Re: James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison

Guest Sun 7 Mar - 0:37

March 2010 04:49am

James Bulger killer Jon Venables was taken back into custody after he was accused of committing a sex crime, it has been reported.
It was initially reported that Venables, 27, was recalled to prison after a fight at work but the Sun reported that was untrue.

It reported it had uncovered the "exact details" of the alleged offence but was unable to publish them in full because it might lead to Venables' new identity being uncovered.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw said the recall to custody involved some "extremely serious allegations" as he prepared to meet the dead boy's mother.

Denise Fergus has demanded to know what the convicted murderer did to be sent back to prison and she is expected to meet Mr Straw in the coming days.

Justifying his decision not to disclose details of the recall, Mr Straw said: "Our motivation throughout has been solely to ensure that some extremely serious allegations are properly investigated and that justice is done.

"No-one in this country would want anything other. That is what the authorities remain determined to do."

Venables was released in 2001 on licence with a new identity after serving eight years for the infamous murder of two-year-old James.

He and his friend Robert Thompson were just 10 when they battered the little boy to death in Liverpool.

Venables was recalled to custody last week for breaching his licence terms, which included conditions not to travel to the city or contact his accomplice.

bootsy Sun 7 Mar - 0:49

My daughter in law's father(now retired)was Chief Constable at the time of James Bulger's murder,and just from some details from her which are far too gruesome to print,in my opinnion these two will never be rehabillitated.Now that one of them has broken the rules of their licence they should be returned to adult prison (which will be new to him)and he should serve his remaining day's of life there.I would only be to glad to know my taxes are keeping a deranged and evil person from society.

Guest Sun 7 Mar - 1:01

bootsy wrote:My daughter in law's father(now retired)was Chief Constable at the time of James Bulger's murder,and just from some details from her which are far too gruesome to print,in my opinnion these two will never be rehabillitated.Now that one of them has broken the rules of their licence they should be returned to adult prison (which will be new to him)and he should serve his remaining day's of life there.I would only be to glad to know my taxes are keeping a deranged and evil person from society.

A rep point for you bootsy.....thanks for that info. I agree whole-heartedly. I always thought those boys knew what they were doing....and enjoyed it too :-(

**AnnaEsse** Sun 7 Mar - 9:35

Sky News

"Bulger Killer Recalled Over Child Porn Claim."

"Jon Venables, the killer of toddler James Bulger, was sent back to jail on suspected child porn offences, it has been reported."

"The Sunday Mirror claims probation chiefs revoked Venables' licence once the allegations had been made, but ministers have refused to reveal the exact reasons.

The 27-year-old was recalled to prison last week after what Justice Secretary Jack Straw described as "extremely serious allegations".

Venables was controversially released on life licence in 2001 with a new identity after serving eight years for the toddler's murder.

James's mother Denise Fergus believes Venables should lose his anonymity if he is charged with new offences.

Her spokesman Chris Johnson said: "If after that, depending on the outcome of the court case, the powers that be decide that he should have some new identity yet again, then we'll deal with that when we come to it.

"But she can't understand why he doesn't appear in a dock under his own name, if that's going to be where he ends up."

"Mrs Fergus does not believe Venables should be at liberty and should have served closer to 15 years.

"In her mind, if there has been an offence committed, it means that that could have been avoided," Mr Johnson said.

If Venables returns to court it could cause a potential security nightmare for the authorities trying to preserve his lifelong anonymity order.

Jack Straw, the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions have all said revealing Venables' new identity would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process and could prevent prosecution.

David Blunkett, who advised in support of Venables' release in 2001, wrote in the News of the World today that the Government must not unveil Venables' new identity.

"The Government cannot and must not bend on this - not least because if Venables has committed a further crime, then that victim and their family deserve their day in court," he said."

"Mrs Fergus has demanded to know why Venables was put back in jail, and is meeting Mr Straw this week.

She only found out about Venables' recall on Tuesday shortly before the news became public.

She told a newspaper that when a probation officer told her she "threw question after question at her, but she blocked every one".

"My fear was that he'd hurt another child, or any human being," she said.

"I just don't want anyone else hurt by Venables or Thompson. I wanted to know that he hadn't done to someone else what he did to James and me.

"All kinds of horrible thoughts were going through my head, and they still are because no one will tell me what he's done. It's wrong - as James's mother, I have a right to know."

