Jon Venables is no longer the guilty boy who killed James Bulger

The child 'Jon Venables' has become someone else now but public indignation demands that he remain the bewildered boy who could barely see out of the dock at his trial. Have we really so little belief in redemption, asks Brian Masters.

 

By Brian Masters
Published: 6:45AM GMT 04 Mar 2010

Jon Venables, 10 years of age in 1993 Photo: GETTY IMAGES

A 27-year-old man who used to be known as Jon Venables has been taken into custody for an undisclosed reason at an unknown location. That is all there is to say, or it should be. But this simple news item has been wilfully exploded into a stream of righteous wrath owing to what this man did 17 years ago. It is as well we should remind ourselves what that was, and examine why we should delight in recalling the horror all over again. For that is what is happening.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, both then 10 years old, abducted a little boy, James Bulger, from a shopping mall when his mother's attention was diverted, then took him by the hand on a long walk which ended some two hours later on waste land by a railway track. They then subjected the frightened infant to the most unspeakable indignities and cruelties, almost mindlessly, as if he were a toy that could be dismantled, and left his racked body on the line to be cut in half by a train.

They were arrested, tried and convicted in an adult court, Mr Justice Morland declaring solemnly that they had been found guilty of an act "of unparalleled evil and barbarity", words that were not in their vocabulary and could not be understood by them.

Of course, he was not talking to them at all, but to us, the world. Adult ritual was much more satisfying than the difficult, messy business of understanding aberrant child psychology. Nobody suggested the boys made a decision after breakfast to kill somebody; they did not harbour hatred for the toddler, nor for toddlers in general. The catastrophe fell unheralded, for motives that remained mysterious.

The crime was very nasty indeed, and the boys were justly punished for it. But the crowd wanted something more. They beat their fists upon the van that carried the boys to and from court, baying for vengeance. It seems the fists are still clenched, even today, and the desire for blood unquenched.

We cannot feel anger at this man who was detained yesterday, for we no longer know who he is. He may be married. He may be a father. He may have a job. He may be kind and considerate. He may be rotten and deceitful. He may have shoplifted. He may have sold drugs. It does not matter, for we are not interested in him; we are interested in the little boy who terrified us with his malice all those years ago, and we do not want to let that shudder evaporate and lose its power.

In some very unpleasant way, we cherish it still. We must never be suspected of any maturity that would allow us to spot the possibility of redemption. That, at least, is the feeling some newspapers appear to foster; I can think of a couple which, if their editors knew where this man was, would pursue him to the death if necessary.

I attended the trial of Thompson and Venables throughout, and heard all the evidence. Yet I did not feel the presence of wickedness. I felt the unfathomable mystery of human behaviour, the awe of ignorance, the chilling impossibility of knowing what this was really all about. The trial, which ought to have been a lesson in philosophy, was instead a performance, a parade of adult indignation hurled at two frightened little boys who knew they had done something terrible, and did not know why. They could barely see over the bar of the dock in which they sat; it came up to their chins. And so I also felt some shame at being witness to this show.

We heard the tapes of the police interrogation of Jon Venables in the presence of his parents, which were deeply disturbing.

When the officers took a break from their questions, wisely to enable his mother and father to coax him, they hugged and protected him, assuring him of their love whatever he had done and begging him to tell the truth. With this support he mustered the courage to embark on an account both harrowing and heart-rending, wailing loudly and inconsolably for 33 minutes, which the court listened to in shocked silence. His counsel called him "a sad, diffident, unhappy boy" who had been inhibited from honesty by the rejection he feared he would suffer from his mother.

When the interview continued, the boy's mother was in no condition to be present. Mr Venables returned alone, sitting with his eyes and ears closed to the horror. When Jon, howling, turned to him for reassurance, there was none; he sought comfort instead from a police officer. As the climax of his story approached, he was audibly racked with anguish. "I can't," he sobbed, "I can't tell you anything else, 'cos that's the worst bit." Robert (his accomplice) had been "laughing his head off" as he threw bricks at James.

