What was the legal reasoning for not allowing the naming of Baby P's ville 'killers'?

I would like to add I am all for the naming of these people but I think the press should have granted to child the respect in death he did not get in live by not publishing his image.

What was the legal reasoning for not allowing the naming of Baby P's ville 'killers'?
They cannot be named because their is another case due out very soon after this one where they will be tried for the sexual abuse of the remaining 3 female children in the household.





If they are named then they can claim an unfair trial and the case can be dismissed.





Please do not name them. I know who they are and am very close to the case but they need to be punished for what they did and in time they will.
Reply:No one knows why they where granted anonymity that's another secret, but there can only be speculation about why it was granted.





I have heard some say that it is because they have other children, and if found not guilty these children's identities needed protecting, but I think its obvious that there is no way the children would be allowed back even if they had been found not guilty.





I presume its because the main abuser (the boyfriend) is illiterate, and therefore may have learning difficulties. This would automatically provide him with anonymity, but not the mother.





Many people do not realise the stage we are at. Three people have been found guilty of allowing the death of a child and will be sentenced in early December. I would be very surprised if the Judge did not lift that anonymity at sentencing just as the judge in the Bulger trial named Thompson and Venibles even though they had anonymity.





The names and relationships of all three are pretty easy to find on the internet.
Reply:When the case originally came to court, they were all named along with their addresses in the press, including the BBC.





I think now that the extent of the abuse has been revealed and the fact that there are 4 other children involved, it's been done to protect their identities (the childrens). That's the only reason I can think of. Apart from the fact that half the country would want to kill the scum.





I agree with you - this baby deserves the dignity and respect that he was never afforded in life, but I'm glad that we've been shown his face instead of a blurred out picture.





Why should he be hidden? He didn't do anything wrong, and his face will stay a lot longer in the public eye than a blur.
Reply:I think they should be named and shamed.


I have a daughter a few months older than Baby P and was horrified someone could do that. I am just as ashamed of social services. After 60 incidents something should have happened.


My mum's neighbour was awarded custody of her grand children, after they were taken off her son and daughter-in-law, after one incident. And nothing as serious as any one of Baby P's injuries.


Social Services needs an overhaul! They over-react in some cases and under-react in too many.





3 murdered children have been in the paper this week, isn't it about time that something is done to protect children at risk, without worrying good parents that they aren't gonna lose their kids when a true accident happens.








If these people were pet owners and this had happened they would be banded from having pets again. These people should not be allowed kids again. I know this is against human rights, but I think the rights of the child to be safe and well looked after is more important.
Reply:It could only be for two reasons





1, The police are going to charge them with something else and and dont want them released on appeal because the jury prejudged them.





2. There are 3 other children involved who have the right to remain anonymous. Naming and shaming the parents is not going to do them any favours.





What does it matter to the vast majority of people anyway is this some kind of morbid sickness that we demand to know their names. What are we going to do with the information?
Reply:I wondered that too but it was pointlelss anyway because anyone who can turn a computer on knows exactly who they are:





http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?c=117%26amp;a=155...


http://www.facebook.com/pages/Hang-Trace...


http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/new...





Obviously the other children should not be identified but nobody would do that. It's the evil adults that people want to see identified. The kids are, and will, remain anonymous.








I understand what you're saying Jemma, but surely they will never come out of prison anyway? If I'm wrong about this then please add more details about what you mean because I don't think that anything that is written online is going to be able to let them get away with what they've done?
Reply:Suspects cannot be named till after they have been charged otherwise perfectly innocent people who are suspected in having been involved in crimes would have all their details published in the Press, and condemned by Society for something of which they later proved to be innocent.
Reply:I suspect that the other two adults involved may be charged with other crimes. The police would not want their names disclosed while there are on going investigations as it may jeopardise a conviction. Rest assured that it is not for their protection.
Reply:everyone has been named and shamed all the social workers and parents and the step farther/boyfriend/beater.


You can find it on plently of places and pictures and names are on facebook groups
Reply:I agree with you but unfortunately its because it is the Date Protection Act, names can't be disclosed, I know its a disgrace.
Reply:One was named and photo published. But don't worry when they go to prison all the other inmates will know who they are and I hope they fukcing suffer

schoolsmartial arts