TheTeapot Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 "A person has been charged with a crime" and "Person charged with a crime appeared in court today, adjourned to a later date" are not really newsworthy and shouldn't be reported on. "Person who has pled not guilty was in court for the first day of their trial", "Person convicted of crime" and "Person pled guilty to a crime" are. That's how I'd look at it anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyNoMates Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 time the law is changed to protect the privacy of indivoiduals accused of things. its doing massive harm on such a small place and just feeds the piss poor clickbait factory that masquerades as a newspaper here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roxanne Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 As Roger said some time ago, it's the courts who release the names and the media is able to pick up and report on them All it requires is for the courts to stop releasing names, there is no requirement to change the law. Sadly, the media uses these releases to increase readership. It's long gone past the time of a moral compass about the difference between what is in the public's interest and what is in the interest of the public. The public have become used to this and will become a mob asking for more and more information. You only have to look at the Nicola Bulley case to see where this ends up. And this woman isn't even a suspect, she's a victim, but the constant baying for more and more information has led people who should know better to make some unhealthy decisions. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 What is being suggested here is that the mainstream media choose which facts to report, and that is dangerous. The media doesn't need a moral compass, it needs to work within the law. I agree that accused shouldn't be named, but that's a decision for others. Some would say that publishing (say) the name of a person charged with sex offences will encourage other victims to come forward, but I think that's a poor justification and ruins lives. A citizen journalist is just a nosy person with a Facebook account without the constraints of mainstream outlets to provide fairness and balance. The news media is there to report news. That Fred Bloggs has been charged with speeding might only be of interest to a few people, but it is news and it also signals more widely that the cops are clamping down on speeders. The only valid complaint is that it can be selective in the stories published, but I expect that's more a case of staffing and official information than any attempt to pervert the dissemination of 'news'. The recent headline front page story of an acquittal is timely in scotching the accusation that the media doesn't report these things too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 1 hour ago, Roxanne said: As Roger said some time ago, it's the courts who release the names and the media is able to pick up and report on them All it requires is for the courts to stop releasing names, there is no requirement to change the law. Sadly, the media uses these releases to increase readership. It's long gone past the time of a moral compass about the difference between what is in the public's interest and what is in the interest of the public. The public have become used to this and will become a mob asking for more and more information. You only have to look at the Nicola Bulley case to see where this ends up. And this woman isn't even a suspect, she's a victim, but the constant baying for more and more information has led people who should know better to make some unhealthy decisions. The courts don't release any detail. It literally is as simple as a journalist turning up to court sitting down and just listening to what is being said, It isn't like the courts plaster the name etc on the front door. Unless there is a specific order from the judge then there is nothing to stop anyone posting about who is in court. Hell you could go sit down and stick it on here or facebook who is in court and for what 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 16 hours ago, Gladys said: Even if you are Chair of a local authority? It's funny how the people arguing "innocent until proven guilty" are equally happy to take screenshots published on Twitter about planning officers at said local authority at face value. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 4 hours ago, Roxanne said: As Roger said some time ago, it's the courts who release the names and the media is able to pick up and report on them I don't think I said this - it's actually the other way round. The Courts can ban the publication of any names (and equivalent identifying details) they want, not just of defendants but victims, witnesses or other people involved. For some groups, this is pretty much automatic: victims of certain types of sexual crime, those under a certain age and so on. But otherwise the media can report any information that has been stated in court, that the judge hasn't said they can't. The media may not choose to for a variety of reasons of course or may even check with the courts as to what they can or can't say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 Aren't the Courts required by law to provide a list of cases (including names) to be viewed by Joe Public? I seem to remember years and years ago a notice board outside the old courthouse in Athol street with that info... having said that I may have misremembered! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 6 hours ago, Andy Onchan said: Aren't the Courts required by law to provide a list of cases (including names) to be viewed by Joe Public? I seem to remember years and years ago a notice board outside the old courthouse in Athol street with that info... having said that I may have misremembered! That was a list of people committed to General Gaol by the summary courts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted February 17, 2023 Share Posted February 17, 2023 10 hours ago, Stu Peters said: I agree that accused shouldn't be named, but that's a decision for others. No it’s a decision for 33 people, of who you happen to be one 6 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt_Mainwaring Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 15 hours ago, Stu Peters said: The recent headline front page story of an acquittal is timely in scotching the accusation that the media doesn't report these things too. Possibly because they'd realised they'd nearly destroyed someone's career/life with their previous desperate attempts at getting a headline? It's a shame not everyone gets the same treatment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 22 hours ago, John Wright said: No it’s a decision for 33 people, of who you happen to be one So I have 1/33 of a say in the matter. In your tiresome yet predictable haste to correct me you have acknowledged that at least 32 others would be involved in changing the law. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 47 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: So I have 1/33 of a say in the matter. In your tiresome yet predictable haste to correct me you have acknowledged that at least 32 others would be involved in changing the law. Don't worry Stu no one expects you to achieve anything just carry on with the social media trolling and do what Alf tells you. 2 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forestboy Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, HiVibes said: Don't worry Stu no one expects you to achieve anything just carry on with the social media trolling and do what Alf tells you. Idiot yet again 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted February 18, 2023 Share Posted February 18, 2023 Just now, forestboy said: Idiot yet again Yes there you are. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.010c25bfc4ad79d01b7451bf81c5baea.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.