Guilty Because He Looks A Bit Weird

I have no idea if Chris Jeffries killed poor Johanna Yeates, and I am sure no one else knows exactly who did kill her (except for the killer) at the moment either. But isn't the amount of insinuation about the man from both the press and from general conversation (I overheard one woman say he must be guilty as he has a "paedophiles face". Really) really quite unsettling, way beyond what should be appropriate for the current stage of the enquiry. Apart from the controversy about him (or not) reporting Johanna leaving her flat the day she vanished, the accusations that he might have done it include:

*He is a "Peeping Tom" (well that was some blokes wifes opinion anyway. Not that the Mirror didn't let it stop them printing a "Jo suspect is "Peeping Tom" headline.)

*He has a daft hairdo

*He made former tenants wife "uncomfortable."

*He entered said flat (of which he was landlord) without asking

*He had mucky fingernails.

*He likes poems (he's an English teacher.) and got wrapped up in reading them aloud.

*He looks funny.

*He had a strange coat.

*Some of his former pupils called him "Strange Mr. Jeffries."

*Some other pupils thought he was gay on the single basis of him not being married.

*He read poems by writers who were obsessed with things like death (Also known as nearly everyone who writes poems.)

*He let out a flat (Johanna's flat) to a fellow teacher 12 years ago who was done for sexual assault of a minor years later.

*He was a bit eccentric, and people who commit murder on telly are always eccentric.

Stuff like this is not very helpful. It is way too early in the enquiry to start muck raking about a bloke who let us make this clear: - MAY NOT HAVE ACTUALLY DONE ANYTHING BY THE WAY! A slightly eccentric English master at a posh school is certainly nothing new, and being "a bit strange" doesn't immediately mean you have a propensity to strangle young women to death, and all the "psycho poses" like the one above don't really change that.

The Shootings in Cumbria

There is really little more that can be said about the massacre of thirteen people in Cumbria, by Derick Bird on Wednesday, that has already been said. The dreadful scale of events really speak for themselves, a senseless bloodbath of a family member, a work colleague and solicitor, then random passers by who had that perennial awful fate of just being in the wrong place at the wrong time, by a lone gunman with a grudge - perhaps only ever known to him, and to no one else when he turned the gun to himself.

The media of course are running the story as lead. It is every bit as bad as is made out, a shooting frenzy that now takes its place in a ghastly trilogy, Hungerford; Dunblane and now the Lakes shootings. Of course the press and TV media are keen to look into Birds background. We hear tales of work troubles and arguments with other colleagues [taxi drivers] over fare touting, money troubles, disputes over a will with his murdered brother. There were dubious blown up photos of his son and his daughter in laws (who have nothing to do with the shootings) reactions to the crime. There was an equally dubious interview with a 9 year old kid who had a gun pointed at him; asking how it felt to have a gun in his face. Though the headlines are no where near as lurid (so far) as they could have been, and there is nothing as equally disgusting as the Sunday Express expose on the survivors of Dunblane coming of age, showing facebook pictures of them having parties and getting drunk. Bird seems to have been a quiet, ordinary man, not the local weirdo with a dodgy background; who just cracked. The blame game has begun in some quarters, with the police being accused of reacting too slowly. The police counter by saying Cumbria is a large county with a smallish police force, and has low levels of crime, so was swamped by the freak enormity of the crime. Both may be valid points. One commentator asked why they could quickly corner a wild cat on the M11 motorway in a relatively quick time, but not a gunman (presumably because tigers don't carry guns, and drive taxis, is a fair answer to his rhetorical question?) Littlejohn accused the chief of police in that area of insensitivity (he would know, the master of tact that he is.) after he said the area was now safe and "back in business", whether pragmatic damage limitation, or tactless, is really a matter of opinion. There will also be the eternal firearms availability debate, with the ultra prohibitionist on one side, and the pro guns on the other side. The weird phrase "guns don't kill people, people do" has already showed up on on line commentaries.

