Brianna Ghey

Anyone convicted of murder is named if 18 and over, under 18 only if judge orders it.

I agree, Freya5. You could argue the same about the families of any convicted person. What about Lucy Letby, for instance? Would people prefer that she had not been named?

Lucy Letby wasn't 15 when she committed her crimes.

Under 18s treated differently

Luckygirl3

I agree that the families will find it very hard; but I am sure that locals already know who they are.

I am hoping that their will be some curb on the media behaving inappropriately. It is not in the public interest for them to be targeted in any way.

I am hoping that their will be some curb on the media behaving inappropriately. It is not in the public interest for them to be targeted in any way.

Unfortunately an inevitably there are some who will indeed target the families - see Petra's earlier comment implying that the families will be proud to be related to murderous offspring <<<sigh>>>. Reading that - you can see Anniebach's point.

I don't believe such attacks will in any way help Brianna's family in processing their grief.

We can disagree with the decision to make the killers' names public - but...

“The shock generated by Brianna’s murder and the circumstances of it has spread well beyond the local community, across the nation and indeed internationally,” she said at the time. “Continuing restrictions inhibits full and informed debate and restricts the full reporting of the case.” (Mrs Justice Yip)

... makes a valid reason for releasing the names.

It's a shame those like Petra can't or won't subscribe to informed debate.

How can seeing the arrests cause informed debate?

But purplepixie everyone in their area, schools, community knew the names of the perpetrators I feel terribly sorry for their parents too, imagine how you’d feel if your child, who you loved, committed some heinous crime.

The parents both Brianna’s and Jessica’s have spoken from the heart It’s a tragedy for everyone
I think it makes little difference whether they are named now or next year it’s tragic all round and can’t be made any worse than it is

Doodledog

Can someone who thinks that they should be named explain why they think that, please? Not just that they deserve it, but specifically what it is that they think will be gained? I still don't really know what I think.

Well why name any murderers, sex offenders, infact anyone who commits crimes. Should we protect them. Not at all.

The nature or nurture debate is a very relevant and interesting one. My OH had an interesting perspective on this. He thinks that the world in general and young people in particular are constantly exposed to violence through computer games so that it becomes something routine. Derren Brown has a very interesting explanation for his unusual abilities at what seems like "prediction".His audience members have unconciously absorbed facts related to what was for example in the papers at a certain era.... "It gets into your head.... ". More so when you are young and your mind is bendy? I think that this is at least a contributory factor. I am not excusing the vicious and unbelievably cruel behaviour of these two nor the existence of actual evil. I think another contributory factor might be the decline of religious belief? I am not a church-goer but had a religious upbringing and the 10 commandments were shoved down my neck from a very early and impressionable age, so prior to 7 years including the relevant one here.(I'm not particularly virtuous and have broken several of them several times but not that one).
One of the reasons for the name release was apparently to prevent speculation and to prevent, GOOD GRIEF, the naming of other innocent persons on social media.!!!! I think I have got the right end of the stick re that one. I also think that I noticed that , only at her arrest , the girl was crying.......

Louella12

Lucy Letby wasn't 15 when she committed her crimes.

Under 18s treated differently

Obviously I am aware of that. I'm just making the point that you could argue that naming anyone convicted of a crime, no matter how heinous, is going to have an effect on their families. In my career, I had people come up to me and beg for their cases not to be reported in the local paper - in fact, that only ensured that the case would indeed appear in that week's edition.
The two accused in this case were tried as adults. The judge, who was privy to all the facts in this case (unlike those on here) took the decision that it was right to name them.

Anniebach

How can seeing the arrests cause informed debate?

I'm not an expert Anniebach in such matters but I'd imagine that those who are involved with young people; educators, those involved with their wellbeing and mental health, and parents, also politicians, will all be shocked and alarmed that juvenile minds can contemplate such horrific acts of cruelty, and will want to look at and debate why?, and how to recognise certain traits in children that might indicate they are treading a dangerous path - and what to do about it in future.

Knowing the names will allow such people to examine their history, their behaviour - especially at school. And presumably allow the 'informed debate' that the judge mentioned, the idea being to prevent this kind of horror from happening again by early intervention when such children show signs of deviant behaviour?

My answer is simplistic, but I can't think of any other reason why the judge lifted the ban on releasing the names of the killers. As has been said, local people will probably already know the names of the two involved. Informed debate is better than wild speculation which would prevail if they had not been named.

Obviously I am aware of that

That's all there is to it . It's the law. Unless, as in this case, a judge intervenes then under 18s aren't named.

Thank you Dickens cannot understand what anyone can learn or debate from the arrests

Louella12

*Obviously I am aware of that*

That's all there is to it . It's the law. Unless, as in this case, a judge intervenes then under 18s aren't named.

I am well aware of the law, having had to be as part of my working life. And as I said, the judge in this case, having been privy to all the facts, determined that it was in the public interest to name them.

In my career, I had people come up to me and beg for their cases not to be reported in the local paper - in fact, that only ensured that the case would indeed appear in that week's edition.
Wow! Do you mean out of spite? That comment (unless I've misinterpreted it) is swaying me towards thinking they should not have been named. It is for the judge to pass sentence, not for randoms to add to it by ensuring as much public shame as they can manage.

I thought the same, if the requests ensured the very opposite it could not have been done in fairness

I'm sure I heard on the news this morning that Jessica's mother has said she agrees with the judges decision to name them

Yes, she has said so.

Who is Jessica ?

I thought she was called Scarlett.

I suspect smiles meant Scarlett Jenkinson, Anniebach.
I respect the decision of the trial Judge to name these two after conviction.

Their neughbours knew who they are, it’s better they’re named formally like this than on X or YouTube (tho I expect that had happened already)
We need an informed debate but this thread reflects public opinion, some aren’t interested in developing understanding with the aim of protecting society.

My concerns were not regards to neighbours but the media,
no good reason for the arrests on Tic Tok, no matter some find it of interest

It's worth noting the Brianna's mother, Esther Ghey, called for “empathy and compassion” for the families of the two convicted as “they too have lost a child” and “must live the rest of their lives knowing what their child has done”.

Scarlett Jenkinson’s family, saying their lives had been left “in turmoil”, thanked Brianna’s mother for her “incredible selflessness and empathy towards our family”.

"Her compassion is overwhelming and we are forever grateful,” they said. “To all of Brianna’s family and friends, our community and everyone else that has been affected by this horror, we are truly sorry.”

Will those who are only too keen to target the Jenkinson and Ratcliffe families (Petra) bother to reflect on the gracious and dignified comments of Brianna's mother?

Doodledog

*In my career, I had people come up to me and beg for their cases not to be reported in the local paper - in fact, that only ensured that the case would indeed appear in that week's edition.*
Wow! Do you mean out of spite? That comment (unless I've misinterpreted it) is swaying me towards thinking they should not have been named. It is for the judge to pass sentence, not for randoms to add to it by ensuring as much public shame as they can manage.

No, it was most certainly not done out of spite. It was policy to report on any court cases which were covered and the only reason reports would not appear in the paper would be through lack of space. My editor's view was that if one person's request to keep their name out was accepted, then everyone would do the same. He even insisted that his own drink driving case should be published. It was not for the paper to decide who should be named or not, he said.

Anniebach

I thought the same, if the requests ensured the very opposite it could not have been done in fairness

Quite the opposite, in fact. If you agreed to keep one person's name out of the paper, what was to stop everyone making similar requests?

So a request ensured the very opposite , explains much