treat the criminals like princes and the people like criminals

In 1993, at the age of ten, John Venables and John Thompson grabbed James Bulger, two, from a Liverpool shopping centre and battered him to death.

They never served any time in jail.

The British government gave them new identities and freed them in 2001.

So from 1993 to 2001 they were in the state's care, being rehabilitated. And since then, they have been doing what, exactly? Well no one except for a handful of top people know their true identities, so who knows what they've been up to. Just a few high level people.

Perhaps they are considered assets in the effort to create a police state, hmm? Perhaps they have been running about committing crimes, known to the police and protected, since crimes justify ever-greater police power, hmm?

Venables has just been arrested, allegedly for attacking a work colleague.
Last night, it was claimed the 27-year-old had been recalled after attacking a work colleague.

A source told the Daily Mirror that the pair grappled before others intervened and pulled them apart. His alleged victim is said to have made an official complaint about the attack which led to Venables's suspension from his job.

And it was alleged that in December 2008 Venables was arrested by police after being seen taking cocaine in an alleyway with another man.

It was claimed he was later let off with a caution. The Ministry of Justice refused to comment on the claims today. As few as eight officials were said to know the precise reason why the killer has been returned to jail, although ministers privately briefed the Tories and Liberal Democrats to explain what had happened.
...Few details are known about Venables since his release but he is believed to have been involved in several aggression-related incidents.

In 2007 unconfirmed reports suggested Venables was to marry a pretty office worker he started dating two years earlier.  He was then taken to hospital for emergency surgery after violence flared in the street when a man tried to chat up his girlfriend.

In 2003, both Venables and Thompson were believed to have been treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death.

But Venables's attitude was so bad that frustrated police minders threw him across the bonnet of a car  -  and threatened to leave him chained to a lamp-post in Liverpool to teach him a lesson.

Who has sprung to his defense, citing the Rule of Law? Gordon Brow, that paragon of virtue.

'What matters here is that the justice system is allowed to run its course and that justice is done, whatever wrongs are committed. The justice system must be allowed to take the action that is necessary. That is what people would expect and that is what is going to happen.'

Oh yes. They love to invoke the Rule of Law when it's convenient to remind people about the Rule of Law.

Venables will be represented at a hearing by a Mr. Bhatt Murphy. What did Venables do? They just can't say.

A senior probation source told the Mail: 'You don't recall a prisoner after 16 years of very expensive rehabilitation unless it is something serious.'  The source said that the chances of Venables 'remaining undetected' whilst in prison were 'very small'. 'Hitherto there were only a handful of people involved in his care: a probation officer, a senior probation officer, a police officer and someone at the Ministry of Justice.

'Now he is in the prison service the likelihood of him becoming compromised has increased significantly. He will almost certainly need a new identity when he is released.'

Aha, so despite the presumption that he has done something serious this time, which they can't talk about, they expect him to be released again, and he will get another new identity. In addition to the last one, which has cost the UK taxpayers dearly.


This is the Justice System in the UK. I wrote about the crime problems in the UK specifically here and here.

1. That the UK is allegedly run by a ring of Masonic criminals: (original source has been removed)

The UK is currently being run by a Masonic group who consider themselves untouchable. These people are often high end criminals who use their Freemasonry links to hide their illegal activities.

These untouchables include drug dealers, pimps, murderers, and gangsters. They have Masonic links to UK police and security services. For example, if a dirty job is required,the criminal gangs will happily carry it out allowing it to be completely deniable to security service and the police. In the event that the criminal gangs require a blind eye or even assistance, security services and the police are very happy to become involved.

In fact, I have specific evidence of the activities of these people and the line between untouchable criminals, MI5 and the police is often blurred: Police and MI5 acting as criminals for the criminals, criminals doing "Favours" for the police. This level of corruption runs through the justice system, lawyers, politicians and much of local government.
The links these untouchables have enabled them to commit murder, drug trafficking, and any other heinous crime you can think of with the collusion of masonic police officers, judges, politicians and lawyers.

...The willingness or obligation from officials at all levels to assist these people comes from two directions. The Freemasonry oath to help "Brothers" before anything else; and the fact that once you cross the line and help these people, you then become their property. These "Untouchables" with the right connections can call on assistance from the very top. When orders come through, those carrying out the dirty work will often believe they are just doing their job. This means these untouchable criminals can do anything and will tell you if you happen to become their target. This network of senior freemasons is unknown to the lower ranks who willingly comply to orders. 

2. The probable meaning and purpose of letting criminals off with a caution:

Somebody always has a good explanation, don't they. So let's cut through the bullshit. GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES, that means the politicians, gave the POLICE greater power to help them deal with crime "more efficiently." But what that actually means is those who commit serious crimes are let off the hook. So to boil it down a little more: the POLITICIANS told the POLICE to OVERLOOK the VIOLENT CRIME.

The decision to issue a caution is made AT THE DISCRETION OF THE POLICE. Clear? The police decide to issue a caution for cases of grievous bodily harm. The police were given this discretion. They use their discretion, and if you see a bunch of people getting off scot-free it's because THE POLICE USED THEIR DISCRETION TO LET THEM GO. The politicians gave them this power, and they use it.


The UK has already made a large investment in these two Johns. The two boys appeared to be promising young psychopaths at the tender age of ten, and there are people who believe that you don't let talent like that go to waste.

  • During their eight years of detention, they lived a life of comfort and expensive rehabilitation, cookery lessons and trips to watch Manchester United.
  • Coming from broken homes and dysfunctional families, they enjoyed an education far better than most of their contemporaries.
  • Draconian legal injunctions giving them anonymity for life were put in place when the pair were released in 2001. 
  • Each was given a new identity, backed up passport, birth certificate, National Insurance documents and NHS records. Bank accounts and credit cards were set up under their new names.
  • They were coached in their cover stories and given elocution lessons to lose their Liverpool accents.
  • Years of preparation had gone into the boys' release, with personal tutors mentoring Venables during his stay at Red Banks Children's Home, a former approved school at Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, only 13 miles from the Bulger family home at Kirkby.
  • Thompson was nine miles further towards Manchester, at Barton Moss, near Eccles.
Et cetera.

So what have they been doing all this time? And who knew about it?

No comments:

legal mumbo jumbo

Disclaimer: The posting of stories, commentaries, reports, documents and links (embedded or otherwise) on this site does not in any way, shape or form, implied or otherwise, necessarily express or suggest endorsement or support of any of such posted material or parts therein.

Fair Use: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.