I disagree with Huw's conspiracy, although that's always an attractive thesis - a quick look at this post reveals some pretty candid misgivings from crime reporters on the paper. (Let's face it - although the language is couched, and they can hardly bite the hand that feeds them, it's pretty clear what their opinion is). Anyway. Sigh. Here we go again. A lot of people seem to be concentrating on the judge, and I don't know enough about law to know whether this is unfair or not. I think everybody who blogs anonymously knows the risk by now... but is (in my ideal world) entitled to expect that any 'detective work' used to track them down comes from those with some form of genuine stake - not a broadsheet newspaper looking for a quick story. Put it this way - had I walked up to Richard Horton, kicked him in the nuts and the judge had let me off on a technicality, I'd feel a bit relieved if the consequences focused on the judge. It was another grubby bit of 'look how clever we are!' journalism that surely somebody on the paper must have realised would be counterproductive in all sorts of big-picture ways.