Simon's blog

16/06/2009 - Showing and hiding faces – when the media chooses

Recently, the heinous crime of alleged paedophilia and child abuse was been identified in Plymouth, Devon. One of the main alleged abusers is a woman that worked in a children’s nursery naturally sending revulsion into the hearts and minds of the nation; not least the unsuspecting parents using the nursery. Within hours following detailed police work and the woman’s arrest she was named, her face photo and personal details made public across the national media. This included details that directly impact on her husband and children and we do not know about their innocence, or not. Her children may also be direct victims, or secondary victims by association but their lives will never be the same.

Why then is the alleged killer of Mr Ian Tomlinson, a police officer, if we are allowed to use the term, is allowed to evade having his name and face published along with his family details and equal publicity? Do the national media believe his alleged crime and conduct – that may lead to charges of manslaughter – entitle him to be hidden and protected? Why are charges so slow to be formalised by the police with so much evidence before them? Do the police support violent crime and abuse of their own weapons by officers?

What these perpetrators of violence require is exposure and publication of who they are, their images to forewarn others and alert the public. It is inappropriate for any alleged killer not be photographed and named by the media. What this police officer did and abuses committed by other police on the G20 demonstration was disgusting and excessive. It has brought the police force into further disrepute and hiding them does nothing other than generate public contempt. The full weight of the legal system and media is needed in both cases. Bigots and paedophilia should have nowhere to hide.