Maybe there is a need to be, if not loved, at least accepted, regardless of our various failings – and, of course, having unpopular or uncommon views could be perceived as failings. I have to keep reminding myself that my particular life delusion does involve thinking differently. Or at least trying to.

Preparing the speech bubbles for WEBT, and cross-referencing some scientific terms, I found myself repeating the metaphysical ideas of someone else. As it happens there is a parallel but it made me feel flat.

Yet when I write from personal experience, even if it is nothing new, it makes me feel alive, even original. But I seem to need to stop and be silent within far more frequently otherwise it doesn’t seem to work. And then I wonder why I bother. It’s not enough just being a high-performance computer in some humongous whole. I need to see and touch as well as feel that my life is worthwhile.

Euphrosene Labon Mind Body Spirit Artist Author Writer

Euphrosene’s Gallery of Contemporary Spiritual Art & Cartoons

self-expression, delusion, metaphysical ideas

Point one: the government, as usual, got it wrong.

It managed to whip up the public by not being straight enough, quickly enough, about Jon Venables. His name and location need not be revealed but the alleged deed should have, as it could potentially affect the well-being of others, and indeed got the ethersphere in a wild lather both for and against.

As for prejudicing any trial by talking of those potential misdeeds, my current understanding is that, being under licence, means Venables could be recalled to prison, without trial, should he step out of line at any time. Which he seems to have, frequently. I believe there may thus be a case for a swift return to prison without benefit of a tainted trial.

I do feel pity for him in some ways. If he has been revealing his true identity, it seems like a cry for help – or perhaps a desire to properly pay for his crime? Pointless giving him yet another identity if what he wants is forgiveness as ‘Jon Venables’ not A N Other.

Point two: name the deed but I strongly feel it would be wrong to share his new name or location. That really would be pandering to the mob.

Point three: Obviously that expensive rehab, continuing care and support, plentiful money, and early release were not very beneficial in this particular case.

I now read in The Guardian that “Relatively few people who have served a life sentence are recalled – last year there were only 89”.

ONLY EIGHTY-NINE!

In my book, that’s a heck of a lot of murdering horrors wandering the streets for even a minute longer than necessary!

If this means of forgiveness, reconciliation and rehabilitation does not work, then there has to be another way of helping them to make good their wrongs. And, from everything I have read, the focus has been on rehabilitation, education and transfer of skills. Not a word of them making reparation. Even their freedom was not severely curtailed.

The taxpayer, ostensibly the wronged party in terms of overall harmony, continues to give, to care and to make good their paths for presumably their life.

Forgive, says The Bible. Seventy times seven. Yet The Bible also talks of reparation. And that is what is missing in this scenario.

What are these young men giving back? How are they making reparation for their wrongs?

Of course we should help others, but not to the extent where they cease to try and help themselves.

Enough. I am sure the papers will not let this one go and the other (Thompson) will also start to feel uncomfortable at this renewed interest.

Meanwhile, singletons cannot indulge in staying in bed all day, no matter how lousy we might feel (and I did) as there is no-one to fetch and carry, so I did go out, bought a couple of woollies – to make up for the huge bag of clothes I emptied from my cupboards earlier in the day – but couldn’t face food shopping. Got back home and mostly slumped on the sofa.

Today, feeling much better, I planned to go for a lengthy walk in the bright sunshine. But it was bitingly cold.

PS Balance is important. There are those who would have us pay another mega sum to give Jon Venables and other child murderers a second, and possibly third chance. Yet an MP who transgresses – and I will never be their number one fan – is forever ‘the disgraced MP’. It’s unbalanced and unfair. And that’s not forgetting the rights of the victims or their families.

PPS No time to proof. Apologies in advance for typos or lack of clarity.

Euphrosene Labon Mind Body Spirit Artist Author Writer

Euphrosene’s Gallery of Contemporary Spiritual Art & Cartoons

Rank Xerox, Jon Venables, The Guardian, MP

Watching @BBCQT on iPlayer, a comment by Will Self caught my attention. That the public have no right to know anything about Jon Venables. He explained that being on licence meant he could be returned to prison at any time and for any minor infringement of the law. Having got the audience on his side by sneering at politicians and mostly the Conservatives, his comment carried a bit more weight.

But he is wrong.

If Venables had indeed only committed a minor infringement, then why not tell the public and let people feel at ease that a potentially vicious killer (in their minds) was not in their midst. If indeed he had been returned for something petty, it would also prove the law was sound. Justice was seen to be working. We do not need to know his name or location. Just the misdeed.

Thus if someone is released under licence and can be returned to prison for even a minor infringement, the original sentence and subsequent ‘freedom’ would be viewed favourably by the public.

The mob mind, quite naturally, might assume a child torturer/murderer may have done something similar.

If it is just a parking ticket, then Venables might actually get some sympathy, since that is something most of us have actually received. (To avoid one today, despite paying £7.30, I moved my car as there was no receipt, and will now have to wait for my credit card bill to come in to see if I was indeed charged! Chewed the ear off someone at Southampton City Council till he made me laugh.)

Like Self, Brian Masters also opted to stand up for Venables – and why not? Someone has to.

However, while Venables may no longer be the vicious little boy who tortured and butchered a toddler, Brian Masters is in danger of sanctifiying him in order to nullify the mob invective.

Masters was being disingenuous given the leaks coming out that Venables had, allegedly, been in several scrapes since gaining a new identity and freedom. He mentioned nothing at all about spending those years of expensive rehab and freedom making good any previous wrong.

Presumably his comment about “two frightened little boys” probably tweaked the uber-liberal conscience, and he emphasised that by insinuating that the more cynical of us (ie me) were focused on the child and not the man he is now –a different person altogether.

Wrong and wrong. In my case, at least.

It is the man I am focused on. A man who may or may not have got into several scrapes since that expensive rehab. And we may yet have to fork out again for someone who seems to be proving himself to be a rather unworthy specimen.

So it is less about Venables and more about how we punish social transgressions given the loosening moral authority previously enjoyed through our Judaeo-Christian heritage.

PS As tweeted, Brian Masters felt no sense of ‘unease’ with the boys but then he didn’t with mass murderer Dennis Nilsen. Somewhat flaky inner tuning fork, eh?

Euphrosene Labon Mind Body Spirit Artist Author Writer

Euphrosene’s Gallery of Contemporary Spiritual Art & Cartoons

iPlayer, Will Self, Jon Venables, Southampton City Council, Brian Masters, social transgressions, mass murderer, Dennis Nilsen