Poppies and the "Heroes Industry" ?

[Serial_Apologist]

And some innocent people potentially very much worse off.

This would apply to any named murderer or otherwise convicted person though, surely?

[ahinton]

And some innocent people potentially very much worse off.

Yes, of course!

[ahinton]

This would apply to any named murderer or otherwise convicted person though, surely?

Aye, there's the rub, as I suggested earlier. That said, I do think tht this could be quite a lot worse than some, given that it can and almost certainly will send shockwaves through the armed services as a whole, despite General Sir Michael Jackson's wise counsel about proportionality of approach (in the light of the merciful rarity of this particular occurrence) and then there's the risk of factional Muslim retaliation and revenge that could be visited on who knows whom in Britain. I wonder (although I'm not at all sure of my ground in so doing, I should hastily add) whether maintenance of this murderers anonymity might conceivably have been justified - or rather justifiable - on the grounds that his having been tried at a Court Martial according to its rules rather than in a civilian Court according to its (albeit under the same national laws) and that this fact might have afforded the Court concerned a reason to argue in favour of keeping secret the murderer's identity, whereas this would not usually have been open to a civilian Court.

[french frank]

This would apply to any named murderer or otherwise convicted person though, surely?

But not "equally" apply? There are murders which arouse venom and those that hardly cause a raised eyebrow. Sad, but there it is. Before the law, they may be, more or less, equal, but outside, depending on the circumstances, others might vary in their determination/ability to get even.

Arguably, naming any murderer makes it difficult for them to be rehabilitated after they have served the sentence handed down by the judge.

[Serial_Apologist]

Aye, there's the rub, as I suggested earlier. That said, I do think tht this could be quite a lot worse than some, given that it can and almost certainly will send shockwaves through the armed services as a whole, despite General Sir Michael Jackson's wise counsel about proportionality of approach (in the light of the merciful rarity of this particular occurrence) and then there's the risk of factional Muslim retaliation and revenge that could be visited on who knows whom in Britain. I wonder (although I'm not at all sure of my ground in so doing, I should hastily add) whether maintenance of this murderers anonymity might conceivably have been justified - or rather justifiable - on the grounds that his having been tried at a Court Martial according to its rules rather than in a civilian Court according to its (albeit under the same national laws) and that this fact might have afforded the Court concerned a reason to argue in favour of keeping secret the murderer's identity, whereas this would not usually have been open to a civilian Court.

The trouble with that is that it would once more lay the military open to the charge of dealing with its own in secrecy.

[Serial_Apologist]

But not "equally" apply? There are murders which arouse venom and those that hardly cause a raised eyebrow. Sad, but there it is. Before the law, they may be, more or less, equal, but outside, depending on the circumstances, others might vary in their determination/ability to get even.

Arguably, naming any murderer makes it difficult for them to be rehabilitated after they have served the sentence handed down by the judge.

We know about the murderers in the Bulger case, but of convicted adults do we know of any examples, in this country, of changes of identity for protection?

[ahinton]

The trouble with that is that it would once more lay the military open to the charge of dealing with its own in secrecy.

Indeed - that's where the problem lies - although it might not be impossible for the military to charge, try, convict and sentance an individual openly in all respects other than revealing his/her identity (not that I am suggesting that they should).

[french frank]

We know about the murderers in the Bulger case, but of convicted adults do we know of any examples, in this country, of changes of identity for protection?

But doesn't the Bulger case illustrate the fact that for some murderers, there will be those who will not allow the judgement of the law to suffice as a punishment? The mother of Baby P is not having a new ID, but I doubt she'll feel very secure when she's released - because there are some who will say, "And nor should she, after what she did." Who does this actually serve, except the obvious vigilantes?

All that said, there will probably be those who will want to go up to the parents of "Marine A" and congratulate them...

[amateur51]

But doesn't the Bulger case illustrate the fact that for some murderers, there will be those who will not allow the judgement of the law to suffice as a punishment? The mother of Baby P is not having a new ID, but I doubt she'll feel very secure when she's released - because there are some who will say, "And nor should she, after what she did." Who does this actually serve, except the obvious vigilantes?

All that said, there will probably be those who will want to go up to the parents of "Marine A" and congratulate them...

I take the point that you're making. I think the court regarded James Bulger's murderers as children at the time of the murder and so there is a difference there.

The other example of someone offered a new identity was Mary Bell who was also a child when she murdered. Her case prehaps established a precedent which informed how the Bulger murderers were treated.

[french frank]

I think another point (or perhaps, two which militate against each other to some extent.

1. 100 years ago murderers would have been hanged. No need to bother with changing identities and vigilantes

2. We now live in a world that grows smaller and smaller as regards the dissemination of news and information. There may have been scandal-sheets but they didn't have The Sun (headline only unless you subscribe). It was much easier to 'get lost' in days when the regimentation of the population was not ubiquitous.

Might there be a case nowadays for withholding the identities of high profile killers, especially if, as usually, the likelihood of them killing again is small?

[Flosshilde]

The other example of someone offered a new identity was Mary Bell who was also a child when she murdered. Her case prehaps established a precedent which informed how the Bulger murderers were treated.

Also she now has a child, I believe - Keeping Mary Bell's identity a secret means her child will not receive unwarented & unwanted attention.

[amateur51]

I think another point (or perhaps, two which militate against each other to some extent.

1. 100 years ago murderers would have been hanged. No need to bother with changing identities and vigilantes

2. We now live in a world that grows smaller and smaller as regards the dissemination of news and information. There may have been scandal-sheets but they didn't have The Sun (headline only unless you subscribe). It was much easier to 'get lost' in days when the regimentation of the population was not ubiquitous.

Might there be a case nowadays for withholding the identities of high profile killers, especially if, as usually, the likelihood of them killing again is small?

And the likelihood of their being killed in prison is quite high too once their identity is known, unless they are kept in special units.

[amateur51]

Also she now has a child, I believe - Keeping Mary Bell's identity a secret means her child will not receive unwarented & unwanted attention.

Good point - and quite right too.

[Flosshilde]

Mr Pee alert - don't read this - it will be bad for your health

An interesting piece in today's Guardian (G2) -

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/shortcuts/2013/dec/10/bbc-rules-graham-norton-aids-ribbon-contradictions

[Mr Pee]

Mr Pee alert - don't read this - it will be bad for your health

An interesting piece in today's Guardian (G2) -

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-ra...contradictions

Thank you for your concern, but it wasn't bad for my health. It was just the usual leftie Guardian twaddle and, as such, really not worth the paper it's written on.