Interesting..dont you think.

steve1295 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370388/Public-servant-child-sex-charges--barred-telling-him.html

Thanks steve. I think if he's serving the public, we, as the public should be told who he is.

I do think that's interesting.

dazedandconfused wrote:

steve1295 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370388/Public-servant-child-sex-charges--barred-telling-him.html

Thanks steve. I think if he's serving the public, we, as the public should be told who he is.

It can be a right payne not knowing who these people are

With something like that there are pros and cons as to the id of the culprit.But I would love to know who it is.Imagine if it was....DP..or GM.

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:

steve1295 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370388/Public-servant-child-sex-charges--barred-telling-him.html

Thanks steve. I think if he's serving the public, we, as the public should be told who he is.

It can be a right payne not knowing who these poeple are

A payne indeed.

pHOOEY..you are bold.[just joking]

steve1295 wrote:pHOOEY..you are bold.[just joking]

It amazes me that most of these people (apart from being despicable) are really thick. How many have been caught by their credit card details etc.? Not only that but some of them are lawyers, judges, politicians, DOCTORS etc. Lock them up throw away the key, then castrate the b*****ds.

dazedandconfused wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

dazedandconfused wrote:

steve1295 wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370388/Public-servant-child-sex-charges--barred-telling-him.html

Thanks steve. I think if he's serving the public, we, as the public should be told who he is.

It can be a right payne not knowing who these poeple are

A payne indeed.

Ouch

Well I've posted a comment.... just have to wait and see if this is the first one ever to survive the censor..

If the second man involved has not been granted anonymity, it may be fairly easy for some journos or even for members of the public, to work out who this public servant is who has been granted such a privilege.

@@ Annaesse..I dont think jurnos and other Media people are really arsed about such things.Judging by the reporting and real interest that they have showed in Maddys case.

Absolutely disgusting, anyone else would be named, shamed and all their details in the media.

Could be wrong, but when the Baby P case was going on, wasn't there a blanket news blackout on the names of the perps?
Turned out that the Mum's boyfriend was involved in another very serious ongoing case of rape against a two year old, which he was found guilty of. After that case was concluded, restrictions were lifted.

Wallflower you are quite correct regarding the Baby P case.I would love to know the reason one alleged perp is named and the other isnt.

"Bizarrely, a second defendant in the case has not been granted anonymity."

So it can't be people we'd know.

I know someone who's appearing at crown court this week or next on child sex charges, he works for a council but he's not a bigwig, however, l don't think he's appearing alongside someone else....

I have always had a problem with this naming people in the media who have been accused of a crime. Once they have been through the courts and found guilty of the crime then shame them to hell and back, but to pry into their private lives and that of their friends to make them look as though they are evil twisted perverts does no-one any good at all. Just look at how they tried to make the landlord of Jo Yates out to be a sicko killer just because he looked a bit different and was educated. Or the case last year where someone, sorry can't remember his name, was accused of rape by his girlfriend who asked not to be named or that she had made the allegation. He was arrested for rape but the police could not tell him who made the allegation, had his name dragged through the papers only for it all to turn out that she had made it all up because he was going to leave her, thankfully she was found out and sentenced to a long time in prison for lying, but that is not always the case with making a false allegation.

I know the police sometime but some details out to the media looking for witnesses but they do not name anyone i.e we are looking for people who know Mr X as he has been naughty and we need more dirt on him. I know it might be a contentious issue for some people particularly where rape is concerned but anyone acused of a crime should be un-named until they are convicted of the crime. If anyone is the victim of a crime it is their duty to report the crime not wait until someone else does and then jump on their bandwagon, if the first victim of a crime does not report it the culprit is free to do a second crime and so it goes on until someone speaks out then it become obvious when they all report it that there is a serial crimminal at large.

@ bill, I agree with your post,but I find that its hardly the real perps that get dragged through the mud and like the landlord in Joannes case other innocents always get the finger pointed at them.

steve1295 wrote:@ bill, I agree with your post,but I find that its hardly the real perps that get dragged through the mud and like the landlord in Joannes case other innocents always get the finger pointed at them.

The landlord will think twice now before trying to make himself look important. He's only got himself to blame for making up things to his friends and them asking them to forget what he said!

Sorry but l don't feel any sympathy for him at all, he wasted police time with his actions.

If one person has been named and the other hasn't.......they have something to hide regarding the unnamed person.

kitti wrote:If one person has been named and the other hasn't.......they have something to hide regarding the unnamed person.

That's what my opinion would be. Perhaps, like the Baby P case, there are other cases in which the unnamed public servant is thought to have been involved.

Yes, it's making a difference between the two accused people that seems very odd in this case. I have some sympathy for Bill's point of view, as it's true that just being accused of certain offences often leads to problems even when people are acquitted. But it's hard to understand why one person should be named and the other not; isn't everyone meant to be equal before the law?

steve1295 wrote:Wallflower you are quite correct regarding the Baby P case.I would love to know the reason one alleged perp is named and the other isnt.

Ta Steve.

[quote="Dimsie"]Yes, it's making a difference between the two accused people that seems very odd in this case. I have some sympathy for Bill's point of view, as it's true that just being accused of certain offences often leads to problems even when people are acquitted. But it's hard to understand why one person should be named and the other not; isn't everyone meant to be equal before the law?[/quote]

Only if you have enough money.

Wallflower wrote:Could be wrong, but when the Baby P case was going on, wasn't there a blanket news blackout on the names of the perps?
Turned out that the Mum's boyfriend was involved in another very serious ongoing case of rape against a two year old, which he was found guilty of. After that case was concluded, restrictions were lifted.

Perhaps with the above case the blackout was related to it being a child protection situation. I don't think the press can name adults if it means a child's identity will be revealed. I think it was Baby P's dad who put his name into the public arena, probably wanting him to be seen as a real child, and not simply a statistic.

It's the bit quoted below that I find particularly disturbing:

..."The case is being handled by the Crown Prosecution Service but a CPS
lawyer refused to talk to a Mail on Sunday reporter yesterday.
The Ministry of Justice said it held no information about the case.
The police force leading the inquiry initially said it would provide this newspaper
with information about the charges facing the two men, but then failed to return our calls. ..."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370388/Public-servant-child-sex-charges--barred-telling-him.html#ixzz1HuqZNNpJ

Why on earth are the CPS and the Ministry of Justice refusing to speak to the press? We live in a democracy and there should be a public sphere where information is exchanged, particularly when it relates to the nation's justice system. No civilised country should have a legal system which allows justice to be carried out in complete secrecy. This country seems to be getting less civilised week by week. Obviously there are certain circumstances which require anonomity, but that should be decided by unelected judges, not a state institution. Anyway, as somebody mentioned above, it shouldn't be hard for the press to work out who it is, with the other person's name available. Although it's noticeable that the Mail aren't printing that name either, at the moment, so whoever it is may end up benefiting from the blanket ban on knowing who Mr/Mrs A is.