The Venables affair

It's coming to something when one of the best comments on the whole business comes from a cartoonist.

That said I'm not totally sure what to make of it all. For example, why was the information that Venables was back inside made public in the first place? There's already been so much written about the whole thing this seems to have gone down the memory hole - in fact, the government released the information the day before it was going to be published by the tabloids. Which obviously takes us right back to Steve Bell's cartoon. The tabloid press really does seem to run the government agenda sometimes.

Once the first 'drip' of information is out, of course, the pressure builds and builds until something has to give. But while I was initially thinking the government would have to reveal what he's (allegedly) done, I now think Jack Straw is doing the right thing by holding firm. Surely the clinching argument is that if there is to be a new trial it is imperative, for all concerned, that it should not be compromised by too much information being made public. I've heard several commentators make the point that celebrities (especially Gary Glitter) have had fair trials, even though events surrounding the accusations being so well-known. But this isn't really an argument, since presumably if the trials were fair this was despite the publicity, not because of it.

Until the facts are decided in a court of law, where's the public interest in airing the accusations in such an emotive case? I've yet to be convinced there is any.