgrad/postdoc. Amongst Wikipedians I believe User:Imran has access along these lines.. so if you want something specific you could maybe ask him nicely on IRC/his talk page. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:41, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Re: the Manchester Evening News, I found in The Independent [summary of an article you have to pay to view] that they'd been found guilty of contempt of court. This is backed up by the BBC [5]. (I wish news sources wouldn't contradict each other, or in the case of the Guardian above, themselves!). fabiform | talk 09:43, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Cool, well spotted. The problem is that the news sources often link to older stories, but it is difficult for them to link older stories through to newer ones (unless they group them all in a feature like Guardian has done), so if you find an old story that subsequently gets added-to (like the MEN case) it is possible to think you know the whole story when you don't. Pete/Pcb21 (talk)

---

Sources for the new paras on the boys family background

Born evil or brutalised? - James Bulger killers - Cover story. By Anne Barrowclough. 20 June 2001 The Times

THINGS CAN BE DONE. 27 November 1993 Financial Times

James Bulger 10 years On - How we fought back from a tragedy that rocked a nation ... and cursed our city. By Mark Thomas. 11 February 2003 Liverpool Echo (this is the source for the quote from the Liverpool Echo itself).

Plight of the kamikaze kids - James Bulger killers - Cover story. By Carol Midgley. 20 June 2001 The Times

KIDS ON THE BLOCK - CHILDREN. 2 December 1994 The Guardian

THE BASHED STREET KIDS - THE COMMISSION ON CHILDREN AND VIOLENCE. By Angela Neustatter. 9 November 1995

A fresh start. 10 July 2001 The Guardian

Did bad parenting really turn these boys into killers? 1 November 2000 The Guardian

--257.47b.9½.-19 13:25, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

About Jon having previously attempted to strangle a child.... every mention of this I've seen before has played this down. As far as I remember (the Guardian is down and I can't check) a year or two before the murder he'd held a ruler against the throat of another boy his own age in school, and the teacher pulled him off. I got the impression that people did not think this was an attempt to kill the other boy, or even harm him, but perhaps something to gain attention? As it stands, the article implies he'd tried to kill before, which isn't the same thing. fabiform | talk 14:19, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point. The source (one of the Guardian articles) used the word 'throttle', which is certainly milder than 'strangle'. --257.47b.9½.-19 16:25, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC) PS The report is a very useful way of summarising the 'video versus family' discussion, great addition.

Yeah, it was a good find, and followed on from your additions very nicely. I see you've modified the bit about the attempted strangling - this looks good to me. I've just undone some of the wikilinks you added to the introduction. It was looking a bit crowded. And some of them weren't really relevant to the article, in my opinion. fabiform | talk 15:15, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Sure, some of them (like children) didn't add much value, but I'd be in favour of keeping the links for all the legal terms (like 'detention'). It would be good to have 'unlawful' and 'rehabilitation' too, but we don't seem to have articles on those, and I was hesitant to add red links... --257.47b.9½.-19 15:19, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

i was just wondering that with the brutal killing of a 2 year old boy by two 10 yr olds kids the court and some of the people in England take some consideration more on these two kids. i think its best implemented the US court ruling that minor can be sent to boystown and when they reach 18 yrs of age will be tried as adult. That is more fair cause a 2 year old kid lost his life from the hands of these 2 monsters regardless that they are 10 years old they know what they are doing compared to a 2 year old kid. Let us not forget that these two had been a harm to society when they were 10 years old how can we be sure that they will no longer be a harm when they get out of prison at age 20? they are going to do more harm, and who wants to have another toddler killed by these two monsters again? they do not deserve a life cause they took a baby's life and they did not consider that in any way while killing him so let us not consider them too. well they deserve a chance? no way, the baby they killed cannot be brought to life again. an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallenangel mae (talk • contribs) 08:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

On human evil

Of course one may try to find reasons and causes for their murderous behaviour in the past history and early childhood of the two ten-year-olds, but has anyone considered the possibility that they are EVIL? In my opinion there are people that are PURE EVIL, and whose only goal in life is to increase suffering for their fellow human beings. Rienzo 13:29, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

And you're entitled to that opinion, however you must also accept that this is your opinion, and therefore POV. POV statements are not acceptable on Wikipedia, unless you can find some reputable news source claiming just that. (Even then it would be a somewhat dodgy explanation). Pteron 15:17, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the fact that the so-called "Talk"-pages had to be 100% NPOV. On Talk pages we DISCUSS the articles, and how on earth can a discussion about this grisly murder be 100% NPOV? The opinion that the two murderers are merely victims of circumstances is just garbage! All self-righteous people, who called these "sweet" children innocent, have a lot of waking-up to do... Rienzo 20:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, to be clear on policy, there is no need to be NPOV on talk pages, and several users express POVs on talk pages. Be aware of course that expressing very strong POVs on the talk page is likely to make other users wary when you make edits where it counts, on the article, and so you might get judged unduly harshly, even though you hold back your POV Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 21:30, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It is true that the detective who solved the case stated in television interviews his belief that "nature occasionally produces freaks -- in this case, evil freaks." (I have this on tape.) The most famous quote on this case is from the judge, Mr. Justice Moreland. "Cunning and very wicked; an act of unparalleled evil." These could be quoted to show how the boys were viewed at the time. --Bluejay Young 18:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Mug shot, Moral question