It is hard to try to explain the unexplainable. Why someone would be driven to blast away both family and complete strangers, even summoning them to their unwitting deaths. It shocks our common sense of humanity, and causes us to try to rationalise it, and human nature, with these debates mentioned above. Is it possible that there is in practice; nothing we can really do to completely stop these thankfully rare -terrible events from occurring?

Questions on the latest front in the Drugs war.

As we know, the home Alan Johnson has ordered the dance drug Methedrone (meow meow) to be reclassified from a legal substance up to a Class B drug, which is to be implemented as soon as possible (or if you're a resident of the Isle of Man, it has already been done.) presumably on the basis of a few post hoc anecdotes implicating (that doesn't mean the same thing as CAUSE, Sun and Mail editors BTW) it being involved in the death of some young people. This has caused some ructions amongst Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs (ACMD) advisers against the governments apparent spur of the moment ban on the substance. The latest advisor to have resigned in protest on the banning of a substance so quickly, and with so little evidence that the drug actually is a great enough hazard to health to warrant a ban is ACMD government advisor Eric Carlin. He is pretty damning in what he sees as a bit of gesture politics before an election:

"The decision to criminalise mephedrone, was 'unduly based on media and political pressure"

"A 'lack of interest' in prevention and early intervention with young people."

"We had little or no discussion about how our recommendation to classify this drug would be likely to impact on young people's behaviour. 'Our decision was unduly based on media and political pressure."

"As well as being extremely unhappy with how the ACMD operates, I am not prepared to continue to be part of a body which, as its main activity, works to facilitate the potential criminalisation of increasing numbers of young people."

"I believed the decision to rush through the ban had been politically motivated in order for the Government to look tough prior to the election."

"We've not properly considered it, not assessed how young people use it."

Call me Mr Pedantic, but isn't this what an advisory council on drugs use should be chewing the fat about?

This is I'll admit only the opinions of one man, but when we hear that others associated with this kind of thing have been airing similar sentiments, we must question if the government is actually taking into account what these people say, or are other factors motivating their reaction to drug control? We have this equally terse testimony by Dr. Polly Taylor, who was also a member of ACMD before she quit prior to the ban being announced, and in part due to Professor Nutts sacking late last year:

"In the months following the professor's departure, the Government had failed to give its advisers the independence they deserve. I feel there is little more we can do to describe the importance of ensuring that advice is not subjected to a desire to please ministers or the mood of the day's Press."

This hardly allays my fears that drugs policy is being directed by rational evidence based empirical research on the actual harm to users, and not to placate the editorials of newspapers that, ironically just hate a Labour government no matter what they do.

It has been argued that these people are just throwing their toys out the pram. A bunch of unelected bigwigs who think that they should be calling the shots to an elected government, and having a petulant strop when they are knocked back. It may well be true for some individuals. But the common narrative here seems to be that advisers the government has brought in, have either simply offered advice that no one had any intention of paying heed to, or have simply not even had the chance to advise at all. We seem to have a situation where the press respond to whatever is "the killer drug of the week" on the basis of anecdotal evidence, which leads to lurid headlines, then to the calls to ban substance x, then the ban itself from a government. That isn't joined up thinking on a very serious issue. It sure as hell isn't a sound evidence based methodology on drug prevention, and I can well see why the ACMD are banging their heads on a very large brick wall.

I don't think Alan Johnson is a bad man for banning Methedrone, and I don't sanction drug taking (like anything with risk, it is up to the individual to weigh up the risks, and go from there without pressure.) I also think that prohibition of drugs, while superficially may be seen as the right way to protect people, ends up causing more harm than good. Methedrone has now been taken from legitimate sources to the drug dealers. We now don't know if that meow meow tablet has been cut with god knows what, and that hugely inflated costs should fill the drugs trades coffers nicely. It would be a sad irony if methods brought in to "protect" people from this stuff, just ended up putting them at greater risk.

