NurembergVillan Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 8 minutes ago, PaulC said: But I don't agree that he's just been named to appease the far right. It's bollocks that people hold this view and thst this is just because he's the son of two immigrants I'm just struggling to understand the value of him being named. If it's not to appease the far right, what is it for? In the eyes of the law, right now, he's an innocent child. Until he's been tried by a jury and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he's an innocent child. As much as this might be an open and shut case, not all cases are. So what determines when or why an "innocent" child is publicly named? EDITED for clarity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 28 minutes ago, omariqy said: If he was a white guy from Wales would they have stormed Barry Island? It would never happen, not intelligent to realise... its not an island... incoming.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 2 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: I'm just struggling to understand the value of him being named. If it's not to appease the far right, what is it for? In the eyes of the law, right now, he's innocent. Until he's been tried by a jury and found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, he's innocent. As much as this might be an open and shut case, not all cases are. So what determines when or why an "innocent" person is publicly named? It hasn't been reported what the reasons are so we are all making assumptions. The word "innocent" in this case as he was stopped in act of stabbing children can't be used. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 2 minutes ago, PaulC said: It hasn't been reported what the reasons are so we are all making assumptions. The word "innocent" in this case as he was stopped in act of stabbing children can't be used. Its an underlying principal of law. You are confusing definitions to be the same, they are not Yes we all think he's guilty but in the eyes of the law, he isn't until it's proven. Thats how the law has to work to ensure the fairest of trials, not just in this case, in every case. If people were deemed guilty before trial we wouldn't be living in a democracy. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaulC Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 2 minutes ago, bickster said: Its an underlying principal of law. You are confusing definitions to be the same, they are not Yes we all think he's guilty but in the eyes of the law, he isn't until it's proven. Thats how the law has to work to ensure the fairest of trials, not just in this case, in every case. If people were deemed guilty before trial we wouldn't be living in a democracy. I know the law but why are people arguing about whether his name shouldn't be declared. The Judge decided it so so be it. Focus on the victims. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 14 minutes ago, bickster said: It would never happen, not intelligent to realise... its not an island... incoming.... literally got an ordnance survey map on the wall behind my stereo showing water all the way around it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 I wonder whether the close the borders melts are conflicted about the fact one of the girls murdered is also the child of immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 12 minutes ago, bickster said: Its an underlying principal of law. You are confusing definitions to be the same, they are not Yes we all think he's guilty but in the eyes of the law, he isn't until it's proven. Thats how the law has to work to ensure the fairest of trials, not just in this case, in every case. If people were deemed guilty before trial we wouldn't be living in a democracy. I normally wouldn't nitpick someone on this, but I feel like you've earned it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 It's an uncommon occurrence, but it's now unheard of for young offenders to be named, it tends to happen in these highly public cases that outrage the nation, Brianna Ghey's killers were named as well, so I'm not sure it's necessarily the case that the judge has simply been pressured into it by the protests. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 2 hours ago, bickster said: Its an underlying principal of law. You are confusing definitions to be the same, they are not Yes we all think he's guilty but in the eyes of the law, he isn't until it's proven. Thats how the law has to work to ensure the fairest of trials, not just in this case, in every case. If people were deemed guilty before trial we wouldn't be living in a democracy. It also sets a dangerous precedent for other cases. Innocent until proven guilty has to be a hard line. If it's a grey one, where it's open to debate and allows for the protections applied to the (under the rule of law) innocent to be waived, then that's a very dangerous principle. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 58 minutes ago, Rds1983 said: It also sets a dangerous precedent for other cases. Innocent until proven guilty has to be a hard line. If it's a grey one, where it's open to debate and allows for the protections applied to the (under the rule of law) innocent to be waived, then that's a very dangerous principle. Is he not innocent until proven guilty if they release his name? He’ll still go through a court case like everyone else. Why do you not see this as a balance of protecting the rights and safety of unrelated people who are the victims of disinformation vs protecting the rights and safety of the suspect (one that is presumably already in a safe location)? If you had been put at risk by being falsely named online as say a child molestor, would you really think “I’d better just take this on the chin because innocent until proven guilty needs to be a hard line”, or would you expect the state to consider your safety as part of the equation too? 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted August 1 Moderator Share Posted August 1 2 hours ago, Davkaus said: It's an uncommon occurrence, but it's now unheard of for young offenders to be named, it tends to happen in these highly public cases that outrage the nation, Brianna Ghey's killers were named as well, so I'm not sure it's necessarily the case that the judge has simply been pressured into it by the protests. Only once they'd been convicted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, Panto_Villan said: Is he not innocent until proven guilty if they release his name? He’ll still go through a court case like everyone else. Why do you not see this as a balance of protecting the rights and safety of unrelated people who are the victims of disinformation vs protecting the rights and safety of the suspect (one that is presumably already in a safe location)? If you had been put at risk by being falsely named online as say a child molestor, would you really think “I’d better just take this on the chin because innocent until proven guilty needs to be a hard line”, or would you expect the state to consider your safety as part of the equation too? The CPS decide this. Like they decide weather the police can let you out on bail or remand you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 2 minutes ago, NurembergVillan said: Only once they'd been convicted. Very good point and important distinction, I'd forgotten it happened at sentencing in that case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 Just now, foreveryoung said: The CPS decide this. Are you sure? I was under the impression it was the judge, but I was talking bollocks in my previous post so it's not too unlikely that I am here too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 3 minutes ago, foreveryoung said: The CPS decide this. Like they decide weather the police can let you out on bail or remand you. Is it? OK. But ultimately it doesn’t really matter which government body does it. The point is that whoever is responsible is weighing up the public benefits of revealing the name vs the cost to the individual affected. Of course the riots outside the mosque would play a huge part in that calculation, because it shows there’s a real threat to unrelated people if the name is not released. But people seem to be acting like the judge / prosecutor / whatever just said “What do the far right want me to do? Better do that then!” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 34 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: Is he not innocent until proven guilty if they release his name? He’ll still go through a court case like everyone else. Why do you not see this as a balance of protecting the rights and safety of unrelated people who are the victims of disinformation vs protecting the rights and safety of the suspect (one that is presumably already in a safe location)? If you had been put at risk by being falsely named online as say a child molestor, would you really think “I’d better just take this on the chin because innocent until proven guilty needs to be a hard line”, or would you expect the state to consider your safety as part of the equation too? Your hypothetical is different to this. There's a difference between naming one specific individual and saying that it is not other specific other people. By naming someone who has been charged in this way, it could put other innocent people such as his family at risk, or it could jeopardise the case against him if some idiot did something stupid in the name of vengeance. He has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and that's not what should happen. It's situations like this with high public scrutiny or pressure that have previously led to innocent people being sent down for horrific crimes. Can you guarantee me that no innocent person would ever go to jail if we start eroding the protections that are meant to be in place to protect the innocent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 1 minute ago, Rds1983 said: Your hypothetical is different to this. There's a difference between naming one specific individual and saying that it is not other specific other people. By naming someone who has been charged in this way, it could put other innocent people such as his family at risk, or it could jeopardise the case against him if some idiot did something stupid in the name of vengeance. He has already been convicted in the court of public opinion, and that's not what should happen. It's situations like this with high public scrutiny or pressure that have previously led to innocent people being sent down for horrific crimes. Can you guarantee me that no innocent person would ever go to jail if we start eroding the protections that are meant to be in place to protect the innocent? I imagine whoever named the killer would have taken into account the risk to the killer (who is probably safe in police custody) and his family (perhaps also under police protection) vs the risk to random members of the wider community (who aren't). I'd have thought this is a decision that was not taken lightly, and they felt that the benefits outweighed the risks. That certainly seems more plausible to me than it being done to appease the far right rioters. But the main thing I don't follow in your post is this - why is he going to be found guilty if he's been named? Every adult who is arrested has their name put out in the press. Are you saying nobody above the age of 18 can ever have a fair trial because their name is publicised, which means they can be tried in the court of public opinion? If not, why does it so fundamentally change the calculation for this 17-year old? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rds1983 Posted August 1 VT Supporter Share Posted August 1 (edited) 48 minutes ago, Panto_Villan said: I imagine whoever named the killer would have taken into account the risk to the killer (who is probably safe in police custody) and his family (perhaps also under police protection) vs the risk to random members of the wider community (who aren't). I'd have thought this is a decision that was not taken lightly, and they felt that the benefits outweighed the risks. That certainly seems more plausible to me than it being done to appease the far right rioters. But the main thing I don't follow in your post is this - why is he going to be found guilty if he's been named? Every adult who is arrested has their name put out in the press. Are you saying nobody above the age of 18 can ever have a fair trial because their name is publicised, which means they can be tried in the court of public opinion? If not, why does it so fundamentally change the calculation for this 17-year old? You're wrong, not all cases are public domain, they usually are but in some cases the names are kept secret from the public. Google the case R vs R 1991 for an example. Alternatively, read through the attached: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/hearings-private-camera "There are certain situations where proceedings can be heard in private (‘in camera’), when the public are excluded and the doors of the court-room closed. These situations are governed by Part 6 of the Criminal Procedure Rules." Judges and juries are human beings, and in emotional cases like this, public pressure to get a result can lead to mistakes being made. Just look at examples such as the Birmingham 6. Read all my previous posts over the last few pages and in the Policing thread as there's a lot of crossover. As I've said in previously, there's a difference between the judicial system releasing someone's name, and it being forced into the open by the general public. Judges are trained to make these decisions, not the general public who are just after blood. A law is in place to prevent minors names from being released, it's there for a reason, and in this case it appears the judicial system has had it's hand forced into releasing the name. I do understand where youre coming from as one of my friend's brother's was also falsely accused of rape whilst at University. However, his name was made public and his life was ruined, he had to leave University and it didnt matter that the accuser later admitted she made it up. His name should never have been put in the public domain. Until you're proven guilty in court, I do feel names should remain private. This is however an incredibly complex scenario as that secrecy makes it harder to build a case. There is no right answer, it's a question of how to do the least harm and for me, innocent people going to jail is right up there. In this particular case, the police are not going to arrest anyone else named on social media as they already have a suspect in custody. If the public put these other people in danger, that is a crime in itself. The police also have the power to state that certain people are not suspects and to clear their names. If those people are still in danger, then the police can offer them protection. As I've said previously, when you start bending these rules, where do you draw the line and it's a slippery slope. You cannot look at any criminal case like this as a singular entity, that's not how our judicial system works with precedent being set. The actions being taken in this case, could easily affect the actions taken in the next case, and the one after that. You have to try to step back. Anyway, it's late, I'm very tired, its stupidly hot and it's the last night of my holiday. I'm stepping back from this thread for a while. EDIT - in case it's not clear from the above. I'm not saying an innocent person going to jail is worse than a crime such as this. I'm saying an innocent person going to jail makes the wider situation worse for all concerned, except the guilty party. Edited August 1 by Rds1983 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitvilla Posted August 1 Share Posted August 1 5 hours ago, PaulC said: The word "innocent" in this case as he was stopped in act of stabbing children can't be used. Before the law ... he is innocent. He might be found innocent on the grounds of insanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts