When I called the BBC on Friday lunchtime about this I was told that the articles were being kept up because they were archive material and thus not in contempt of court by their presence. The guy who I spoke to (who I never bothered asking for the name of before anyone asks) said that they were not linking to it from current coverage and their legal advice was that it was OK to be left as such.
Clearly, since then, the BBC has decided to take both pages down, although why I do not know. The names of the mother, and the child are out there now anyway. I've just managed to find at least eight cut and paste copies of the BBC archive articles along with others on forums and Usenet. The BBC have also, bizarrely, left xml and wap copies of the page lying around - preusmably because no one has started screaming in moral indignation about them yet.
The thing is though, the foreign press has no such qualms about publishing names and details. A quick trip over to somewhere like Le Monde, Pravda, the Berliner Morgenpost, the Prague Post or any other daily nationals from mainland Europe or the former Eastern bloc* will elicit you the relevant information and then some.
Foreign news sources will provide not only names but tell you what the other case is that is ongoing - although to be fair you can find that out from open Court Records here anyway if you really wanted to know. The injunction is on reporting details and names, it is not on whether you are allowed to know the names and details. We do after all still have an open coirt system.
A quick visit to a Crown Court, say Belmarsh, will inform you that all cases ongoing are listed with court numbers etc. If you knew the names already you could easily find out where the case was going on and then just park your bum in the public gallery. After all, the injunction is not there to protect the individuals so much as protect the opinions formed by the Jury on the case.
I should know, I was on the Jury for a case with a media injunction imposed on it. That case also involved children, potential abuse and, in one part of a much larger case, a very high profile international celebrity. The injunction existed because there was going to inevitably be wide reporting of the trial. The potential therefore was that a jury member would be reading about the case they were hearing and may well be influenced by that reporting.
In fact, I was a member of the second Jury after the first was struck off. They were struck off because one of them went online and read the ample archive information about the case. Most of that infromation was widely inaccurate, and in many cases just plain wrong in the details of the incidents being heard in court.
That injunction, to my knowledge, still exists and, as with Baby P, there remains masses of foreign column-inches on the case and the resulting decision at the trial, along with names and other information. So again I ask the question "what exactly is the point of media injunctions in a world that has the Internet?".
Also where does the responsibility on publication really lie? If I directly linked to a foreign news article would I be in contempt of court? Would a foreign news agency see it's London office staff arrested for contempt? (I doubt). And lastly, does someone posting in an obscure Internet forum constitute contempt of court anymore than me walking into a pub and saying "Baby P's real name is ***** ********"? I may be wrong on this but I don't think the latter would.
Update: A comment has been left which says,
As far as I know, the injunction applies to the media.I have not linked to it because I'm not sure whether I am media or not. Technically it would take at least two clicks to get there. Is that enough to make me not responsible? I don't know. Am I "media"? I don't know?
I'm not media. I'm, just a bloke who blogs. Read their names and see their faces at my blog. Over 20,000 have already this week.