CallMeCurious Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 On 1/16/2023 at 7:18 PM, Stu Peters said: Don't blame the media for doing their jobs - blame the prosecution and the legal system for releasing the information. Maybe if the media used the 'is it in the public interest' test instead of copying and pasting announcements? If the vicitm can't be named then the accused should certainly not be named until after a conviction. After all if they are meant to be a risk to the wider public or the victim prior to a trial then they should be at the Jurby Hilton. Seems the media also can't be bothered to wait for answers from officialdom and jsut trot out the "We've asked for comment" thus creating a storm in a teacup whenever a vested interest gets an interview. Not exactly fair and balanced reporting. It's not the 'media' it's the editors, reporters, commentators and journalists who get paid for the work. With public trust in the 'media' at an all time low maybe now is the time to reflect on how it might be turned around. Running aorund shouting misinformation and disinformation at citizen journalists who have a more clout is not a good look. Especailly when time and again the information is proven correct. You only have to look at the feeding frenzy of the poor missing woman in Lancashire to see how ethics and morals have been thrown away for the headline. In six months time it'll be 'who', but her family will be living with the parasitic press circus for years. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 1 hour ago, Declan said: For once I wouldn't be too critical of the AG's office here. It seems to me that the jury listened to her and believed her when she said that she didn't know it was the proceeds of crime or at least wasn't certain enough to wreck her career over one mistake. The alternative is the AG makes the decision not prosecute a professional colleague in private. Would that be ok? A better idea would be not to name them until they have successfully prosecuted their intended victim 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 https://www.iomtoday.co.im/news/courts/defendant-denies-indecent-assault-594597 so nothing proven but let's name him anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 7 minutes ago, Passing Time said: A better idea would be not to name them until they have successfully prosecuted their intended victim I'm not sure having criminal trials behind closed doors is a particularly good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 Just now, Ringy Rose said: I'm not sure having criminal trials behind closed doors is a particularly good idea. who said closed doors? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ringy Rose Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Passing Time said: who said closed doors? Criminal trials are a matter of public record. If we're not allowed to report on who is involved in a trial, then it's no longer a matter of public record. As I said further up, the real issue is that the media aren't always as quick to report an acquittal as they are to report the prosecution's opening speech. Edited February 16, 2023 by Ringy Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Passing Time Posted February 16, 2023 Author Share Posted February 16, 2023 3 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: Criminal trials are a matter of public record. If we're not allowed to report on who is involved in a trial, then it's no longer a matter of public record. As I said further up, the real issue is that the media aren't always as quick to report an acquittal as they are to report the prosecution's opening speech. Fuck the acquittal, by the time that comes around, some poor sod's life has been ruined. Just stop naming people 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beyond Belief Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 Apologies for the late contribution. On the Isle of Man it is "Guilty until proven innocent" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 32 minutes ago, Passing Time said: Fuck the acquittal, by the time that comes around, some poor sod's life has been ruined. Just stop naming people Totally agree in a small community people should not be named until proceedings end and they’re shown to be guilty. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 3 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: Totally agree in a small community people should not be named until proceedings end and they’re shown to be guilty. Even if you are Chair of a local authority? 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 2 minutes ago, Gladys said: Even if you are Chair of a local authority? I don’t get your point. What court case or criminal activity are you referring to? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Two-lane Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 14 minutes ago, Gladys said: Even if you are Chair of a local authority? Ah, subtlety. Not something that is widely understood on Manx\forums. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offshoremanxman Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Two-lane said: Ah, subtlety. Not something that is widely understood on Manx\forums. No subtlety at all. It’s hard to find an equivalent case of someone being named in the media for a publicly reported legal action that is subsequently unsuccessful. Edited February 16, 2023 by offshoremanxman 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 4 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: I'm not sure having criminal trials behind closed doors is a particularly good idea. No but there should be an embargo on reporting until the trial is over and then the press can report the events in the lgiht of the final verdict and not jsut list accusations and put a photo on the front page before the trial begins. Accusations are just that and especailly if it is a he said/she said as we've seen too many times defendants can lie and ruins someones repution with very little in the way or repurcussions. Cry wolf. After all, if there is compelling evidence of a danger to the public remand is an option while cases are put together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CallMeCurious Posted February 16, 2023 Share Posted February 16, 2023 4 hours ago, Ringy Rose said: Criminal trials are a matter of public record. If we're not allowed to report on who is involved in a trial, then it's no longer a matter of public record. As I said further up, the real issue is that the media aren't always as quick to report an acquittal as they are to report the prosecution's opening speech. Yes but they don't have to be made public until after the trial is completed. And any member of the public concerned about transparency can always attend in the public gallery. It is the broadcasting of accusations before someone has had a day in court. 1 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.