Prohibition may end up letting the cat out the bag.

A legal "high" drug called Methedrone (or meow, as its abbreviated name is MMCAT, due to the chemicals it is made from) distilled from the khat plant in Somalia (the militia men there like to get high on khat) and similar to the illegal ecstasy drug has hit the news recently. Like most people unfamiliar with the more devoted club scenes, I'd never really heard about the stuff until this week when the substance has been implicated (but has not been proved to have caused) in the deaths of two young men, Nick Smith and Lewis Wainwright after a night out in Scunthorpe on Sunday. They along with friends had been on a cocktail of booze, meow and methadone, when they died the following day. This, and along with some other (unconfirmed) reports of meow being involved in deaths of this nature have meant that the government has asked the Misuse of Drugs advisory council to look into the risks this stuff poses in order to consider banning it in the UK. This move has been welcomed by head teachers, some opposition politicians and some of the relatives of those who died. Others like David Nutt have suggested alternatives to this such as putting restrictions on it's sale, and waiting for a more in depth analysis of the risks it poses. It could even be risky to immediately ban its use, as potentially more dangerous new drugs may supplant the now illegal drug.

The Sun however decided that weighing up the pros and cons of banning methedrone in a rational and empirical way was a waste of time and demanded action now on the "killer meow" by banning it immediately. They have strung together a series of anecdotal "proofs" that the stuff is extremely dangerous, from post hoc testimonials from the grieving relatives (post hoc means, in the opinion that A (meow) happened before B (the deaths). Therefore A caused B.) The chemical similarities between ecstasy has been mentioned, despite the fact that that really counts for little. Methanol and ethanol, water and hydrogen peroxide, sulphurous and sulphuric acid are similar respectively, but totally different in toxicity and other properties, change one molecule, change a lot. Meow has been called the drug equivalent of putting a loaded gun to the head, without any statistical justification to back that claim up. The Sun has conveniently "forgot" that the reason the review on this stuff has been delayed is because the researcher hire to do this resigned after Professer Nutt was fired (you know the guy the Sun wanted sacked.) It becomes enormously difficult when grieving family members start to throw their weight (I absolutely understand them feeling that way. It's automatic to try and make the senseless death of a loved one have meaning by trying to prevent others from the same fate.) behind the campaign to immediately ban something like this. We remember when the dangers of ecstasy was statistically shown to be less than horse riding and aspirin, that the emotive straw man "tell that to the victims [of E] families." was thrown at the people who pointed this out. I can understand people feeling that way, but I don't think that the subjective risks of a substance should determine an immediate ban.

Now I don't recommend taking this stuff (like anything like this, the user has to analyse the risks by the benefits, with the correct information.). And it would be silly and premature to say it is totally safe. (at least 3 deaths are partially responsible with it being used, according to post mortems.) These testimonials from clubbers highlight that although it has similar sensations to uppers like E's, and isn't contaminated by being cut with other things. the comedowns can be fairly unpleasant and more harsh than it's illegal cousin (and the temptation to redose when on it is fairly high.). Mixing drugs and alcohol, and dosing when worse for wear has extra harm effects added. Abusing or misusing any kind of substance, alcohol or cocaine is a terrible thing to happen to anyone, and it's wise to be aware of this before you dive in. But taking these aside I still don't think prohibiting Mephedrone, or indeed prohibition per se is the solution to this sort of thing. Firstly it doesn't effectively stop what it sets out to do. Despite the families claiming that if the drug was illegal it would not be taken doesn't stop illegal ecstasy being distributed. Perhaps the very fact that something being forbidden is the key to it's appeal and excitement. Secondly prohibition stops quality control (like pushers are going to bother). In a bid to save resources, artificially inflate quantity, or a half brained attempt to up potency, illegal drugs will be "cut" with other stuff like chalk, cleaning powders, and even rat poison, there is no guarantee what you see is what you think you are getting. If this stuff is legitimately produced then cutting it becomes more risky on the producers behalf. The drugs trade is a risky and unpleasant cycle. The dealers can often resort to extortion and violence to keep their trade, and punters are at risk from being ripped off and put in harms way, not to mention risking a criminal record for what they are doing. One of the things that appeals to users of mephedrone, from the testimonials is that it bypasses the hassle of obtaining illegal stuff and it isn't contaminated. It may even be lowering demand for ecstasy, by pushing it out of the market. Lastly, although far from being risk free, these things stand a greater chance of undergoing damage limitation if they are legal. There has been great success in initiatives to lower the numbers of people who smoke, and everyone knows the genuine risks from smoking. With illegal substance these risks are not clear, and are often misunderstood. Things that shouldn't be taken together are taken, because the guidelines are not easy to obtain. Substance abuse is a bad thing for society (recreational drug use is something different, which is not always pointed out.) and there is never going to be a magic wand to make it go away any time soon. But damage limitation is a start, prohibition just seems to create more problems than it sets out to start. Sadly this kind of story puts the emotional cases, and appeals over reason to respond knee jerkingly to a drug the experts freely claim, do not even know much about. Not good.

PS. One of the most eye opening essays I ever saw on this is on Nick Davies brilliant Flat Earth News website. Now I don't know how his thesis shores up scientifically, but I was astounded what I read in THIS article on drug use and prohibition.

Not Gettin Down With the Kidz, or with Streetview either.

The Internet has been under fire on two fronts by the Daily Mail this week. This is hardly the most surprising revelation in the world, from a paper that thinks anything and everything that has happened in the UK since 1961 has been directly passed out of the fiery bum of Satan and then been shite splashed (with the help of the PC brigade and liberals probably) all over the the beige and posy clad metaphorical front lawns of the law abiding respectable people of Middle England. (also known as middle class white people) This also includes the world wide web (which the mails website, and the reader comments often agree with. Irony lives on), which apparently exists to directly beam hard core pornography and drugs into middle class toddlers brains. But what has got on the Mail readers collective noggin this week is; firstly the news that Google maps has extended Street View coverage to almost all the UK, and secondly and more seriously, the role of Facebook in the horrific murder of 17 year Ashleigh Hall by serial sex offender Peter Chapman, whom she met online and was lured to her death by Chapman who had impersonated a teenage boy on the net, more on this later.
I for one am glad that Street View has almost full coverage of the UK. I never knew how we managed to survive without being able to use the computer to look at strange looking people with blurred faces curiously gawping at a Streetview car in a provincial street in Doncaster. It's very addictive being able to have a nosey around old places you used to live and work, and of course has the added advantage of not having to physically travel there, which is great as I am too lazy to be bothered driving the 130 miles just to nostalgically ponce around in the centre of Worcester. But it seems (to be fair the Mail doesn't take sides) some aren't too happy. Now this isn't a new story in the UK as the residents of Broughton, Milton Keynes Village blocked a google car photographing their street (all of Broughton is covered. I decided in the interests of the residents privacy, to have a nosy anyway.) lest it invites burglars to steel their DVD players. Strangely they didn't seem to bothered to pose for the multimillion selling Mail, in the obligatory "angry people in the papers" picture, taken in broad daylight (yes) in their secluded street To be honest you can't really make out the interiors of peoples houses, the unrasterised pictures are similar quality to the pictures from the Mars Rover. The cameras are there for quantity not quality. The only thing me and a team of experts (which consisted of just me) could deduce about footage of my own house was that it was made of bricks and had windows. Street View is really; for all intents and purposes no more intrusive than walking down someones street, as for being an invasion of privacy (which is notoriously difficult to legislate what cast iron constitutes privacy), I don't think the exteriors of houses count as this. They also aren't real time pictures, as the Pugh cartoon in the Mail depicting a man spying on what his neighbours are doing doesn' t seem to understand. But we still get the unintentionally funny comments on the the article about it. Comments like this:


"Good job I didn't see it, I would have thrown a brick at the car, no one asked me if I wanted my house splashed all over the Internet, so much for Data Protection, and what about all the kids who play in my street are they photographed as well.? this is a buglers dream come true. Typical Nu Labour, snooping and spying on all of us, I'm never using google again, hope they go bust, there are plenty of search engines out there that don't help NU Labour spy on us and our children."

