Ed Balls Warns On James Bulger Killer Jon Venables Sent Back To Jail On Suspected Child Porn Offences | Sky News

Ed Balls Warns OnJames Bulger Killer Jon Venables Sent Back To Jail On Suspected Child Porn Offences | UK News | Sky News

2:12pm UK, Sunday March 07, 2010

Alison Chung, Sky News Online

The Children’s Secretary has told Sky News the media is getting close to breaking the law over reports about James Bulger’s killer.

The latest claims by the Sunday Mirror are that probation chiefs revoked Jon Venables’ licence because of child pornography allegations.

Justice Secretary Jack Straw will say only that ‘extremely serious allegations’ caused Venables, 27, to be returned to prison last week.

Newspaper speculation about those allegations includes claims of drug use, violence and sex crimes.

The murdered toddler’s family have called for full details of the allegations to be disclosed – but the Government has insisted Venables’ anonymity must be protected.

Ed Balls said some newspapers are getting too close to revealing Venables’ identity which would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process and could prevent prosecution.

‘If we responded to the desire for people to know the facts in public in a way which ends up prejudicing a legal case, we would look back and think we made very irresponsible decisions,’ he told Sky News.

‘At the same time we will do nothing that would put children or adults at risk, now or in the future.’

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.

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

She found out about Venables’ recall only 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.

Venables and 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.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • MySpace

Bulger killer Jon Venables jailed again ‘for child porn’ | News.com.au

Bulger killer Jon Venables jailed again ‘for child porn’ | News.com.au

By Alison Chung and Tom Bonnett, Sky News
NewsCore, March 08, 2010 5:44AM

JON Venables, who killed two-year-old British toddler James Bulger in 1993, was reportedly sent back to jail last week on suspected child pornography offences.

British newspaper the Sunday Mirror claimed probation chiefs revoked Venables’ parole licence once the allegations were made, but UK cabinet officials refused to reveal the exact reasons.

The 27-year-old was recalled to prison after what Justice Secretary Jack Straw described simply as ‘extremely serious allegations’.

Venables and his accomplice Robert Thompson were just 10 when they tortured and battered James to death in Liverpool, northern England, 17 years ago.

They were both controversially released from jail on lifelong parole in 2001 with new identities after serving eight years for their crimes and were made to obey strict conditions, such as not contacting each other or returning to the city where James was killed.

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 (Fergus) 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.’

Fergus did not believe Venables deserved early release from jail and said he 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,’ Johnson said.

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

Mr Straw, the police and the UK Director of Public Prosecutions all said revealing Bulger’s new identity would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process and could prevent prosecution.

Reports last week said Venables visited nightclubs and a pop concert in Liverpool and even watched Premier League soccer club Everton in the city.

He also reportedly worked as a nightclub bouncer and had a history of drug abuse.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • MySpace

BBC News – Lords force rethink of government’s online piracy plans

(Entry by Dr. Yaman Akdeniz)

Good news and bad news at the same time. Glad the Lords thought the government’s plan was no good but at the same time they offered “court ordered blocking powers” as an alternative measure. Website blocking is a crude measure and it is not even half a preventative measure. It does not address the “problem” and by blocking access to websites the alleged infringements d o not disappear. What happens is that users are punished rather than the offenders who uploaded the allegedly infringing materials in the first place.

I have recently addressed the problems associated with regards to blocking access to websites within the Turkish context and my analysis can be found in an OSCE report: Akdeniz, Y., Report of the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media on Turkey and Internet Censorship, January 2010, at < http://www.osce.org/documents/rfm/2010/01/42294_en.pdf>.

BBC News – Lords force rethink of government’s online piracy plans

04 March, 2010

The government has been defeated in the House of Lords over measures to tackle online piracy after opponents said the plans could hamper digital innovation.

Ministers want the power to change laws on online copyright in future without the need for further legislation. The Lords said the ‘blanket nature’ of the clause was ‘objectionable’.
But their chosen replacement – giving courts the right to block internet sites which are infringing copyright – has also prompted criticism.

The government argued that the new Digital Economy Bill should include the power to amend copyright law to ensure legislation could cope with more technically advanced forms of piracy in the future.

But Google and Facebook were among the firms to express ‘grave concerns’ about the provision, saying it could allow ministers to ‘increase monitoring of user data even where no illegal practice has taken place’.

‘Swift recourse’

And on Wednesday, Lords voted to support a Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment to the bill which paves the way for the clause to be scrapped. Lib Dem spokesman Lord Clement-Jones said it would be replaced with a measure allowing courts to use injunctions to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block certain websites. He said the ‘more proportionate, specific and appropriate’ measure, approved by 165 votes to 140, would tackle websites offering films or music illegally.

‘There are several sites out there on the web, many of which are based outside the UK, which refuse to stop supplying access to illegal content – indeed whose business plan depends on supplying illegal content,’ Lord Clement-Jones said.

“We cannot rely on the front bench of any major party to respect or understand the internet and modern technology” Pirate Party UK

‘At the moment it is not explicit what could be done about such sites.

‘This site-blocking remedy would give rights holders an explicit, swift recourse to courts to block access to those sites.’

He added: ‘I believe this is going to send a powerful message… that we do not believe in censoring the internet, but we are responding to genuine concerns from the creative industries about providing a process whereby their material can be satisfactorily accessed legally.’

But the amendment has caused just as much concern in some quarters.

Search engines

The Internet Services Providers’ Association said it would lead to ‘blocking based on accusation rather than a court injunction’.

“I don’t think it would be sensible or appropriate to adopt this approach” – Lord Young of Norwood Green, junior innovation minister, on site-blocking

The Open Rights Group said the industry was ‘faced with an appalling sight’ – a choice between the government’s flawed stance, and that of the Lib Dems and Tories, who are ‘pushing an approach likely to produce straightforward threats, bans and withdrawals of sites with user generated content’.

Pirate Party UK, which campaigns on the issue, said the new measure does not require offending websites to be hosting the infringing material, only that such material is ‘accessible at or via’ the location.

Therefore, it said it could affect search engines like Google and sites like YouTube, adding: ‘Today’s events clearly demonstrate that we cannot rely on the front bench of any major party to respect or understand the internet and modern technology.’

Junior innovation minister Lord Young of Norwood Green said blocking websites was an ‘enormous step’.

He said it would be hard to block sites offering illegal content without also blocking legitimate material, and agreed that sites linking to other sites – such as search engines – could be adversely affected.

‘I don’t think it would be sensible or appropriate to adopt this approach,’ he warned during the debate on the bill.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • MySpace

Racist content on US server is within UK jurisdiction, says Court of Appeal

Racist content on US server is within UK jurisdiction, says Court of Appeal: “The law of England and Wales applies to material published online, even if it is hosted on a server in another country, the Court of Appeal has ruled. As long as a substantial measure of the activities takes place in England, its law will apply, it said.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • MySpace

MPs, Lords question human rights compatibility of Digital Economy Bill

MPs, Lords question human rights compatibility of Digital Economy Bill: “The Government must provide more detail on exactly how alleged copyright infringers will be cut off from the internet before a file-sharing disconnection law is passed, according to a parliamentary committee.”

(Via OUT-LAW News.)

Share and Enjoy:
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Facebook
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Technorati
  • Live
  • LinkedIn
  • MySpace
  • MySpace