PNE Online
Welcome to PNE-Online. Why not register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox! You can also join up as a forum Patron to help support in the running costs of the forum.

Knife Crime

Mer5eywhite

0
Patron
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
11,357
So we recently had the couple stabbed on the beach in Bournemouth by Nasen Saadi.
Now we have this and strangely the killers cannot be named. We all know who killed James Bulger and we know the names of the teens who killed Breanna Ghey. However, these two remain unnamed:
 
So we recently had the couple stabbed on the beach in Bournemouth by Nasen Saadi.
Now we have this and strangely the killers cannot be named. We all know who killed James Bulger and we know the names of the teens who killed Breanna Ghey. However, these two remain unnamed:
They should be named, too many early teens that think they are untouchable, mind you they probably see their arseholedness as a badge of honour
 
Its down to whether the judge believes there are exceptional circumstances in each case. Even when they are named on release they are given new identities and anyone revealing those names will face time themselves.

Obviously the most famous case is the Bulger killers but there are many instances of young offenders not being named, perhaps the most famous one is when the 13 qnd 14 year old girls killed and tortured angela Wrightson.

The law says they cannot be named except under exceptional circumstances.
 
So we recently had the couple stabbed on the beach in Bournemouth by Nasen Saadi.
Now we have this and strangely the killers cannot be named. We all know who killed James Bulger and we know the names of the teens who killed Breanna Ghey. However, these two remain unnamed:

I really have no idea what you’re insinuating? Are you suggesting that the 12-yr olds have names that indicate their heritage and that somehow this is being concealed from the public? Or what?
 
I really have no idea what you’re insinuating? Are you suggesting that the 12-yr olds have names that indicate their heritage and that somehow this is being concealed from the public? Or what?
I'm insinuating nothing. Why, is that what you are wondering?
 
Anyone would think there is laws and precedent around naming them and that's why there is a separate hearing to decide if they should be named rather than a kangaroo court decision on the internet
 
Anyone would think there is laws and precedent around naming them and that's why there is a separate hearing to decide if they should be named rather than a kangaroo court decision on the internet
I know about the laws and I mentioned two precedents.
 
I know about the laws and I mentioned two precedents.
But not that there is a planned hearing so it's fairly obvious why they haven't been named yet? Instead focussing that it must be "strange" their names aren't public knowledge rather than a fairly well known procedure and part of legal process? And then wonder why someone might suggest you were insinuating something
 
But not that there is a planned hearing so it's fairly obvious why they haven't been named yet? Instead focussing that it must be "strange" their names aren't public knowledge rather than a fairly well known procedure and part of legal process? And then wonder why someone might suggest you were insinuating something
There is a lot of rubbish flying around on social media. They would do well to clear the air. It was the same with the Bournemouth beach murder. Clarification and transparency is something they need to adjust to meet the modern age of social media. Without it, I foresee problems.
 
I'm insinuating nothing. Why, is that what you are wondering?

Well, you did create a thread to say it is “strange” that these TWELVE year-olds haven’t been named (it’s absolutely not). And you compared it to cases where the alleged/convicted killers were 20 and 16. So there’s a bit of a vacuum in terms of your intentions.

I genuinely don’t know- but further, in the Bournemouth case, you chose to name the alleged killer (Nasen Saadi - an adult btw) but not the victim (Aimie Gray). But in the other case, you chose to name the victim but chose not to name the killers (16yr-old white children by the names of Eddie Ratcliffe and Scarlette Jenkinson.)

So while wondering about why you posted… the apparently random use of a Nasen Saadi’s name into your opening sentence, well yeah- I did speculate. Quite reasonably.
 
Correction:
I compared it to a case where both the killers were younger than 12.
I also compared it to a case where both the killers were 15 at the time.
- Aside from that, you are right about the Bournemouth alleged killer being a young adult.

Correction:
I did in fact name all three victims, Jamie Bulger, Breanna Ghey and Shawn Seesahi was named in the article and his name appeared on the link.

I didn’t name James Bulger’s killers and I didn’t name Breanna’s killers. I did mention the Bournemouth killer of Aimie Gray, who was indeed a young adult.

