“THEY GOT NEW LIVES — JAMES NEVER DID”

Two boys committed a terrible crime as children… served their time… and were given brand-new identities, fresh starts, and lifelong protection by the system.

One has reportedly lived quietly ever since, staying out of trouble under a secret name.

The other has faced repeated setbacks, returned to prison multiple times, and is now up for another chance at freedom in a private hearing that could let him disappear into everyday life again.

Meanwhile, little James Bulger’s family continues to live with unimaginable loss every single day — no second chances, no new beginnings.

They got protected identities and opportunities to rebuild. James never got any of that.

Is this true second chances… or does it feel deeply unfair? The story that still divides a nation is heating up again.

You won’t believe how the years since have unfolded. 💔

More than 30 years after the 1993 abduction and killing of 2-year-old James Bulger in a Merseyside shopping center, the case remains one of Britain’s most emotionally charged and divisive. Public attention has shifted in recent years from the original crime to the controversial handling of the perpetrators’ lives after release — including new identities, rehabilitation efforts, and ongoing parole reviews.

Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were both 10 years old at the time of the offense. Convicted in November 1993, they became the youngest murderers in modern British legal history and were sentenced to detention at Her Majesty’s pleasure. After serving eight years in secure youth facilities focused on education and therapy, the Parole Board approved their release on life licence in June 2001. A High Court order granted them lifelong anonymity to shield them from potential retribution and support their reintegration into society — a measure rarely applied but deemed necessary in this exceptional case.

The anonymity decision ignited widespread anger. James’s mother, Denise Fergus, and father, Ralph Bulger, have long argued that the protections afforded to the convicted pair deny the victim’s family full accountability and closure. Petitions, media campaigns, and public calls for greater transparency have persisted, with many questioning whether anonymity and multiple chances at freedom align with justice for such a serious offense.

Robert Thompson has maintained a low profile since 2001. Reports suggest he has complied with licence conditions, committed no further offenses, and built a stable, law-abiding life under his protected identity. Speculation — including unverified claims in some overseas media about relocation or personal changes — has circulated, but British authorities enforce the anonymity order rigorously. Violations, including online disclosures of details, have led to prosecutions and jail terms over the years. Thompson’s apparent ability to stay out of trouble is frequently cited by supporters of the youth justice system as evidence that rehabilitation can succeed, even in extreme cases.

Jon Venables’s trajectory has been markedly different and has kept the controversy alive. Released in 2001, he was recalled to prison in 2010 after authorities discovered indecent images of children on his devices, resulting in a two-year sentence. He was paroled again in 2013 but returned to custody in 2017 for similar offenses, receiving a 40-month term. Parole applications in 2020 and 2023 were denied, with the Parole Board citing continued risks to public safety, particularly involving children.

As of January 2026, Venables, now 43, is scheduled for another oral parole hearing. Recent coverage from the BBC, ITV, The Independent, and other outlets confirms the Parole Board will review his case in the coming months, potentially deciding on release back into the community under strict supervision and continued anonymity. The process remains private, and decisions are based on risk assessments, psychological evaluations, and compliance history. If granted release, Venables would live under his protected identity with monitoring to prevent breaches.

The contrast between the two men’s post-release paths has fueled intense debate. Advocates for the current system point to the principles of juvenile justice in England and Wales: young offenders are treated differently from adults, with emphasis on reform, education, and eventual reintegration rather than permanent punishment. The initial eight-year detention included tailored programs designed to address behavior and provide tools for a crime-free future. Thompson’s record is often highlighted as validation of that approach.

Critics, including James Bulger’s family, contend the measures fall short. Denise Fergus has spoken publicly about the pain of knowing her son “never got a second chance,” while his killers received new identities, freedom after a relatively short period, and — in one case — multiple opportunities despite setbacks. She and others have called for revocation of anonymity or a public inquiry into how the case has been managed, including questions about whether underlying issues were adequately addressed during detention and supervision.

The anonymity order itself remains a major point of contention. It prohibits publication of any information that could identify Venables or Thompson, with strict enforcement through contempt proceedings. Despite this, rumors and leaks occasionally surface on social media or abroad, prompting fresh outrage and renewed calls for change. In recent years, unconfirmed reports have suggested one of the men may have relocated overseas or made significant personal changes, though no official confirmation has been provided.

Broader implications extend to public trust in the parole and rehabilitation systems. Venables’s repeated offenses involving indecent images have raised concerns about long-term risk management and whether the initial youth-focused approach fully prepared him for adult life. Each parole hearing revives scrutiny of the balance between redemption for reformed offenders and protection for society — especially in a high-profile case involving a vulnerable child victim.

For James Bulger’s family, the process reopens wounds repeatedly. Denise Fergus has channeled her grief into advocacy for child safety, victims’ rights, and better support for families affected by serious crimes. Ralph Bulger has pursued legal challenges to aspects of the secrecy surrounding the case. The family was recently informed of Venables’s upcoming hearing, with reports indicating it could coincide with painful anniversaries, adding to their distress.

The case has influenced aspects of British law and policy, including tighter rules on anonymity in exceptional juvenile cases and ongoing reviews of parole transparency. Yet core questions remain unresolved: How far should society go in offering second chances to those who committed grave offenses as children? When does rehabilitation justify lifelong protection? And how does the system weigh the rights of offenders against the enduring grief of victims’ families?

As Venables faces his latest parole review and Thompson continues his quiet existence under anonymity, the James Bulger case endures as a symbol of profound tragedy and complex moral dilemmas. Little James remains forever 2 years old, with no opportunity for a new life. His killers, for better or worse, were given that chance — a reality that continues to provoke strong feelings across the UK and beyond.