Judge massively out of touch on this one. He needs to come back down to earth and understand the highly emotionally charged nature of this case.
The boy’s names are public information for all practical purposes, if you want to know them you can. Technically those people did break the law, but actually doing anything beyond a stern warning would be really silly. Nothing to be gained from convicting these people, especially because the boys absolutely deserve whatever comes to them.
coffee_and-cats on
The 3 people accused of breaching publication restrictions – a provision of The Children’s Act – for sharing images and details of “Boy A” and “Boy B” are appealing the charge, along with appealing the court in which the hearing be held.
The three people are named in relation to the public offences.
Whilst I understand that children have a right to privacy, I simply can’t get my head around the fact that these teen murderers avail of anonymity. Jamie Bulger’s murderers were identified and have gone on to live their adult lives anonymously (well, until Jon Venables re-offended).
I think the right to anonymity should be waived given the severity of the crimes. I would hate to think my child could some day become involved with one of them and we not know who they really are.
I think it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money prosecuting people who shared details/content on Facebook/social media. A penalty or fine, community service working with young offenders or something would be more appropriate.
Alastor001 on
They may be braking the law.
Morally? They are doing nothing wrong.
Jeq0 on
Of course they broke the law. This thread just shows that most people are incapable of making objective decisions because they are too easily swayed by the “emotionally charged” nature of the crime.
BrokenHearing on
Ironic how the (convicted) murdering cunts cannot legally be named but the people accused (and not convicted) of naming them can have their own names published all over the media.
spairni on
Mad people seem to be expecting judges to just disregard the law. Like I’d have no issue with them being named but the law is the law.
Now I’d imagine in terms of sentences it’ll be minor enough or thrown out if a clever enough defence can be made. Like no sane judge will be going to bat for 2 child murderers
Vivid_Ice_2755 on
Think they re 20 now. They ll probably be out when they re 30 . I’m not sure whether these people should have done what they done on social media given the amount of wankers who thrive on giving out false information. But I do think it’s absolutely in the public interest that we know who Man A and Man B are .
dano1066 on
Why is it that the adults who rob bikes, cause chaos on public transport, rob shops etc get slaps on the wrist but someone who leaked the name, which seems like a minor offense in comparison get punished more seriously?
8 Comments
Judge massively out of touch on this one. He needs to come back down to earth and understand the highly emotionally charged nature of this case.
The boy’s names are public information for all practical purposes, if you want to know them you can. Technically those people did break the law, but actually doing anything beyond a stern warning would be really silly. Nothing to be gained from convicting these people, especially because the boys absolutely deserve whatever comes to them.
The 3 people accused of breaching publication restrictions – a provision of The Children’s Act – for sharing images and details of “Boy A” and “Boy B” are appealing the charge, along with appealing the court in which the hearing be held.
The three people are named in relation to the public offences.
Whilst I understand that children have a right to privacy, I simply can’t get my head around the fact that these teen murderers avail of anonymity. Jamie Bulger’s murderers were identified and have gone on to live their adult lives anonymously (well, until Jon Venables re-offended).
I think the right to anonymity should be waived given the severity of the crimes. I would hate to think my child could some day become involved with one of them and we not know who they really are.
I think it’s a waste of taxpayer’s money prosecuting people who shared details/content on Facebook/social media. A penalty or fine, community service working with young offenders or something would be more appropriate.
They may be braking the law.
Morally? They are doing nothing wrong.
Of course they broke the law. This thread just shows that most people are incapable of making objective decisions because they are too easily swayed by the “emotionally charged” nature of the crime.
Ironic how the (convicted) murdering cunts cannot legally be named but the people accused (and not convicted) of naming them can have their own names published all over the media.
Mad people seem to be expecting judges to just disregard the law. Like I’d have no issue with them being named but the law is the law.
Now I’d imagine in terms of sentences it’ll be minor enough or thrown out if a clever enough defence can be made. Like no sane judge will be going to bat for 2 child murderers
Think they re 20 now. They ll probably be out when they re 30 . I’m not sure whether these people should have done what they done on social media given the amount of wankers who thrive on giving out false information. But I do think it’s absolutely in the public interest that we know who Man A and Man B are .
Why is it that the adults who rob bikes, cause chaos on public transport, rob shops etc get slaps on the wrist but someone who leaked the name, which seems like a minor offense in comparison get punished more seriously?