Can't Be Named For Legal Reasons......please!

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/621868/eyes-fire-animal-cruelty-RSPCA
Why bleedin not? what possible legal reason should stop us naming and shaming the pond life that did this? Can't bare cruelty to animals, just cannot comprehend by anyone would do it.

[ChillDoubt]

Vermin. Shouldn't be long before social media 'outs' them, fingers crossed.

[Answerprancer]

Why bleedin not?
Because some (myself included) might be tempted to do something similar to them.

[EDDIE51]

Probably under 16 so classed as children, it just says 'teenagers'.
Under 16s can not be named in most cases.

[Gromit]

Youths.
They are protected by the law on naming minors.

Don't worry Tora, they will be in prison soon for some other minor offence like garroting a pensioner.

[ToraToraTora]

yes AP but if they where over 18 they'd be named then you could go and roast their unmentionables!

[ToraToraTora]

they should be in the slammer for this gromit.

[Baldric]

Eddie, from the Link

///Last month three of the youths, two aged 16 and one aged 15 at the time of the offence///

[ToraToraTora]

looks like the ED does not concur with one of your posts AP!

[Answerprancer]

I can't remember what it was ...oh yes, an extremely convoluted hint at a rude word that no one, unless they really wanted to try - would get.
As absurd as that phrase "what the funicular" - only draws more attention to it.

[Hypognosis]

Little trouper survived and, judging by that photo, his eyes weren't scarred and he can still see.

Now, I'm a peacible man but stories like this make me seethe. If I'd stumbled across the incident, I think I'd be the one behind bars.

[Hypognosis]

@TTT

How come AOG didn't get to this one first?

[Answerprancer]

...was it reported in the Daily Mail?

[Hypognosis]

I was about to doubt that the Express is on his radar but vaguely recall he has used it for OPs, now and then.

It depends on… the story content.

[Booldawg]

The kind of public castigation they will get if named may make them think twice about offending again and quite possibly killing someone.

[andy-hughes]

Jordyboy - //any one agree with me that this is a definate case for bringing back the birch in some form? //

I don't.

It would provide an antidote to a completely understandable desire for revenge - agony for agony.

But it would not address the issue of why this happened, or prevent it from happening again.

Inadequate people on drugs do appalling things - but for the state, which by definition knows better, to respond with violence solves nothing except revenge, and the (dubious) notion of discouragement.

Hopefully we are more civilised now, and can approach this from a perspective of root causes and future prevention, rather than simple brutality - which hardly provides a sound behavioural example.

[youngmafbog]

I do
Goid public birching might make scum like this think again.
Liberal thinking will only encourage them to think they can get away with it.

[Ric.ror]

Ill be honest - I'm not the biggest animal lover on here - I would of course never hurt one but if these creatures are capable of doing that to a dog what else are they capable of?

[viv41]

Shocking, absolutely shocking and also the related case about that moron kicking his dog like a football. Thank God both dogs are now safe, but a five year ban WHY??? Why not life?? And yes Jordy, I agree with you, bring back the birch, but sadly they won't.