[Big Arnold]

Baby P's mother to get lessons on hiding her true identity ahead of her release from prison in wake of vigilante fears

With a photo to remind vigilantes what she looked like. And the added useful info that she now weighs 22st.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2h2wniA00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ARoberts]

Baby P's mother to get lessons on hiding her true identity ahead of her release from prison in wake of vigilante fears

With a photo to remind vigilantes what she looked like. And the added useful info that she now weighs 22st.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2h2wniA00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the issue here then? We shouldn't be told money is being spent on protecting her identity? Or that no one should worry about having a known child abuser/killer in their neighbourhood and shouldn't take steps to watch out for this person? I would have though safety was a major factor here and that it's the DUTY of the mail to inform the public what this person will look like.

Sorry but most of this website seems to consist of people just copy/pasting articles and blocks of text from the dm, there doesn't seem to be much real debate about the actual subjects.

[Kreuzberger]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2h2wniA00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the issue here then? We shouldn't be told money is being spent on protecting her identity? Or that no one should worry about having a known child abuser/killer in their neighbourhood and shouldn't take steps to watch out for this person? I would have though safety was a major factor here and that it's the DUTY of the mail to inform the public what this person will look like.

Sorry but most of this website seems to consist of people just copy/pasting articles and blocks of text from the dm, there doesn't seem to be much real debate about the actual subjects.

I'd say the over-riding issue is that the relevant, competent authorities are doing their best to prevent further crimes being committed and mitigate against the ensuing public order problems associated with vigilantes attacking this woman who has already been punished as determined by the courts. The mail however are blatantly trying to undo that work and to provide handy hints for any maniac who can't find a paediatrician to assault.

I would have thought that any fool could see that.

[lord_kobel]

We shouldn't be told money is being spent on protecting her identity?

Why would you want to be told, except for a feeling of righteous anger?

Or that no one should worry about having a known child abuser/killer in their neighbourhood and shouldn't take steps to watch out for this person? I would have though safety was a major factor here and that it's the DUTY of the mail to inform the public what this person will look like.

Again, why would you want to be told, except for a feeling of righteous anger? She killed her own kid, she didn't go around killing everyone elses. Unless you tend to make a habit of abandoning your kids with random strangers you've just met, you don't need to know.

Sorry but most of this website seems to consist of people just copy/pasting articles and blocks of text from the dm, there doesn't seem to be much real debate about the actual subjects.

What debate is there really to be had around "Daily mail tries to whip up vigilante mob, thus wasting more public money spent trying to undo the damage they do"?

[Malcolm Armsteen]

I'd say the over-riding issue is that the relevant, competent authorities are doing their best to prevent further crimes being committed and mitigate against the ensuing public order problems associated with vigilantes attacking this woman who has already been punished as determined by the courts. The mail however are blatantly trying to undo that work and to provide handy hints for any maniac who can't find a paediatrician to assault.

I would have thought that any fool could see that.

It deals with a very fundamental issue, central to 'Mailite' thinking, which has several themes.
Court and legal decisions are always available to be gainsayed by those who, for whatever reason, disagree with them. Of course, that is done with no clear understanding of legal, procedural or social justice issues.

So there can be a refusal to accept the nature of the crime (at it's oddest that constant call for some politician or person in public life that you happen not to agree with to be charged with 'treason'.)
We have seen similar on this forum recently.

There is an inability to understand that the judge and jury heard all of the arguments in a case and made up their minds accoding to the law. Newspaper reports are given the same weight as testimony.

There is an utter failure to comprehend that sentencing is carried out according to a set tariff, and not according to the whim of the judge like some wild west kangaroo court.

If any of those elements go wrong there is the process of appeal.

Beyond sheer mental incompetence there is also a wellspring of utter nastiness, the belief that people are unimprovable, that 'paying your debt to society' just isn't enough. The old debate, of course, of whether or not prison is a place for revenge or reform.

All points that the vigilantes will fail to grasp. And as the stupid, like the poor, are always with us, steps have to be taken to ensure ex-offenders' safety.

[Big Arnold]

Baby P's mother to get lessons on hiding her true identity ahead of her release from prison in wake of vigilante fears

With a photo to remind vigilantes what she looked like. And the added useful info that she now weighs 22st.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z2h2wniA00" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What's the issue here then? We shouldn't be told money is being spent on protecting her identity? Or that no one should worry about having a known child abuser/killer in their neighbourhood and shouldn't take steps to watch out for this person? I would have though safety was a major factor here and that it's the DUTY of the mail to inform the public what this person will look like.

Sorry but most of this website seems to consist of people just copy/pasting articles and blocks of text from the dm, there doesn't seem to be much real debate about the actual subjects.

Whatever you think about vigilantes, you surely agree that they often attack the wrong person. As reported in the Mail today.
'I jumped on his head myself!': Pregnant woman is jailed for organising gang beating of innocent man who was wrongly named as a paedophile on vigilante website
Where did her weight come from? Surely not from any official source.

