MASHA Woollard argues that James Bulger killer Jon Venables should still be entitled to the protection of his new identity (HAS, Aug 3) despite having just been convicted of downloading child pornography.
Why? No one else convicted of a serious crime punishable with a custodial sentence would be granted anonymity. So why should he?
It seems to me that Venables has already had all the comfort, security and preferential treatment money can buy. I understand that the cost of maintaining his new identity and of the five-star plus treatment he enjoyed while undergoing “rehabilitation” (fat lot of good that’s done in his case) runs into millions.
I wonder how much public money was spent during that period on support for James Bulger’s mother? Precious little I dare say, if the habitual way we treat victims and their families in this country is anything to go by.
Tony Kelly, Crook, Co Durham
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here