Anyone in the know able to explain why the hospitalised scumbag has yet to be identified?
From the College of Policing (and repeated online in several locations):
Police will not name those arrested, or suspected of a crime, save in exceptional circumstances where there is a legitimate policing purpose to do so. This position is in accordance with recommendations and findings of the Leveson Inquiry (part 1), the Information Commissioner and the Home Affairs Select Committee.
A legitimate policing purpose may include circumstances such as a threat to life, the prevention or detection of crime, or where police have made a public warning about a wanted individual. See also key themes. In certain circumstances, this may include people who have failed to answer bail.
When someone is arrested, police can proactively release the person’s gender, age, where they live (ie, the town or city), the nature, date and general location of the alleged offence, the date of the arrest, whether they are in custody or have been bailed, and the subsequent bail date, or if they were released without bail or with no further action being taken. This should not apply in cases where, although not directly naming an arrested person, this information would nevertheless have the effect of confirming their identity. In circumstances where the release of such information, particularly details relating to age or location, is likely to confirm the identity of a person arrested consideration should be given to providing less specific details. For example: ‘a man in his 30’s’ or ‘at an address in Sussex’.
The rationale for naming an arrested person before they are charged should be authorised by a chief officer and logged either by them or by the CCD. The authorising officer should also ensure the CPS is consulted about the release of the name.
This approach recognises that, in cases where the police name those who are arrested, there is a risk of unfair damage to the reputations of those persons, particularly if they are never charged. It cannot and does not seek to prevent the media relying on information from sources outside the police in order to confirm identities.
It suggests that the media haven't yet worked out who the bloke is, or - more probably - there are reasons why they've chosen not to reveal his ID (which, in the case of the Mail and Express is unlikely to be because of the chap's ethnicity/religious affiliation).