The police officer then asked Jon what he now thought of all that he and his friend had done to the baby. His reply was given in a broken, piping voice. "Terrible," he said. "I was thinking about it all the time." When confronted with the word "distress", he asked what it meant. Still worse was the pathetic and awful plea: "What about his Mum? Will you tell her I'm sorry."

This is the man who has now made bold front-page news for an undisclosed offence, which we are all invited to imagine must be heinous. At least we hope it is, or we shall be short-changed. I have never met the man, and never shall. I have no idea what he is like, though I did know somebody, now deceased, who spoke to him while he was still in custody as a teenager and was impressed by his progress.

But I do know that he cannot be the warped and skewed child who shared in that dreadful crime all those years ago. It is just not possible. He is somebody else now. We all of us change and develop as we pass into adulthood and beyond, and there is no reason to suppose that a child who murders should be exempt from this inevitability.

So why all the interest? We only know that Venables has breached the conditions imposed upon him at the time of his release from custody. That is the news, and that is therefore what the newspapers should announce; that is what they are for. They are not designed for retribution or diffuse disgust in search of an object.

Besides which, most of the religions that are professed in this country, and to which angry avengers pretend to adhere, give space to that precious possibility of redemption. Surely our society is mature enough to permit religious wisdom to prevail rather than let intelligent thought be swamped by quivering fascination with wickedness.

As for the public "right to know", that was effectively recognised by the trial. People had the right to know what had happened and, if possible, why; to hear the evidence for and against the defenders; to see the verdict returned and punishment enacted. They do not have the right to know everything that happens to the killers for the rest of their lives; public interest is served and exhausted in trial by jury.

Nobody would wish to belittle the ghastly fate that befell James Bulger. Letting his killers attempt to redeem themselves in peace does not do that. But we should be mindful of the fact that indignation is relatively easy to satisfy, and demands no sacrifice, no exposure to horrid experience, no damage to the soul. To continue feeding indignation against a 10-year-old boy who glimpsed Hell, and who knew it, is at best unworthy, and at worst is itself a manifestation of wickedness.

Brian Masters is the author of, among other books, 'Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen' and 'The Evil That Men Do'

Press Release, 2 March 2010

High Court grants injunction against BAE settlement

The High Court has granted an injunction prohibiting the Director of the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) from taking any further steps in its plea bargain settlement with BAE Systems.

The injunction is in force until the Court has decided whether or not to give permission to Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) and The Corner House to apply for a judicial review of the settlement. It will make this decision by 20 March 2010.

Lawyers acting for The Corner House and CAAT formally lodged papers seeking judicial review permission on Friday 26 February 2010, together with a request for the injunction.

ENDS

For further information or an interview please contact:
Kaye Stearman of CAAT, on 020 7281 0297 or 07990 673 232 or Nicholas Hildyard of The Corner House on 01258 473795 or 07773 750 534.

Legal documents

Injunction
Detailed Statement of Facts and Grounds

Background

The Serious Fraud Office has been investigating alleged bribery and corruption in BAE%u2019s arms deals since 2004 in several countries (including Chile, Czech Republic, Qatar, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Tanzania). BAE is alleged to have paid bribes, often in the form of commissions to "advisers" to clinch the deals.

On 1 October 2009, the SFO announced that it intended to prosecute BAE Systems for offences relating to overseas corruption. See SFO press release

On 29 January 2010, the SFO charged Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly with conspiracy to corrupt in connection with BAE's deals with eastern and central European governments including the Czech Republic, Hungary and Austria. In the course of these preliminary hearings, the SFO told the courts that "From 2002 onwards, BAE adopted and deployed corrupt practices to obtain lucrative contracts for jet fighters in central Europe." It was a "sophisticated and meticulously planned operation involving very senior BAE executives". See Observer, 7 February 2010. On 4 ebruary 2010, Mensdorff-Pouilly was granted bail of £1million.

