Metropol

The probable argument is that the two issues are not 'directly' related and that references to issues before the arrest and charge are not covered by the rules and regulations connected with youth justice. I've checked the more recent article and there's no hyperlink to the earlier one, so there's no direct linking, the reader has to investigate further as you have to identify him.

nodnirG kraM wrote:So I've broken the law by putting the two references together?

Possibly. I would edit the name out just in case.

Under normal circumstances, it would be a case for jigsaw identification where people can put the pieces together to find out who the person is.

There's nothing to worry about though, more so it was BBC Editorial Policy being the reason for their judgement in not naming him. Funny how if they are to prevent jigsaw identification then they shouldn't have mentioned it was the same teenager in the hoodie that pointed at David Cameron.

The guy did openly admit to the media taking the drugs he was charged for possessing, therefore identifying himself and, strictly speaking, waived his right to anonymity by doing so.

But if they didn't mention the geezer shooting Cameron, there would be no cannabis story.

peterrocket wrote:There's nothing to worry about though, more so it was BBC Editorial Policy being the reason for their judgement in not naming him.

i'd have thought it would be more to do with the law, as he is a minor now under arrest?

Jovis wrote:But if they didn't mention the geezer shooting Cameron, there would be no cannabis story.

It's a difficult one, so most would be going on the side of caution and not reporting it at all. However as you say, if you can't mention the fact it was the same guy then it's not really another story.

Well he can be named again now ....

BBC News