How it helps people who play the bugle is unclear, and how is it Nu Labours fault what a private company does?


"I have every right to privacy ! How dare this shameless country post pictures of my house on the Internet for the whole world to see !!! For all suckers saying anyone one see my house walking down the street , it is like saying, people can see me walking down the street but that doesnt mean I want pictures of me posted on the Net !!!

Fiona Sunderland"


God why can't these people see that what a private company does, is not the same as what a government does. I like comments like these, they seem to be so pompous, they think that everyone will think "Thank God for Streetview, I can now try to see if I can see Fiona from Sunderlands knickers on her washing line, from her street!" It's sad but true that Fiona's house, like my own house is of no interest at all to 99.9% percent of Street Viewers.

The second Internet gripe regards young peoples safety on Facebook. As we know Ashleigh Hall was lured to her death by a sex offender on the networking site, and that it was a tragic and senseless, but thankfully rare example of the absolute worst case scenario in meeting people on line. Now I know that meeting strangers on line can have dangerous consequences, and that the unworldiness of lonely youngsters, and the natural impulsiveness of teenagers can override their better judgement, and anyone willing to promote guidance for vulnerable kids about the risks of contact with on line is OK by me. But what I object too in this affair is the Mail blatantly distorting the risks posed by social networking (in this case Facebook), with lurid articles like this.

Now Williams-Thomas says that the editors added the Facebook references to the article after he had submitted it. (and the printed paper itself implicitly says he used facebook.), and in true Soviet Unionesque revisionism, the facebook references have now gone. I'm sure this has nothing to do with Facebook threatening to sue the Mail . But a cursory read of the article by anyone familiar with the website will easily show that he hadn't used it at all. I mean it can't even do the things he says it can.


"Even after 15 years in child protection, I was shocked by what I encountered when I spent just five minutes on a social networking [EXPLICITLY NAMED AS FACEBOOK IN THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE] site posing as a 14-year-old girl. Within 90 seconds, a middle-aged man wanted to perform a sex act in front of me.
I was deluged by strangers asking stomach-churning questions about my sexual experience. I was pressured to meet men with whom I'd never before communicated.
So I wasn't surprised that a vulnerable teenager, Ashleigh Hall, was groomed on Facebook before being brutally raped"


None of this can be done on facebook. You can't talk to people unless you are friends (on the site) with them, and this means you have to search for someone (who has to be signed up on facebook) you want to befriend, you've got some odds against you to locate a middle aged paedophile in one minute thirty ( sending a friend request, (and receiving a confirmation from the other person) This takes longer than 90 seconds. For a start they would have to be on-line the same time to immediately respond. You can't post real time videos either. Facebook is for the main part, communal. So these men would be posting the stuff he says they were in full view of everyone who is their "friends" news feeds. You know stuff that would draw attention, and the sort of stuff that would be kind of incriminating if the cops got hold of it.

The Streetview stuff is water of a ducks back for me. If people want to look stupid, commenting on a facility they know nothing about then that's up to them. But the Facebook (apart from being mislabeling and libelous to that company) thing misleads and obfuscates parents or friends who may not know much about the risks of the Internet, and can be mislead about where the danger really lies. So they may not be aware, or looking in the wrong places about the dangers to vulnerable people on the Internet. It does have dangerous places on it, and people need the facts, not misleading scare stories that look good for a tabloid audience. That won't help, and certainly won't stop the next Ashleigh Hall from potentially happening.