If you are implying that I think there is sometimes a difference in the way things are reported and details are released, varying according to identity characteristic then you would be correct. I allude to this in my last post.
 
So we recently had the couple stabbed on the beach in Bournemouth by Nasen Saadi.
Now we have this and strangely the killers cannot be named. We all know who killed James Bulger and we know the names of the teens who killed Breanna Ghey. However, these two remain unnamed:
I suspect the judge will make a consideration on naming them at the separate sentence hearing.

I won’t go into too much detail but I worked with kids exactly like that. Whilst it was rare that they’d be named id find it inconsistent when one judge in one area would name a child convicted of a less serious offence yet a child convicted of murder wouldn’t be named.

It wouldn’t surprise me if these two weren’t named given their age, had they been 15-16 it might be different.
 
They are not precedents. They are exceptions to the rule. There is a very clear legal difference between the two.
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun

/ˈprɛsɪd(ə)nt/
  1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
    "there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training"






adjective
/prɪˈsiːd(ə)nt,ˈprɛsɪd(ə)nt/

  1. preceding in time, order, or importance.
    "a precedent case"



    exception
    noun
    1. a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule.
      "he always plays top tunes, and tonight was no exception"
 
Correction:
I compared it to a case where both the killers were younger than 12.
I also compared it to a case where both the killers were 15 at the time.
- Aside from that, you are right about the Bournemouth alleged killer being a young adult.

Correction:
I did in fact name all three victims, Jamie Bulger, Breanna Ghey and Shawn Seesahi was named in the article and his name appeared on the link.

I didn’t name James Bulger’s killers and I didn’t name Breanna’s killers. I did mention the Bournemouth killer of Aimie Gray, who was indeed a young adult.

If you are implying that I think there is sometimes a difference in the way things are reported and details are released, varying according to identity characteristic then you would be correct. I allude to this in my last post.

Fuck me - that’s a nitpicky desperate defence. My point was clear. And substantial.
 
Fuck me - that’s a nitpicky desperate defence. My point was clear. And substantial.
Not defending anything and if it was clear then why was it inaccurate?

For what it is worth and for the sake of real clarity, I believe that descriptions of attackers/accused are withheld from the public for various reasons and in the age of social media and viral rumour, I think it does more harm than good.
 
What you said I did…
‘’And you compared it to cases where the alleged/convicted killers were 20 and 16’’

What I actually did…
Compared it to 3 cases where the killers/accused were 10, 10, 15, 15 and 20

Nitpicking 🤣
 
I'm insinuating nothing. Why, is that what you are wondering?

If you are implying that I think there is sometimes a difference in the way things are reported and details are released, varying according to identity characteristic then you would be correct. I allude to this in my last post.

Then why did you clutch your pearls with your first reply to me - and say that you weren’t insinuating anything? When in fact, I was absolutely spot on with my suspicion - as evidenced by the above.

Please spare me some sort of convoluted claim that your OP wasn’t an insinuation. I said you were nitpicking because you were finding ways to avoid that fundamental clear point.
 
Spared
Then why did you clutch your pearls with your first reply to me - and say that you weren’t insinuating anything? When in fact, I was absolutely spot on with my suspicion - as evidenced by the above.

Please spare me some sort of convoluted claim that your OP wasn’t an insinuation. I said you were nitpicking because you were finding ways to avoid that fundamental clear point.
 
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
noun

/ˈprɛsɪd(ə)nt/
  1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.
    "there are substantial precedents for using interactive media in training"





adjective
/prɪˈsiːd(ə)nt,ˈprɛsɪd(ə)nt/

  1. preceding in time, order, or importance.
    "a precedent case"



    exception
    noun
    1. a person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule.
      "he always plays top tunes, and tonight was no exception"

I really pity any children that you teach.

You introduced the term "precedents" in the context of "laws". I pointed out that the cases that you quoted, where specific names had been made public, were not legal precedents I.e. the decision to publish names was not meant to be used to determine decisions in future cases. Therefore, they were exceptions to the rule.
 
Top