[JamesGHill]

I have been looking into a series of cases this evening involving British criminals who were given lifelong anonymity in the UK after their release from prison. In each case the anonymity was given to protect them from attacks from the public and is simply stops any British media from publishing the identity and location (both past and present) of the individuals. There seem to be a number of people with such protection but the four that interest me most (due to their public profile) are:

Maxine Carr : perversion of justice in the Ian Huntley case.
Robert Thompson : murderer of Jamie Bulger.
Jon Venables : murderer of Jamie Bulger.
Mary Bell : a child murderer of 2 children.

While the protection of their identities is guarunteed in the UK there is nothing to stop media outside of the UK publishing their current or any previous identities, and thus it is quite possible that their names, location, photos, etc. have appeared on the internet.

I have been searching online in an attempt to discover anything about these individuals. Not for vigilante reasons, in fact, I don't believe from the information I've gathered that any of these people are actually dangerous now, but simply because the information is effectively witheld from me (and it is not illegal for me to obtain that information.) It's become a sort of game for me; can I obtain harmless information that the state is trying to keep from me?

Note: the information would be largely harmless in my hands since I have no strong feelings about these individuals and have no interest in finding them; I just want to obtain some pieces of data that is hidden from me (although I admit that it may turn out dangerous to them if I knew the information and knew the individual personally, because I would feel obliged to tell anyone I cared about and who I thought could be endangered by them; and of course, they would feel obliged to tell many people they know too.)

However, I have not found any believable information online about the current identities. In fact, it seems likely that I would find it very difficult to judge whether the information was accurate anyway. In any case the information could quite possibly be a slur on an innocents name, or a rumour. In fact, there have been a few rumours about the Bulger murderers being convicted of murder in Ireland and Australia.

Anyway, this issue is interesting to me; I don't really like the idea of the state having secrets that are not involved with its own security. However, I can see how this information could cause real problems for the individuals involved if it fell into the wrong hands (ie. vigilante types, or anyone who realised that they knew the individual and felt they had to protect someone else they know.) However, I also feel that I should have some right to know whether, for example, my friend or someone looking after my young sisters was one of these people. Even though I don't believe they are very dangerous now, I still wouldn't trust them personally.

So, no real big question for everyone; just wondered what everyone else thinks about this issue, and also, can anyone add more information about this subject? I don't recommend publishing their identities or photos on this forum if you happen to know them; it could quite possibly get PoliticForum.org in trouble.

[Darth Tanner]

At the end of the day these people have paid the price demanded by our legal system for the crimes they committed. The state now has a responsibility to protect them from ignorant gits who want to play vigilante.

I don't recommend publishing their identities or photos on this forum if you happen to know them; it could quite possibly get PoliticForum.org in trouble.

And people murdered which is slightly more serious yes?

my friend or someone looking after my young sisters was one of these people. Even though I don't believe they are very dangerous now, I still wouldn't trust them personally.

Why? If you've gotten to know them that well that your prepared to trust them in control of your children then what they have done in their past shouldn't really matter. They have paid their debt to society as it were and are free citizens once again. Also unless their absolute monsters who murdered people for no reason their unlikely to be in the situation that they committed their original crimes again.

[JamesGHill]

"If you've gotten to know them that well that your prepared to trust them in control of your children then what they have done in their past shouldn't really matter."

- So, if you discover that a middle-aged man you know, who is really great with your kids and has gained your respect, was actually convicted of sexually assaulting a child 'in their past' but has served their time, you wouldn't then take their past crimes into consideration when deciding whether they should be left alone to take care of your children?

And the argument that this situation is different because the man was and must still be a paedophile I do not think is valid because: a. they may never have been a paedophile, it isn't only paedophiles who sexually assault children; and b. it appears to be the belief of psychologists that many paedophiles can be 'cured' of their sexual fascination with children.

"At the end of the day these people have paid the price demanded by our legal system for the crimes they committed."

- 'At the end of the day' it is simply your opinion that the price they paid 'demanded by our legal system' counts as justice served. Why does the state now have a responsibility to protect them beyond the protection that is given to ALL citizens? Do they DESERVE special treatment? They may have a higher chance of being murdered than most other people, but no 2 people have exactly the same chance of being murdered anyway; it's a matter of degree than kind. People living in poverty stricken inner cities have a higher chance of getting murdered than those living in the middle class suburbs: do they get special treatment?

". . . unless their absolute monsters who murdered people for no reason their unlikely to be in the situation that they committed their original crimes again."

- Three of the four people I named DID murder people 'for no reason'.

"And people murdered which is slightly more serious yes?"

- A direct consequence of their identities or photos being published on this forum would not be them being murdered.

[Darth Tanner]

you wouldn't then take their past crimes into consideration when deciding whether they should be left alone to take care of your children?

Yes of course I would. But from a state of ignorance I would judge them on their displayed character.

Why does the state now have a responsibility to protect them beyond the protection that is given to ALL citizens?

Are there many people who would actively seek you out and murder you? If so would you want the state to take measure to protect your life?

but no 2 people have exactly the same chance of being murdered anyway

so people should just be left to their own devices regardless? The PM should not get additional security to protect him?

it is simply your opinion that the price they paid 'demanded by our legal system' counts as justice served

An opinion that happens to be shared by the judicial and penal services.

- A direct consequence of their identities or photos being published on this forum would not be them being murdered.

You have a guarantee that no one with access to the Internet is an insane prat who would be willing to 'sort em out' with some good old fashioned mob justice. There have been thousands of death threats against Maxine Carr and all she did was lie to protect her boy friend.

Three of the four people I named DID murder people 'for no reason'.

Robert Thompson & Jon Venables - ten year old boys
Mary Bell - an 11 year old girl
who had her anonymity blown by the press and subsequently had her life and more importantly her daughters life ruined by moronic vigilante justice morons.

Leaving aside the age of criminal responsibility these children likely came from shitty homes and regardless were imprisoned for lengthy periods of time.

Are you actually advocating vigilante justice?