This isn't about Justice for James

As we have seen this week, John Venables, one of the two 10 year old boys who tortured and murdered toddler James Bulger in Liverpool in 1993, has been recalled to prison after breaking the conditions of the strict terms of his release licence. (for his entire lifetime.)

There was something tangibly ghastly about James Bulgers murder. I was 13 when he was killed on a railway line in a grim estate in Liverpool, and I remember it well. How could two kids do the things they did? Snarling adults pounding at steel mesh windows of a police Transit Van, trying to get at two 10 year old boys inside. The incendiary headlines like the "Star" offering 20 grand to "snare the bastards who slaughtered Jamie", and the Expresses "Monsters", and the infamous grainy CCTV footage of the two boys luring him to his fate. We have a strange dual standard about children in the UK. On the one hand, as a glance at any of the obituaries to dead children, whether Baby P, or yet another hit and run victim, will show -there's talk of angels in heaven, and innocent tots full of love. But then we are castigated by Time magazine for deliberately alienating and fearing our bling crusted, and hoodie wearing teenagers. It is perhaps not too much of a stretch to say that some of the visceral hatred directed towards them was because they shone a dark and shattered mirror in the publics face about something we don't want to see. Pre teen childhood violence. It lead to much soul searching. How do we square that two boys brutally killed a toddler in such a hideous manner, with the circle of the presumption of childhood innocence, and how they could be judged by adult standard. It created a debate on criminality that has never been adequately settled, and still stirs up strong emotions even today, as we have seen.

As the two are subject to lifelong anonymity orders (including new identities) that the press have to (reluctantly as we'll see.) legally abide by, the details of what he has been recalled for are vague, but it seems that if the Sunday Mirror is to be believed, that it may pertain to suspicion of child porn. From what dribs and drabs the press are legally allowed to disclose about Venables, it seems that release has been mentally tough for him, with reports that he uses alcohol and drugs and has, on more than one occasion - blurted out his real identity to strangers. (and even possibly inmates at where he is being held.) The tabloids are of course going to town on him being banged up again. It is in their eyes a vindication of their theories that the pair are monsters beyond the pale of all human redemption, and that if they had been allowed to publish their whereabouts (this theme is recurrent in editorials, and loaded statements in articles on the case) this would not have happened. The government are coming under fire from both the tabloids and emotionally charged interviews with James parents who believe that their sons killers got off too lightly in the first place anyway, and want what alleged terms Venables was recalled for made public, and even Venables new identity to be made known if and when he stands trial. Gordon Brown and Jack Straw have put out rather tenuous statements about how they sympathise with "public opinion" on the issue but are unwilling to interfere with the workings of the legal system. Jack Straw was quoted as:

"I said on Wednesday that I was unable to give further details of the reasons for Jon Venables' return to custody, because it was not in the public interest to do so.
That view was shared by the police and the Director of Public Prosecutions.

We all feared that a premature disclosure of information would undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process, including the investigation and potential prosecution of individual(s).

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."

Now leaving aside the fact that calling for the details (and by extension the identity of the man himself) of the terms of the breach of licence he is only suspected of doing is a complete legal minefield of thorny issues. It would also likely jeopardise any proceedings that could be subsequently brought against him, a judge could easily say that a jury who knew Venables was in the dock could be too easily swayed by this knowledge to come to a reasonable conclusion about this separate case, and that the verdict does not stand up to the required standard of acceptable justice. Then you have the legality of breaking an anonymity injunction. It would cause severe problems for any future proceedings against him that may be put in place. On a more personal level, revealing what has happened would make him easily identifiable to other inmates / wardens, and revealing his new identity means everyone can identify him. Now whatever your views on forgiveness of past crimes or punishment and retribution, I find it very hard to swallow that a move that would potentially lead to a vigilante lynching of a man who, although committed a dreadful crime, did so at ten years old. This kind of thing has no place in any civilised society. It would also set a dangerous precedent in legal procedures. If we want a good and humane justice system, it must be fair and applied objectively and evenly, not shook up to cater to the whims of stoked up mob mentality, which means some will be dealt with more severely in relation to others who are not as infamous