"Venables and his accomplice Robert Thompson were just 10 when they battered two-year-old James to death in Liverpool 17 years ago.

They were both released on lifelong licence in 2001, requiring them to obey strict conditions such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.

Reports last week said Venables has visited nightclubs and a pop concert in Liverpool and even watched Premier League side Everton at Goodison Park.

He was also reported to have worked as a nightclub bouncer and had a history of drug abuse."

If this is true, then Jon Venables has not been rehabilitated and does not have the resources or the willingness to change. Rehabilitation implies a return to a former positive state, but I would question whether Venables ever had the mindset to be a decent human being being and out there in civilised society.

Smudge Sun 7 Mar - 10:27

A friend of mine worked where one of them (can't remember which) was held.
He was a total nightmare, he would wreck his room, break his tv and playstation and what did they do? Just go and get him another one James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison - Page 2 157799

James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison - Page 2 157799

They weren't punished or rehabilitated, they were rewarded for killing that poor innocent child.

**AnnaEsse** Sun 7 Mar - 10:43

Smudge wrote:A friend of mine worked where one of them (can't remember which) was held.
He was a total nightmare, he would wreck his room, break his tv and playstation and what did they do? Just go and get him another one
They weren't punished or rehabilitated, they were rewarded for killing that poor innocent child.

One of them, and I can't recall which either, was held in a detention centre about 11 miles from where I live. Recently, I met up with someone who had worked there and heard a very similar story. I have also worked in similar places and have been appalled by the placatory behaviour of staff. It never got to the point where young people just had to do without. They got the adolescent equivalent of a dummy stuck in the mouth: they got things and replacement things to keep them quiet for as long as possible. I don't blame the staff or the management who made those decisions. They recognised that most of the young people were not going to change, that someone who had reached the age at which they could be confined to a secure unit, whose behaviour had taken them inexorably through worsening degrees of violence, was probably just going to be contained for the duration of their sentence.

**kitti** Sun 7 Mar - 10:52

Do you think venebles is sorry...NO.

Do you think he has been REHABILITATED...NO.

Do you think he will EVER be sorry...NO

Do you think he will EVER be rehabilitated...NO

LOCK THE BASTARD UP...HES EVEN BEEN BOASTING ABOUT WHAT HE DID...EVIL TO THE CORE.

JUST LOOK AT HIS EYES.....

**AnnaEsse** Sun 7 Mar - 11:01

kitti wrote:Do you think venebles is sorry...NO.

Do you think he has been REHABILITATED...NO.

Do you think he will EVER be sorry...NO

Do you think he will EVER be rehabilitated...NO

LOCK THE BASTARD UP...HES EVEN BEEN BOASTING ABOUT WHAT HE DID...EVIL TO THE CORE.

JUST LOOK AT HIS EYES.....

Kitti, I have tried to recognise or put a name to emotion in the younger Venables' face. Does he look angry? No. Distressed? No. Lost and bewildered like a child of his age might, being put through the process of logging and charging at a police station? No. So what? I arrived at self-satisfied, smug, couldn't care less.

Guest Sun 7 Mar - 20:51

The UK police have an online chat forum where they are discussing this case: http://www.ukpoliceonline.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=40741&hl=

Guest Sun 7 Mar - 21:10

It's going to get even more interesting on Twitter:

KeirSimmonsITV

ITV News was told yesterday about allegations that Jon Venables had indecent images of children, we decided not to broadcast. Were we right?

Added:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-alleged-child-porn-offences

Guest Sun 7 Mar - 21:53

Government refuses to comment on reports that killer of James Bulger was recalled over alleged child pornography offences

* Peter Walker
* guardian.co.uk, Sunday 7 March 2010 12.39 GMT

Ministers faced increasing pressure today to release details about offences allegedly committed by one of James Bulger's killers, following a report that he was returned to prison in connection with child pornography offences.

The claim, in the Sunday Mirror, follows separate allegations that Jon Venables, now 27, who was released on licence in 2001 and given a new name, had become mentally fragile. According to other reports, he has been known to drink heavily and use drugs, and has revealed his true identity to others.

A ministry of justice spokesman said: "We cannot confirm or deny anything with regards to this."

James's mother, Denise Fergus, is calling for the government to confirm Venables's alleged offence and for him to appear in court under his own name. She is to meet the justice secretary, Jack Straw, this week.

Straw has said only that Venables was recalled to prison due to "extremely serious allegations", refusing to give further details.

