When oh when will the writers/producers demonstrate even a basic grasp of the laws of subjudice and the media??

Louise has been formally charged with murder. That effectively prohibits newspapers ,radio and TV from reporting anything other than the basic facts. So 'journalists' would not be interviewing people like Mercedes or Carmel about the case or whether or not they think Louise is guilty. To do so and publish the results would be contempt of court because it could influence the jury or witnesses.

Equally Carmel as a community police support officer would be prevented from both talking to the media about this case and putting up posters.

Indeed.

But when did newspapers ever abide by the law? Ever read The Sun? They must get a lawsuit per week!

I think its more a case of the people related to the case should not talk to the media. In other words the media can ask all they want but if you are likely to be a witness you should not talk to them because the prosecution will use that against you in court to prove that you are not a trustworthy witness (you've sold out).
Still, though, I do think the writing has always been a problem with HO.

Yeah well that is part of it but there are restrictions in the Human Rights Act which stop the newspapers printing what they want. its to do with privacy and contempt of court and stuff.

but it wouldnt make good tv would it .............

The law is quite explicit and for good reason.
Jury members could be influenced by what they read in the press.
Its not a matter of newspapers getting lawsuits as has been suggested in another post in this thread. The editor and the journalist involved in such an article could face imprisonment. Trials could also be abandoned if the judge saw fit.
I suggest the writers acquire a copy of Essential Law for Journalists.

And as I said earlier community police support officers are bound by the same regulations as regular police officers and the idea of one of them putting up posters saying " Save Louise" or anything similar is ludicrous and beyond belief.

The other interesting point was when the scary detective lady started asking Louise questions in the cell. Is it not against the law to ask questions without them being recorded?

No i think you are wrong on this. Newspapers can print what they want (within reason) after someone is charged. Today on Radio 1 Newsbeat, a women had been in prison for allegedly killing someone however new evidence suggested she might not have, however is due to return to court soon and they had quotes from relatives saying, 'i dont think she is guilty' or something like that etc. I think as long as journalists use words such as 'allegedly' then they are ok.

No I am absolutely right. The story you refer to on Radio One is of a woman who may have been wrongly convicted and is already in prison. She has NOT been charged with another offence. The law prohibits, all but the basic facts once a person is charged with a crime.