As I said before, the tabloids have always had the Bulger killers in their sights. Partly it is due the uniquely awful nature of the killing and with it the enormous amounts of public consciousness the murder resonated, and in that lies stories people want to read, and the tabloids are willing to supply. What also fuels this obsession with the pair is the press injunction that provides them anonymity. Obviously tabloids and their bombastic editors love the enormous influence and ability to make mischief whilst sitting out the consequences of the near useless PCC (I honestly think the Tweenies would do a better job running this organisation). The injunction is a block on their power and they hate that. Also they are thinking of the potential windfall in readers if their identities were allowed to be printed. Probably everyone, to varying degrees is a little curious about what became of them. Memorable murders bring in readers (that's why we all still know the name "Jack the Ripper") and have a strange interest to some people. I'd imagine a "Bulger Killers Revealed" headline would be a goldmine for a red top editor. This injunction is the only thing stopping this happening, and that is why we get comments that subtly hint at this like Carole Malone from the NOTW:

"And if now, Venables knew the public would be told of his every transgression, it might just kick him back on track. No, his identity must never be revealed because he'll be pursued by lynch mobs.
But the result of years of anonymity is he now thinks he's bulletproof, that whatever crime he commits the police will protect him. It's a privilege afforded to no other criminal - except, perversely, the very worst ones.
So what is this government's message to young thugs - the more heinous the crime you commit, the cushier life you'll have?
Nice one! At least it is if you're a child killer!

and the Mail on Sunday editorial. How they typed this with a straight face I'll never know?:

"We do not know. But the bitter irony in this case is that with myriad rumours swirling around, Venables may be being maligned in a way he may not deserve.
Forget the fact that, once again, Labour has put the rights of the criminal ahead of those of the victim and his family.
Forget the £4million that has been spent on rehabilitating Venables and Thompson - giving them new identities and a lifestyle almost certainly more comfortable than they would have enjoyed had they not killed James.
What is truly disturbing is that somebody can be jailed in Britain without the authorities having to reveal why."

The Mail has some considerable sympathy with the need for Venables' anonymity to be preserved. But equally we believe in the sacredness of open justice and that incarcerating people in secret is the first step towards the Kafkaesque world of totalitarian regimes."

Now the press claiming that they are fighting the noble fight, when they are just pursuing naked self interest is nothing new, but there is one person who I do think is being manipulated by all this, and perhaps isn't aware that she is being used as a tool to promote other agendas. That is Denise Fergus, James' mother. Now let me stress I have absolutely nothing but sympathy for her and her plight. Losing your child in the most appalling way possible, and having to relive his last moments through a lengthy trial, and then being denied the sense of catharsis at the trials conclusion, due to the unique and more morally ambiguous nature of the juvenile killers is something no one should ever endure in their lifetime. Although I don't agree with her desire to see her child's killers "outed" I can understand why she feels let down by the system. No-one can tell her that she is wrong to feel the way she feels, because almost no-one endures what she has so tragically had to bear. But sadly Mrs. Fergus is tabloid dynamite for stories like these, and editors keen for the "right" kind of soundbites, and are pounding on her door. She says all the right things (She still hates the pair, and time has not dulled that) and comes out with those hard line unanswerable rhetorical questions (what about my rights over the killers rights. I've got a life sentence, they haven't) that are make great quotes for right wing newspapers. It's hard not to feel for her, constantly being interviewed whenever a particularly salient murder makes the headline. The emotional toll it must take on her? It is sad to think that the Suns "Justice for James" e-petition (over the government not publishing the exact details of what Venables has been recalled for) may be seen as a genuine campaign to help the family of a young murder victim than what it really is, an attempt to flog a shed load of papers.