[ARoberts]

We shouldn't be told money is being spent on protecting her identity?

Why would you want to be told, except for a feeling of righteous anger?

Because I want to know where my money is spent and as I don't think a proven, convicted child killer should have anonymity, I am entitled to be angry that my taxes are spent protecting this person.

Or that no one should worry about having a known child abuser/killer in their neighbourhood and shouldn't take steps to watch out for this person? I would have though safety was a major factor here and that it's the DUTY of the mail to inform the public what this person will look like.

Again, why would you want to be told, except for a feeling of righteous anger? She killed her own kid, she didn't go around killing everyone elses. Unless you tend to make a habit of abandoning your kids with random strangers you've just met, you don't need to know.

Of course you would want to know. It is normal for people in a street start up friendships, which possibly could possibly lead to an element of trust being made. You'd not want to place that trust with a proven child killer. No you would not abandon your kid with a complete stranger, but you might with someone you trust. If you reply along the lines of saying that the right to anonymity trumps everything, then you'd also have to say that adults who work with children should also not have to go though CRB checks.

Sorry but most of this website seems to consist of people just copy/pasting articles and blocks of text from the dm, there doesn't seem to be much real debate about the actual subjects.

What debate is there really to be had around "Daily mail tries to whip up vigilante mob, thus wasting more public money spent trying to undo the damage they do"?

If you're not expecting a debate, why copy/paste the article in the first place?

[youngian]

Of course you would want to know. It is normal for people in a street start up friendships, which possibly could possibly lead to an element of trust being made. You'd not want to place that trust with a proven child killer. No you would not abandon your kid with a complete stranger, but you might with someone you trust. If you reply along the lines of saying that the right to anonymity trumps everything, then you'd also have to say that adults who work with children should also not have to go though CRB checks.

CRB requests are confidential professional checks. Who is going to spend their life making nonce checks on people they meet down their street? What a grim existence. And of course there are plenty of cunning predators with no record (the majority?)
Trust and getting to know a person is a pretty reliable common sense way of judging someone but not a science of course. Just to be sure its probably best to lock all our kids up in a basement until they are 18.

Because I want to know where my money is spent and as I don't think a proven, convicted child killer should have anonymity, I am entitled to be angry that my taxes are spent protecting this person.

So this is about cost-benefit analysis? If the consequence of knowing where convicted sex offenders live means a racket in false indentities that costs the police three times as much tracking down their whereabouts (which is what the police fear is the consequence of such a policy), would you be three times as angry?

[Fozzy]

The trouble with saying you don't think that a proven child killer should have anonymity is that it is tantamount to saying that you don't think a proven child killer who has served the sentence passed by the courts should have the right to life. Because if this woman does not have anonymity, sooner or later some nutter will kill her. I have a nasty feeling that you have no problem with that, but you could perhaps reflect on the fact that the net result would be hundreds of thousands of pounds being spent on tracking down, trying and imprisoning her killer. The plain fact is that she does in law have a right to life and in particular she has a right not to spend her life in fear of what a load of hate-driven vigilantes are about to do to her. If you don't like what the law says, go away and get yourself elected to government and change it.

[Kreuzberger]

So this is about cost-benefit analysis? If the consequence of knowing where convicted sex offenders live means a racket in false indentities that costs the police three times as much tracking down their whereabouts (which is what the police fear is the consequence of such a policy), would you be three times as angry?

This is also a question about what kind of society we wish to be a part of. We either have the rule of law underpinned by our constitutional representatives and choices being made through the ballot box or the bloodlust of the braying mob led by a rabble rousing bully-figure that is answerable to no one other than its own merchant bankers.

These are absolutes. One cancels out the other and there are no grey areas.

[Malcolm Armsteen]

Indeed. And, given that this is under the heading of Dacre's Drip, this can be seen as a prime example of where the populist press is used to inflame the back half of the bell curve to pervert the key institutions of the civilised state.

[youngian]

This is also a question about what kind of society we wish to be a part of. We either have the rule of law underpinned by our constitutional representatives and choices being made through the ballot box or the bloodlust of the braying mob led by a rabble rousing bully-figure that is answerable to no one other than its own merchant bankers.

All true but I thought such namby liberal talk would be lost on Mr Roberts.

[satnav]

From what I can see baby P's mum is a social inadequate of below average intelligence who allowed two bulling psychopaths to share her flat and abuse her son. She was found guilty of doing nothing while her son was being abused. Due to her poor social skills and low intelligence it is very likely that once released she will probably reveal her identity to somebody and she will be attacked by some thuggish vigilante who believes they are doing society a favour.

[Waterstones]

So what if she is killed? she made her bed she better lie in it.

[The Weeping Angel]

So what if she is killed? she made her bed she better lie in it.

Got the guts to do it yourself then?