Many more children could potentially be harmed by these women if they came into contact with them, hence the public needing to know the women's identity. That I feel outweighs the victims right to privacy in this case.
Lostprophets Singer Facing Child Sex Charges
- Thread starter Ascendancy
- Start date
Many more children could potentially be harmed by these women if they came into contact with them, hence the public needing to know the women's identity. That I feel outweighs the victims right to privacy in this case.
Soldato
The victims were little kids, doubt anyone will remember who they are in a few years anyway. So agree it out weights the right for privacy.
Associate
Yeah I tend to imagine that would be the case. Don't think they would ever encounter anyone who somehow happened to remember they were molested 10 years ago based off someone releasing the name of their mother on the internet.
:/
Two words for you, Bulger killers.
Happened years ago, they were kids but it was a very high profile case. This is in the days before widespread internet as well but everyone remembered who they were. You 2 might be too young to remember it all but I bet you know who they are today amirite?
She had just won £17K and had thus just "spanked the banker", and she is also heavily pregnant. Edmonds jokingly said something like "In a few months time you'll be dealing with two little bottoms..... and you've just spanked one not so attractive as well". I was like "What?!" Calm down Noel. He meant it totally innocently of course.
It's a completely different situation.
2 kids who were the actual focus of the case and who committed the crime is an entirely different proposition to being the kid of a parent who gets named.
It's not at all.
Yes they were the focus of the case, back in whenever it was without so much media attention and online focus.
Their names would be everywhere within seconds and I really don't see how it would help these kids and their families move on, you could say yeah but they can change their names but the rest of their immediate families can't.
You wouldn't just be naming the Women, you would be naming god knows how many other people at the same time.
Soldato
It's the role of the police to ensure they are monitored & prevented from abusing again, not Bob & Joe from down the road by knowing the names - I mean, I wouldn't surprise me if a women ends up getting her head kicked it for having the temerity of sharing the same name as one of the women (given the level of idiocy the public shows with this kind of case).
Amazing how people think they have the right to over-ride innocent baby's who were molested right to privacy, simply the rights of the victims in this case are significantly more important & worthy of attention than the opinions of the baying mob.
The law is completely correct in this matter.
Amazing how people think they have the right to over-ride innocent baby's who were molested right to privacy, simply the rights of the victims in this case are significantly more important & worthy of attention than the opinions of the baying mob.
The law is completely correct in this matter.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
You have to remember that they were caught on shopping centre CCTV, taking the child away. They always replay that clip on television so that people never forget.
So there was no internet. However, there was CCTV back then, as limited as it was compared to now.
It absolutely is different, you can't compare the 'longevity' of the names of the most notorious child murderers in memory with that of some kids that might be found through a link to their mothers name who isn't especially infamous herself.
To think people will find out these babies names and they will live on in people's conscience for the next 15+ years in the same way as the Bulger killers is just bizarre.
The only person people will remember from all of this is Ian Watkins himself.
Last edited:
I think you've missed the point but I'll try.
The point is it is a very high profile case, as is this one, even more so. People won't forget overnight what has happened here. Naming the Women would put every single one of their family at risk, people who have had nothing to do with this.
You're missing the point, I'm not saying they are the same cases, I'm saying they are both high profile and shocking crimes and therefore tend to stick in the memory more. Naming them would put more than just the children at risk as I've already said.
Have you thought they may have older siblings as well?
It's not about mob justice, it's about people being able to prevent the perpetrators from coming into contact with their kids, or god forbid someone else having kids with them. It helps protect children.
And when the police let dangerous terrorists escape in burka disguises, I think your confidence in them is somewhat misplaced...
You're missing my point, that nobody other than Ian Watkins is going to be remembered years down the line as you were suggesting would be the case.
Naming them might cause problems now but there's no link to the longevity of the Bulger case at all IMO, everyone other than Watkins will be forgotten within 6 months.
It's a pointless comparison.
Are you that naive to think that is all that is going to happen if they release their names?
Soldato
I'd argue your confidence in the public is equally misplaced.
I mean, do you trust the public with knowing names in high profile cases when the public has attacked the house of a paediatrician in the past.
People are stupid, they will go on a rampage & likely end up attacking the wrong person.
You've just proved my point.
You're saying Bulger who was the victim not Venables or Thompson who were the kids that did it.
You think the families of the Women wouldn't be hounded for their crimes?