is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?

is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?

Author
Discussion

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
tr7v8 said:
I wondered that TBH. Obviously tipped off in the raid on Cliffs house.
Wrong.

The press were tipped off by an unknown source. The press then contacted the police. The police decided to minimise the risk of the investigation by keeping the press close.

calibrax

4,788 posts

211 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
TooMany2cvs said:
petemurphy said:
maybe not murdering a child but i'd rather be labelled a murderer than a paedo
I'd rather have been sexually abused as a child than murdered.
If you had actually been abused then you might think differently about that.

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
It was not illegal for the press to be informed of the search, but it was pretty shabby, regardless of whether the suspect is guilty or innocent.


Leveson had something to say on this subject:


“I think that the current guidance in this area needs to be strengthened. For example, I think that it should be made abundantly clear that save in exceptional and clearly identified circumstances (for example, where there may be an immediate risk to the public), the names or identifying details of those who are arrested or suspected of a crime should not be released to the press nor the public”

Leveson Report, Vol 2, Part G, chapter 4, par 2.39, p.791

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
It was not illegal for the press to be informed of the search, but it was pretty shabby, regardless of whether the suspect is guilty or innocent.
The press didn't receive the information from the police. The BBC have stated the information wasn't from the police and that they won't disclose the source. The police have stated the press approached with them with the information and managed it accordingly.

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
On reflection, whoever disclosed the information (perhaps a court employee) acted in breach of a civil law obligation of confidence. The police could have managed the situation better by, if need be, seeking an injunction to prevent the media from using the leaked information. They have done this in the past.

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
The source may have been the complainant / someone else who knew there were an investigation. It also may have been a general fishing expedition by the press, coincidentally close to the warrant being executed. Who knows?

themanwithnoname

1,634 posts

213 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
calibrax said:
TooMany2cvs said:
petemurphy said:
maybe not murdering a child but i'd rather be labelled a murderer than a paedo
I'd rather have been sexually abused as a child than murdered.
If you had actually been abused then you might think differently about that.


This. More than you could imagine.

anonymous-user

54 months

Friday 15th August 2014
quotequote all
La Liga said:
The source may have been the complainant / someone else who knew there were an investigation. It also may have been a general fishing expedition by the press, coincidentally close to the warrant being executed. Who knows?
The complainant would not usually know about the warrant and the date and time planned for the search.

The practice of police and press appearing together at an arrest or search became quite common pre Leveson. It's not a good thing,I think.


anonymous-user

54 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
They wouldn't. I meant if the CP / someone approached the press saying there were an investigation.

I agree the media don't need to know prior, generally. They can be appropriately briefed once the incident has occurred.

pcvdriver

1,819 posts

199 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
XCP said:
Wasn't Boris Johnston filmed accompanying the police on a drugs raid? I hope his name was on the warrant.
Well, for the rather reasonable fee of a tenner to cover admin costs - I believe the info is easily and readily available under FOI Act

petemurphy

Original Poster:

10,128 posts

183 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
bbc should be forced to say who their informant was

anonymous-user

54 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
Only in rare instances can journalists be compelled to reveal their sources. There's a lot of case law on that subject but the general rule is that sources can remain anonymous.

I am generally in favour of that rule as it supports press freedom and investigative journalism, but incidents like this search stretch the point.

Derek Smith

45,666 posts

248 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
The police could have managed the situation better by, if need be, seeking an injunction to prevent the media from using the leaked information. They have done this in the past.

That always works.

The police are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

I think quoting Leveson is hardly something which can be used as the final say. Some of the conclusions and recommendations were dreadful.

The police were forced into sharing a great deal with the press in the 90s, this from the Home Office. It was seen as the way to go for open policing. Then important people were suddenly in the papers and one the news and it was seen as a bad thing. Later, in 2000 or so, the pressure was back and the press were seen as an ally. Some of this was down to political influence of course, and now we know just how much Murdoch had one assumes he was in control of the HO.

I'm all for the press being involved at all times in police work. We had a local reporter allowed access to all departments bar a few in a nick I once worked at. All of a sudden the local press started reporting the truth. They were not uncritical, but at least it was honest. Keep them out and they make it up. Not only that, if the police do try injunctions or similar tactics then the press report being blocked from telling the truth.

The police should be open, above board and followed everywhere.

It might even stop some of the criticisms on here - but then again perhaps not. It would also be a curb on officers, and we all want that, surely.

We have a society where secrets of the rich and powerful can be kept from the public via influence and the law. We have no idea what's really going one. Let's have the media there at all times, let them listen in to the police radio channels, stick one in every control room, let the people know what's going on.

anonymous-user

54 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
Well, that must explain why rich celebs and politicians get searched, arrested etc. Yep, untouchable every one of them. Have you joined the conspiracy theorists, Derek?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
There's a good chance I'm finally going to live up to my name as a it of a loon here and a wibblist one at that.

A friend of mine who works in a senior role within a high profile force have me the names of four alleged kiddy fiddlers where they have all the evidence but are not allowed to pursue them due to orders from way up on high. Well they weren't allowed to until the Govt yielded to public pressure. The first name he gave me is Cliff, I'm watching the other three and their actions with interest currently around where they are living for example.

I have no doubt that Richards was tipped off and headed to his bolt hole in Barbados along with organising his affairs quite tidily there

ging84

8,899 posts

146 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
i think people should guess the other 3 and you should say yes in all cases


Derek Smith

45,666 posts

248 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
Well, that must explain why rich celebs and politicians get searched, arrested etc. Yep, untouchable every one of them. Have you joined the conspiracy theorists, Derek?
It doesn't need to every one of the rich and famous of course. However, the civil courts are something I cannot access. I just haven't got the money.

But what about my main point, open policing? It is something that is always agreed upon by all and sundry but then the implications become apparent and then emphasis disappears.

How reassuring would it be to known that the press have access to all corners in the nick and on operations?

LoonR1

26,988 posts

177 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
ging84 said:
i think people should guess the other 3 and you should say yes in all cases
rofl

Richards is by far the highest profile one of them and best connected at higher levels. The rest will be screwed in double quick time. Feel free to guess away, I will say yes to them all though wink

Tony 1234

3,465 posts

227 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
duckwhistle said:
google,'Elm lodge scandal' for an interesting read.
Christ a lot of "Monday club" members on the list plus Cliff vomit

Steffan

10,362 posts

228 months

Saturday 16th August 2014
quotequote all
LoonR1 said:
There's a good chance I'm finally going to live up to my name as a it of a loon here and a wibblist one at that.

A friend of mine who works in a senior role within a high profile force have me the names of four alleged kiddy fiddlers where they have all the evidence but are not allowed to pursue them due to orders from way up on high. Well they weren't allowed to until the Govt yielded to public pressure. The first name he gave me is Cliff, I'm watching the other three and their actions with interest currently around where they are living for example.

I have no doubt that Richards was tipped off and headed to his bolt hole in Barbados along with organising his affairs quite tidily there
Regrettably I have heard similar suggestions from my contacts with some of this backing entourage. I just happen to know one or two. I have absolutely no idea whether this was just promoted by sour grapes and hot air or otherwise. Which is why i always afford the benefit of the doubt in such cases But it is consistent and has been an undercurrent for some considerable tiime. Not that that is in any way proof of any such acts or any real cause for concern in itself. He will attract that sort of venom because he has been so singularly successful and arguably the greatest British pop star for more than 50 years which is bound to cause jealousy.

I did wonder whether his absence was not a coincidence and whether he will return. Is he in fact effectively outside the extradition treaties in the Carribean? I rather doubt it personally and I would think few countries in the commonwealth are outside that agreement. Possibly Latin American states ? Remains to be seen.