Discussion
OK. This here chap has been arrested in connection with porno - quite possibly kiddie-porno.
That is very, very, very bad. And if he is found guilty in a court of law boy is he going to suffer. And rightly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4533812.stm
But he hasn't been found guilty of anything just yet. And its front-page news on the BBC.
I am incensed that the media can decide to utterly ruin this man prior to the true facts being known. All they needed to do was wait for a conviction.
But now even if he is proclaimed totally innocent or a victim of technological ineptitude or whatever othe explanation he will never work again because of the stigma. People will say "No smoke without fire" and he will find himself on the recieving end of prejudice....despite being innocent.
All they needed to do was wait until the courts established the true facts.
Irreponsible.
That is very, very, very bad. And if he is found guilty in a court of law boy is he going to suffer. And rightly.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4533812.stm
But he hasn't been found guilty of anything just yet. And its front-page news on the BBC.
I am incensed that the media can decide to utterly ruin this man prior to the true facts being known. All they needed to do was wait for a conviction.
But now even if he is proclaimed totally innocent or a victim of technological ineptitude or whatever othe explanation he will never work again because of the stigma. People will say "No smoke without fire" and he will find himself on the recieving end of prejudice....despite being innocent.
All they needed to do was wait until the courts established the true facts.
Irreponsible.
Gazboy said:
Facts dont sell papers though Don.
Hysteria sells papers.
Whats ruining an entire mans life when you can hawk your over priced poorly edited nonsense to people who can barely read.
If you look at the ABC's, neither sell papers- almost all are in decline. If the Daily Mirror contiues it's downward trend at it's current rate, it's ABC will be at 0 in the summer of 2009. The Express may well be sooner.
Totaly agree with Don though, personaly I think the media should be banned from naming names until conviction. Iirc the 'rape' case involving 4 football players and 3 hangers on couldn't carry on because some important evidence was lost and that the men involved wouldn't get a !fair trial due to the immence media coverage- unless you lived on the moon for two years, a jury wouldn't have escaped the crap the media produced over it.
Which paper broke the Christiano Ronaldo story? The first 2-3 pages were dedicated to the "story" and then when the charges were dropped, a tiny article on page 14 constituting about 4 sentences. Pathetic!
Hang on Don, the media isn't accusing him of anything. It isn't pronouncing him guilty of anything. It is merely reporting the facts - that a man has been arrested and is being investigated in connection with a specific offence. The only countries in the world that censor their media to the extent that they are banned from reporting anything that hadn't been proven in a court of law, are all places you'd rather not go to on your holidays.
Mon Ami Mate said:
Hang on Don, the media isn't accusing him of anything. It isn't pronouncing him guilty of anything. It is merely reporting the facts - that a man has been arrested and is being investigated in connection with a specific offence. The only countries in the world that censor their media to the extent that they are banned from reporting anything that hadn't been proven in a court of law, are all places you'd rather not go to on your holidays.
You are, of course, correct. They have merely stated the facts.
I suppose if they make it the top story that he has been found totally and utterly innocent then that will compensate. Of course - I am absolutely certain it will be a top story if he's found guilty.
Its a difficult question and you have rightly pointed out that this issue isn't totally clear cut.
I still feel that, in this case (and others), they could have waited.
I expect I'll feel no sympathy for him if he's convicted, of course...
Mon Ami Mate said:
Hang on Don, the media isn't accusing him of anything. It isn't pronouncing him guilty of anything. It is merely reporting the facts - that a man has been arrested and is being investigated in connection with a specific offence. The only countries in the world that censor their media to the extent that they are banned from reporting anything that hadn't been proven in a court of law, are all places you'd rather not go to on your holidays.
Perhaps so, but in cases such as rape and child pornography, a case could be made that the alleged criminal should stay anonymous until conviction.
Jaglover said:
Hang on Don, the media isn't accusing him of anything. It isn't pronouncing him guilty of anything. It is merely reporting the facts - that a man has been arrested and is being investigated in connection with a specific offence. The only countries in the world that censor their media to the extent that they are banned from reporting anything that hadn't been proven in a court of law, are all places you'd rather not go to on your holidays.
