One is not allowed to name those accused of crimes, nor are they allowed to name those convicted of crimes, unless the government agrees.
It is a crime to report the names of those who are accused of committing crimes there, unless the government decides one can name them.
There does not seem to be a reason why for either way, except that their government decrees who may be lawfully reported as an accused, and who may be reported as an adjudicated criminal.
That is strange. I’ve seen some other foreign news, I think German but it might have been French, were accused perps were identified by their first names only.
After some of the stuff we’ve seen in the country with people having their lives ruined and their families threatened maybe it’s not the worst idea in the world.
Not quite. Firstly, these decision are nothing to do with government. They are matters for the courts - and in Britain, as in the US, there is separation of powers between the courts and government. Secondly, the presumption is the other way round - names can be reported unless there is a court order prohibiting their publication. The circumstances in which names can be witheld are very narrowly defined, and are all derived from the contempt of court laws, designed to prevent publication of anything which could prejudice a fair trial.