Given his background – violent, abusive mother, absent father and siblings with special needs – Jon Venables should have stood a better chance of forging a decent life being in care than left to run riot on the streets of Liverpool.
Certainly, there was no shortage of kid-glove treatment for James Bulger’s killer who, like his cohort Robert Thompson, received “institutionalised parenting” while in detention. This involved tutoring, trips, computers, televisions, money and birthday presents – the rehabilitation didn’t come cheap.
Taxpayers footed an enormous bill in return for fixing their twisted minds and granting them anonymity for life.
The assurances were crystal-clear. The 10-year-olds who entered separate secure children’s units would one day be released back into society as responsible adults having learned, after endless therapy and legions of shrinks jumping to attendance, the difference between right and wrong.
Few people believed this mammoth task could be achieved in eight years and it must be utterly galling to the professionals who assessed Venables at 18, deeming him fit to be let out, that those doubters may have been right.
To sugar a bitter pill the public was made a promise: Should either violate the terms of their parole they’d find themselves recalled to custody.
It seems Venables breached those terms time and again – reportedly clubbing in Liverpool, the city from which he was excluded, getting himself into brawls and not merely flirting with drugs but receiving a caution for being in possession of cocaine.
None of us were any the wiser and, disgracefully, neither Denise Fergus nor Ralph Bulger, James’ parents, were ever informed by the authorities – despite pledges to keep them in the picture. If they feel fobbed off and regarded with contempt is it any wonder?
It’s taken two weeks, endless media speculation and demands for at least some Government transparency over Venables’ transgressions for Jack Straw to agree to meet Denise. What kept him?
Quite rightly, in an interview on This Morning she refused to reveal what she’ll be asking the Justice Secretary. “I don’t want to give him time to prepare his response,” she explained.
Years of dealing with politicians have clearly taught her the fine art of flannelling but I trust Denise’s first question is one we’d all like to see answered honestly: “How the hell could a freed child killer – one apparently on the radar of officials monitoring his every move – get away with any crime, let alone allegedly stashing child porn?”
Sickeningly, the implication is Venables felt free to do as he wished with impunity, to the extent, it’s reported, of revealing his true identity. Blowing your own cover doesn’t seem particularly sensible unless – and it’s a shot in the dark – he harbours a deep-rooted determination to be exposed. Or, shockingly, is proud of who he is.
If so, isn’t this something the “experts” should have recognised years ago? The real elephant in the room is that rehabilitation, costing taxpayers thousands upon thousands of pounds, went catastrophically wrong.
And something tells me withholding information about Venables’ alleged crimes isn’t merely about protecting the integrity of future criminal proceedings but is a far more devious and sinister exercise in backside-covering.
Hiding behind legal obfuscation doesn’t help Denise Fergus. Or the public. We deserve to be told why that new life we sponsored turned into this unmitigated disaster.
Daily Mirror