On 5 February 2010, however, the SFO announced its plea bargain settlement with BAE. Under the SFO%u2019s proposed settlement, BAE would plead guilty in court to "accounting irregularities" in its 1999 sale of a radar system to Tanzania and would pay penalties of £30 million. The SFO would not bring prosecutions relating to alleged bribery and corruption in BAE%u2019s arms deals elsewhere, including in the Czech Republic, South Africa and Romania.

This settlement was announced in conjunction with a much larger settlement made by the US Department of Justice with BAE. Under this settlement, BAE admitted making false statements in 2000-2002 in relation to BAE's arms deals with Saudi Arabia and passing covert payments through the United States in regard to its arms deals in Central European countries. It will be fined $400 million (£256 million). Because it has not pleaded guilty to corruption charges, BAE can continue to bid for US military contracts.

Later on 5 February 2010, the Serious Fraud Office announced that it was withdrawing proceedings against Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly on the grounds that it was no longer in the public interest to continue.

CAAT and The Corner House sent a Letter Before Claim to SFO Director Richard Alderman on 12 February, and asked the Courts on 26 February 2010 for permission to apply for a judicial review of the settlement.

The groups contend that the proposed settlement is unlawful because the SFO did not follow the correct prosecution guidance (including its own guidance) on plea bargains.

They argue that the agreement does not reflect the seriousness and extent of BAE's alleged corruption and bribery offences, and does not provide the court with adequate sentencing powers.

The groups also hold that the SFO unlawfully concluded that the factors weighing against prosecuting BAE on bribery and corruption charges outweighed those in favour of prosecution.

Lawyers acting for the two groups have also requested a judicial review of the SFO%u2019s decision to discontinue its prosecution of Count Alfons Mensdorff-Pouilly. The Corner House and CAAT argue that this decision was unlawful because the SFO failed to follow its own guidance on corporate prosecutions; failed to act in the public interest and the interests of justice; and because the decision was irrational.

Notes

1. Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) works for the reduction and ultimate abolition of the international arms trade together with progressive demilitarisation within arms producing countries. The The Corner House aims to support democratic and community movements for environmental and social justice through analysis, research and advocacy.

In December 2006 the SFO dropped its bribery and corruption investigations into BAE's arms sales to Saudi Arabia, following pressure from BAE and Saudi Arabia and a direct intervention from then Prime Minister Tony Blair. The decision was subject to severe criticism and prompted CAAT and The Corner House to launch a Judicial Review of the decision. In April 2008, the High Court ruled that the SFO Director had acted unlawfully by stopping the investigation; that judgment was subsequently overturned by the House of Lords in July 2008, which ruled that he had acted lawfully when faced with a threat to national security. For more details click here.

2. For a summary of investigations into BAE click here.

3. The Serious Fraud Office is a UK government department that investigates and prosecutes complex fraud.

4. BAE Systems is the world's fourth largest arms producer. It makes fighter aircraft, warships, tanks, armoured vehicles, artillery systems, missiles and munitions. Its foremost markets are Saudi Arabia and the United States. It has consistently denied any wrong-doing. More information: here.

5. A judicial review is a court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. Now that CAAT and The Corner House have lodged papers at the High Court requesting a judicial review, the Serious Fraud Office Director will submit his legal arguments and a witness statement arguing why the decision to offer a plea bargain settlement with BAE was lawful. A judge will then consider the papers from both sides and decide whether to grant or refuse permission for a full judicial review hearing.

Show your support - sign the statement here

Peter Sutcliffe, convicted in 1981 of murder of 13 women, asks high court to set tariff which could lead to parole

• Matthew Taylor
• guardian.co.uk, Monday 1 March 2010 14.10 GMT
• Article history

Portrait of serial killer Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, on his wedding day, 11 months before his campaign of terror. Photograph: Express Newspapers/Getty Images

 

The serial killer Peter Sutcliffe is seeking a high court ruling to determine how much longer he must serve in jail. Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper, got 20 life terms in 1981 for murdering 13 women and attacking seven others.