He was supported today by fellow ministers, who warned that discussions of Venables's alleged misdeed could jeopardise any future legal proceedings, and that he would find it impossible to get a fair trial if his past was revealed in court.

Harriet Harman, the leader of the Commons, told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "We don't want anything to happen whereby they can't be brought to a trial because it is said that they can't get a fair trial because all the media reporting has been prejudiced."

The children's secretary, Ed Balls, told Sky News: "A society where politicians make those kinds of decisions would be the wrong kind of society."

He added: "It was right for people to try rehabilitation but the first thing always has to be making sure the public are safe."

The government's stance has been broadly backed by the opposition, although the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, said a "drip drip" release of news about Venables could be extremely difficult for James's parents.

He also questioned whether Venables had been properly supervised, telling Sky: "He appears to have been – if even half of the newspaper stories are true – able to act in a way that most if us would think is inconsistent with the actions of somebody that's supposed to be under the supervision of the state."

Venables and Robert Thompson, then aged 10, lured two-year-old James away from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, in February 1993, and battered him to death. Under the terms of their release, they must adhere to a series of strict conditions, including that they never make contact with each other or return to Liverpool.

At the time of the trial, Venables was viewed as the more hopeful case for rehabilitation, because he was apparently more remorseful than his co-accused.

The decision of the trial judge, Mr Justice Morland, to let the killers be named was criticised by some observers, who pointed out that such was their notoriety this would simply mean their having to be given new identities on their release.

Earlier this year, the judge who sentenced two brothers who tortured and sexually humiliated a pair of younger children in Edlington, South Yorkshire – a case with several parallels to the Bulger killing – opted to maintain the attackers' anonymity.

The Bulger trial heard nothing about any sexual element to the murder, although this was something considered by investigators.

A 2006 Home Office report by a group of leading child and adolescent psychiatrists found a strong correlation between sexually abusive behaviour in children and personality disorders which can lead to serious criminal behaviour.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/mar/07/jon-venables-alleged-child-porn-offences

Guest Mon 8 Mar - 8:50

Bulger killer Jon Venables accused over hoard of 'vile' child pornography

Brian Flynn and John Kay From: NewsCore March 08, 2010 4:35PM

James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison - Page 2 420370-jon-venables

James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison - Page 2 420370-jon-venables

20/02/1993 Police handout photo dated Feb 20 1993 of Jon Venables, made available June 22 2001. Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, who were ten when they tortured and killed 2-year-old James Bulger in Bootle, northern England , will be released, the government announced Friday June 22, 2001, despite a long campaign by the toddler's mother to keep them behind bars. Both young men now 18, will be given new identities, which a judge has barred the British media from disclosing. (AP Photo) UK OUT Source: AP

JAMES Bulger's killer Jon Venables was locked back up amid allegations he was hoarding child pornography rated only one category below Britain's most serious.

Police seized a laptop after a search at the home of the 27-year-old, who was freed with a new identity after serving time for the murder of two-year-old James in 1993.

Officers who examined the computer allegedly discovered sickening images rated at Category Four on an official legal scale of one to five.

The involvement of police who conducted the search triggered an alert that notified one of the 10 officials aware who he really was, The Sun reported.

And probation chiefs revoked his licence as soon as the shocking nature of the material became clear.

Experts say Venables may now face the rest of his life behind bars.

Mike Hames, former head of Scotland Yard's paedophile unit, said: "All child pornography is serious, but Category Four images are particularly vile.

"They are among the most serious and depraved images of child pornography it is possible to possess and involve an element of sexual violence against children.

"Given this individual's background, that must clearly be a huge concern to the authorities."

Pedophiles convicted of possessing Category Four child porn face up to five years behind bars and a minimum two-year sentence.

But experts said the contents of the images were so serious that Venables risked being locked up for life as he was out on "life license".

The police search was said to have been triggered by worries over Venables' behavior. Sources said he had already sparked concerns by daily abuses of drugs and alcohol.

The Justice Department and Probation Service have refused to disclose the nature of the new allegations against him.

Venables and cohort Robert Thompson were just 10 when they led James from a shopping centre in Bootle, Merseyside, and tortured him to death.

The pair were convicted of murder in November 1993 with a recommendation that they serve at least eight years.

That was increased to 17 on appeal but reduced again to eight by the European Court, which condemned their "inhuman and degrading treatment in an adult court".

