Amy: the gift that keeps on giving

[slinkydevil]

1 hour ago, Roxanne said:

This was all discussed thoroughly at the time and the mods explained that it wasn’t possible. And the mods never lie. 

Exactly. With the infomation we have access to it's hard to indentify individuals.

Which is why I like to get a rough idea and then follow people home and watch them to see if they're posting at the same time as I'm peering through the window at them. Sometimes the old ways are the best.

[Barlow]

Yep, who needs all this tabbing technology.

I know a lazy barstard that doesn't get out of bed until 9:00am and always posts about 9:20. And in the evening they come back from the pub 11:00pm and post livelier posts soon after. 

[John Wright]

@Amy Burns has reported the topic.

says the committal hearing is January, not November as reported by the press.

asks that we respect the sub judice rule.

Clearly the sub judice rule must be respected.

[TheTeapot]

It still kinda makes me uncomfortable, the press reporting on pre-trial things, naming people due in court who might not have done anything wrong.

[Ringy Rose]

22 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

It still kinda makes me uncomfortable, the press reporting on pre-trial things, naming people due in court who might not have done anything wrong.

Why? A criminal trial is a matter of public record. The fact someone is being prosecuted is, well, a fact. It doesn't mean they are guilty or innocent.

At pre-trial stage, the police saying they've arrested someone and naming them or leaking their name, that is wrong.

[TheTeapot]

Just now, Ringy Rose said:

Why? A criminal trial is a matter of public record. The fact someone is being prosecuted is, well, a fact. It doesn't mean they are guilty or innocent.

At pre-trial stage, the police saying they've arrested someone and naming them or leaking their name, that is wrong.

Because shit sticks.

[Ringy Rose]

Just now, TheTeapot said:

Because shit sticks.

It can do, as the two new random accounts are trying to show. I agree.

But criminal trials are public matters. You can rock up and watch if you want. So I don't see issues in reporting on them. It's important for justice.

As I say, I really hate it when the police name, or leak the name of, a suspect they've arrested. As we saw with Cliff Richard, that's just awful.

[TheTeapot]

3 minutes ago, Ringy Rose said:

It can do, as the two new random accounts are trying to show. I agree.

But criminal trials are public matters. You can rock up and watch if you want. So I don't see issues in reporting on them. It's important for justice.

As I say, I really hate it when the police name, or leak the name of, a suspect they've arrested. As we saw with Cliff Richard, that's just awful.

I said it makes me uncomfortable, not that it was necessarily wrong. The case with that poor guy from the museum is the best (but also worst) example of why.

[Ringy Rose]

1 minute ago, offshoremanxman said:

We had the guy the other year basically labeled as a paedo and even had his address published in the paper who got off with no case to answer after about 2 minutes as there was literally no evidence. He’s still going to be known as that paedo for the rest of his life

A lot of local journalism is appalling. I used to work in defence law and the newspaper report of a trial often bore no resemblance to what was actually said in Court. Obviously a newspaper exists to sell copies, and so they do exaggerate things. And they never report on acquittals.

It's a tough one. The alternative to having it as public record is that trials take place in secret. I like the German system of only reporting first names, but that probably wouldn't either here either, it'd be easy enough to guess who Ringy R was.

[Declan]

48 minutes ago, MAPD said:

The so called innocent man - ****** ****, is far from that. This is a man who has a history of systematically harassing women and very young girls (also tries to groom them) and has been arrested in the past for this.

I know two people of that name, although one was a big supporter of Amy during the election so I guess it is him. Surely, if we respect sub judice rules in relation to Amy, we need to respect the anonymity of the alleged victim and their namesakes. 

Imagine if this was a rape case and there were posts calling the woman involved a slut, we wouldn't stand for that. At this stage there's no difference. 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Declan

[Ramseyboi]

58 minutes ago, TheTeapot said:

It still kinda makes me uncomfortable, the press reporting on pre-trial things, naming people due in court who might not have done anything wrong.

Or appeared in court, no plea entered, adjourned to such a date.

Report away when found guilty but not before as far as I am concerned 

[kevster]

1 hour ago, TheTeapot said:

It still kinda makes me uncomfortable, the press reporting on pre-trial things, naming people due in court who might not have done anything wrong.

The court listings are freely available

[TheTeapot]

9 minutes ago, kevster said:

The court listings are freely available

I know.

It's a grey area between openness, public information, the right to privacy, morals, the role of the press, all sorts.

It's like how sometimes at the end of a trial, when someone is acquitted, and the judge will say something along the lines of 'you leave here without a stain on your character', well that might be true in the eyes of the law, but not always in the eyes of the public, especially if the press has reported things over a long period of time.

I'm not saying it's wrong to report on these things (pre-trial appearances and the like), more that I don't think I like it.

Edited November 4, 2021 by TheTeapot

[Ramseyboi]

28 minutes ago, kevster said:

The court listings are freely available

They aren’t viewed by thousands of people taking glee in wobbly headed man talking about a total non event outside the courthouse and with people commenting and tagging others though.

Nothing should be in the press at all until someone is found guilty.

[Declan]

I think it is important to report them, it allows the possibility for further witnesses to come forward. I do think it is best though to wait for a court appearance before reporting. This does require the public to adhere to the principle of innocent until proven guilty and to accept not guilty findings, but I think that's what happens. 

I think the paper got a lot of flack for the museum guy story but that let the main culprits - the AG's department off the hook. It was the decision to prosecute with feeble evidence that caused the problems.