Southport - reporting restrictions

[mids2019]

So the attacker in Southport was a child (17) so will be not be reported on due to reporting restrictions. Due to proximity of the alleged attacked to adulthood and the severity of the crimes do you think in this case it is in the public interest to release at least some details of the alleged killer? Not releasing details fuels speculation that at a public level may not be helpful in my.opinion.

In addition I would think there may be a high chance the attacker had a severe mental illness so after the Nottingham attacks will the debate about personal responsibility for actions during psychosis be raised again?

Fair enough although the difference between community and inpatient MH isn't the issue here. If he were on a hybrid order he wouldn't be leaving detention as an NHS patient. No matter how bad community MH is (and it is) probation and it's interface with health is much worse ATM. I work in a role across prisons with a private provider (psych providers in prisons are privatized). It's basically chaos and the amount of miscommunication, poorly conducted risk assessment and failure to share critical information is breathtaking (previously I was 100%nhs). That's why I say from a patient safety pov he's much better in hospital than prison.

The general public have zero idea how bad our prisons are right now but if you wanted to prevent an individual reoffending you would not send them to prison, you would want them in hospital.

No
It adds nowt to the picture. Idiots would be round to set the family home alight in moments.

What countries would that be? And many, you say?

Plenty of misinformation on Twitter / x

The law is sensible, and the MSM are right to stick to it. Broadcasters could do much more, however, to clearly explain why they can’t name people who are legally minors & are suspects in police investigations into serious offences. They assume too much knowledge & understanding among their audiences, which fuels conspiracy theories & allegations of cover-ups.

It always staggers me when people want the law to be abandoned in certain situations because they 'need to know'

If I got arrested I'd expect, rightly, the law to be followed. Not applied willy nilly depending opinions of the crime, my proximity to it when arrested and my background.

To demand those standards for myself I have to defend them for other people. However unpalatable what they've done or may have done.

The process has to be followed for everyone

I was thinking mental health as well. But then getting a taxi to the venue seems quite a deliberate/planned act. Has someone made him do it - brainwashed/blackmailed/threatened?

In all likelihood they were waiting for a mental health assessment to see if he was fit for interview.

Mentally ill people can plan things. It's just that sometimes they're insane things.

please do your own research

No, you’re the are claiming that there are many Muslim Eastern European countries.

Now you can’t name them.

Does 3 count as many?

Do we get to include the Caucasus as well, and republics in Russia?

He’ll prob be 18 before then anyway

No, three don’t count as many. And Kosovo is tiny.

And Azerbaijan is not an European country.

A lot of people seem to think that people with schizophrenia/psychosis only go on murdering rampages impulsively... as someone who has had a family member with paranoid psychosis, the idea that someone could believe they were receiving messages to target a particular location and demographic seems entirely plausible. For example, thinking that Taylor Swift is trying to take over the world or something. Psychosis can lead people to believe they have to kill someone in order to protect them or others, and people can be otherwise entirely lucid and able to do things like take a taxi to a specific place.

Indeed. "We do not negotiate with terrorists" and the EDL, who are trying to frighten Black and brown people into leaving the UK and actively campaign to close the borders, are arguably terrorists.

If we allow violent thugs to dictate changes to the law, democracy and the rule of law die.

The bad actors were Russian, a website called Channel 3.

The initial name circulated was false. I believe this false name contributed to the recent riots, and I also suspect the initial false name was designed in such a way to do this.

However, a second name is now on SM and this one looks very probable due to details given along with it, including that he will soon be 18.

In general, I don’t agree with withholding the names of under 18s charged with serious crimes. Certainly, if some children’s names are withheld, it should be under 13s or something, not 14, 15, 16and 17 yr olds. It’s pointless anyway. The name is out there just like the name of that evil teen who murdered that poor child on the Scottish island. That name appeared very quickly - and rightly so IMO.

Any names floating round on social media are likely to be fake.

He is a child. The police don't mess with this kind of thing - one wrong move and the case is done before it's even allowed to begin. Why would they risk securing convictions in order to placate racists?

It isn't in the public interest to know his name but the public are interested and names are being circulated.
It is a ghastly tragedy and firing up
The angry brigade is not going to help the police investigate, the witnesses come to terms with what happened or the victims and their families grieve.

What matters is that he is in custody. His name is immaterial at this stage, unless you are someone looking for trouble.

We wouldn't have ended up like the US, even if pistols hadn't been outlawed. Even prior to 1997, firearms certificate holders were highly vetted. In the US, anyone who isn't a convicted felon can buy a firearm. There's always been a lot more firearms per head of population in the US than here, and a lot more gun owners.

I also resent the assertion that Hamilton was mentally-ill and that caused his decision to mass-murder children. Mentally-ill people are far more likely to be murdered than to murder. He was a paedophile and the Scouts had thrown him out because of safeguarding concerns, which they didn't report onwards. He was angry because, like so many entitled males, someone had got between his dick and his preferred victims.

If the Scouts had reported their safeguarding concerns to the police, Hamilton's guns would likely have been confiscated.

Exactly what I meant. Them, or any kind of radical movement really, whatever their motives are.

He's not a criminal. He is a suspect and is innocent until proved guilty. That's how the law works for all of us, even the people we don't like.

You can focus on that and also on preventing this happening again.