Basically it boils down to balancing the scales of justice, on one side it is quite clear that someone who has been convicted of a criminal offence should have the details of that published, including their name. Protecting the criminal should not be a right they can expect when they have been granted adult status. But should the criminals be minors then the identities should be protected, or should they? Naming and shaming criminals will also have a knock on effect on families, who are often tarred with the same brush.

The James Bulger case is an interesting example. In the end [Jon] Venables and [Robert] Thompson were named. I don’t know whether we gained all that much from that. In fact, they were even given fresh identities in prison and when they leave, a good deal of tax payer’s money on hiding them and their identities.

Should we go the extra mile to protect minors as there is a chance of redemption and their characters are not fully formed? With Baby P’s mother, there is a strong case for not putting her name out there, as was originally decided, because Baby P’s siblings and family will be instantly identifiable.

That’s the dilemma. We are all aware of the details; the Baby P case that has been well publicised and yes, you can get the names off the internet if you are prepared to look but when it’s published in the press, you know it’s true – if it’s on the internet, you don’t.

Lifting anonymity is not going to do Baby P’s or his siblings any good, or change what has happened. We now know his name is Peter and that he suffered. Should the people responsible for his dreadful life, and death have their identities protected or not? Please comment below.