Almost nine out of 10 of a regional daily’s readers have called for the teenage killers of Angela Wrightson to be named in a poll conducted by the newspaper.
The Hartlepool Mail surveyed readers after a judge ruled the girls, who are both 15, should remain anonymous after being sentenced to life imprisonment for murder last week.
Despite various media organisations asking for an order preventing their identification to be lifted, Sir Henry Globe QC said the welfare of the two girls was at risk.
But the results of the Mail’s survey, which was published on Friday’s front page, below, found 89pc of respondents were in favour of the pair being named.
Explaining his reasoning at Thursday’s sentencing, Mr Justice Globe told the court: “They (defence barristers) emphasise the fact that each defendant poses a risk of self-harm. In one case, it is a real and present danger. Removing anonymity is likely to exacerbate what is already a dangerous situation.”
The judge said the older girl had tried to kill herself on a number of occasions.
Addressing her, he said: “There have now been four attempts, two at this court, where I am satisfied you have made real efforts to commit suicide during the course of the trial. The most recent one was here at court in the midst of my summing-up late on Monday afternoon.
“Those looking after you are on high alert to look after your safety. I am prepared to take notice of your current state of health as a mitigating feature. It is also highly influential in my decision as to anonymity.”
As reported on HTFP, the BBC revealed how a group of media organisations fought for the right to cover the case of two girls convicted this week of murdering a vulnerable woman in her own home – after an earlier trial collapsed due to prejudicial comments on social media.
Mr Justice Globe said it was because of what he called “an avalanche of prejudicial comments” that had been posted on Facebook pages, including those of a number of media organisations.
Joy Yates, editorial director for Johnston Press North East, said: “Our splash on Friday was in response to a strength of feeling from our audience which led us to conduct a poll in which 89pc of our readers say the teenagers should be identified.
“Our front page story the following day reflected the poll outcome with a victims’ support group hitting out at taxpayers’ money being spent to employ a barrister to argue against naming the teenage killers.”
Sign up for our free daily email bulletin
Follow HTFP on Twitter
Got a story? Email the Editor at
This sort of lowest common denominator, sensational journalism is worthless. Of course the average person in the street will want them named. The Hartlepool Mail only sells a few thousand papers a day and I’d imagine this conclusive poll had participants in the mid hundreds so it’s irrelevant.
Report this comment
Hmm. Did the paper really survey every single reader? Or are we talking about 89% of people who responded…in which case the figures should be revealed.
Report this comment
It’s not very intelligent copy is it? What the children did was horrific, evil even, but they are still children. What purpose would be served by naming them, other than to feed the hatred of the mob?
But I suppose an investigation into children’s services or an indepth backgrounder or why these children did such unspeakable acts would cost time and resources. It would take an experienced journalist with contacts and patience to sift the facts, and alas there are too few.
And yes any polls that claim such overwhelming numbers should explain the sample size and the methodology of collating the information.
That said, I do not believe blanket life bans should be automatic. The courts should be prepared to lift the bans if, on release, they commit more violent acts or are a danger to the public.
Report this comment
Well done to the Hartlepool Mail. It might be a lost cause legally, but it’s certainly reflecting readers’ views.
That’s what papers do sometimes.
Report this comment
Ridiculous!
Rabble-rousing and taking advantage of a sickening story with little motivation other than to promote newspaper sales.
That’s not just bad journalism, that’s a scandal.
Report this comment
How many of the bus load of readers the Mail has left voted? Shame on the Mail for going into the gutter with the Hang ’em High brigade.
Report this comment
It does make me smile when journalists are accused of ‘trying to sell papers’ or ‘promoting newspaper sales.’
The very thought.
Report this comment
@ voice of reason, is that what journalism is, parroting the views of the readership? I thought journalists informed their readership of matters that were new to them, and offering informed opinion.
In this case the Mail might as well do the job properly with a splashed vox pop about what the readers think of a public hanging of the killers.
Report this comment
How ghastly that the dreadful proles have been allowed to express an opinion. Only middle-class liberals should be able to have views on matters like these.
Report this comment
50% of the readers voted not to buy the paper since 2011/12 going by the circulation figures.
Report this comment
May I refer you to a feature story on the BBC website this morning under its “Trending” tagline. This tells the tale of a particularly nasty right-wing woman in the US who has gained 18,000 Twitter followers for her intemperate, anti-black, anti-leftist, pro-Trump rants – and who seriously doesn’t like it when her targets turn on her in kind. My point in commenting on it on here is mostly the headline, which claims that the intercultural battle in the US is frighteningly toxic. I fear that if we bow to the wishes of the dreadful proles, as you put it, this is what will happen here – the politics of bigoted hate with no room for compromise.
Report this comment
Bizarre! we have a bunch of journalists complaining about other journalists trying to uphold that core concept of justice not only being done but being seen to be done; that time-honoured concept of naming perpetrators. That these perpetrators are teenagers isn’t especially relevant – it’s long been recognised that young people who commit hideous the most serious crimes are usually named on conviction. It was pretty much universally agreed that Thompson and Venables would have been named on conviction. So why not these girls? Do they really deserve to go into society as innocents in a few years’ time? That may not be an easy question – but the knee-jerk reaction to perfectly acceptable journalism (since when did newspapers conduct polls which would meet the criteria for representative sampling?!) is strange and worrying.
Report this comment
Voice of Reason. Reflecting readers’ views? Really? I know the town very well and they’re not views I’ve heard expressed. Like I said, lowest common denominator journalism giving legitimacy to the same views on social media that caused the original trial to be halted.
Report this comment
To what end?
Report this comment
I have no problem with any media outlet running polls providing they provide the number of respondents or size of the sample taken.
Report this comment
It’s not a ‘survey'; it’s an online ‘vote’ with a loaded question http://renderer.qmerce.com/interaction/57076086c35c4ea670fd731b
Report this comment
It is only 89 per cent of whatever number of readers responded, a minute percentage of the population.
No purpose would be served by naming these obviously very troubled girls, though I in no way condone their disgusting crime, which made me feel quite sick.
I suspect there is a very unhappy background to all this, which would not be helped at all by naming names. Frankly, those who need to know will know already.
Report this comment
I wonder how many of those commenting on this HTFP piece have read the full Hartlepool Mail article. A number have been very quick to assume that the newspaper did not publish details of their research methodology; perhaps they did?
Report this comment
Graham. Already been dealt with. Loaded question and a very small sample. Poor journalism from a paper that has become a laughing stock in the community it ‘serves’
Report this comment