Perhaps so, but in cases such as rape and child pornography, a case could be made that the alleged criminal should stay anonymous until conviction.
I'd make the case, as I have many times before, that in all circumstances anonymity should be retained until conviction.
At the end of the day, these things stick to reputations, whether its the local rag "local man arrested for x" which later wont even bother to report the case if a not-guilty is returned, to national papers splashing lurid details of accusations against people with "national" reputations, or at least name recognition. Once again the "aquitted" news report is a small paragraph. Lurid accusations are front page news.
In this case, from what I gather the chap has been questioned but not charged (BBC news article) in a child internet porn case. Very emotive headlines on this one - however he is currently considered innocent of all charges until such a point as he is convicted by a court, or makes an admission of guilt.
There are any number of possible reasons why he's been questioned. Did someone else use his credit card to view kiddie porn (ie stolen card number)?
Did someone else use his wireless net connection for the same thing?
Did someone else use his PC or laptop for the same thing?
Was this an unfounded accusation with no evidence at all to back it up?
Is he actually running a porn website himself?
All are possible, however until the evidence is heard, the poor guy will endure trial by media.
His career is effectively over (or at best hindered greatly) even if he is never charged with anything.
Bear in mind we have a general public who lynched a PEDIATRICIAN for gods sakes....
Jaglover said:
Hang on Don, the media isn't accusing him of anything. It isn't pronouncing him guilty of anything. It is merely reporting the facts - that a man has been arrested and is being investigated in connection with a specific offence. The only countries in the world that censor their media to the extent that they are banned from reporting anything that hadn't been proven in a court of law, are all places you'd rather not go to on your holidays.
Perhaps so, but in cases such as rape and child pornography, a case could be made that the alleged criminal should stay anonymous until conviction.
Agree.
silversun said:
Hang on Don, the media isn't accusing him of anything. It isn't pronouncing him guilty of anything. It is merely reporting the facts - that a man has been arrested and is being investigated in connection with a specific offence. The only countries in the world that censor their media to the extent that they are banned from reporting anything that hadn't been proven in a court of law, are all places you'd rather not go to on your holidays.
Perhaps so, but in cases such as rape and child pornography, a case could be made that the alleged criminal should stay anonymous until conviction.
Agree.
me too..I agree with Don.
At the moment someone can report they've been sexually assaulted and (rightly) keep their anonymity. However, the accused has no rights of anonymity. So the newspaper / TV / web-site splatter the persons name and photo all over the media - despite it not being proven.
As such, I reckon that the accused should be entitled to anonymity until proven guilty. Aside from not ruining the life of the accused (some mud sticks), it could also influence a jury.
Secondly, if a newspaper (for example) dedicates a page to the story and the person is later found innocent, I reckon there should be legislation which forces them to dedicate the same amount of space to the report that he/she was innocent.
At the moment someone can report they've been sexually assaulted and (rightly) keep their anonymity. However, the accused has no rights of anonymity. So the newspaper / TV / web-site splatter the persons name and photo all over the media - despite it not being proven.
As such, I reckon that the accused should be entitled to anonymity until proven guilty. Aside from not ruining the life of the accused (some mud sticks), it could also influence a jury.
Secondly, if a newspaper (for example) dedicates a page to the story and the person is later found innocent, I reckon there should be legislation which forces them to dedicate the same amount of space to the report that he/she was innocent.
scorp said:
Sometimes i do wonder if newspapers incite mobs at times, the Sun/News of the World are the biggest tabloid trolls going.
Yep. I remember when Robert Del Naja from Massive Attack was arrested on suspicion of downloading child porn. The Sun had an absolute field day with it, even going to the lengths of phoning the embassy of whatever country he was about to tour (I think it may have been Australia) to inform them, leading to his tour being cancelled. The charges were, I think, eventually dropped because all he'd done was visit a porn site which was owned by a company that was owned by another company that had some suspect sites.
Personally, I think this kind of stuff is outrageous and I can't understand how it can be legal to deliberately wreck someone's life based on nothing more than them being questioned for something.
Unfortunately, many people are simply too stupid to understand that the likes of the Sun, Mirror, Mail, etc. are reporting in the way they do to boost sales.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff