Bit of a legal blunder at the Daily Telegraph website today, with a story appearing about the sentences handed down following the death of Baby Peter. One problem: the story includes just under a big photograph, "PLEASE LEGAL (esp, can I say Baby P's killer?)":
The answer, by the way, I think is "no" as the convictions were for allowing Baby Peter to die rather than any of them being convicted of directly killing him. That's because of the difficulty of actually proving which individual in the household took which specific acts that resulted in Baby Peter dying. It's the difficulty of proving such direct causation which resulted in the offences around allowing someone to die to be introduced a few years back.
A computer thinks the following may also be of interest:
[...] around the web In links on May 28, 2009 at 11:03 am Mark Pack has noticed a Telegraph report on Baby Peter with a small note for the legal team which was [...]
[...] An eagle-eyed spot from Mark Pack, head of innovations for the Liberal Democrats. It looks like the Telegraph team were sharing the editorial process a bit too much here. Probably the capitalised question to the newspaper’s legal team isn’t one that should have made it onto a Baby P story on the Telegraph’s site… Full story at this link. [...]
[...] An eagle-eyed spot from Mark Pack, head of innovations for the Liberal Democrats. It looks like the Telegraph team were sharing the editorial process a bit too much here. Probably the capitalised question to the newspaper’s legal team isn’t one that should have made it onto a Baby P story on the Telegraph’s site… Full story at this link. [...]