-sent back to jail over 'drugs and workplace brawl'
James Bulger's killer Jon Venables was sent back to jail after a workplace brawl, it was claimed yesterday.
The 27-year-old was said to have been recalled to prison after 'flipping' and attacking a work colleague.
A source said the pair grappled before others intervened and pulled them apart. His alleged victim is said to have made an official complaint about the attack which led to Venables's suspension from his minimum wage job.
It was also claimed by the Daily Mirror that his life had descended into drug abuse, with him taking ecstasy and cocaine.
And it was alleged that in December 2008 Venables was arrested by police after being seen taking cocaine in an alleyway with another man. It was claimed he was later let off with a caution.
The latest reports came as James's parents accused Jack Straw of placing the human rights of one of their son's killers above their own.
They led a wave of mounting anger over the Justice Secretary's stubborn refusal to explain why Jon Venables was back behind bars.
Suspicion was growing that Venables had returned to violence, which raised fresh doubts over the wisdom of releasing the killers in the first place.
Yesterday the father of James, Ralph Bulger, 43, said it was a 'disgrace' that his family was still in the dark about why Venables had been sent back to jail.
'It is one more kick in the teeth for James and his family,' he said.
Mr Straw said it was 'not in the public interest' to reveal how Venables, now 27, breached his parole nine years after he was controversially released from custody.
Yet hours earlier, Home Secretary Alan Johnson had declared on TV that he believed 'the public do have a right to know'.
James's father Ralph Bulger, 43, said: 'From day one, everything has been done to protect the human rights of Venables.
'He was given a second chance, unlike my son, but he has blown it and now he deserves for those same human rights to be revoked and for the Government to reveal all. My biggest fear now is whether another child has been killed and another family is going through the hell we live with every day.'
On her Twitter page, James's 42-year-old mother Denise Fergus wrote: 'Would like to let everyone know Jon Venables is where he belongs tonight behind bars. Is this my son's justice?'
A spokesman for Mrs Fergus confirmed that she had not been informed of the reason for the recall. 'The decision to inform Denise that Venables is in custody, without telling her what he has done, is very callous and insensitive.
'Denise agrees with Alan Johnson that she and the public have a right to know what Venables has done, and what his punishment will be.'
As few as eight officials were said to know the precise reason why the killer has been returned to jail, although ministers privately briefed the Tories and Liberal Democrats to explain what had happened.
Venables and Robert Thompson, who were freed with new identities in 2001, were just ten when they snatched two-year-old James in a Liverpool shopping centre and battered him to death in February 1993.
Both killers were given compulsory life sentences for the murder but were released after serving just eight years in custody when they won a human rights court battle.
In a terse statement on Tuesday night, the Ministry of Justice said Venables was recalled to prison after breaching the terms of his release.
Mr Bulger, who was divorced from James's mother two years after the murder, said officials had called at his home in Merseyside hours earlier to break the news about Venables.
'Without a doubt he is back where he belongs but he should never have been let out in the first place,' he said.
'I always said that the judges and politicians who let James's killers go free had his blood on their hands because they just didn't care enough about the precious life of my little boy.
'Our legal system danced on the grave of my innocent son without a hint of shame or compassion by letting these murderers go free. Now their actions have come back to haunt them.'
The row over the public's right to know what Venables had done was stoked by confusion and farce at Whitehall.
In an early-morning television appearance, the Home Secretary said more details would be released.
Mr Johnson told Sky News: 'I believe the public do have a right to know and I believe they will know all the facts in due course. But I must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings.'
The last remark appeared to break the Government's code of silence by implying that Venables faced a possible court case.
Mr Straw was then sent out to try to clear up the mess. He said: 'I'm sorry that I cannot give more information at this stage on the nature of the alleged breach. I know there's an intense public interest in why he has been recalled. I would like to give that information but I'm sorry that for good reasons I can't and that's in the public interest.'
In a later TV appearance, Mr Straw appeared to hint that Venables had committed a criminal offence. He said: 'There was information that suggested conclusively that there had been a breach of Jon Venables's licence conditions. As a result of this the appropriate and timely action was taken.
'Breach covers quite a wide range of possibilities but you don't get taken into prison for a breach of your licence conditions unless you have done something inappropriate or wrong.'
Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell warned that failure to keep the public informed would lead to 'mob rule'.
He said: 'How can people have confidence in the criminal justice system?