Once 18, the pair were freed on special licence under new identities at huge public expense in 2001 after ministers assured the public they had been rehabilitated.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/world/bulger-killer-jon-venables-accused-over-hoard-of-vile-child-pornography/story-e6frf7lf-1225838318911

Guest Mon 8 Mar - 9:45

James Bulger’s father Ralph vented his disgust yesterday at news that his murderer Jon Venables is back in jail for an alleged sex crime.

Venables, now 27, could soon be charged with a serious offence that could keep him behind bars for at least two years.

But Ralph, 43, made clear his revulsion that Venables and Robert Thompson – aged 10 when they battered James, two, to death – had ever been granted freedom.

He said: “Once evil, always evil and I have never felt any differently about Venables or Thompson.

“They will never care how much they hurt people and destroy lives.

“I am sickened to the stomach to hear Venables is back in jail for an alleged sex offence.

“If he’s guilty, I’m horrified to think another family faces a lifetime of torture because he was free to hurt more innocent victims. But I can’t say that I am surprised.

“This is why we never wanted either of these twisted and vicious killers released in the first place.”

Justice Secretary Jack Straw has admitted the sex allegations against Venables reported in yesterday’s Sunday Mirror – are “extremely serious”. The Daily Mirror is banned from revealing their precise details.

Last night sources indicated the killer may be given yet another false ID before any court case.

Reports have suggested Venables has himself been revealing his true identity. It has also been claimed his alias had been blown at the jail where he is currently held.

National probation officers’ spokesman Harry Fletcher said: “It’s an extremely difficult position for the authorities.

“If they go ahead with court proceedings it could undermine his anonymity. But the fact he’s disclosing his identity means giving him another becomes almost inevitable.”

However, James’s mum Denise Fergus, 42, insisted Venables should no longer be shielded by anonymity.

Her spokesman said: “She can’t understand why he doesn’t appear in a dock under his own name, if that’s where he ends up.

“She’s appalled. She doesn’t think he should be at liberty anyway.” Denise is due to meet Mr Straw this week.

The Mirror last week told how Venables has defied a ban on returning to his native Merseyside to have booze and drugs sprees.

Psychiatrist Ian Cumming said: “Double lives are a burden for people and the secrecy takes its toll.”

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2010/03/08/james-bulger-s-dad-ralph-hits-out-as-killer-jon-venables-faces-sex-crime-probe-115875-22093407/

**margaret** Mon 8 Mar - 10:30

Well it gets worse. This is simply appalling. I read the article in the Mail on Sunday yesterday where someone who worked in the detention centre with Robert Thomson was held gave his story, basically Thomson was treated with kid gloves, loved his infamy and played up to it. He never showed any remorse, never cried despite watching the endless news bulletins throughout his trial. The detention centre had thousands upon thousands of pounds of taxpayers money thrown at it while he was there, it was felt that his rehabilitation HAD to work or there would be outcry from the general public.

Well, if it was that cushy for Thomson it must have been for Veneables and now years later we can see that a 'softly softly' approach DID NOT work, so this must be kept from the general public.....

When are those in charge going to realise that someone in jail/detention centres should not have computers, wii's, playstations etc? I believe prisoners are there to be denied such liberties we take for granted, well if we work to earn enough money for them! Rehabilitation needs looking at because it is not working for some and this needs to be addressed.

I feel desperately sorry for Denise Fergus and her family who have to fight for everything when they are the victims. It is not right that Veneables and Thomson know Denises face but she does not know what they look like now, that puts her at a disadvantage should they ever wish to confront her.

They should have been kept behind bars for LIFE, they knew what they were doing and had ample opportunity to stop and leave James somewhere safe. They sicken me to the core.

**fedrules** Mon 8 Mar - 17:44

I'm sure I won't be popular, but I was against these two boys serving life sentences. They grew up in abusive homes, with no guidance or discipline and probably little affection. They were only 10 when they committed this dreadful crime. Of course I feel terribly sorry for Jamie's family, but I also have some pity for Thompson and Venebles because I don't believe anyone is inherently evil. Something must have made them capable of this awful crime. Upbringing or mental illness or a combination of both.
However, after the chances Venebles was given to reform which he has obviously not taken, I feel he should now face a long sentence.

