WTF Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 7 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: All of it is wrong. My issue is that a journalist publicly boasted about getting a decision overruled in the public interest. It isn’t in the public interest, especially for his kids, to have him (or anyone else in similar circumstances) named. I hope the additional public reporting does not have him relapsing into anything. getting something overturned in the public interest is not much different to FOI request questions and results being published , you seem hung up on this one case/story for some reason. 'oh shit, my names in the paper, i'd better have a drink now then cos that will remove my name from the paper and stop it appearing in there again' ....... not ' oh shit, my names in the paper , if i don't do that again it won't be in the paper again ' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueey Lewis And The News Posted October 20, 2023 Author Share Posted October 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, WTF said: getting something overturned in the public interest is not much different to FOI request questions and results being published , you seem hung up on this one case/story for some reason. Not at all I don’t even know the guy. It just feels like a really shitty thing to have done on public interest grounds in this case. There was another poor bloke in Shoprite named in the paper this week for giving a false name in order to get booze. Who cares? He’s clearly got a drink problem and probably needs support and sympathy not every tosser on Facebook saying what a loser he is under the news report because he’s been named. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 53 minutes ago, Amadeus said: Stu you know we disagree on this and I’m disappointed that you are totally disregarding the harm reporting often does to the community you say you care about. We do disagree. Having been subject to intrusive press coverage based purely on (later rejected) allegations I’m acutely aware of how distressing it can be. But if you live in the public eye as a paid gobshite it’s part of the job. And actually I DO want to know who has been found guilty of stuff like this. There’s probably more damage done to the community by not knowing that someone has ‘form’ especially if it’s for violence. And whilst I have some sympathy with the view that alcohol or drug use is an illness rather than a crime, I also believe that the shame of being named is part of the punishment. If you can’t do the time…(etc). What I do have a problem with is people being named when charged (especially if the prosecution is unsuccessful) but I think the argument is too highly nuanced for my non-lawyer brain to compute. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 The report makes no mention of a drink problem. You've now publicly accused him of being an alky. Hopefully he won't begin libel action. 1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thommo2010 Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 44 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: The point being the chaps lawyer asked for his name not to be reported. I think that’s fairly reasonable in the circumstances. But it appears Mr Roberts challenged this request on the grounds of public interest and won. But it’s hard to see what public interest has been served in this case at all other than attempting to destroy someone’s reputation and put their employment status in jeopardy (making it even more likely that they might relapse into alcohol as a result). It’s grubby gutter journalism tactics in order to generate click bait. Nothing else. The guy has a problem with alcohol. So what? It doesn’t matter if he was a brickie or an advocate naming him serves no purpose at all when his crime appears to be addiction lead. Presumably Roberts thinks he’s socking it to the system with these sort of grubby tactics. The irony is this would have been reported on and 99.9% of people would have forgotten all about it but there is now a 3 page thread on this forum. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, piebaps said: The report makes no mention of a drink problem. You've now publicly accused him of being an alky. No he hasn’t. How? Where? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarndyce Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 3 minutes ago, thommo2010 said: The irony is this would have been reported on and 99.9% of people would have forgotten all about it but there is now a 3 page thread on this forum. Irony - and hypocrisy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cueey Lewis And The News Posted October 20, 2023 Author Share Posted October 20, 2023 5 minutes ago, piebaps said: The report makes no mention of a drink problem. You've now publicly accused him of being an alky. Hopefully he won't begin libel action. I seriously doubt that would happen given how unfairly I have clearly said I think he (and his kids) have been treated in this instance by publicly being named. But do feel free to try to twist anything I’ve said further. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 4 hours ago, Dirty Buggane said: So if it was some one from a council estate would you be saying he should not be named or saying should have hung him and his name splashed on billboards. But because he is a lawyer (assumption) and has a drink problem, let's forgive him. He did not kill anybody. He was drunk in charge of a lethal lump of metal with his kids on board got what he deserved. You can not have one rule for the higher class. Thoe god knows this government are trying there best. Nobody should be named in local news stories. All it does it feed the sad people with no lives of their own with some gossip. Why do I care if someone is a shoplifter, or a drunk. It’s none of my business and if it was I would already know. The really sad thing is that there are pathetic people who take great pleasure in others misfortune. The island would be a much better place if everyone boycotted the trashy press until they stop publishing names. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyDave Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 3 hours ago, WTF said: why even report on it at all ?? Good question because who cares? Nobody with a full and happy life that’s for sure. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 3 hours ago, The Phantom said: Nightmare. He's actually probably one of the nicest people I know. I'd heard he was a bit of a party animal when he lived in London, but despite being at a few events with him, I've never seen him drunk. Sounds like he had a heavy Saturday night and then went out for a walk on the Sunday morning and it's all gotten a bit out of hand. If you have "vodka and soda at 7am due to [...] considering it ‘lunchtime’", then it's more than a one-off heavy session isn't it? Vodka for breakfast is practically the stereotype of being an alcoholic. And thinking that "It was OK, It felt like lunchtime" is practically the definition of being in denial about it. It's also such an unbelievably stupid defence, no wonder it took two lawyers to come up with it. 'High-functioning' alcoholics are often the worst people to admit they have a problem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 10 minutes ago, Roger Mexico said: If you have "vodka and soda at 7am due to [...] considering it ‘lunchtime’", then it's more than a one-off heavy session isn't it? Vodka for breakfast is practically the stereotype of being an alcoholic. And thinking that "It was OK, It felt like lunchtime" is practically the definition of being in denial about it. It's also such an unbelievably stupid defence, no wonder it took two lawyers to come up with it. 'High-functioning' alcoholics are often the worst people to admit they have a problem. Dear Roger, I feel you are jumping to conclusions based on a report from a notoriously inaccurate media source. Alternatively, you evidently know the man much better than I do? I'm not going to deny he was drunk, but seems to me he just had a bit of a random sesh for some reason. He's as straight laced as they come. My step mother is a mess of a raging alky, I think I’ve sufficient experience to identify them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HiVibes Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 44 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Having been subject to intrusive press coverage based purely on (later rejected) manefesto I’m acutely aware of how distressing it can be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Mexico Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 54 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said: All of it is wrong. My issue is that a journalist publicly boasted about getting a decision overruled in the public interest. It isn’t in the public interest, especially for his kids, to have him (or anyone else in similar circumstances) named. I hope the additional public reporting does not have him relapsing into anything. A decision wasn't "overruled". The magistrates decided against the defence's application after the press objected, though they might have turned it down anyway. Looking at similar cases, I can find some where the name was not reported (sometimes voluntarily by the media) but other where the accused details were published. The main difference appears to be that the first ones were where the offender was identified as the parent, so maybe in this case they weren't the guy's kids - or not identifiably so. And the journalist isn't 'boasting', they're reporting what happened in court and their intervention is part of that. The Manx Radio article isn't signed, so it probably isn't Roberts' article in any case (he's not on the news staff) but at most based on his court reporting. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred the shred Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 It is rather hit and miss what gets reported by the press if the reporter decides to leave the court to do something else the case in session doesn’t get reported it is as simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.