So yesterday the Prime Minister stole my line. But she said it better.

"He sought many things from his act of terror, but one was notoriety. And that is why you will never hear me mention his name.

He is a terrorist. He is a criminal. He is an extremist. But he will, when I speak, be nameless.

And to others, I implore you. Speak the names of those who were lost, rather than the name of the man who took them."

I’ve been saying that sort of thing since Friday when we learnt he planned to plead not guilty and I just knew he was going to take the chance to preach from the witness box to inspire others and to build a cult of personality around his name. 

But since then a number of people have been criticising the stance the Prime Minister and I have taken. As they say, justice needs to be seen to be done not just done, even though it will be brutal for the victims and carry its risks of perpetuating the violence. He needs to be named and he needs to present his defence and it has to be in public. Therefore in the media.

Now I’d like to thank the people who have messaged and emailed me this argument. The PM obviously didn’t know that concept. And I obviously didn’t know that either, 32 years after I went to journalism school and 32 years since I was first a court reporter at the Auckland District Court. In the old building. Which is now a hotel. Which smelt of the worst bodily secretions.

The PM and I just must be stupid.

Well, of course, we’re not but we do understand the importance of words and names. On a journalist chat group, I’m a part of the same arguments have bounced back and forth until finally, I saw a great post. An old friend of mine who edits in television media in South East Asia has been using his name in every story because after he was named in open court the media had a duty to report it.

But on reflection, she’s realised it’s not at all necessary and she avoids the name on every occasion. I take this as a little victory. It’s not hard. Everyone should try it.  

This is all presaging the trial of the perpetrator himself when the media will be agonising as to whether we should bring the horror back to the nation every day and straight into their living room. It’s going to be an interesting debate because as much as all of us will say this is horrific and we don't need to see it or him on the telly, there’s more than enough evidence it would rate it’s socks off. And that's catnip to media who are just trying to give people what they want.

And here’s a peculiar irony. Will Facebook want to live-stream it? Imagine that.

It will be a test to see whether we actually mean what we say.