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

[mikey4444]

aog...as the Philpots had been on national TV so much in the past, trying to protect their identity would have been a fruitless activity surely ?

[sandyRoe]

Have they committed some crime that they should be pilloried?

[Gromit]

The ban on reporting their identities is to protect the abused children.

[bednobs]

The adoption process takes a long time. Their surnames will only be changed once they have been adopted. Therefore they coulkd be identified now

[China Doll]

Children's names don't get changed when they go in to foster care you know, only if they're adopted. So damn right they should be protected and if by default it protects the mums then I could live with that.

And God forbid if I were related to any of these people then I certainly wouldn't want to be known as 'so and so's sister/aunt/cousin/whatever'... which would also be easy to figure out. That could put me or my childrens (if I had any) well being in jeopardy.

I honestly think this is a bit of a no brainer.

[lollyone]

Doing the rounds on FB last night was the Court lists for the day of the trial showing only 2 women's names in the same courtroom as Ian Watkins (I feel sick just typing his name) so isn't it already out there?
Vile vile monsters. Poor children, who do deserve a right to annonimity.

[FredPuli43]

The principle is well established. Haven't found in The Times, or the link, anywhere where these women were described as convicted. The A G referred to them as co-defendants only. But the principle can apply even if the parent is convicted and the child isn't killed by their attentions. If publication of a defendant's identity would seriously harm the interests of the child, the identity should not be published : Re S ( a child ) ( identification ; restrictions on publication )2005 1 A.C 593 H L. A House of Lords decision.

[andy-hughes]

I agree with the majority - anonymity for the protection of the children - but as is often the case, the mothers will need protection from the vigilantes who would take the law into their own hands - which as a recent murder case has shown, usually does not end well.

[2sp_]

These babies have suffered enough, God knows what long term effect the abuse will have on them.

The law must protect these children from any further harm. Giving the mothers (and I loathe using that word when applied here) lifelong anonymity will in turn provide the same for the children.

[FredPuli43]

And AOG there is no automatic right to anonymity even if these women were convicted (see Re S above)

[ChillDoubt]

To digress, I fail to see why these women are allowed to maintain their anonymity when they've pleaded guitly, yet 4 men found not guilty of murder and were freed of all charges are having to fight to maintain theirs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24960815

For the supposed best legal system in the world, we do come up with some bizarre reasoning at times.

[sp1814]

AOG

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

No.

See the link below under the title of 'Anonymity'

Also, please remember that the Philpotts initially made tv appeals for the killer to be caught. They were self-identified at the beginning, so their arrest was a big news story. Anonymity at that point was therefore impossible.