from the pump

The Mug shot in James Bulger murder case is image is schocking for me ! In France it's a simply crime to publish the photo of a child convicted of crime. Ericd 20:08, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In the UK (the country at issue) it's also generally illegal to name a minor suspect or criminal, or even publish information that would reasonably allow someone to identify them (never mind to show their photograph). In this case, however, the names of the two convicted children has been published innumerable times (as have these and other photographs). Our article isn't quite specific enough about why the reporting restrictions were lifted, but they were. Wikipedia's article is considerably less detailed than many media reports of the time. So I'm sure what we have is entirely legal. I can't answer moral questions for you, but wikipedia seems to have adopted an informal policy (such as in the Kobe Bryant rape case) of publishing information that's readily available in reliable mainstream media, but not publishing stuff that's only available via more "samizdat" channels). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 23:41, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I in my turn find it shocking that a free press can be prohibited from publishing the name of a child murderer, such as the current name of Mary Bell. I rather suspect it's a matter of thinking that what we're used to is correct. - Nunh-huh 02:58, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

By the way, those boys are now 21 and have been released with new identities. There's an injunction in England and Wales on publishing photos of them grown up, or their new identities and locations. I imagine it would be perfectly legal for wikipedia to publish all that (since its based in the USA), but that is where I think we should draw the line. As Finlay said, the images on our article (and more besides) were widely published in all our most reputable press outlets, broadcast on television, etc. fabiform | talk 03:16, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Fabiform, I think we need to establish exactly what the situation is re publishing. If I access the net in England and read Wikipedia, is the publishing not actually taking place in England? What is the situation if the person who posted suppressed informatiion did so from England where it was suppressed? Can based in the USA ever be a defence? Moriori 03:41, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

Well, there's nothing in our article which would be illegal to publish in England or Wales, in fact, it's less explicit and contains less photographs than it might legally include. But as far as the law goes (IANAL) the servers are located in the US and we are obliged to follow US law - we don't have to try to follow the law in every state and country which has internet access (how on earth could we do that anyway?). fabiform | talk 04:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I didn't know that the the usage in UK was to give new identities. I don't remember of a similar cas in France that why we keep identities secret.

Ericd 03:25, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's standard practice in the UK, because children's identities are usually protected at trial (so it wouldn't normally be necessary). Various elements of the original trial were criticised by the European Court of Human Rights, including the fact that they were tried as adults (you'll find more about this in the article). fabiform | talk 04:08, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Circular links

"Jon Venables" and "Robert Thompson" currently redirect to this page. While I'd like to see them have their own page, they currently don't, so in the mean time the circular links should not be created. Pcb21 thinks they should be bolded. While I don't agree, I don't think it really matters if they're bolded or not, as long as they don't redirect back to the original page.

On a semi-related note, we need a "redirect=no" link syntax.

anthony (see warning)

You are right we don't want circular links. It is standard policy to bold names that are redirects to the article - that policy applies here. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 22:28, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Where can I find this alleged policy? No one on IRC had ever heard of it when I asked. anthony (see warning)

Hmm, I am pretty sure I didn't dream it and there are lots of pages where it happens but Wikipedia:Redirect#What needs to be done on pages that are targets of redirects? only says inbound redirects be mentioned early rather than bolded. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:15, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I think this only makes sense when the redirect is a synonym, not when it is only somewhat related. But like I said above, I don't care about this all that much, I was just curious as to whether or not there was a policy and was stating my opinion in case a lot of other people agree with it. anthony (see warning)

why aren't there any articles for Venables & Thompson? This is very strange and i definitely didn't expect the lack of these articles in wikipedia... something smells... there's some distasteful politics afoot prolly. Shakespeare Monkey (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for references

Hi, I am working to encourage implementation of the goals of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Part of that is to make sure articles cite their sources. This is particularly important for featured articles, since they are a prominent part of Wikipedia. The Fact and Reference Check Project has more information. Thank you, and please leave me a message when you have added a few references to the article. - Taxman 20:00, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

For my parts of the article, I researched almost exclusively from the websites already listed. Pcb21| Pete 13:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I don't know how much that is, but then please format them properly as references according to the format shown in Wikipedia:Cite sources, and list them in a ==References== section. If you want to use those or any other sites to fact check the rest of the article, that would be great, and list those too. - Taxman 14:32, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

I guess the wikifiddlers was a shot at me, but so be it. If you don't want to lose the commentary, work it into the current references. It may be nonstandard, but useful so perhaps ok. - Taxman 03:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

While I haven't added anything to the article, I did follow up the UK "media gag" injunction (it is powering some annoying chain mail[6]) and the links to the judgements are going to be useful for people following up freedom of the press issues: the references are original injunction against paper for reporting whereabouts and contempt of court when the paper reported the whereabouts anyway. --DLeonard 04:48, 2005 Jun 12 (UTC)

NPOV

I'm nominating this for a POV check as the subject matter is clearly not presented in a NPOV way, see e.g. rather one-sided opening paragraph & the comparisons between cost of rehabilitating Thompson/Venables & compensation awarded to Fergus. Needs a thorough readthrough & edit from someone able to look at the subject dispassionately - SP-KP 1 July 2005 23:41 (UTC)

You look like a good candidate. Pcb21| Pete 2 July 2005 10:38 (UTC)

Given the sensitivitiy, I think it needs a more experienced Wikipedian than me, but if no-one else volunteers, I'll give it a go - would you be willing to act as a sounding board for any proposed edits? - SP-KP 2 July 2005 11:05 (UTC)

Sounds like a good deal to me. Pcb21| Pete 2 July 2005 11:57 (UTC)

Release

I have just read: "Every Mother's Nightmare - The Killing of James Bulger" by Mark Thomas. And it has brought the whole case back to me. Those two parasites that tortured and killed little James should never have been released. I'm disgusted with anyone and everyone who approved their release, escpecially David Blunkett. How the mother's and families of those two parasites can have anything to do with them is beyond me. In my opinion those evil parasites are irredeemable. Maureen Russell, 37, Glasgow, Scotland -- 18 July 2005 -- 14:34 (UTC)

You can leave a message at my friend's user (talk) page at Klmjordan.

Not that it means anything, and I don't want to get into a discussion either, but I'm 21, and I hardly even remember what I was like when I was 10. It's safe to say I have next to nothing in common with that kid. People change from 10 to 20, and everyone certainly deserves a second chance... even if their actions were unforgivable. Just soapboxing a bit. Sippan

I don't want to soapbox so much as request a section be appended to articles about such activities with an analysis of society's costs, social and economic. To wit:

It's so nice to have people always on the ready to do the forgiving of criminals on the victim's behalf, who for whatever reason, are seldom up to it themselves. And you can't steal bread for a better deal -- an average life expectancy of 70 years, cut short for no reason, in trade for 20+ years (combined) of free room and board and education and other remedial services, plus new identities and lives, all at taxpayer expense? Is there even one military enlistment program with goverment incentives that can compete with rewarding someone for killing others? (What a difference perspective makes.) — 67.165.253.170 (talk) 06:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And whilst this is just a personal point of view, the above comment illustrates that we tend to treat child murderers (ie murderers who are children) (and for that matter, adult female murderers) worse than adult male murderers - no doubt because we think there's something "unnatural" about them. Hindley receives ten times the hatred as does her male partner in crime (whose name I can't remember off the top of my head - significant perhaps!). Lord of the Flies is perhaps a more accurate picture of what children might be like without adult influence than we care to admit.

Exile 11:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Haha, wow. Truly astounding. It's almost hilarious if it wasn't soo pathetic and sad how many ignorant morons out there demand terrible punishments for children because they were "responsible". Yes, responsible. Apparently they knew damn well what they were doing when they randomly and brutaly murdered a small child. Yep, they were responsible, in a right state of mind and knew exactly what they were doing...therefore should be punished for the rest of their lives. But they are DEFINITELY not old enough to sign a contract, vote or consent to sex.

Brilliant. 121.215.50.125 (talk) 01:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Harlequin

This is NOT a forum for expressing your disgust at this killing and the subsequent release of the killers. Start up a blog if you're that bothered. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Video Nasty

I see that this article briefly mentions the anti-Child's Play 3 hysteria that followed this tragic event, and I can't help feeling that it only gives one side of the case. This is not a criticism as such, though, because the other side was largely and loudly drowned out at the time and this is sometimes still the case. However I feel that just because one side is drowned out does not mean that that side should not be represented in an article of this sort. To that end I would like to point out that the police often denied any link between Child's Play 3 and the tragic murder and would like to highlight two quotes in particular: I have so far found this quote from http://website.lineone.net/~darkangel5/moral.htm : (sixth paragraph down, starting 'However, it was revealed soon after ... ') 'Merseyside Police Inspector Ray Simpson was even quoted in "The Guardian" newspaper that they had "looked at all the videos in their houses and checked their lists of rentals from the shop. We did not find Child's Play 3, nor did we find anything in that list that could have encouraged them to do what they did. If you are going to link this murder to a film, you might as well link it to The Railway Children."

I realise that this is a minor point in relation to the article as a whole but I do feel that as the article brings it up, it should be treated fairly.

-Stenun, 12 August 2005

I suspect that there is a lot more behind this than the media will admit. American news reported on how horror and violent adventure movies were cited as inspiring the murder, stating that the boys were seen in a video store later that same evening and that yes, Thompson's father had rented a lot of horror movie videos -- four hundred in one year. But watching international news transmissions from the Scola satellite, which are broadcast on a local community access channel, I watched Greek television's brief story after the sentencing. From what I could gather (the report was in Greek, with interviewees of course speaking English) neighbors reported that Thompson's father had psychotic episodes in which he could be dangerously violent. One interviewee pointed out a little cell at the back of the house, apparently where the Thompson children were locked up as punishment; he used the words "Jekyll and Hyde" about Mr. Thompson and speculated that he might actually have dared the boys to do it. --Bluejay Young 18:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV proposals

The following proposals are made in an attempt to bring this article closer to NPOV; they are listed here rather than being made direct to the page in an attempt to establish community consensus; please therefore add comments - SP-KP 14:21, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead text to be trimmed down and most of the material from here about sentencing to be moved into a new section entitled "Sentencing", following the section about the Trial. The intended effect is to leave the lead text as a summary of the reasons why this crime was "notable".

• The phrase "immense public outpouring of shock, outrage, and grief" to be reworded as "considerable shock and outrage among the British public"

• The sentences "The trauma of Jamie's death led to the collapse of his parents' marriage. Ralph and Denise Bulger have both since re-married to other respective spouses." to be deleted from the introduction and dealt with in the new section on impacts below.

The murder

• This section to be split into two - one dealing with the abduction & murder of James, and one dealing with the reaction of the press & public

The trial

• This section to be trimmed down to become another "bare facts" section; material about sentencing to be moved into the new sentencing section

Proposed causes

• This section to be trimmed down so that it relates solely to the proposed causes; material relating to follow-on fallout from the case to be moved to the new impacts section

New sections

• A new section to be added entitled "Sentencing", to contain material relating to this topic, as outlined above

• A new section to be added entitled "Impacts of the Bulger case" with two subsections a) "impact on people involved" and b) "long-term impacts on British society/legal system" (better titles are invited)

Expansion

• Requests for expansion to be added to the article, covering the following topics currently under-represented in the article:
  • rehabilitation work done with Thompson & Venables
  • impact on Ralph & Denis Bulger

This article has carried a {{POV check}} template for over 6 months now, since 1 July 2005. Surely that is not acceptable for a featured article? Have the changes above been made to everyone's satisfaction? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done so, and I don't believe anyone else has yet. My reason for not having done anything about them yet was that I felt that I should give Pcb21 the chance to comment before making the changes. I agree though that a long time has passed since 26 August, and we probably ought to knock the issue on the head. I don't mind doing the work; equally, I'm happy to let you pick it up if you'd prefer. SP-KP 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Possible Involvement in Recent Murder

There was a recent rape and murder of a girl in Perth, Australia on 26 June, 2006. There's speculation going around right now that "Dante Wyndham Arthurs" (the man who did it) is one of the two boys that commited this crime against Jamie Bulger. I've heard that the boys were relocated to Canada and Australia, however there is nothing of that in this article. Would anyone know if it's possible that one of these two boys could have done this crime? Orichalcon 10:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies in advance - I don't have an account yet and I've never edited a discussion page before, so I don't quite know what the correct signoff syntax is. The West has described the killer as 21 years old. 10 years + (2006 - 1993) = 23, maybe 22. But still, they might've changed their birth years when they issued them with new identities. Daggoth_S 08:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've also come here looking for information about this after hearing the rumour. I too noticed the difference in age, but I don't think that necessarily, means that the rumour is not true. If you read this article from the west [7] it says that he moved here from england in 2001, which co-incidentally is when the boys were released. Also his mother is quoted as giving an interview to The West last year in which she states that her son is not violent. The West cannot legally say why she was speaking to The West at that time? Suspicious in my opinion ... also the photo looks similar to Robert Thompson in my opionion as well. Rissole 07:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reading that report, it appears to me to be highly unlikely that Dante Arthurs is Venables or Thompson.

• Suzanne Arthurs [the mother] said ..Dante ... did not have a criminal record.
• For much of his childhood Mr Arthurs , who works part-time at a shop, lived in England, but he returned to Perth with his family in 2001 to complete high school
• Mrs Arthurs told paper The West Australian last year. "We had eight years in England, living in the south of England."
• Suspicision seems to be based upon the sentence For legal reasons The West Australian cannot reveal why Mrs Arthurs and her son spoke to the newspaper this time last year. - Earlier it says Speaking to a reporter about an unrelated matter - Clearly the unreleated matter has legal ramifications, but it is a huge leap of imagination to assume that it has something to do with the Bulger case. Jooler 07:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, if I hadn't of heard the rumour from a number of sources before reading the article there is no way I would have made those conclusions. Let's hope there's some real news about this soon and the rumour is proven false. Rissole 07:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The email that is floating around containing this rumour says "had reached the age of 18 and had been sent out to Australia with a new identity for his family, etc." However, The West article linked above mentions him attending high school, which is unlikely if he moved here at 18. "A school ball photo showed Mr Arthurs in 2003 enjoying a night out with friends from North Lake Senior Campus." It's a good rumour, but there's nothing at all to indicate any link to the Bulger case.Split03 08:12, June 28, 2006 (UTC)

The email also states Soon after he got here he assaulted a 12 yrd old girl in a park in Canning Vale ... they couldn't get enough evidence on him and the incident was brushed under the mat. Assuming that this is true, it may be the incident that The West is refering to - although I don't understand why they can't discuss it (the victim couldn't be named because she's a minor - but that's the only obvious legal restriction I can see). But, again, assuming that this is true, he must have come over here in 2004-2005, not 2001. Daggoth_S 08:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the information discussed here seems to be relying on one thing, that the mother, and anyone else involved is telling the truth. It's not a long shot to think that the mother or documents would lie about any detail to cover up the identity of the person so that nobody will find out who they are and bother them. If you look at the picture of Dante in The West it shows uncanny resemblance to Robert Thompson. Orichalcon 08:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

From this article [8]: New identities likely to be provided for them and their immediate family will include new names, birth certificates, national health service numbers and a new family history. So they would definitely have all the history to support it. I would be interested to know how far they are legally allowed to assume their new identities. Obviously to the general public, and possibly the media, but the police and government authorities? The article also states that they will be under constant surveillance, and that they won't be emigrated out of England for security reasons ... but the article is almost 5 years old. Daggoth_S 08:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The WA Police have released a statement denying that Dante is one of James' murderers. [9] Possibly why The West couldn't publish why his mother spoke with them last year, was to not prejudice the trial. Rissole 09:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It's still possible that they're just saying that to ensure that he doesn't have a mistrial. I think we should wait until after the trial. But I'll be watching this with interest. Orichalcon 09:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like him, but I am not sure why someone feels it necessary to delete a reference to the *rumour*... eg. Rumoured sightings - In June 2006, rumours circulated that Robert Thompson was Dante Arthurs, a 21-year-old resident of Canning Vale, Western Australia, who had been charged with the murder of 8-year-old Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu at a local shopping mall. The rumours suggested that Thompson had moved to Western Australia and adopted a new identity, with a new name based on his grandfather's. (According to the rumours, his grandfather's name was Arthur Dante.) In response to the rumours, which became widespread over the internet, police in Perth, Western Australia issued a statement that the man they had charged was not connected to the James Bulger murder and was not Robert Thompson.

I and other will keep removing this information each time it is posted. It is a rumour which has been categorically denied by the Sydney police. By continually posting these rumours, after they have been debunked you are giving credence to information which does not deserve it, and third parties who visit this encylopedic entry for information may come away misinformed. Unless the situation changes please do not re-add these rumours. Regards

Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK I see that people have ignored messages left on their talk pages. I will start rolling the article back with warnings, until blocks are issued. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been denied by the Perth police, not the Sydney police. The rumour has been circulated so extensively in Australia, both by internet and news media, that it is important for people checking this article to see exactly that: that the rumour has been repudiated. This is what the additional text does. Your repeated removal of it is unjustified. --Anthropoidape 10:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's probably fair comment, actually. If the rumour is wide, then it's probably fair to briefly mention it whilst clearly saying it has been repudiated. I've sprotected the article because of the legal implications. The JPS^{talk to me} 10:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's probably necessary, even if it's just up for a few days. Orichalcon 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because a rumour has had high publicity doesn't warrant 10% of the article being devoted to it. If you wished to rupidiate the rumour I would suggest maximum a one liner to debunk it, but the page already has a link to the rumour and addressing it as incorrect and that IMHO is sufficient.

Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree that the link is sufficient to draw the attention of someone reading the article to confirm whether the rumour is true or false. Hence my suggested wording (following). I won't put it up again myself though (not sure if I can anyway now) but I feel it's necessary. I am in Australia and I can't tell you how many people are talking about the rumour as though it were the truth. The suggested wording: In June 2006, unsubstantiated rumours circulated that Robert Thompson was Dante Arthurs, a 21-year-old resident of Canning Vale, Western Australia, who had been charged with the murder of 8-year-old Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu at a local shopping mall. The rumours suggested that Thompson had moved to Western Australia and adopted a new identity, with a new name based on his grandfather's. (According to the rumours, his grandfather's name was Arthur Dante.) In response to the rumours, which became widespread over the internet, police in Perth, Western Australia issued a statement that the man they had charged was not connected to the James Bulger murder and was not Robert Thompson. --Anthropoidape 10:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

OK fair point. Now you have created a login you can edit the article the same as anyone else. I would still prefer a less wordy repudiation of the rumour. Along the lines of In June 2006, unsubstantiated rumours circulated that Robert Thompson was Dante Arthurs, a 21-year-old from Western Australia, who was charged with the murder of a young school girl. This rumour gained such notoriety through the media and internet that the Perth police were forced to issue a statement repudiating this link . Not brillant I know, but I would just avoid going into too much details of Sofia's murder location etc, and concentrate on just the rumour and the fatc it's not true. Whaddya reckon? Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --Anthropoidape 10:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry should have put not true.... at this time, I don't know the details, as I'm sure most of the rest of us don't but I'm aversed to fueling of internet rumours, and certainly wouldn't want wikipedia involved in anything as potential damaging or libellous as this. Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 10:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

You must also keep in mind that if the allegations are true, then the information should be supressed until after the trial. A jury must be impartial and by furthering the rumours you increase the chances of a mistrial.

Fully agree that's why I jumped in and tried to temper the statements here.

<soapboxon> Wikipedia cannot be in the position of playing devils advocate. In a historical context an encylopedia is able to give a certain amount of commentary on events that have transpired, but in relation to a current event it is very important that articles adhere to WP:NPOV and avoids any legal ramifications that could arise. If in the future the Police and the high commissioners statement were about protecting the due course of law, and the rumours were true then then that will appear here faster than you can ....... <soapboxoff> cheers Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article explains how the rumour was started and proves that it is not true. [10] Rissole 16:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Referred to by first name

I have changed references to Bulger to James, as it makes him sound like the criminal and not the victim, and also it sounds odd to refer to a toddler by their last name. --Alex9891 ^(userpage) 23:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:MOSBIO, we use the last name (even for a toddler). I reverted your edits back.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - this is an encyclopaedia, not a Christmas card. Smurfmeister (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Victim's Background

In my opinion, a brief insight into the victim's social background would complete the article — Bodo 16:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Errr no, his background had no impact whatsoever on the event so what is the point ?

Spoken Version added

I have added a spoken version of this article today, as previously requested; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 14:13, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Name

Shouldnt we change this to The James Bulger murder to keep in line with Sarah Payne etc? SqueakBox 21:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

too trivial?

Is this too trivial to be added where appropriate? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it warrants mentioning in the article, it doesn't look too trivial to me. Matthew 17:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible Causes

I have heavily edited the Possible Causes section. I excised a lot of non-topical material that is neither encyclopedically relevant to this matter nor properly sourced. This entire article needs many more references. Definitely treading on legally shaky ground with some of these claims being unverified.Robotempire 05:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

James J Bulger

Surely "James Bulger" should have a disambiguation page. One of the FBI's most wanted is James J. Bulger.

There is a disambiguation page. (DK) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 21:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Tag for references

I've tagged the article for lack of references because only the last section about the trial and appeals include references. Naysie (my tildes key is broken)

Formatting Adjustments & Appropriateness of MySpace item?

I've created a new heading in the article (Subsequent controversies) to separate out the content that deals with controversies following the release of Venables and Thompson. I've also fixed up the formatting for the item on the Law & Order game.

There was also this item (added yesterday by CT4000 and subsequently edited by others), which I have moved here from the article:

A myspace bulletin has surfaced that is encouraging people to add their names to the petition of up to a 1000 signatures. As of 9/7/07 1001 have signed this petition to bring Bulger's killers back into the court room so they can be convicted and serve a life sentence. (Though the petition uses the false claims that Bulger had his fingers cut off and that the batteries were inserted into his anus and not his mouth.) Once it has reached a 1000 names, the creator of the bulletin has an email address to a judge in the UK that the 1000th signature is to email the petition to.

The original text included an e-mail address and a name which it purported to be those of the aforementioned judge, which I have removed and not repeated above; there is no reason I can see for it to be in the article, and its' presence there will likely cause the address to be targeted by spambots. I am uncertain if oversight is used in such cases. The rest of the text is included above; it may not be appropriate for the article, per my reading of what wikipedia is not; if others feel it should be included, however, I will of course accept the consensus that emerges. — digitaleon • talk @ 08:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

I've added the tag as this article may contain information relating to living persons (namely Jon Venables and Robert Thompson) that is potentially contentious and editors should be aware that care is required in the sourcing of statments. See WP:BLP (applies to all living persons mentioned in an article). Thanks, CaNNoNFoDDa 16:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Location?

Im not asking for their location but i've hered they been relocated to either Canada or New Zeland is that true?Becuase i live in canada and we let baby killers in out country what kind of country are we? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.39.134 (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Sexual Assault?

This artical http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/young/bulger/11.html suggests some injuries sexual in nature yet no details are in this page. Should they be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.234.250.71 (talk) 12:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I read the Court TV breakdown, and it said that, while there was no def. proof that there was any sexual wrongdoing, investigators were "suspicious." Also, when the boys were accused of sexual abuse in their interrogations, Jon pointed fingers at Robert, and Robert got all flustered and defensive, saying that he wasn't a "pervert."

I got the vibe that the batteries were inserted into the boy's anus, but this article asserts that that's a myth? The source that claims it is doesn't seem very "source-y" to me, but that's just my opinion.75.140.254.250 (talk) 18:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Motive?

Did either of the two boys say why they did it? Was it just because they thought it would be "fun?"75.140.254.250 (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

38 witnesses

Were there really 38 people who saw the boy? That's coincidentally the same number of people reported to have witnessed the murder of Kitty Genovese [11].

83.176.231.198 (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Move to James Bulger

Hi all, shouldn't this article be moved to James Bulger? It seems more encyclopaedic to name this kind of an article after the victim's name, rather than "Murder of ". Also, there are other articles (for example Child murder that (currently) erroneously link to James Bulger. I'll leave it off for a week. What do you think? Sumthingweird (talk) 10:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

James Bulger already exists as a disambiguation page which is one reason why this article was created under Murder of James Bulger instead. Also, it's the actual murder of Bulger that makes the article a notable encyclopaedic inclusion not so much the individual if you know what I mean. —— RyanLupin • (talk) 15:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article follows the practice on Wikipedia of naming articles after events if their subjects aren't otherwise notable. See for example: Murder of Tim McLean. Exploding Boy (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd strongly oppose such a move. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also oppose such a move. The murder is the subject of the article, and, with the greatest of respect and sympathy, James Bulger himself is entirely unnotable outside of it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

James Bulger has an article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[12] (subscription required) Although rather short, it (a) demonstrates the encyclopedic nature of Bulger as a person, and (b) includes many relevant details this articles does not:

• "an attractive, soft-featured child with fair skin, blue eyes, and light-brown tousled hair; he was 2 feet 6 inches tall when he died"
• "[Thompson and Venables] were playing truant from school"
• quotes from Tony Blair (then shadow Home Secretary) "We hear of crimes so horrific they provoke anger and disbelief in equal proportions ... These are the ugly manifestations of a society that is becoming unworthy of that name" and John Major (then Prime Minister) "society needs to condemn a little more, and understand a little less"
• a link from the case to more stringent censorship of "video nasties"
• the date the trial opened in Preston (1 November)
• the claim that Thompson and Venables were "the youngest people to be convicted of murder in British criminal history"
• the recommendation by the trial judge that they serve a minimum of 8 years in prison
• Lord Donaldson characterising Michael Howard's increased tariff as "institutionalised vengeance ... [by] a politician playing to the gallery"
• that in 1999, Bulger's parents failed to persuade the European Court of Human Rights that the a victim of a crime has the right to be involved in determining the sentence of the perpetrator
• the memorial garden at Sacred Heart primary school - "the school James would have attended had he lived"

Some or all of these should be included. It should also be possible to fix many of the "citation needed" tags without too much trouble. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 12:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have done a first pass, adding the points mentioned above and adding citations to the ODNB for various other points. The article still needs a lot more work. -- Hyphen8d (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Backgrounds

The backgrounds of the two boys are at the end of the 'Trial' article. Shouldn't this get it's own section at the top, as the boys don't have their own article(s)? --JohnVMaster (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Lead

I'd like to rewrite and shorten the lead, as it seems a bit long and unwieldy at present, with details that would be better left to the body of the article. Does anyone have strong objections? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm assuming that means there are no objections, so I'll give it a try. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:17, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Lack of citations

This article is greatly lacking citations; especially the bit about the family backgrounds. This could 'potentially' violate Wikipedia's standards on biographies of living people.

Can whoever wrote sections please provide sourcing, or I may remove swiftly Dvmedis (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added Biography sourcing tags, and removed 4 paragraphs of material which is potentially classified as libel about Thomson & Venables (and their families). We must remember that as they are still living, the article is partially bound by guidelines on biographical entries about living persons. I have added 'ciation needed' markers to numerous other paragraphs. Dvmedis (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised to find such a notorious incident so lacking in citations, as well as the mixing of false information (albeit recognised as such) into the chain of events. I'm going to remove such information - if others object, they can find reliable sources and cite things correctly. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been a month and a half since these concerns were raised. Go for it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sunrise and City Homicide

Seven's non-story answer to a question no one asked shows a one line government denial that the killers were relocated to Australia, the latest and least remarkable such statement. Media Watch's transcript leaves it ambiguous that there could be a second line, so I am giving Seven, Sunrise and the executive producer the benefit of the doubt.MartinSFSA (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Location of perpetrators

I removed a statement about where the perpetrators are currently living, since it was unreferenced and therefore speculation. Unreferenced statements such as this are covered by Wikipedia:Biography of living persons and so should be removed immediately. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You also removed a valid and provable comment about the fact that the court order only applies in the UK. I can reference the location statement, I have just not done so yet, due to a problem with linking into the information on Wikileaks.213.166.17.19 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Your statement about the validity of the suppression order is relevant, though repetitious as far as I can tell. I'm not going to argue about it too much. As for the BLP statement added without a reference, in total contravention of Wikipedia policy, when you have a working reliable reference for it, feel free to come back and try again. In the meantime please adhere to Wikipedia policy. Please discuss rather than edit war. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pot/kettle luminosity inversion error? 78.86.202.231 (talk) 10:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Relevance deficit exception. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Venables back in prison

This is breaking news: [13]--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that too. It will be interesting to see if his new identity can be kept off circulation on the web this time around: once his breach lands in parole court I'd be surprised if it doesn't leak somewhere.¨¨¨¨

It is interesting that a spokeswoman in the cite above said: "There is a worldwide injunction in place that prohibits any reporting including reporting on the Internet, that could identify him or his location." And how's that going to work then? Wikipedia had its work cut out trying to prevent the naming of the defendants involved in the Death of Baby P. If something like this gets out on to the message boards, it can become impossible to remove (see also Trafigura). Giving the current names or whereabouts of Thompson and Venables would violate WP:BLPNAME, but other parts of the Internet are not so well regulated.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"Worldwide injunction against naing them" was judicially vague even im the 1990s. today it is little more than words. If the internet server is located in some offshorte country or in Asia, there's very little that can be done and in any case names and locations would spread. It took me just a few minutes to find the name of the guy in Australia who had been claimed to be Thompson after a rape charge a few years ago. Strausszek (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australian claim is covered on the respected urban legends site Snopes, which points out that it was denied by the British High Commission and Australian police.[14] Unlike Baby P, the real names of Thompson and Venables are not widely known and any suggestions are speculation. As for "worldwide injunction", in 2007 it was reported that the UK government prevented an unnamed foreign magazine from naming the boys, but the injunction cannot have been under UK law, which stops at UK borders. This time round, Venables has a fight on his hands to prevent his cover from being blown.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Tweaked the wording slightly. The "worldwide injunction" phrase is sourced to the UK's Ministry of Justice. This Sky news article points out: "The legal bar on identifying them applies in the UK but it would not necessarily apply to magazines overseas." Also, today's Daily Mirror has what it claims is the reason for Venables' recall to prison. Not a WP:RS, but worth a look.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It reads better now. Interesting news item in the Mirror there. A few points:

1. Should Reimprisonment be "Re-imprisonment"?
2. I deleted a recently added unreferenced section alleging Bulger or Venables converted to Islam and lived in Haslingden. Was that a rumour then or just made up vandalism? (On another look it is 'crap' as it wasn't specifically about Venables, and nothing to do with current situation anyway.) But was this reported at all?--220.101.28.25 (talk) 10:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not hugely interested in the Thompson/Australia story in itself but I'd point out that if it were him, then all authorities and his family would deny and point to his prepped documents reaching back to around 1980 as a matter of course. It's just like when an agent is prepared with a scripted identity for the country he will go to, only more thorough. All the relevant papers, school grades etc would be there, listed to the new name. So that kind of denial doesn't really prove anything, it's just what one would expect. Strausszek (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Australia and Islam stories are both WP:CB from the sourcing angle. The spelling "reimprisonment" is OK per the dictionary, although sometimes it is spelled "re-imprisonment". Even on the message boards, there is no current consensus of the new identities/whereabouts of Thompson and Venables. Any attempt to add this information to the article or the talk page will get removed very quickly.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Since he is on licence, there is no chance that he would be allowed to move to oz as it would be impossible to monitor him and there is no chance that they would take him anyway - it's all complete bollocks as mentioned above and should not be mentioned. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for answers ♦IanMacM♦. Have to remember WP:CB (Complete Bollocks!) ;-) for next time! Typical for some one to drag Islam into it! And there is someone else in prison in OZ for the other murder. Anything to do with Venables was surely just early wild media speculation. And we have enough 'pervs' of our own unfortunately. (see Dennis Ferguson for example). I think there were just stupid rumours that Venables might end up here when he was first released. On the spelling, I prefer a hyphen but it's no issue. Also need to keep an eye on stuff about Thompson' allegedly being gay, which another IP is 'soap-boxing' about here below ↓ (as well as edit warring on other articles). Can't see any relevance.--220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a fresh round of "sources claimed yesterday" stories in the tabloids. The Daily Mirror claims that Venables regularly visited Merseyside, which would violate his licence of release. The Sun says that prisoners in the jail where Venables is being held know that he is there, and that he is being held in isolation. Even if true, there are sourcing issues, so this is not ideally suitable for the article.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Another day, another claim. The main story in today's Daily Mail is a claim that Venables worked as a nightclub bouncer [15], although it is unclear whether he was doing this at the time of his recall to prison. The Mail also dismisses the claim that he was involved in a fight at his workplace. The list of unverified claims is becoming rather long, and it is clear that there is no reliably sourced reason for Venables' return to prison.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Albert Kirby

I have changed 'DS Albert Kirby' to 'Detective Superintendent Albert Kirby'. 'DS' is the abbreviation for 'detective sergeant'. BearAllen (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

An excellent edit. We should always spell out abbreviations. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Crucially, it's a completely different rank and, even so, it seems unreasonable to expect foreign readers to be familiar with British police abbreviations.

I haven't the time to do it now, but reading the article yesterday I noticed a number of spelling and punctuation errors which need fixing and, more importantly, quite a number of things are repeated/duplicated. Hopefully, someone with the time and inclination can go through it and edit/re-write some of the passages. BearAllen (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thompson

Should the article mention that he is a homosexual? (92.14.250.86 (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Is that relevant or verifiable? As this article isn't a biography of any of the people involved, I don't think it's worthy of mention (even if it's true)... matt (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It might explain why he murdered James. He has been living with another man for several years. (92.14.250.86 (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

Indeed it might, if you're an illogical homophobe.77.99.151.39 (talk) 02:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Has something been published on this? We can't draw our own conclusions or speculate. matt (talk) 11:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2}Relevance?, reference?, source? See WP:BLP and WP:NOT. Matt maybe we should just delete this 'unconstructive' comment --220.101.28.25 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Thompson was outed as a homosexual in 2006. (92.14.250.86 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

This article, by the Mail, said they revealed in 2006 he was homosexual and living with a male partner: One more kick in the face: Bulger family's fury that killer Jon Venables was sent back to jail for 'drugs and workplace brawl However, the article appears to have had that info removed this morning. Jim Michael (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty more references online. (92.14.250.86 (talk) 11:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

'Thompson is said to be living with a gay partner' James Bulger's mother: killer Jon Venables is 'where he belongs' The Times is a reliable source, but is 'said to be' enough to add it to the article? It also says that unconfirmed reports in The Daily Mail say Venables is a born-again Christian. Jim Michael (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

A born-again Christian who uses drugs? (92.14.250.86 (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC))

LMAO. I once read this interview with a student politician (conservative) who said emphatically "we need more scout morals and chivalry in society!" and a few lines later he declared he was a principled liberal when it came to sex and drugs. Strausszek (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether he is a homosexual, it makes no addition to the article as stated. And also we should not put anything from those articles as there is no Government clarification that he took drugs and are all rumours, if you read it clearly you can see it is a rumour and not facts. Wikipedia uses facts not fiction, and at the mo that is fiction, we don;t know why he was put in jail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.19.182 (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)