The 63-year-old is now asking the court to grant him a finite sentence.

Sutcliffe, who is held in Broadmoor high security psychiatric hospital, will have to persuade the mental health review tribunal that he no longer poises a risk before he can be eligible to apply for parole.

He first lodged his request in 2008 and reporting restrictions on the case ensured he was only referred to as P. However Mr Justice Mitting, sitting in the high court in London, ruled that Sutcliffe, now known as Peter Coonan, could be identified. "It is now common ground this is part of the criminal process and must therefore proceed in the defendant's own name. The press are at liberty to report the fact that these proceedings concern Peter Sutcliffe/Peter Coonan."

A judge recommended, at the time of the 1981 trial, that Sutcliffe serve a minimum of 30 years behind bars, which expires next year. However Sutcliffe's name was not on a Home Office list, published in 2006, of 35 murderers serving "whole life" sentences, and he was given no formal minimum sentence. Today's preliminary hearing at the high court in London set out what form the tariff-setting hearing should take, and what evidence should be admitted.

Mitting was told there was new expert evidence on Sutcliffe's state of mind, which could help his case for release on licence. However the judge refused an application on Sutcliffe's behalf for fresh psychiatric evidence to be admitted as part of the tariff-setting exercise, although, he said, it would be considered in relation to his conduct post-sentence.

When Sutcliffe is reviewed later this year, the gravity of his crimes, whether or not he has made "exceptional" progress in custody, the state of his mental health and any representations from him, his victims or their families, will be taken into account.

The judge will have the power to impose a definite number of years that Sutcliffe must serve, and could rule that he spends the rest of his life in jail. Sutcliffe was convicted at the Old Bailey in London for the murder of 13 women, and on seven counts of attempted murder, in Yorkshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire. The former lorry driver said he was on a "mission from God" to kill prostitutes – although not all of his victims were sex workers – and was dubbed the Yorkshire Ripper because he mutilated their bodies using a hammer, a sharpened screw driver and a knife. In 1984 he was transferred to Broadmoor from prison.

His life sentence means that, whatever the outcome of the tariff decision, he will only be freed if the authorities consider he no longer poses a serious danger to the public.

Schneier: CCTVs don't make us safer

By Cory Doctorow at 5:12 AM February 26, 2010

Bruce Schneier has written an outstanding essay for CNN on why sticking CCTV cameras on every corner doesn't make us safer, and can make us less safe by opening us up to abuse, and by causing police resources to be misallocated. This is required reading for the twenty-first century. Bruce points out that where there's a specific threat in a specific place -- casinos worried about cheats, shops worried about shoplifters, parking garages worried about skulking muggers -- CCTVs have some use. But as a catch-all solution to crime, they just don't work well enough to justify their expense in resources and liberty.

Pervasive security cameras don't substantially reduce crime. This fact has been demonstrated repeatedly: in San Francisco, California, public housing; in a New York apartment complex; in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; in Washington; in study after study in both the U.S. and the U.K. Nor are they instrumental in solving many crimes after the fact.

There are exceptions, of course, and proponents of cameras can always cherry-pick examples to bolster their argument. These success stories are what convince us; our brains are wired to respond more strongly to anecdotes than to data. But the data are clear: CCTV cameras have minimal value in the fight against crime.

Although it's comforting to imagine vigilant police monitoring every camera, the truth is very different, for a variety of reasons: technological limitations of cameras, organizational limitations of police and the adaptive abilities of criminals. No one looks at most CCTV footage until well after a crime is committed. And when the police do look at the recordings, it's very common for them to be unable to identify suspects. Criminals don't often stare helpfully at the lens and -- unlike the Dubai assassins -- tend to wear sunglasses and hats. Cameras break far too often.

Spy cameras won't make us safer

Talk to Frank

kevin | February 18, 2010 | 1:23 pm

Meet Frank*

Frank is a security guard.

Frank works at the Bridges shopping centre in Sunderland.

Frank thinks I may be a paedophile and is prepared to call the Police to make sure I’m not.

Frank is just obeying orders…..

Here’s what happened

We were in Sunderland visiting my Dad and my Gran. My Dad had given the kids £10 each and Ben wanted to go and buy a toy so we took him into the Bridges shopping centre. While we were walking around we saw a little roundabout with a train on it. Ben loves trains and he went and clambered onto it. The train had a moustache and Sarah was laughing at the train so she told me to take a picture.

As soon as I pressed the button on my cameraphone Frank was by my side. He informed me that I couldn’t take pictures. I asked him why and he said that it was the centre’s rules as I might be a paedophile! I told him that I hadn’t seen any signs saying that photography was forbidden and he conceded that there weren’t any but he was just following his orders from the Centre Management who he would get to come down if I had a problem.

I informed him that in my opinion he was being a little over zealous in performing his duties as the child I had taken a picture of was my son and that maybe he was blowing the threat of paedophiles out of proportion. He said he wasn’t as he was just following orders from on high.

I was getting bored now but was still annoyed about effectively being accused of being a paedophile so I took the picture of Frank so that if I later wanted to make a complaint to the centre I would be able to identify him. I then wandered off to find Sarah who was in the Early Learning Centre.  This is of course ironic that if he really did suspect me of being a paedophile then why did he let me go into a toy shop? And if he didn’t suspect me why then did he make such a fuss?

The other irony is that having being pulled up for using a camera I was then tracked by the centre’s security cameras – I know this because the Police knew exactly where to find me when they arrived a few minutes later. We had moved up the road into another toyshop where, while looking at toys with Ben, I was confronted by PC B*****w who informed me that there had been a complaint.

PC B*****w threatens to arrest me on more than one occasion.

PC B*****w is ill informed about his ability to delete my photographs

PC B*****w doesn’t know what a hyphen is!

So in the middle of a toyshop the confrontation starts again. I’m asked about the original photograph and again I explain that the picture is of my child, again I comment about the lack of signs informing about the “No Photography” rule and PC B*****w agrees with me.  he asks why I took the picture of the security guard and accepts my explanation.

As the discussion is getting a bit heated he threatens to arrest me, saying that I’m causing a breach of the peace. Well come on, what do you expect, I’ve been accused of being a paedophile and had the Police set on me for taking a picture of my own son in a public place – can’t you work out why I’m getting a bit annoyed.

He says he has the right to delete my photographs and I explain that he doesn’t. He backtracks and says he has the right to see them. I tell him he will have to caution me first. He asks for my details which I begrudgingly give him. he asks why I am in the North East – I ask what relevance that has. He explains that he just needs to know!

PC B*****w also informs me that the Bridges shopping centre is a hotbed of paedophile activity and sexual assaults happen there all of the time. Sounds like the sort of place families with young children should avoid IF it’s actually true.

Eventually he goes off to find the security guard and tell him that he has checked me out and everything is ok! A monumental waste of Police time. The lady in the shop is appalled by the situation and admits that even though she works there she wasn’t aware of any “No Photography” policy.

Now I know that there are those who will say that I brought it on myself and I should have just kowtowed to the security guard when he told me not to take pictures. However I disagree – I believe I had every right to take a photograph of my son in a public place and frankly I’m sick of having my civil liberties eroded little by little.

In this country there is no law against taking a photograph in a public space. The shopping centre, although privately owned is still a public space. I know from experience that commercial photography requires permission from the owners but there is no law against the private individual taking a picture in a public space.

The shopping centre could impose a ban on photography within it’s environs but this should be indicated along with all the other things that are banned on the entrance to the centre. There are signs saying no smoking, no alcohol, so skateboards etc but none advertising the alleged ban on photography.

Also there is no law against taking a picture of a child or indeed a security guard in a public place. There is no right of privacy for the individual in this country. So I was well within the law to take both pictures.

Finally there is the presumption of guilt. It has been a long held tradition in this country of being innocent until proven guilty and it is beholden of the authorities to prove a persons guilt. However more and more often it is the individual that is required to prove their innocence. I took a picture of a child therefore until I can prove I am not a paedophile it will be assumed that I am.

The sensible way forward would be only to observe and if I was seen to be taking pictures of more than one child then would be the time to move in but no – in order to protect us from a minority of people everyone must be suspected and prevented from taking innocent pictures of their child. Is this really the sort of world we want to live in?

It’s ironic that at a time when almost every one has the ability to take a photograph using either a camera or a mobile phone, probably more so than ever before, then the ability to do so is slowly being eroded. Fight back – Photography is not a crime. I am not a terrorist, I am not a paedophile, I am a Photographer!

* name may have been changed

It seems our fear-ridden, paranoid society is not a good place to be taking photographs. If you're not accused of being a terrorist, you'll be a suspected paedophile...

Justice department finds John Yoo and Jay Bybee guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct

• Ewen MacAskill in Washington
• guardian.co.uk, Saturday 20 February 2010
• Article history

Detainees in a holding area at Guantanamo Bay. Photograph: Shane T McCoy/AFP/Getty Images

 

An inquiry by the US justice department last night reprimanded two senior Bush era lawyers who approved the use of torture at Guantánamo Bay. The department found the two lawyers, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, guilty of poor judgment but not professional misconduct.

The lawyers wrote controversial memorandums dating from 2002 after the 9/11 attacks that provided legal cover for the CIA to use torture and other harsh interrogation techniques. The conclusion of the report, which marks a significant softening of the original draft, will disappoint human rights organisations. Publication of the report has been delayed for months amid fierce internal debate. If the two had been found guilty of professional misconduct, it would have had consequences for their immediate careers and opened the way for legal challenges.

The techniques approved by the lawyers included waterboarding, which Barack Obama has described as torture but the former vice-president, Dick Cheney, insisted was not. Detainees accused of the 9/11 attacks such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed were repeatedly subjected to waterboarding. Harsh techniques were used against others picked up in Afghanistan and Pakistan and taken to Guantánamo.

The assistant attorney-general, Ronald Weich, found the two lawyers "exercised poor judgment in connection with the drafting of the pertinent memoranda". No disciplinary action is to be taken.

Weich said poor judgment "differs from professional misconduct in that an attorney may act inappropriately and thus exhibit poor judgment even though he or she may not have violated or acted in reckless disregard of a clear obligation or standard". Yoo is a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley and Bybee is a federal appeals court judge.

The Obama administration is reluctant to reopen the row over waterboarding and Obama last year ruled against prosecution of CIA agents involved in torture techniques. He said it was a "time for reflection, not retribution".Other techniques that were approved included walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), wall standing, and sleep deprivation.

Body scanners were introduced after an alleged attempt to blow up a plane

The use of airport body scanners in the UK may be unlawful, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has warned.

Scanners already in place at Heathrow and Manchester Airports may be breaking discrimination law as well as breaching passengers' rights to privacy, it said.

It has now written a letter to Transport Secretary Lord Adonis.

The government said security concerns meant scanners had been needed immediately, but it was carrying out an equalities impact assessment.

The scanners are being introduced in response to the alleged attempt to blow up an American plane on 25 December.

But the commission said it had "serious doubts" that the decision to roll them out in UK airports was legal.

It said one of its chief concerns was over how people would be selected for the scans.

'Vulnerable groups'

Its chairman, Trevor Phillips, said: "The right to life is the ultimate human right and we support the government's review of security policies.

Given the current security threat level, we believe it was essential to start introducing scanners immediately Department for Transport spokesperson

"State action like border checks, stop-and-search and full body scanning are undertaken for good reasons.

