Due process is annoying but it's safer than rule by lynch mob

I fail to understand why the Justice Secretary should have to explain his correct decision - to uphold the law and sustain the judicial process - to the family of a victim of a crime committed seventeen years ago. That the person convicted of that crime may or may not be suspected of committing a separate offence today, an offence with no material connection to them, can be no concern of theirs. Are they victims, here? Witnesses?

I fail to understand why the press are harrying the Justice Secretary for obeying the law, as he must, for reasons which editors understand perfectly well and/or which their legal departments will or should have explained to them. And warned them off.

I fail to understand why the Attorney General has not officially and publicly warned commentators, editors - and John Humphrys who behaved like a particularly dense cub reporter this morning - that the consequence of their hue and cry may be to prejudice or prevent trial of a suspect in a serious criminal case. And that the identity of the suspect is irrelevant.

Yes, I want to know. But it is more important to me that criminals be tried and imprisoned.

So would you all please shut the fuck up lest the authorities be prevented by your sensationalist bloody wittering from locking up a suspected child pornographer who may or may not be a child murderer?