You have to laugh… the Tories are spending a fortune shoring up the idea that they are supporting the NHS and then the Young Britons Foundation pops up in the form of their Chief Executive, Donal Blaney – a lawyer – with talk of waterboarding, shooting down environmental protesters and another spokesman saying the NHS is the biggest waste of time in the UK.
See also: The next stunt? – A Tory ‘ Madrasa’… a Madrasa? Mon Dieu!
Many Tories, deny that there is anything sinister about the YBF and I accept that we are not dealing here with a group of crypto-fascists with muscle spasm problems in their right arms – but, clearly, the views expressed by Donal Blaney are a bit ‘right of sanity’ if he is not joking about waterboarding being acceptable.
The Tories are scrambling to disassociate themselves with the YBF – but they do have a bit of a problem…according to The Guardian they appear to be outsourcing training to the YBF at a cost of ‘hundreds of pounds per person’. Of course… it is possible (and in the minds of some Tories..probably a certainty) that The Guardian is putting the boot into the YBF for ‘political reasons’.
The Guardian noted: “A spokesman for the Conservative party said people attend YBF courses of their own volition and they are not financially supported by the party.
Conservative Central Office would not comment on whether the planned YBF training courses being promoted by Conservative Future will go ahead in the light of the revelations.”
Jon Venables and the Rule of Law
Our country may, according to Cameron et al, be ‘broken’, our country may be ‘broke’, our country may be dysfunctional and populated with venal, self important, self serving and selfish people – an apocalyptic vision made manifest each day by the Sun and The Daily Mail – but, thankfully they are in the minority.
I cannot begin to imagine the pain and misery suffered by Jamie Bulger’s mother and father – few have suffered the horror of having a child murdered, far more intense arguably than accidental death or even honourable death in military service and only those who have suffered such loss, truly, can even begin to understand and empathise meaningfully. I do not, however, support the view taken by Jamie Bulger’s parents and 70,000 others who have signed The Sun’s petition that they have a right to know every detail about Jon Venables. The principle of a fair trial trumps such individual rights and misery – for otherwise we return to the law of the lynch mob and not , as former DPP Sir Ken Macdonald QC states...” (the) steely progress of a criminal case to its just conclusion, whether that is conviction or acquittal.”
There is every prospect, if Venables’ identity is revealed – that some vigilante or criminal in prison will exact ‘ extra-judicial justice’ whether by throwing hot sugar water over Venables or worse, killing him – for the glory of being applauded as a hero by those who seek justice through the lynch mob’s rope.
I’m with Sir ken Macdonald QC on this…he writes: “None of us, of course, owns the truth in any of this. But we may suspect that, since he has been returned to jail, Jon Venables could have done something sufficiently serious to face trial in the future. And what if there are others to be tried alongside him? It is a racing certainty they will argue that any case must be abandoned if the jury has an inkling about their companion in crime. It would be a shame if a tabloid conclusion that this young man has done something awfully wrong turns out to be true and yet he can never be tried because a couple of editors were too blind to our system of justice to see how they might frustrate it.”
Today’s story for Editors eager to please and appease could well lead to far greater injustice. There was a quote on twitter yesterday to the effect… “They should have hung them when they were 10. Killing children is wrong” Ignoring the unintended irony in such a quote… that, it would seem, is a very common view – but they do say that if there was ever a referendum on the death penalty in Britain – the majority would bring back the rope. I would not. Flawed though our system of justice is (and probably always will be in an imperfect society) – it is by far better than the rule of the mob.
Couldn’t agree more on the Venables point. Yesterday I was in Sainsburys when a woman was looking at the headline in The Sun, speculating about the seriousness of the offence he is alleged to have committed. Her husband/partner commented: “It’s disgusting – that boy should go to the gallows”. Note the use of the word ‘boy’.
Tightly argued, reasonable & therefore unlikely to appeal to some of the people who might derive great benefit from reading it.
I strongly agree with this although I sympathise with a sense of unease that the erosion of our freedom & civil rights is starting to make a nonsense of the usual (comforting) bromide that perceived injustices or anomalies are the price of living in a democracy that may have its flaws but is so far better than any other system that has been implemented.
I also wonder just how serious the majority of people actually are about hanging anyone. I’m too young to remember the Bulger killing (the first time round, at least) but I’m more than young enough to remember the “yeah, I’ve totally had lots of sex with lots of people” stage of teenageism, are people just saying it because killing children is bad and you’ve got to do something?
I think it’s very easy to make a socially uncontroversial statement and then just forget about it. People swoop in, say hanging’s too good for them and just go about their normal lives again. There’s a lot of evidence that if you want to be sure about something you should avoid learning about it.
I agree that no information should be released on Mr Venables. Jack Straw was correct yesterday in what he said. There are a few issues that concern me.
Why did the Trial Judge disclose both boys names? I abhor the naming of children by the Courts. Regardless of the offence, children can be rehabilitated and are entitled to privacy. I do not think this should be permitted in law.
No account has been given to the difficulties both boys would have experienced on release. They were locked up in their formative years and were likely to make errors of judgement on release. It also seems apparent that the pressure of living under an assumed name away from the community you were brought up in has not fully been acknowledged.
I also agree with you that our system cannot be determined by the grief of victims. I have every sympathy with Jamie Bulger’s parents and hope they can move on with their lives. The child’s mother indicated that she had removed her children from school because of recent events which seems wrong to me. Hm….. One does wonder about the role of victim’s in the criminal justice system. We do our best to ensure their views are taken into account. However, there must be no part in our system for revenge. Somehow, that concept is dominating the coverage of the recall of Mr Venables and of the victim’s family.
If the pressure on Mr Venables was so great that he has apparently resorted to the use of alcohol or drugs or felt the need to disclose his identity, then this indicates to me that he may well be unfit for any trial. Would this be acceptable to the red top press? I do not necessarily accept the press reports. I do not believe any life sentence prisoner who had addiction problems would be permitted to remain in the community by the Probation Service. The importance of public protection and bringing the life licence/parole board into disrepute is given greater weight than the needs of the individual.
I think this case is disturbing. It was a heinous crime but the perpetrators were children. Even after ten years, the media coverage and outrageous comment leaves me more disturbed than the actual offence.
I agree with your item regarding Venables. I note that Jack Straw has now ordered some form of inquiry into the supervision which Venables received. Unfortunately, one problem with Straw is that every time he speaks he lets people think that more information will be released. For instance, when first interviewed on TV he used the words “at the moment” and in Parliament he said that he had given active thought to releasing more information but concluded that it would “not presently” be in the interests of justice.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article7054559.ece
Baroness Butler- Sloss got it right. If his identity is ever revealed there are those who will kill him. The State has an obligation under Article 2 to do what is reasonable to protect him. That’s the rule of law in operation.
At the risk of joining Boris Johnson on the naughty step, is this not another case of scouser chav-itis ? Never miss an opportunity to swarm around a camera and moan, whinge and be indignant (just so long as it doesn’t clash with signing on).
When watching these endless street interviews with outraged gap toothed Scouser retards, I long for Liverpool to have just one equivalent to Dr Swire.