Time For Reporting Restrictions on Police Enquiries IMO
Discussion
Time for Tougher reporting restrictions IMO.
Watching the unfolding events in Bristol has convinced me that we need restrictions in this country on the reporting and media coverage of 'live' Police enquiries.
Look at almost any high profile Police enquiry (usually a murder of a pretty white woman/child/infant - but thats another debate) and you'll see graphic reconstructions, live reporting of the Police's activities and then mass media coverage of suspects arrested.
Its absolutely absurd to have information published about a suspect in an enquiry. For a start, imagine if this guy is innocent??? There are now a minority of people who'll forever associate this guy in Bristol with being a murderer. Fine, if/when he is charged with murder then thats announced but nothing more than that IMO.
The time to release all the information is at the conclusion of any subsequent trial.
The media is shooting itself in the foot here because the Govt will no doubt use this sort of coverage to bring in all sorts of draconian reporting laws and probably sneak in the privacy laws its wants to as well.
Watching the unfolding events in Bristol has convinced me that we need restrictions in this country on the reporting and media coverage of 'live' Police enquiries.
Look at almost any high profile Police enquiry (usually a murder of a pretty white woman/child/infant - but thats another debate) and you'll see graphic reconstructions, live reporting of the Police's activities and then mass media coverage of suspects arrested.
Its absolutely absurd to have information published about a suspect in an enquiry. For a start, imagine if this guy is innocent??? There are now a minority of people who'll forever associate this guy in Bristol with being a murderer. Fine, if/when he is charged with murder then thats announced but nothing more than that IMO.
The time to release all the information is at the conclusion of any subsequent trial.
The media is shooting itself in the foot here because the Govt will no doubt use this sort of coverage to bring in all sorts of draconian reporting laws and probably sneak in the privacy laws its wants to as well.
Edited by Marty Funkhouser on Friday 31st December 13:29
Its also quantified by "named locally as..." - they could put "the man, named locally as ronald mc donald" and it would still get airtime.
It's about time there were some heavy restrictions on the media - the amount of tripe spewed by them (thinking Daily Wail primarily) that is of dubious truth, but designed to inflame should be curtailed severely.
Sure, report on crimes etc - but leave it as "A man" or "A woman" rather than "A man, named locally as..." which immediately starts a witch-hunt and as other people have mentioned, will have a bearing on that person and their future irrespective of whether they're guilty or not.
Rape cases too, defendants should be protected unless they are found guilty. If they're guilty - chuck em to the dogs, if the complainant is found to be making false accusations - chuck em to the dogs, but this "named locally" and "the defendant, xyz" really should stop.
It's about time there were some heavy restrictions on the media - the amount of tripe spewed by them (thinking Daily Wail primarily) that is of dubious truth, but designed to inflame should be curtailed severely.
Sure, report on crimes etc - but leave it as "A man" or "A woman" rather than "A man, named locally as..." which immediately starts a witch-hunt and as other people have mentioned, will have a bearing on that person and their future irrespective of whether they're guilty or not.
Rape cases too, defendants should be protected unless they are found guilty. If they're guilty - chuck em to the dogs, if the complainant is found to be making false accusations - chuck em to the dogs, but this "named locally" and "the defendant, xyz" really should stop.
Edited by Frederick on Friday 31st December 15:46
gamefreaks said:
Yes, I largely agree here.
At least, I don't think names should be released until someone is actually charged.
The police do not release names of those arrested in the normal run of things.At least, I don't think names should be released until someone is actually charged.
The press are governed by contempt laws, which have been modified over the years by practice and case law. In general the newspapers behave themselves as does the BBC and ITV news but radio news sometimes runs on a different legal system.
There is a public interest balance to establish. Here we have a murder enquiry. The police would generally speaking, like to keep it all under wraps until they bin the job or it has gone to court. However, the public wants to know. Where you draw the line is what the courts are about.
The internet provides a different problem though. The Daily Mirror coverage is full of insinuation and inuendo - insinuendo should be a word.
Most papers mention the fact that the chap is single, that a colleague of his, from whom he bought the flats, was nicked for unlawful sex nd they suggest he peaks in through windows. Whilst this was not much of a problem in the past as there was a long time between charge and trial, it stays on the net all the time, Google enabling us to review it at a later date.
Haymarket have shown a very positive attitude to some events in the past - one particularly remembers the prostitute beating revellations on Mosley. Other forum management reacted stupidly so well done haymarket. Kept me coming, so to speak. But I've always wondered about the legality of leaving such pre-chrge threads avaialable to the public once a suspect has been charged.
Difficult call.
One wonders as well about the liability of those who have made wild allegations on other threads.
That said, who in their right mind would take what is written on here any more seriously than hearing it around a table in a pub after a few pints?
