mouldy_uk Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Can someone explain why in this high profile recent case regarding sexual assault (see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8093490.stm) the woman has been named (even though she has only been 'charged'). But, in the case of Baby P the culprits identities were kept anonymous? I genuinely don't understand it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest toonlass Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Can someone explain why in this high profile recent case regarding sexual assault (see - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8093490.stm) the woman has been named (even though she has only been 'charged'). But, in the case of Baby P the culprits identities were kept anonymous? I genuinely don't understand it. The offenders in the Baby P case were not named so that Baby P's identity was protected. By naming the woman in this case there are no children who are directly involved who would be identified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now