'is it in the public interest' to know about Susie Green and her family given her involvement with Mermaids?
I believe this is what it's about ultimately.
I don't believe it's about the child in this case. It's protecting an organisation and its senior figures who should be heavily scruntised.
If its in the public interest to know the situation with Susie Green and Co, then the case of Malicious Communications may topple like a house of cards. What is Caroline's motivation here? Could a public interest case be argued? (In my none legally qualified opinion: yes - especially given we are actively talking about it here and concerns have be raised about the organisation and individuals here in the national press).
I'm mindful that the judge in the Yardley case refused to give Helen Islan anonymity on the grounds that it was in the public interest to know too.
Also there is the fact that everything Yardley said was put in the public domain by Islan herself and in effect Islan was a public figure because of her association with Mermaids and her activism. Its not like the ITV drama on recently wasn't influenced considerably by the case of the Greens either.
It would therefore very much fit with the 'why do this?' and 'why do this now?' and 'why do this to Caroline?' questions.
It's trying to get rid of the sunlight.
What I have long learned with Internet social life, is when you hit a nerve with certain people and the shit they've been peddling suddenly is shown up as the dung it is, then they have a tenancy to go nuts when they are about to be found out and it's going to go tits up. And that's the moment you know you have to simply stand your ground rather than push it further. It's all part of the implosion process.
If that means a court case (and even subsequent appeal) then that's what may need to be done.