In the past the freedom of the press has been supported by some very vociferous newspaper owners. Nowadays, with some moguls only wanting money and influence out of media empires, one gets the feeling that they might make a pact with the government. We scratch your back sor of thing.
The internet at the moment is a massive boon to free speech. Wait until some MP reckons that it is a tool of the terrorists.
Marty Funkhouser said:
Its absolutely absurd to have information published about a suspect in an enquiry. For a start, imagine if this guy is innocent??? There are now a minority of people who'll forever associate this guy in Bristol with being a murderer. Fine, if/when he is charged with murder then thats announced but nothing more than that IMO.
Absolutely agree.Especially as in this case the guy looks like a Little Britain character - and he has therefore been deemed immediately guilty by the press and public. If he is innocent, his life is now effectively over.
Frederick said:
It's about time there were some heavy restrictions on the media - the amount of tripe spewed by them (thinking Daily Wail primarily) that is of dubious truth, but designed to inflame should be curtailed severely.
To be honest, if I had a magic wand I'd extend the "tripe test" way beyond the media's crime pages into their news and politics sections too. And sport.The media camping outside the flat will not need sources in the police. They have gone OTT in my opinion but I would not want to see restrictions. I get the feeling a quiet news day led to one up manship with the press and it got out of hand. The murders in London get scant coverage.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12100015
The attorney general is concerned. I expect the Mirror story might have irritated him.
The attorney general is concerned. I expect the Mirror story might have irritated him.
It's rare you'll see me defend the wider media, but they only print/report this shiv because Mr and Mrs Idiot (regular posters on these fora, by the way) absolutely love it. They love being outraged, they love being ill informed, they love formulating opinions on matters they have no understanding and have no wish whatsoever to be educated as to the errors of their opinions or the inadequacies of their understanding.
So I blame us. Well, not me obviously, but all the other brain dead halfwits out there, many of whom are well educated and have well paid jobs.
So I blame us. Well, not me obviously, but all the other brain dead halfwits out there, many of whom are well educated and have well paid jobs.
crankedup said:
Agree with OP, just have to see what happened to Colin Stagg for example.
A case which was i am very familar as i lived next to the Common. TBH It wasn't just the media - if you spoke to any adult who lived in the villages around he was guilty even before they had read about him i nthe papers. I was incredibly sceptical at the time (student eh) and remember challenging people on why they thought he was guilty .. usual response "he was odd, lived on his own, must be him"! Personally, i think the internet provides an open forum to debate this kind of stupidity and any attempts to stifle debate should be challenged - we are intelligent enough to cut through the crap and if we are not then that's not the fault of the internet. Long live free speech!Edited by fido on Friday 31st December 17:03
Eric Mc said:
I'm glad this thread has opened. The debate on the "other" trhread was beginning to worry me a bit. It is about time that we did stand back and consider how we behave on these fora.
Probably no worse than mates chatting down the pub.Edited by Eric Mc on Friday 31st December 16:45
However in writing and in view of all to see. I'm sure if HM thought it were a problem or we'd crossed the line, the thread would have been pulled by now.
This is always a tough call. You see, the police (and family of the deceased) effectively "need" the help of the press and public - i.e. "did you see anything relating to this, please call on ......."
So they cannot do that without releasing little bits of information which of itself enables people to speculate. The problem is human nature, which we can't cure.......
The question is whether or not the press should say "X or Y has been arrested" really to my mind. I sort of don't think anyone should be publicly outed as being arrested on suspicion of a crime, no name should be released until conviction.
So they cannot do that without releasing little bits of information which of itself enables people to speculate. The problem is human nature, which we can't cure.......
The question is whether or not the press should say "X or Y has been arrested" really to my mind. I sort of don't think anyone should be publicly outed as being arrested on suspicion of a crime, no name should be released until conviction.
Its not the speculation on these forums that concerns me as much as the information and pictures released by the information media. This guy has had his photo published all across the globe now. The papers have interviewed everyone who has ever met him and printed an enormous amount of unsubstantiated information about him. How does this help the investigation? How does it help this guy go back to his life if, god forbid, he is cleared? The media wont be printing any apologies. Just because something is interesting to the public does not make it in the public interest.
jmorgan said:
The media camping outside the flat will not need sources in the police. They have gone OTT in my opinion but I would not want to see restrictions. I get the feeling a quiet news day led to one up manship with the press and it got out of hand. The murders in London get scant coverage.
possibly because a) they are not as unusual events and b) the victims usually dont have blonde hair and blue eyes.skeggysteve said:
Derek Smith said:
...but radio news sometimes runs on a different legal system.
I agree with all you posted but am confused by this bit.It obviously didn't happen all the time but enough for me, and others in my position, to make them a special case.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff