Cannot be named for legal reasons

So the person charged with the murder of Ava White is being protected. For me, this protection is another thing that gives feral kids more confidence to do wrong and get away with it.

I've no idea what the legal reasons are but it's time to scrap this measure. If you are old enough to carry a knife and use it to kill someone, you don't deserve protection.
On this occasion I completely agree.
 
🤔 So you’d be happy with a lynch mob.
Turns out it's a law that was introduced in 2015. We now have the bizarre paradox that, whilst the victim can be named and photographed, the court must show regard to the defendant’s welfare and be satisfied that the welfare of the young person outweighs the public interest in open justice.

Knife crime with minors is now out of control. Annonymmity lasts up the the age of 18. It's way too high. There is a correlation between the recent law change and a surge in knife crime amongst juveniles. This protection no longer outweighs the public interest whilst so many of the public are being killed by minors who know they are protected.
 
He’s protected but locally people will know.

If found guilty the rest of us will know then too I assume.

It‘s the appropriateness of any punishment that concerns me rather than his anonymity. If found guilty let’s hope the punishment does suit the crime.

Without knowing the facts it‘s possible the parents need investigating too. Any areas of neglectful parenting need to be understood in order to try to educate and re-educate any parents who are far from capable, be that intellectually or morally, or any other way, of raising a child.
 
I’ve no idea what you said and I don’t even want to as the ignore button is such a great tool.

No doubt showing yourself up yet again.
 
So the person charged with the murder of Ava White is being protected. For me, this protection is another thing that gives feral kids more confidence to do wrong and get away with it.

I've no idea what the legal reasons are but it's time to scrap this measure. If you are old enough to carry a knife and use it to kill someone, you don't deserve protection.
It's an age thing. Anyone under 16 isn't named.
 
So the person charged with the murder of Ava White is being protected. For me, this protection is another thing that gives feral kids more confidence to do wrong and get away with it.

I've no idea what the legal reasons are but it's time to scrap this measure. If you are old enough to carry a knife and use it to kill someone, you don't deserve protection.
RIP Ava White 🛐 - life can be so unfair.
Under 17's charged / convicted of offences, have anonymity in UK law, to protect them from revenge attacks.
Those two vile animals - Thompson & Venables (RIP Jamie Bulger) have lifelong anonymity, despite the fact one of them have been caught a number of times with peadophile material on his commputer.
Over 20 years ago, one of them was at my daughters college & working in a local McDonald's. When it became know, the authorities just rehomed him at public cost etc.
God doesn't pay his debts in money and young murders will hopefully receive a tough time in prison.
 
What purpose would naming the suspect serve, so people who have nothing to do with it can get all vigilante against the family?

No one is escaping justice, they just haven't been named because they're a minor, would naming them bring the poor girl back?
 
What purpose would naming the suspect serve, so people who have nothing to do with it can get all vigilante?

No one is escaping justice, they just haven't been named because they're a minor, would naming them bring the poor girl back?
It's a possible deterrent to stop things like this happening in the first place. Perhaps feral youths might think twice about carrying knives if they knew they didn't have such protection? Prevention is always better than cure.
 
What purpose would naming the suspect serve, so people who have nothing to do with it can get all vigilante against the family?

No one is escaping justice, they just haven't been named because they're a minor, would naming them bring the poor girl back?
Think you're right there Lfy8.
He is innocent until proven guilty, which shouldn't take long hopefully.
 
It's a possible deterrent to stop things like this happening in the first place. Perhaps feral youths might think twice about carrying knives if they knew they didn't have such protection? Prevention is always better than cure.
But if found guilty they'll face justice, what purpose would naming them serve?
 
But if found guilty they'll face justice, what purpose would naming them serve?
Justice? you mean the justice like handed out to John Thompson and Robert Venables got for a despicable act on a 2 year old toddler ironically from the same city.

8 years in a children's detention centre is hardly justice for murder.

And let’s not forget Vendables went on to be re-arrested a few years ago for child porn images.

And please let’s not have any they didn’t know what they were doing comments.
 
It's a possible deterrent to stop things like this happening in the first place. Perhaps feral youths might think twice about carrying knives if they knew they didn't have such protection? Prevention is always better than cure.
I don’t think that they even consider ever getting caught, never mind whether they get named or not.
Automatic lengthy jail term for anyone found in possession would be a better deterrent.
 
Justice? you mean the justice like handed out to John Thompson and Robert Venables got for a despicable act on a 2 year old toddler ironically from the same city.

8 years in a children's detention centre is hardly justice for murder.

And let’s not forget Vendables went on to be re-arrested a few years ago for child porn images.

And please let’s not have any they didn’t know what they were doing comments.
But that's a different debate, that's sentencing, it's still justice under the current system and nothing to do with reporting restrictions.

My question is what difference would naming the child before trial make? Are you suggesting that the child should be named so vigilante justice can be enacted?

Also, Venables and Thompson's case has no bearing on this one, let's not forget they were named, did that bring Jamie back, did it stop them re-offending?
 
But that's a different debate, that's sentencing, it's still justice under the current system and nothing to do with reporting restrictions.

My question is what difference would naming the child before trial make? Are you suggesting that the child should be named so vigilante justice can be enacted?

Also, Venables and Thompson's case has no bearing on this one, let's not forget they were named, did that bring Jamie back, did it stop them re-offending?
I simply agree with what BHOK said.

Once charged with the crime they should be named irrespective of age.

I agree it’s a different debate but Venables and Thompson weren’t named till many many years later after that were released was it the Sun newspaper?
 
It's a possible deterrent to stop things like this happening in the first place. Perhaps feral youths might think twice about carrying knives if they knew they didn't have such protection? Prevention is always better than cure.
The kids that carry knives do so as a warped badge of honour.
It’s the punishment that counts, hopefully as severe as appropriate in this case.
 
LaLa, not necessarily, it depends on the direction of the Judge if and when sentencing occurs. If they deem the gravity of the situation warrants it, they will.
That‘s fair enough 👌

Again if the punishment itself is appropriately severe then that’s the main thing here in my opinion.
 
Precisely, upon release, not leading up to the trial or before they've even been charged with anything.
Well I bet there is a percentage of young kids out there who may be deterred by name shaming rather than encouraged by knowing they will be mollycoddled through the justice system.
 
Well I bet there is a percentage of young kids out there who may be deterred by name shaming rather than encouraged by knowing they will be mollycoddled through the justice system.
So you're saying that if they thought they might be named they would be deterred from going out and stabbing someone?

I can't believe anyone has been encouraged to stab someone because they know they'll be anonymous when brought to trial.
 
So you're saying that if they thought they might be named they would be deterred from going out and stabbing someone?

I can't believe anyone has been encouraged to stab someone because they know they'll be anonymous when brought to trial.
They might not carry a knife in the first place.
 
I would have thought fear of being caught would be more of a deterrent than fear of being named. If that doesn’t stop them I’m not sure being named will especially when everyone who knows them or lives near them or goes to the same school will know their name.
I doubt that fear of some stranger that they might end up working with or living near finding out their name would ever enter their head.
I think the only point of keeping their anonymity is in case they are found not guilty
 
Back
Top