Venables will face a hearing of the Parole Board within 28 days of being recalled, where the details of the breach will be examined.
These hearings are normally not open to the public. He is being represented by London-based-human rights solicitors Bhatt Murphy - who declined to return calls yesterday.
Last year only 79 prisoners on life licence out of a possible 1,400 in the community were recalled to prison.
A senior probation source told the Mail: 'You don't recall a prisoner after 16 years of very expensive rehabilitation unless it is something serious.'
The source said that the chances of Venables 'remaining undetected' whilst in prison were 'very small'.
'Hitherto there were only a handful of people involved in his care: a probation officer, a senior probation officer, a police officer and someone at the Ministry of Justice.
'Now he is in the prison service the likelihood of him becoming compromised has increased significantly. He will almost certainly need a new identity when he is released.'
Eight years of pampering, then a new life
At the time, the decision by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson to remain voluntarily in secure children's units for an extra six months after their release order was interpreted as a fear of freedom.
But given what they were leaving behind, who would blame them for their reluctance to leave?
During their eight years of detention, they lived a life of comfort and expensive rehabilitation, cookery lessons and trips to watch Manchester United.
Coming from broken homes and dysfunctional families, they enjoyed an education far better than most of their contemporaries.
Many, not least James's family, were furious that Venables and Thompson were freed without ever spending a day in an adult prison for the shocking murder.
Draconian legal injunctions giving them anonymity for life were put in place when the pair were released in 2001.
Each was given a new identity, backed up passport, birth certificate, National Insurance documents and NHS records. Bank accounts and credit cards were set up under their new names.
They were coached in their cover stories and given elocution lessons to lose their Liverpool accents.
Years of preparation had gone into the boys' release, with personal tutors mentoring Venables during his stay at Red Banks Children's Home, a former approved school at Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, only 13 miles from the Bulger family home at Kirkby.
Thompson was nine miles further towards Manchester, at Barton Moss, near Eccles.
While serving his sentence, he began letters to friends: 'It's Bobby here, live from the five-star Hotel Barton Moss.'
He had his own room - with TV and Playstation - in the modern, 20-bed complex, with the use of a garden, gym, games room and computer room.
Thompson, who developed an interest in textiles and design, won praise for a beaded wedding dress he made, as well as a tapestry of a lion's head which hung in the foyer.
He passed five GCSEs and took A-levels, was taken on supervised days out to shopping centres, the Lake District and the theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon to get him used to the public.
For Venables, life at Red Bank - once home to child killer Mary Bell - was even cushier. His regime included a bigger and better room than other inmates - decorated with Manchester United wallpaper and complete with computer, games and a TV.
He could ride scramble motorbikes in the school grounds, enjoyed regular family visits and took trips to Wales and a swimming pool in nearby Wigan.
Every month ?25 was put into his account for clothes, ?6 for toiletries and ?4 for a haircut. For each birthday he received ?30 and for Christmas ?40, rising to ?60 once he was 16.
Before his release he was taken with his father to Old Trafford to watch Manchester United play - ostensibly to get him used to being in large crowds and try to reduce his fear of being recognised and attacked.
Since their release, the legal injunctions mean the public know little about the lifestyles of either Venables or Thompson.
When not working, both are entitled to benefits to ensure neither drifts back into crime.
Both see probation officers at least four times a year and officers are on call 24 hours a day in case either needs help or advice.
In 2003, both were reportedly treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death.
But Venables's attitude was so bad that frustrated police minders threw him across the bonnet of a car - and threatened to leave him chained to a lamp-post in Liverpool to teach him a lesson.
In 2005 there were reports that Thompson was addicted to heroin and was being prescribed the substitute methadone to wean him off his habit.
The following year, the Daily Mail revealed that he was gay and had been given permission by his probation service 'minders' to live with his homosexual lover, who was aware of his past.
In 2007 unconfirmed reports suggested Venables was to marry a pretty office worker he started dating two years earlier.
He was taken to hospital for emergency surgery after violence flared in the street when a man tried to chat up his girlfriend.
In another, unprovoked attack, he was seriously injured and reportedly went to a hospital on Merseyside for treatment - although he is banned from returning to the scene of his crime without permission.
Ten years old and already a killer: Jon Venables at the time of the attack
James Bulger's killer Jon Venables was sent back to jail after a workplace brawl, it was claimed yesterday.
The 27-year-old was said to have been recalled to prison after 'flipping' and attacking a work colleague.
A source said the pair grappled before others intervened and pulled them apart. His alleged victim is said to have made an official complaint about the attack which led to Venables's suspension from his minimum wage job.
It was also claimed by the Daily Mirror that his life had descended into drug abuse, with him taking ecstasy and cocaine.
And it was alleged that in December 2008 Venables was arrested by police after being seen taking cocaine in an alleyway with another man. It was claimed he was later let off with a caution.
The latest reports came as James's parents accused Jack Straw of placing the human rights of one of their son's killers above their own.
They led a wave of mounting anger over the Justice Secretary's stubborn refusal to explain why Jon Venables was back behind bars.
Suspicion was growing that Venables had returned to violence, which raised fresh doubts over the wisdom of releasing the killers in the first place.
Yesterday the father of James, Ralph Bulger, 43, said it was a 'disgrace' that his family was still in the dark about why Venables had been sent back to jail.
'It is one more kick in the teeth for James and his family,' he said.
Mr Straw said it was 'not in the public interest' to reveal how Venables, now 27, breached his parole nine years after he was controversially released from custody.
Yet hours earlier, Home Secretary Alan Johnson had declared on TV that he believed 'the public do have a right to know'.
James's father Ralph Bulger, 43, said: 'From day one, everything has been done to protect the human rights of Venables.
'He was given a second chance, unlike my son, but he has blown it and now he deserves for those same human rights to be revoked and for the Government to reveal all. My biggest fear now is whether another child has been killed and another family is going through the hell we live with every day.'
On her Twitter page, James's 42-year-old mother Denise Fergus wrote: 'Would like to let everyone know Jon Venables is where he belongs tonight behind bars. Is this my son's justice?'
A spokesman for Mrs Fergus confirmed that she had not been informed of the reason for the recall. 'The decision to inform Denise that Venables is in custody, without telling her what he has done, is very callous and insensitive.
'Denise agrees with Alan Johnson that she and the public have a right to know what Venables has done, and what his punishment will be.'
Tragic: James Bulger (left) was murdered by Venables and Robert Thompson
As few as eight officials were said to know the precise reason why the killer has been returned to jail, although ministers privately briefed the Tories and Liberal Democrats to explain what had happened.
Venables and Robert Thompson, who were freed with new identities in 2001, were just ten when they snatched two-year-old James in a Liverpool shopping centre and battered him to death in February 1993.
Both killers were given compulsory life sentences for the murder but were released after serving just eight years in custody when they won a human rights court battle.
In a terse statement on Tuesday night, the Ministry of Justice said Venables was recalled to prison after breaching the terms of his release.
In memory: The grave of the murdered toddler in Kirkdale Cemetary, Liverpool
Mr Bulger, who was divorced from James's mother two years after the murder, said officials had called at his home in Merseyside hours earlier to break the news about Venables.
'Without a doubt he is back where he belongs but he should never have been let out in the first place,' he said.
'I always said that the judges and politicians who let James's killers go free had his blood on their hands because they just didn't care enough about the precious life of my little boy.
'Our legal system danced on the grave of my innocent son without a hint of shame or compassion by letting these murderers go free. Now their actions have come back to haunt them.'
The row over the public's right to know what Venables had done was stoked by confusion and farce at Whitehall.
In an early-morning television appearance, the Home Secretary said more details would be released.
Mr Johnson told Sky News: 'I believe the public do have a right to know and I believe they will know all the facts in due course. But I must in no way prejudice the future criminal justice proceedings.'
Image of horror: CCTV footage of James being led away to his death
The last remark appeared to break the Government's code of silence by implying that Venables faced a possible court case.
Mr Straw was then sent out to try to clear up the mess. He said: 'I'm sorry that I cannot give more information at this stage on the nature of the alleged breach. I know there's an intense public interest in why he has been recalled. I would like to give that information but I'm sorry that for good reasons I can't and that's in the public interest.'
In a later TV appearance, Mr Straw appeared to hint that Venables had committed a criminal offence. He said: 'There was information that suggested conclusively that there had been a breach of Jon Venables's licence conditions. As a result of this the appropriate and timely action was taken.
'Breach covers quite a wide range of possibilities but you don't get taken into prison for a breach of your licence conditions unless you have done something inappropriate or wrong.'
Tory backbencher Douglas Carswell warned that failure to keep the public informed would lead to 'mob rule'.
He said: 'How can people have confidence in the criminal justice system?
