Steven Barker and priorities of the press

Okay, so anonymity has lifted on the Baby P killers, and yes that is a big deal. The media have spent the day broadcasting their names and discussing the reasons that they have been kept secret for so long. There have been comments on the safety of the trio, their background, and on the way that Steven Barker and his brother tormented their grandmother. The horrors inflicted upon young Peter Connelly had the nation in fury for months after they came to light, and it is of course a huge story, that deserves this attention.

What else deserves attention however, is the rape of a two-year-old girl. Everywhere in the media there have been mentions of it, but for some reason this act has somehow been relegated to that of an additional character trait of Barker's. The BBC in a long broadcast (including several interviews, discussions, on location filming and profiles of the trio) mentioned the rape once. It was a single sentence that came up in a list of 'details' that could now be revealed about the killers. On the BBC website, the written story mentions the rape twice. Once, again as an additional 'detail' about Barker, and once as a reason that Baby P's killers could not be named until now.

What happened to young Peter was horrendous, and the media should not do anything to lessen or cheapen that. This should not mean that the rape of a two-year-old girl should be treated merely as a 'detail' or, even worse, as a reason that those commiting the real crime could not be named.

Yes, Baby P is the main story. Yes, the law grants anonymity to victims of sexual assault and thus there are many details of the rape case that can not be discussed. Yes, the rape case extended the period of time the public had to wait to hear the names of the trio. But none of these reasons should reduce comment on the crime to a couple of sentences here and there. Steven Barker has been convicted of hurting more than one child, and his second victim, nameless or otherwise, deserves more.