Guest Mon 8 Mar - 18:44

fedrules wrote:I'm sure I won't be popular, but I was against these two boys serving life sentences. They grew up in abusive homes, with no guidance or discipline and probably little affection. They were only 10 when they committed this dreadful crime. Of course I feel terribly sorry for Jamie's family, but I also have some pity for Thompson and Venebles because I don't believe anyone is inherently evil. Something must have made them capable of this awful crime. Upbringing or mental illness or a combination of both.
However, after the chances Venebles was given to reform which he has obviously not taken, I feel he should now face a long sentence.

You are right in that they did have an appalling upbringing which is a sad reflection on our society and while I agree that rehabilitation should always be an option, I cannot for the life of me see how eight years was ever going to be enough time. It was an insignificant punishment for a highly significant crime.

Had the Home Secretary of the day been successful, the boys, once turned eighteen, would have served some time in an adult prison, for which they should have been prepped for. Instead the 'one size fits all' approach to rehabilitation has been applied.

How can either boy repent, having not been punished? Venables cannot live with the burden of what he has done, so why should everyone else?

**kitti** Mon 8 Mar - 19:47

Sorry dont agree with you.

Plenty off kids grow up the same way as them and they dont go out and murder people.

This was a planned murder, they tried half hour before james to abduct another child but the mother chased them off, so dont blame upbringing, thats too easy.

THERE EVIL BASTARDS...PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Guest Mon 8 Mar - 20:22

kitti wrote:Sorry dont agree with you.

Plenty off kids grow up the same way as them and they dont go out and murder people.

This was a planned murder, they tried half hour before james to abduct another child but the mother chased them off, so dont blame upbringing, thats too easy.

THERE EVIL BASTARDS...PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

Don't agree with what Kitti? My post? I don't blame the upbringing - although I think it was a contributory factor.

I blame the so called 'rehabilitation'. What applies to one crime doesn't necessary apply to another which is the biggest error that was made. This was a heinous crime and yes, I agree, they knew full well what they were dong.

jypsybear Mon 8 Mar - 20:29

I think at ten years old a child is capable of knowing what is right or wrong. They took a life and must have realised exactly what they were doing. Whatever took place that day they are guilty, and in my mind never ever to be trusted.
Sorry but if this had happened to one of mine , i too could never forgive

**AnnaEsse** Mon 8 Mar - 21:19

jypsybear wrote:I think at ten years old a child is capable of knowing what is right or wrong. They took a life and must have realised exactly what they were doing. Whatever took place that day they are guilty, and in my mind never ever to be trusted.
Sorry but if this had happened to one of mine , i too could never forgive

I couldn't forgive. God can forgive such evil, but I can't.

I have looked up "rehabilitation," since the "re-" part indicates some kind of return.

"Definition

Rehabilitation is a treatment or treatments designed to facilitate the process of recovery from injury, illness, or disease to as normal a condition as possible."

So, recovery to as near normal a state as possible. I wonder if Jon Venables was ever in what I might consider a state that would be somewhere along the spectrum of "normal," i.e., functioning as an ordinary, everyday person, behaving within social/emotional bounds that a civilised society might expect. Judging by Venables' behaviour before the Jamie Bulger murder, his "normal," was probably not what most of us would find acceptable. There is a drawing of his on the Daily Mail web site, which he did a few weeks before he and Thompson abducted Jamie. It's quite frightening, so much so that I just didn't even want to copy it.

Guest Mon 8 Mar - 21:54

He (Robert Thompson) also became adept at ‘burning’ music CDs which he would sell to staff and other children for £1 each.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html#ixzz0hcl7DMas

Is this legal???? Oh sorry, this is rehab.

'All the children received about £60 a month in clothing allowances and spending money. On birthdays, they’d get £25. And at Christmas they’d give us present lists and we’d go and buy what was on them, if it was within reason.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html#ixzz0hclesivv

Funded by the taxpayer, of course. Clothing allowance?????? Was this part of their Human Rights?? Just as well they were inside - if they were at home, I doubt very much if they would have received this amount of spends.

**AnnaEsse** Tue 9 Mar - 6:09

Maelstrom wrote:
He (Robert Thompson) also became adept at ‘burning’ music CDs which he would sell to staff and other children for £1 each.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html#ixzz0hcl7DMas

Is this legal???? Oh sorry, this is rehab.

'All the children received about £60 a month in clothing allowances and spending money. On birthdays, they’d get £25. And at Christmas they’d give us present lists and we’d go and buy what was on them, if it was within reason.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html#ixzz0hclesivv

Funded by the taxpayer, of course. Clothing allowance?????? Was this part of their Human Rights?? Just as well they were inside - if they were at home, I doubt very much if they would have received this amount of spends.