Venables will face a hearing of the Parole Board within 28 days of being recalled, where the details of the breach will be examined.
These hearings are normally not open to the public. He is being represented by London-based-human rights solicitors Bhatt Murphy - who declined to return calls yesterday.
Last year only 79 prisoners on life licence out of a possible 1,400 in the community were recalled to prison.
A senior probation source told the Mail: 'You don't recall a prisoner after 16 years of very expensive rehabilitation unless it is something serious.'
The source said that the chances of Venables 'remaining undetected' whilst in prison were 'very small'.
'Hitherto there were only a handful of people involved in his care: a probation officer, a senior probation officer, a police officer and someone at the Ministry of Justice.
'Now he is in the prison service the likelihood of him becoming compromised has increased significantly. He will almost certainly need a new identity when he is released.'
Eight years of pampering, then a new life
At the time, the decision by Jon Venables and Robert Thompson to remain voluntarily in secure children's units for an extra six months after their release order was interpreted as a fear of freedom.
But given what they were leaving behind, who would blame them for their reluctance to leave?
During their eight years of detention, they lived a life of comfort and expensive rehabilitation, cookery lessons and trips to watch Manchester United.
Coming from broken homes and dysfunctional families, they enjoyed an education far better than most of their contemporaries.
Many, not least James's family, were furious that Venables and Thompson were freed without ever spending a day in an adult prison for the shocking murder.
Draconian legal injunctions giving them anonymity for life were put in place when the pair were released in 2001.
Each was given a new identity, backed up passport, birth certificate, National Insurance documents and NHS records. Bank accounts and credit cards were set up under their new names.
They were coached in their cover stories and given elocution lessons to lose their Liverpool accents.
Years of preparation had gone into the boys' release, with personal tutors mentoring Venables during his stay at Red Banks Children's Home, a former approved school at Newton-le-Willows, Merseyside, only 13 miles from the Bulger family home at Kirkby.
Thompson was nine miles further towards Manchester, at Barton Moss, near Eccles.
While serving his sentence, he began letters to friends: 'It's Bobby here, live from the five-star Hotel Barton Moss.'
He had his own room - with TV and Playstation - in the modern, 20-bed complex, with the use of a garden, gym, games room and computer room.
Thompson, who developed an interest in textiles and design, won praise for a beaded wedding dress he made, as well as a tapestry of a lion's head which hung in the foyer.
He passed five GCSEs and took A-levels, was taken on supervised days out to shopping centres, the Lake District and the theatre at Stratford-upon-Avon to get him used to the public.
For Venables, life at Red Bank - once home to child killer Mary Bell - was even cushier. His regime included a bigger and better room than other inmates - decorated with Manchester United wallpaper and complete with computer, games and a TV.
He could ride scramble motorbikes in the school grounds, enjoyed regular family visits and took trips to Wales and a swimming pool in nearby Wigan.
Every month ?25 was put into his account for clothes, ?6 for toiletries and ?4 for a haircut. For each birthday he received ?30 and for Christmas ?40, rising to ?60 once he was 16.
Before his release he was taken with his father to Old Trafford to watch Manchester United play - ostensibly to get him used to being in large crowds and try to reduce his fear of being recognised and attacked.
Since their release, the legal injunctions mean the public know little about the lifestyles of either Venables or Thompson.
When not working, both are entitled to benefits to ensure neither drifts back into crime.
Both see probation officers at least four times a year and officers are on call 24 hours a day in case either needs help or advice.
In 2003, both were reportedly treated to a holiday at taxpayers' expense to keep them safe on the tenth anniversary of the toddler's horrific death.
But Venables's attitude was so bad that frustrated police minders threw him across the bonnet of a car - and threatened to leave him chained to a lamp-post in Liverpool to teach him a lesson.
In 2005 there were reports that Thompson was addicted to heroin and was being prescribed the substitute methadone to wean him off his habit.
The following year, the Daily Mail revealed that he was gay and had been given permission by his probation service 'minders' to live with his homosexual lover, who was aware of his past.
In 2007 unconfirmed reports suggested Venables was to marry a pretty office worker he started dating two years earlier.
He was taken to hospital for emergency surgery after violence flared in the street when a man tried to chat up his girlfriend.
In another, unprovoked attack, he was seriously injured and reportedly went to a hospital on Merseyside for treatment - although he is banned from returning to the scene of his crime without permission.
