Kelvin Mackenzie was the former editor of The Sun
It is quite beyond me why the 12-year-old machete murderers are allowed to keep their anonymity.
The reality is that they killed their victim in cold blood. He was a stranger and they deliberately shoulder-barged him in a park and then used the a 42cm machete to stab him in the back so violently it almost came out of his chest having gone through his heart
What parallel universe believes these youngsters sensitive to publicity? And if it haunts them for the rest of their life so what?
The authorities went to ludicrous lengths to make the children feel at home when they appeared at Nottingham Crown Court. They were allowed to sit in the well of the court near their relatives rather than in the dock. Why?
And what about this? Court sessions were shortened during the trial to mirror school lessons. How ridiculous. These two violent scumbags weren’t on a shoplifting rap but faced the most serious crime in the book. There should have been no accommodation.
A small courtroom was chosen so they would not be intimated by their surroundings (who thought that was a good idea?) and they were given permission to use so called fidget aids to calm their nerves. They could fidget for a lifetime for all I care.
Didn’t notice they had any nerves when plunging that machete through the back of a totally innocent man who was running away from them at the time.
Everybody in the court would have known that these 12-year-olds was going to be convicted. They had no defence. It wasn’t accident and they were out to find a victim. In fact, they had no remorse with one of them texting ‘’idrc’’- text speak for I don’t really care.
The cloak of anonymity was first introduced for 16-year-olds (now 18) back in 1847. The world has changed a lot since then. The truth is that teenagers today are now being convicted of serious crimes ( violence, drugs, sex attacks) and the neighbours should know these vile creatures are living in their street.
The argument by the do-gooders, who almost certainly have never been a victim of crime, is that the notoriety will hang round their necks forever if the media can run names, photos and addresses. Can anybody explain to me why that wouldn’t be entirely appropriate for these two young killers.
Further, I would be interested to know what kind of nightmare they were at home. I suspect they didn’t keep their criminality to themselves. You wouldn’t have to be an astrologer to believe their local area breathed a sigh of relief when they were arrested.
I read somewhere that the relatives of the defendants wept when the conviction was announced. Why did they cry? Having heard the evidence over the previous four weeks they must have realised, if they hadn’t before, that they had given birth to two evil children.
After all, one of the children had an obsession with knives and posed in a photograph with his machete (the murder weapon) tucked into the top of his trousers only hours before committing murder.
In fact, he had paid £40 (where did he get that money) to buy the machete from somebody he would not name. So, only 12 but he had already embraced omerta. Snitches get stitches as they say in the world he has chosen to embrace.
Did the obsession with knives come as a surprise to his parents. If not, what had they done about it? It could be that they couldn’t control him. We will never know as the anonymity protects all the relatives. Is there anything in their family life which might have led to the way they are?
One argument I’ve heard deployed is that the publicity will affect the parents. Well, they brought them into the world. Had they produced a Beckham or a Bellingham they would have taken the plaudits, the fact their children were monumentally evil is something, to my mind, they have to live with in the full glare of publicity.