When I worked in residential care, paying a resident for music CDs or anything else would have been called "entering into a business relationship," and was totally against the rules. (I did this work 1998-2002)

Guest Tue 9 Mar - 6:31

AnnaEsse wrote:
Maelstrom wrote:
He (Robert Thompson) also became adept at ‘burning’ music CDs which he would sell to staff and other children for £1 each.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html#ixzz0hcl7DMas

Is this legal???? Oh sorry, this is rehab.

'All the children received about £60 a month in clothing allowances and spending money. On birthdays, they’d get £25. And at Christmas they’d give us present lists and we’d go and buy what was on them, if it was within reason.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1256109/Robert-Thompson-Social-worker-looked-James-Bulger-killer-speaks.html#ixzz0hclesivv

Funded by the taxpayer, of course. Clothing allowance?????? Was this part of their Human Rights?? Just as well they were inside - if they were at home, I doubt very much if they would have received this amount of spends.

When I worked in residential care, paying a resident for music CDs or anything else would have been called "entering into a business relationship," and was totally against the rules. (I did this work 1998-2002)

As it should be AnnaEsse - there's also the small matter of copyright infringement, and this is rehabilitation??

**kitti** Wed 10 Mar - 12:11

CHILD killer Jon Venables only posed a "trivial" risk to the public, according to a psychiatric report made just before he was let out of prison

I think perhaps this pratt off a psychiatrist should live with him!

Guest Sat 13 Mar - 22:17

9:32pm UK, Saturday March 13, 2010

Alison Chung and Tom Bonnett, Sky News Online

The mother of James Bulger has called for a senior government adviser to be sacked after she described the toddler's killing as "exceptionally unpleasant".
Children's Commissioner for England Maggie Atkinson made the remark while explaining why she thought James's 10-year-old killers should never have been prosecuted.

"What they did was exceptionally unpleasant and the fact that a little boy ended up dead is not something the nation can easily forget, but they shouldn't have been tried in an adult court because they were still children," she said.

James's mother Denise Fergus demanded an apology over the comments she described as "twisted and insensitive", adding Dr Atkinson should then "resign or be sacked".

"To describe the murder of James as 'unpleasant' is an insult to his memory, and a downright lie," she told the Mercury Press.

"What they did to James was completely inhuman and to try to say it was 'unpleasant' is outrageous.

"To say that James 'ended up dead' is callous and almost makes it sound like an accident. I am furious about the way she has described his murder."

Venables was 10 at time of killing

Dr Atkinson, who was appointed to the post last autumn, called for the age of criminal responsibility to be raised from 10 to 12 years old.

A civilised society should recognise that children who commit offences should be treated differently from adult criminals, she told The Times.

But the Government said the age of criminal responsibility would not be raised.

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We believe that children aged 10 and over can differentiate between bad behaviour and serious wrongdoing.

"We do not intend to raise the age of criminal responsibility. It is not in the interests of justice, of victims, or the young people themselves, to prevent serious offending being challenged."

Dr Atkinson's comments came after Ms Fergus met Justice Secretary Jack Straw to discuss the return to custody of her two-year-old son's killer Jon Venables.

Mr Straw has refused to confirm the details of why Venables was returned to prison.

Denise Fergus wants apology

Dr Atkinson insisted Venables and Robert Thompson, who were charged in 1993 with the James's murder, needed to be in a contained environment like a youth justice facility and given programmes to help them turn their lives around.

Venables' breaking of the terms of his "life licence" which saw him recalled to custody should actually help to force a debate on the effectiveness of the current system, she said.

But Ms Fergus claimed Dr Atkinson was factually incorrect in saying that James's killers should have taken programmes to turn their lives around rather than being jailed.

She said: "They never spent a day in jail. They were sent to children's homes where they were given kid glove treatment, computer games and the best of everything. They were rewarded for murder and left thinking they had got away with it.

"I so believe in the possibility of rehabilitation. But for it to have a chance of working the offender first needs to face proper punishment for the crime and that is exactly what Thompson and Venables never had.

"The fact that Venables has been accused of breaching his parole shows that all the programmes he was put on did not change him inside. He should have been punished and perhaps now that will happen."

Sponsored content

James Bulger murderer Jon Venables returned to prison