Thursday, 28 November 2013

Peaches and Scream

Peaches Geldof, only a week or so ago she was taking on the likes of Katie Hopkins and with a calm and concise argument, she wiped the floor with her.

People who had written off Peaches as just another celebrity no-mark who brought nothing to the table were forced to reassess what they thought of here.

And then yesterday, she overstepped the mark.

She tweeted out the names of the women involved in the Ian Watkins case.

(Slow hand clap for Peaches)

The judges had given these women anonymity, but be under no illusion that he had done it for them, the judge imposed reporting restrictions on the names of these women to PROTECT THE CHILDREN.

The children that had already been let down by their own mothers in the worst possible way by being offered up to paedophile Ian Watkins, have now been let down by people wanting to be seen as "in the know"

Now, her defence, and other people who are defending Peaches Geldolf will also say, is that the names were out there already, anyone who wanted to search for them, could find them.


Does that make it ok?

Of course it doesn't.

And let us also take a minute to wonder if the names that she shared (and later deleted) were even correct, because let's face it, the media haven't exactly been full of shit hot journalism lately. (E Online)

Just today a man has been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering a disabled man who had been wrongly accused of being a paedophile.

Do these women deserve their anonymity?

No, they don't.

But do the children involved deserve to be protected and kept safe, both now and in the future from any more harm.

Of COURSE they do, and if that means the mother's names are kept out of the news then that is what has to happen.

PEaches Geldof took it upon herself to appoint herself judge and jury when she spread those names to her 163,688 followers. Identifying the women, identifies the children.

And haven't they been through enough already?

What do you think?

Was Peaches right to share the names? What if the names were wrong? we have all seen that vigilantism is NOT the way to handle things in these cases. Should she be applauded, or reprimanded?

Let me know.

Big Fashionista x x x


  1. Hell no, as you say it was to protect the kids. By tweeting out the names this means that when the children are old enough they'll be hounded by the media. Well done Peaches

  2. Oh dear gods, she's a muppet. Whether or not the names were right or wrong anyone knowing of a child of the right age with the mums name being that will now have the stigma of the *possibility* that it was them.

    They were granted anonymity purely so this type of shyte wouldn't happen.

    Peaches love, you failed. Massively.

    Yes, she should be reprimanded, just like the bloke who posted pics of the Jamie Bulger killer was (even though I did sort of agree with that).Can't remember exactly what he got and I'm running late for work, but I know it's googleable!

  3. I agree with you wholeheartedly, what she did was thoughtless and irresponsible.
    Only this week I had words with a fb friend about her sharing of the 'This is what the Jamie Bulger killers look like now' picture. She had no idea that what she had done was breaking court orders (though she did remove it once I explained it to her). People fail to see that by sharing information that is already in the public domain is an ilegal act.

  4. I agree. I remember when he first got accused the names found themselves online because there was a copy of a document proceeding on the Cardiff County Court website. It got taken down eventually but at the time I didn't really get why they shouldn't be named but I realise now. It's not fair to them. With any luck they will have no recollection and hopefully never need ask about their horrible excuse for parents.

  5. I can't agree with vigilantism. Invariably people never have the correct facts to hand and the wrong people always end up in the firing line. Like Tracey above I also had a words with someone on Facebook who was sharing the supposed correct photographs of the Jamie Bulger killers, with no thought to whether they were actually the right people. We have the law for a reason and we live in a civilised society. The days of "an eye for an eye" should be behind us.

  6. She is completely wrong. What she did was against the law which, as you quite rightly state, is there to protect the children. Her point that 'the names were out there anyway' is not an argument: information can only be known if people disseminate it.


Due to increased spam comments I am now having to moderate the comments I receive. I will do my best to get them approved quickly so please, carry on commenting as every time you comment a kitten smiles.

© Big Fashionista | All rights reserved.
Blogger Template Created by pipdig