Why the Southport killer cant be named.

[Tommy Tainant]

Detectives given more time to question suspect; police promise further arrests over riot

There have been four arrests after violence in the town with Merseyside chief constable saying ‘more will follow’

www.theguardian.com

So all you American racist trash need ro cool your jets. Or continue making up shit as usual.

Detectives have been given more time to question the 17-year-old over the incident and he remains in custody after being detained on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. No charges have been brought.

At this stage, the boy has not been identified because of his age amid active ongoing criminal proceedings.

The criminal age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old, meaning children aged between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime.

The identity of defendants and witnesses under the age of 18 who are subject to criminal proceedings in youth courts is protected by automatic reporting restrictions under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

If a child is charged with an offence and is facing criminal proceedings in adult courts - magistrates’ and crown courts - then magistrates and judges have legal powers to grant anonymity to a child defendant, witness or victim under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

Both of these laws ban the press from publishing a child defendant’s name or any detail which could lead to them being identified while the reporting restrictions remain in place.

This is why media reports sometimes say they cannot identify a child involved in a criminal court case for legal reasons.

The automatic restrictions technically begin once court proceedings are active - when a suspect has been charged and is appearing in court for the first time - which could give rise to questions as to why the teenager in the Southport case has still not been identified.

But media organisations typically refrain from identifying any child arrested on suspicion of a crime, having considered their ethical and other legal responsibilities, because there is the prospect this could then lead to prosecution and court proceedings where the reporting restrictions in question will activate.

Child defendants will remain anonymous throughout legal proceedings but these restrictions can be challenged - usually by reporters - after the court case has ended.

If a child is convicted of a crime, having either pleaded guilty or been found guilty after a trial, magistrates and judges have powers to lift reporting restrictions so the defendant can be identified in some circumstances, including if this is considered in the public interest

 

[odanny]

Let's hope this kid is not tried as a "juvenile" and given 10 years in prison for slashing three innocent children to death.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Detectives given more time to question suspect; police promise further arrests over riot

There have been four arrests after violence in the town with Merseyside chief constable saying ‘more will follow’

www.theguardian.com

So all you American racist trash need ro cool your jets. Or continue making up shit as usual.

Detectives have been given more time to question the 17-year-old over the incident and he remains in custody after being detained on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. No charges have been brought.

At this stage, the boy has not been identified because of his age amid active ongoing criminal proceedings.

The criminal age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old, meaning children aged between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime.

The identity of defendants and witnesses under the age of 18 who are subject to criminal proceedings in youth courts is protected by automatic reporting restrictions under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

If a child is charged with an offence and is facing criminal proceedings in adult courts - magistrates’ and crown courts - then magistrates and judges have legal powers to grant anonymity to a child defendant, witness or victim under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

Both of these laws ban the press from publishing a child defendant’s name or any detail which could lead to them being identified while the reporting restrictions remain in place.

This is why media reports sometimes say they cannot identify a child involved in a criminal court case for legal reasons.

The automatic restrictions technically begin once court proceedings are active - when a suspect has been charged and is appearing in court for the first time - which could give rise to questions as to why the teenager in the Southport case has still not been identified.

But media organisations typically refrain from identifying any child arrested on suspicion of a crime, having considered their ethical and other legal responsibilities, because there is the prospect this could then lead to prosecution and court proceedings where the reporting restrictions in question will activate.

Child defendants will remain anonymous throughout legal proceedings but these restrictions can be challenged - usually by reporters - after the court case has ended.

If a child is convicted of a crime, having either pleaded guilty or been found guilty after a trial, magistrates and judges have powers to lift reporting restrictions so the defendant can be identified in some circumstances, including if this is considered in the public interest

Do you think we should know the new identities of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

 

[Oddball]

 

[ShahdagMountains]

His picture and name are circulating around the media.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Let's hope this kid is not tried as a "juvenile" and given 10 years in prison for slashing three innocent children to death.

He will be 18 in a week.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Do you think we should know the new identities of Robert Thompson and Jon Venables?

I would prefer they were in jail.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Is she pissed ?

 

[Tommy Tainant]

You kill a lot more children than we do you thick fucker. Every fucking day.

 

[Captain Caveman]

I would prefer they were in jail.

Here you go, a good ole British name, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana

Suspect named as Axel Muganwa Rudakubana as Starmer announces new 'capability' to curb riots

The person accused of murdering three girls is Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, born 7 August 2006.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Captain Caveman]

Pictured: Southport suspect, 17, named as Axel Rudakubana

Teenager charged with murdering three young girls at Taylor Swift-themed holiday club

www.telegraph.co.uk

Black. Says it all.

 

[zaangalewa]

You kill a lot more children than we do you thick fucker. Every fucking day.

Ever heard an expression like "To keep one's own contenance"? Drink a wonderful cup of tea and start to calm down.

My deepest sympathy to the victims of this cruel act that cannot be put in words. Our prayers, our deepest sympathy for the many families and friends of the victims.

 

[leftwinger]

Unprovoked Violent killing attacks on white citizens is off the charts. Even in jolly old England, TommyWood. Nary a peep condemning out of muslim slime as they smile in their hooka dens. Never any condemnation since Arafat began Airplane hijacking as a terrorism.

 

[leftwinger]

You kill a lot more children than we do you thick fucker. Every fucking day.

How so you bag of manure? "WE" commit acts of unprovoked violence more than your compatriots?

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Is she pissed ?

You’re the one who is pissed. Constantly.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

Here you go, a good ole British name, Axel Muganwa Rudakubana

Suspect named as Axel Muganwa Rudakubana as Starmer announces new 'capability' to curb riots

The person accused of murdering three girls is Axel Muganwa Rudakubana, born 7 August 2006.

www.bbc.co.uk

Keir’s at it already. Blaming the far right.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

 

[Mac-7]

Detectives given more time to question suspect; police promise further arrests over riot

There have been four arrests after violence in the town with Merseyside chief constable saying ‘more will follow’

www.theguardian.com

So all you American racist trash need ro cool your jets. Or continue making up shit as usual.

Detectives have been given more time to question the 17-year-old over the incident and he remains in custody after being detained on suspicion of murder and attempted murder. No charges have been brought.

At this stage, the boy has not been identified because of his age amid active ongoing criminal proceedings.

The criminal age of responsibility in England and Wales is 10 years old, meaning children aged between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime.

The identity of defendants and witnesses under the age of 18 who are subject to criminal proceedings in youth courts is protected by automatic reporting restrictions under Section 49 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

If a child is charged with an offence and is facing criminal proceedings in adult courts - magistrates’ and crown courts - then magistrates and judges have legal powers to grant anonymity to a child defendant, witness or victim under Section 45 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999.

Both of these laws ban the press from publishing a child defendant’s name or any detail which could lead to them being identified while the reporting restrictions remain in place.

This is why media reports sometimes say they cannot identify a child involved in a criminal court case for legal reasons.

The automatic restrictions technically begin once court proceedings are active - when a suspect has been charged and is appearing in court for the first time - which could give rise to questions as to why the teenager in the Southport case has still not been identified.

But media organisations typically refrain from identifying any child arrested on suspicion of a crime, having considered their ethical and other legal responsibilities, because there is the prospect this could then lead to prosecution and court proceedings where the reporting restrictions in question will activate.

Child defendants will remain anonymous throughout legal proceedings but these restrictions can be challenged - usually by reporters - after the court case has ended.

If a child is convicted of a crime, having either pleaded guilty or been found guilty after a trial, magistrates and judges have powers to lift reporting restrictions so the defendant can be identified in some circumstances, including if this is considered in the public interest

Were there no wittinesses to the murders who could give a description of what they saw?

Or is free speech against the law in merry old England also?

 

[Captain Caveman]

Keir’s at it already. Blaming the far right.