Identity of Baby P's Mother To Be Revealed Tonight.

[Nancy66]

Along with that of her boyfriend.

I'm loathe to defend or protect her but that can't possibly lead to anything good can it?

The names have been fairly easy to find online for quite a while but there's a hell of a difference between having to actively look for them and having her picture splashed across the front page of The Sun as it undoubtedly will be.

Agree, The blind leading the blind. ( that's the nicest version I could come up with).

Atlantis

"the Every Child Matters Agenda that caused Baby Peter's tragedy"

How so ?

As little as possible should be kept secret. As much information as possible should be available.

However this is a bit "random" when you think about the privacy laws which slebs are able to call on.

Revealing the names will just cause more pain for family members. Pointless.

Well, life's hard.

Unless children are affected, publish.

Ah yes because the adults in the family who did nothing wrong deserve what they get?

The mens names have never been a secret, (jason Owens and can't remeber the other ones name) they are in every newspaper that writes about the story. You only had to see who was in court that day in the courtroom with the men to see the womans name.

Then search the name in google and Hey presto! her pic appears.

That's how I know her name (was very bored one day and often look at the Old Bailey wbsite to see who is there for what reason)

But it will be on the front page of the Sun and Mirror, far more public than it was before. As they are already locked up it probably won't make that much difference to them but it will affect other children in the family and even people quite distant like cousins.

AnyF, can't answer for Atlantis, obv., but I would think possibly distracting SS/SWs from focusing on the children who may well be in immediate danger? Dunno if ECM is responsible for the computer systems that mean SWs were spending 80% of their time feeding databases, but that has to be a huge factor. And the wholesale reorganisation of SS, putting education people in charge of departments dealing with child protection - didn't that spring out of ECM? And the target culture?

I suspect nuts and bolts child protection dealing with the most difficult families is not an attractive career, does not carry much kudos and is not the focus of ambitious people who want to be directors and chief execs.

The surnames are quite common, it's not like their relatives are the only ones of that name in the phone book.

How tiresome.

Now the papers will all rush to name the individuals, and then ask us all to be outraged when they need new identities, protection etc in the future.

I wouldn't be bothered if it was just the actual perpetrators as risk but we all know that these numskulls will throw bricks at anything related to their hate object, even when the person is completely innocent.

Because secrecy is a bad thing.

I can see that, at the moment, they are being afforded the sort of anonymity and protection that wasn't available to the likes of: Myra Hindley, Dr Shipman, Fred & Rose West, Roy Whiting, Ian Huntley etc...

But as they couldn't be named at the time then I don't think they should be two years on.

i still remember when a group of fuckwit vigilanties attacked a paedatrician.

it's not a secret though, as others have said if you really want to know, it comes up as the second item if you google baby p mother. hardley detective work. but then it will sell a shed load of papers in the morning when it's 'revealed.'

Someone explained that the anonymity was to do with the second court case, and that order is now expiring.

Paediatrician thing turned out to be a myth, IIRC.

So publish. Even more of a reason.

I don't want them victimised. But the culture of secrecy is a bad thing. If they are victimised, then the victimisers are to blame, not the publishers. Nobody should pander to that.

No Edam there was one very real case where a paedetrician had 'paedo' sprayed on her front door.

Realistically the people who would have known her in RL will already know she's baby's P's mum. His photo was everywhere, if you knew who he was (ie, Jane Doe's kid) then you'd know her. And that sort of thing spreads like wild fire in playgrounds and communities I'm sure, her children/siblings/parents etc are already tarred with the stigma of being related to her.

Keeping someone's identity secret is very different to publishing it on the front page of a national newspaper - it is unneccessary and is just done to incite - I would hold the papers culpable for anything that happens to the woamn. She has served her time and should be left alone

Nancy66 and Edam, no there were no fuckwit vigilantes attacking the paediatrician, but yes, she did have the word 'paedo' sprayed onto her door. The BBC had an interesting analysis of the media hype of the whole incident here.

On the matter in hand - I'm not sure I see the point. The names supposed aren't hard to track down if you want to find them, and what difference does it make to the rest of us that we can call them by real names. I thought the names were being kept quiet to protect the identity of other family members.

You cannot assign motives of incitement. You would be wrong to hold the papers culpable. If people act badly they are to blame.

I do not applaud the decision to publish the names. But there is no reason for them to be kept secret unless to protect children or to ensure a fair trial.

Probably not - but there is no reason why the newspaper should publish them!

The reason as given above by sprogger They are in the business of publishing information.

Information?? You have a very broad definition of that