to think that it was inocent until proved guilty

[2shoes]

well if so how come that womans picture and name is on the news(the nursery one)
ok if she did it and is found guilty in a court of law fine.
but surely at the moment she hasn't been
disclaimer I am using this as an example, as it was just on the news, this happens all the time and lives are ruined.

she has been charged though? So she can be named in news

She has been charged - so obviously there is enough concrete evidence.

imagine if you were another nursery nurse working at that nursery - wouldn't you want it made clear that the person charged isn't you?

you are missing the point, she was an example, if we have the inocent until proved guilty, then surely that has to be proved in court.
if people are named before then how can they get a fair trial, and if they are inocent, well mud sticks.

It does seem very quick but I would imagine the investigation has been going on for a while. I could be wrong because I havent read the coverage yet.

If she hasnt been convicted its not [technically] right to name her and show her picture.

She wont be able to get bail now will she? it wont be safe.

But then it does seem {from what I have read] the evidence is pretty damning.

they are now saying some of the pics were taken at the nursery

they must have overwhelming evidence 2shoes.

agree with smallorange

She would not be named until charged and therefore there is an arguable case against her.

She is innocent until proven guilty and will have her opportunity to clear her name in court.

What if there are other victims? They may come forward as result of her name being made available to to the press.

the way it worked with old media (newspapers) is that as soon as someone is charged then the only details that could be published under the contempt of court act were name, age, address, charge and details of court appearance etc. A bit of background but nothing contentious.

It's public information that you can find on any court list, and this info is provided by police to the media every day.

However new media seems to have made these rules difficult to apply as people on chat forums love to speculate beyond the facts given IFYSWIM. The press will push it as far as they can.

I do aggree on this case, but I probally used a bad example.

smallorange thanks that kind of explained it to me

of course people need to know who she is. She's been charged and is in custody.

There are other innoicent people working at that nursery who need people to know it's not them. Also this information could casue other people to come forward

That is the main issue - making other people come forward. That is (most likely) why press reporting restrictions have been lifted in this instance.

oh I get it now, they had to go public to get people to come forward.

and also to protect the innocent

I was kind of surprised they named the nursery, let alone the woman being charged. Doesn't it kind of breach the victims' right to anonymity?

If she hadnt have been named I guess there would have been angry hordes at the nursery baying for blood.

I don't think there's anything here about protecting the innocent - that would be the last thing on the police's mind.

It would also be quite obvious if someone was seen in Sainsburys it wasn't them!

hf128219 - That sort of logic doesn't seem to apply for many pitchfork wavers!

in the age of the internet it's impossible to keep somebody's name secret if they are connected to a particularly unpleasant crime.

Baby P's mother was never named in the media but an internet search will reveal it without much trouble.

Sean Mercer was named as Rhys Jones's killer online before the police had even questioned him let along charges being brought.

Well that is true! And you know what they say about the pitchfork wavers?!

I know what you mean though 2shoes, it does look overwhelming, but that's why we have courts, because it's not enough for it to look overwhelming, surely. you have to prove it in court.
All the reporting is as if she's def guilty.