"But, without proper care, such policies can end up being applied in ways which do discriminate against vulnerable groups or harm good community relations."

Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne MP agreed.

He said: "The government seems intent on pressing ahead with the use of body scanners without addressing any of the privacy concerns and safeguard issues raised by the Liberal Democrats and others.

"The commission is right to suggest that security measures cannot simply be introduced without due respect for the rule of law."

Code of practice

The commission has previously said scanners could breach an individual's right to privacy under the Human Rights Act.

It has also previously written to the home secretary to ask that he set out in detail the justification for bringing in the scanners, and clarify what safeguards will be put in place.

They produce "naked" images of passengers, and the commission then said it was concerned especially for the privacy of certain groups such as disabled people, the elderly, children and the transgendered community.

The Department for Transport said it had published a staff code of practice for the scanners.

A spokesperson said passengers who were randomly selected for screening would not be chosen because of any personal characteristics.

"Given the current security threat level, we believe it was essential to start introducing scanners immediately.

"We are currently carrying out a full equalities impact assessment on the code of practice, which will be published shortly when we begin a public consultation on these issues."

 

Funeral parlour man ‘violated three bodies’

---

Image   of

2010/02/16

A MAN working at a funeral parlour in Mthatha was arrested after he was caught allegedly violating corpses.

The 41-year-old man had been employed by the parlour in Vulindlela Heights to clean bodies.

He was arrested after his colleague caught him allegedly having sex with one of the bodies on Sunday morning.

Later it was established that two other corpses had also been violated.

Police spokesperson Superintendent Mzukisi Fatyela said the man, who cannot be named, had been charged with three counts of “violating deceased persons”.

The owner of the parlour declined to comment when approached by the Daily Dispatch.

The suspect is scheduled to appear in the Mthatha Magistrate’s Court today.

By BONGANI HANS, Mthatha bureau. bonganih@dispatch.co.za

By Rob Beschizza at 1:26 PM February 13, 2010

Wondering whether that collection of 'the character bio says she's 18' hentai is legal or not? Your quandary is at an end. It's illegal enough to get a custodial sentence. On one hand, jail time for owning cartoon smut is a creepy example of victimless thoughtcrime. Then again, very little is as creepy as this guy's comic collection. [Wired]

UPDATE: Neil Gaiman came away from this post thinking that I'm OK with the idea that someone should go to prison for reading the wrong comic-book. For Neil and anyone else who got that idea, let me clarify: that's not what I meant. Supporting free speech means defending the indefensible, no matter how 'creepy' a prosecutor may find it.

With this single-paragraph post, I didn't mean to be speciously even-handed, just to add some brief context to the link. Be sure to read David Kravets' reporting at Wired and Anime News Network's overview. But I'm not "ashamed of myself" for failing to make my own opinion clearer. You don't need my help to RTA and figure things out for yourselves.

Christopher Handley's only 'crime' was that some of the comics he imported contain drawings of children and animals in sexual situations. Earlier coverage describes a horrendous, Kafka-esque scenario, in which he could plead guilty or face the prospect of a life-destroying sentence. Trying to shame "the Boing Boing person" for insufficient coverage within hours of Handley's unjust sentencing won't make it any less shameful for him.

Russia farmer convicted of planting landmines in field

A Russian farmer has been convicted of planting landmines around his field to ward off trespassers.

Alexander Skopintsev, from the eastern region of Primorye near China's border, laid the three devices on his land after building them in his garage.

The 73-year-old had apparently been concerned about the frequent theft of potatoes from his farm.

He was arrested after an intruder set off one of the tripwire-style mines in August and was injured in the blast.

Skopintsev was convicted for the unlawful construction and storage of weapons and received a two-and-a-half year suspended sentence.

"Skopintsev testified that he had prepared the explosive devices to protect his garden against thieves," regional prosecutors said in a statement reported by RIA-Novosti news agency.