Should These Mothers Have The Right To Automatic Lifetime Anonymity?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10481664/Peaches-Geldof-could-face-investigation-after-naming-women-in-paedophile-case.html

[wolf63]

Yes - but only to protect their children.

[pixie373]

I agree the children should.

[boxtops]

I agree with wolf for the children's sake, but I don't agree because of what they did. Whichever, it wasn't Peaches' responsibility to "out" them.

[daffy654]

I agree with wolf63.

[youngmafbog]

The real question is why is this so:

The Attorney General's Office warned that sex offence victims have automatic lifetime anonymity

[Zacs-Master]

The children, hopefully, are taken into the care of social services and eventually adopted. I don't see why naming their mothers would, therefore, necessarily cause them harm. I believe they should be named.

[youngmafbog]

For the childrens sake?

Surely they have been removed from her and will enter a witness protection type program?

The women should not be allowed to hide behind their kids

[mikey4444]

I'm not sure what the legal position is here aog, but I expect Fred can help.
Perhaps he can explain what is meant by lifetime anonymity, and why it is applied.

This Geldof woman has been incredibly stupid to release the names so soon after the trail has ended. What if these women have other kids ? What would be the effect on their close families ?

Naming names in sensitive cases like this can only encourage unwarranted action on innocent parties, which is the main reason for anonymity in the first place.

[jim360]

If they are named I hope it won't lead to some sort of vigilantism. They don't perhaps "deserve" anonymity. But they should have it nonetheless.

[anotheoldgit]

wolf63

/// Yes - but only to protect their children. ///

They were babies, were they not?

And since they have been removed from these women, no one will associate them to these two women, even if the women are named.

Also how can these women be classed as sex offence victims, only their babies can be classed as that?

[daffy654]

The children are the sex offence victims, naming the mothers means anyone will be able to find out the babies names. I can't believe anyone would think that it is ok because they are 'only babies'.

[Ric.ror]

No they should not - they should have their children taken from them and never allowed to see them again
They should also not be allowed to have any more children
Sorry but this has really upset me

[rockyracoon]

Agree with wolf, the children need protecting. As unpalatable as it is that these two women remain anonymous, the kids need to come first.

[FredPuli43]

Which is it, AOG? That you are against the principle of lifetime anonymity for victims of sexual offences or that these women, in particular, should not have it ? They were not convicted of anything. The purpose is that the children should not be identified. Do you think that is not a worthwhile objective?

[youngmafbog]

Daffy, it is easy to hide the babies.

There is no way on earth these women should be able to hide behind them as 'victims'

[daffy654]

It isn't as easy to 'hide the babies' as you might think. I grew up in the care system so I know what i'm talking about.

[Zacs-Master]

So, daffy, it should be easy to find out who the mothers are via the babies?

[hc4361]

These babies may be kept within the family - adopted by their grandparents or aunts, for example.
Naming the mothers would of course identify them and that would be wrong.

There are men in prison who have never been named because they raped their own children and naming them would identify the victims.

[Mamyalynne]

If the only way to protect the identities of the babies and any other children these women may have had is to afford the women anonymity then yes it is right.

[anotheoldgit]

What about the Phillpot case, naming those has certainly identify the rest of their children?

Or does the ruling only apply to sex cases?