Freedom of the press ?

[Consumer dude]

Recent news items have had many famous people facing charges of a serious nature. Given that we are consumers of information, is it right and or indeed moral to blacken a persons name until a court case/trial has taken place. Has the media too much power ?

[Nystagmite]

This came up on the Wright Stuff this morning. I vote no.

 

Ignoring the fact that these people are famous, it's unfair for someone to be associated with a crime that they may not have committed. Don't they have a right to privacy? There was a man 20 years ago called Colin Stagg who was named and shamed as the killer of Rachel Nickel. He was found innocent.

[BazzaS]

This came up on the Wright Stuff this morning. I vote no.

 

Ignoring the fact that these people are famous, it's unfair for someone to be associated with a crime that they may not have committed. Don't they have a right to privacy? There was a man 20 years ago called Colin Stagg who was named and shamed as the killer of Rachel Nickel. He was found innocent.

 

To be precise, he was found "not guilty" rather than found innocent.

 

It's a subtle difference, but key : if only because it is underpinned by the requirement for the prosecution to "prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt" rather than the accused having to "prove their innocence" (for offences which aren't 'strict liability')

 

Of note in R. v Stagg was the role of a police decoy ("Lizzie") used to try to get him to incriminate himself.

 

Subsequently Robert Napper was sent to Broadmoor after being convicted (manslaughter, on grounds of diminshed responsibility) for the killing.

 

Is Colin Stagg innocent? Absolutely.

Was he found innocent - No : he was found "not guilty"

[Guest]

Recent news items have had many famous people facing charges of a serious nature. Given that we are consumers of information, is it right and or indeed moral to blacken a persons name until a court case/trial has taken place. Has the media too much power ?

 

 

no need to worry so much about the 'official' media nowadays! eg recently that mp who was tried and convicted by social media despite being innocent. and innocent without having to be proven so on the evidence!

Edited May 3, 2013 by Ford

[chiefengineer]

no need to worry about the 'official' media nowadays! just look at that mp who was tried and convicted by social media despite being innocent. and innocent without having to be proven so on the evidence!

 

It's a sad fact that good news doesn't sell newspapers or go viral on social media sites. Bad news and gossip does. Society generally seems to like getting on the bandwagon of gossip. Maybe we need to stop believing everything we read.

 

Jeremy

[Nystagmite]

Agreed, Jeremy.

 

Whilst I have no problem with papers saying someone has been arrested for something, I do have a problem with them being named and shamed. One thing I can't understand either, is why did the Daily Mail name that teacher who went off to France with the student and when he was on trial, he wasn't named?

[BazzaS]

Agreed, Jeremy.

 

Whilst I have no problem with papers saying someone has been arrested for something, I do have a problem with them being named and shamed. One thing I can't understand either, is why did the Daily Mail name that teacher who went off to France with the student and when he was on trial, he wasn't named?

 

The press have a "get out" (at least initially), for when the police ask for help - a name can be released at the police's request when they are seeking someone either for the immediate safety of a child, when a court rules as part of a wardship / child safety ruling, or the catch-all of "the police wish to speak to them so they can assist the police with their enquiries". This is (of course) a neutral description : one can be helping the police and not a suspect, while even if they are a suspect, the fact they are "helping" the police sounds positive, rather than negative!

 

Once arrested the usual is " aged has been arrested". Once charged, the matter is sub judice, and reporting restrictions apply unless lifted by the court.

[Guest]

thats it, at least the 'official' media are accountable to some degree. eg re mr hall. he denied everything at first in the press, but alot happened since, which the press didn't report due to their restrictions. as it turned out he admitted and apologised to his victims. awaiting sentence.

Edited May 4, 2013 by Ford

[kmn]

In some countries it's illegal for the media to reveal the name of a person accused or even convicted of a crime. Would it be better if that kind of legislation was introduced in the UK?

[Nystagmite]

I think so, yes. Like I've said, I've got no issue with the media saying that someone has been arrested on suspicion of something; but I have a problem with them being named and shamed.

[duckwaddler]

I would never in a million years defend a person who had committed such a crime that has been reported in the media recently - however, every person is innocent until proven otherwise, and deserves a fair trial.

 

The press are a law unto themselves - it needs tighter regulation imo.

[chiefengineer]

I would never in a million years defend a person who had committed such a crime that has been reported in the media recently - however, every person is innocent until proven otherwise, and deserves a fair trial.

 

The press are a law unto themselves - it needs tighter regulation imo.

 

The trouble is, where do you draw the line between regulation and free speech? Do we want a state run regulator deciding what we do and don't see in the press? 1984 (the book, not the year)?

 

Jeremy

[duckwaddler]

The trouble is, where do you draw the line between regulation and free speech? Do we want a state run regulator deciding what we do and don't see in the press? 1984 (the book, not the year)?

 

Jeremy

 

Oh I hear you!! There is no way I would ever want to live the communist way - but you know what CE, we may think we have freedom of speech, but we don't really!

 

It's like I believe that anyone planning on having a child should have to pass some sort of ability test (I know some may be in uproar about it), but there are people out there having children, and they don't even know basic life skills such as how to cook a meal! But, if we starting having laws such as that, then we may as well be a communist country.

[chiefengineer]

Oh I hear you!! There is no way I would ever want to live the communist way - but you know what CE, we may think we have freedom of speech, but we don't really!

 

It's like I believe that anyone planning on having a child should have to pass some sort of ability test (I know some may be in uproar about it), but there are people out there having children, and they don't even know basic life skills such as how to cook a meal! But, if we starting having laws such as that, then we may as well be a communist country.

 

Agree on all counts DW. I just wish I knew what the answer was.

 

The trouble is that society in general just love to jump on the bandwagon. Okay, so you could regulate traditional media (newspapers/tv/radio), but how do you regulate social media on the web? Sure, if you post something defamatory or slanderous then the social media sites can be forced by the courts to reveal your identity and you can be sued. Whatever you posted can be removed by the site owner upon the courts decision, and the writer made to pay compensation (assuming they have it to pay). But how do you deal with those that have already read it and maybe told all their friends?

 

Its not like 1984 where people are employed by the party to wipe out every last trace of existance. You can't erase things from people's memories.

 

Maybe society in general needs to learn not to believe everything they read/see, and not take everything as truth because it's on their favourite social media site. I guess we can all dream, can't we?

 

I think the other issue today is the speed at which things can spread. Back when news travelled slowly, it wasn't such an issue. Also the purveyors of the news, generally, we people of integrity who would only publish the truth. Now anyone can "publish" information.

 

Anyone know what the answer is, except maybe go back 100 years?

 

Jeremy

[duckwaddler]

Even when a civil case is brought to court, and compensation is awarded, the perpetrator doesn't have to pay! Thankfully most slander cases now, especially when done repeatedly, are seen as harassment or stalking by the police (had it myself over this past couple of years).

 

And it is about time that the law was involved in harassment, it can cause upset!

 

I hear they're trying to bring in a law against bullying also!

 

As for CCTV losing a person their freedom etc, I am of the opinion, if you've nothing to fear, you've nothing to hide, however it all is pointing towards a lack of freedom, and a controlled country!

[chiefengineer]

Even when a civil case is brought to court, and compensation is awarded, the perpetrator doesn't have to pay! Thankfully most slander cases now, especially when done repeatedly, are seen as harassment or stalking by the police (had it myself over this past couple of years).

 

And it is about time that the law was involved in harassment, it can cause upset!

 

I hear they're trying to bring in a law against bullying also!

 

As for CCTV losing a person their freedom etc, I am of the opinion, if you've nothing to fear, you've nothing to hide, however it all is pointing towards a lack of freedom, and a controlled country!

 

Hiya,

 

You can have as many laws as you want. Bullying/harassment/stalking are all nasty and upsetting for the person on the recieving end, but a foundation of the law is that you're inocent until proven guilty. Those that do nasty things often find ways to wriggle out of justice.

 

I know you've been through it DW, and for that I am truely sorry. I just wish there were ways to stop it.

 

Jeremy

[Guest]

the 'golden thread'.

thing is, as bazza posted, innocent until proven guilty on the evidence. likewise, guilty until proven innocent on the evidence. also, the police use the press, just like others use the press. and the press also use. and they both sometimes get things wrong. politics.

mr hall used them in denial, it backfired, but the press were under reporting restrictions (unlike social media). he later admitted, including a 9 year old girl at the time! (but, in the meantime, he has now apparently stripped his assets! dailymail)

interesting, that tarbuck for eg has chosen not to comment!

recall the menezes case. the police used the press to discredit him prior to any investigation. the press obliged. i remember galloway having a go about that and being discredited. but, he turned out to be correct. the police and press got it wholly wrong, and blatantly tried to cover themselves. imo.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Ford

[Fred Bassett]

It's a tough one this. The police have to investigate no matter how old the crime is, although quite how you prove a rape case from 46 years ago I have no idea, but they have to take these allegations seriously. The problem is that once somebody is named it is too easy to assume that they are guilty when they might be completely innocent. I really do hope that the likes of Bill Roache, Rolf Harris and Jimmy Tarbuck are not guilty and by that I mean actually not guilty, not just not guilty in the sense that the police couldn't prove it. If they are guilty then they will get their due like Stuart Hall will. Equally, if the police find that somebody has been making false allegations, I hope that person is charged and then gets some serious jail time.

[Guest]

it is tough. and the police (cps) have their criteria and they generally won't prosecute if they don't think that they have the evidence. at least hall admitted things. who knows what would've happened in court!

in some cases, the use of the press has proven fruitful. what this does show, imo, so far, is that the police/cps have been thorough, and will not be prosecuting lightly. it has to be remembered that in some of these cases they are arrests only, with seemingly one obvious intent of poss procuring any further evidence? imo.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Ford

[Fred Bassett]

it is tough. and the police (cps) have their criteria and they generally won't prosecute if they don't think that they have the evidence. at least hall admitted things. who knows what would've happened in court!

in some cases, the use of the press has proven fruitful. what this does show, imo, so far, is that the police/cps have been thorough, and will not be prosecuting lightly. it has to be remembered that in some of these cases they are arrests only, with one obvious intent of poss procuring any further evidence? imo.

 

All of this is true. In the Hall case though, there was clearly a very great weight of evidence against him, as there would have been against Savile if he was still alive. I fail to see how a conviction could be obtained against Bill Roache though unless he confesses. If the police don't go ahead it could still leave the impression that he was guilty even though he may well be completely innocent.

[Guest]

If the police CPS don't go ahead it could still leave the impression that he was guilty even though he may well be completely innocent.

 

thats it. the balance between naming on arrest (and using the press) rather than on actual prosecution (where it would be open court anyway). at least with pros it could be seen that the cps believe that they have the evidence to succeed. yes, the stigma will be there after an arrest only with no prosecution. as well as stigma after a trial and being found not guilty on the evidence. it is a tough one.

re hall you say weight against him. yes, but one of the things i was getting at is that he denied things in the press! clearly knowing that he was guilty, and not just on the evidence that would be in court!

Edited May 9, 2013 by Ford

[Guest]

some recent info re arrest anon

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22549866

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22548065