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.

Er.. yes.. this is information. Certainly it's information not currently at my disposal. I'm sure they won't publish false names. What would you call it?

Hopefully they will be offered new identities and protected when they are released by the human rights act.

Personally, I'm weeping with laughter at "What is it the 'bible' says, an eye for an eye. "

FGS, what century are you living in?

Nothing of benefit is to be gained from naming them.

Oh no that is terrible news- for the kids- I teach in the borough where the kids now are (I did suspect I taught one of them but obviously wasn't allowed to know other than there were CP issues and they were in care). I really hope their identities are protected. Poor kids have been through enough.

And we all know how responsible the media have been in reporting the inforamtion about Swine Flu!

The media, the media.. who do you think was giving them information about swine flu? If it turned out to be wrong, whose fault is that?

It's just so easy to blame the press. Why not just stop reading the papers altogether, then you wouldn't learn anything unpleasant and they would go out of business and everyone would be happy.

Thandeka that's very said. If the children suffer their identities should be protected. They should be offered the same protection which is offered to former offenders. It would be shocking if they weren't.

'Nancy 66,

What is it the 'bible' says, an eye for an eye.
'

Or turn the other cheek?

Judge not lest ye be judged?

Hurray for the sentences and legal ssytem, can't see any good coming out of this development though, behind every guilty fuckwit there's an nnocent relation already with a ruined life.

In this case it is at least one Grandparent, no? And how can the children hope to remain anonymous after the release?

Paediatrician thing was in Newport.

All I am saying Stufflitllama is that there is no reason why the names should be published - it serves no other purpose other than to sh*t stir ....

I know, we are polarised. I think there's no reason why they shouldn't -- other than protecting children or court proceedings.

Yip - just hope that they both are able to get the help they need ...

To whoever said Jason Owen's name has been made public since the beginning - Owen is a pseudonym, they have never revealed his last name.

bit of a bugger for anyone whose real name is Jason Owen, then.

Thing is, the names are available online for anyone who can google. So it would be pointless for the legal system to say information that is already in the public domain cannot be reproduced in newspapers.

Whether the internet's capacity to reveal information that could previously have been suppressed is a good thing or a bad thing is a whole other debate, the point is the information is out there already.

I agree with Soupy and sprogger

There is no reason for any body with sense, reason and restraint to know this name. WE just don't need it, it adds nothing at all to the debate. The only reason to want to know this name is if you hald the intention of heaping more hatred and violence on to the situation. That's not an intention that should be pandered too imo.

Well, quite frankly, #i don't buy the argument that it will harm other family members. Loads of criminals are named with little or no regard for howe it will impact on their family members. You cannot have different rules for different criminals.

Anyone worry about the impact on all the other Binladens when Mr. Osama was publically named? No.

I do agree that there is no benefit to naming them though, and have no interest in knowing their real names.

Well, Northern, what about the argument that justice has to be seen to be done? Names of those accused and convicted of crime are made public. Question is whether these people deserve an exception.

I think it's different from Thompson and Venables as they were children, and Maxine Carr as she didn't kill anyone (although her assistance in covering up Huntley's crime was appalling, of course).

Justice has nothing to do with naming anybody. Justice is about a suitable penalty - which has been awarded in this case. Naming people is about revenge not justice.

Yes, it does, otherwise all accused people and convicts would be anonymous. My local paper, and yours, is full of lists of court cases. Courts themselves post lists of upcoming cases.

Question is, do these people deserve to be exempt from the publicity faced by anyone else convicted of any crime, from speeding to money laundering to bank robbery or murder?

"It adds nothing to the debate."

It's not a debate.

There is information. The papers should be allowed to publish it.

A free, unfettered press is the best hope we have, and we should take the rough with the smooth.

Publishing is an entirely neutral decision: nothing to do with a national debate. It doesn't heap more hatred and violence onto anything: information will be provided. The manner of publishing, such as the use of inflammatory editorial, may be considered to incite trouble, but that is up to the newspaper, and that is a different thing altogether.

We should worrly less about the reasons for naming criminals in the press and more about the arseholes who think they have some right to get revenge for something which has already been dealt with through the courts.

I fail to see why the names need to be announced in the newspapers now that these individuals have been convicted of crimes and imprisoned. What difference does it make to the vast majority of people who were not involved in this case, are not in any way related to the individuals concerned.
I suppose it's possible that the government want to get the morons all frothed up again, get them shitting themselves with righteous grief and anger to the extent that they will accept some dodgy new surveillance/invasion of privacy the Government fancies on the grounds that it will 'prevent another Baby P case'.

What difference does most news make to most people?

They don't need to be announced, but there are only two reasons for not announcing them. Protecting children and protecting the administration of justice.

Family members -- bleh. Sorry, but family members of which other group of criminals would share this privilege? (in other words what edam said)