Jarndyce Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 19 minutes ago, Kipper99 said: Half the time on here posters moan about alleged sweeping under the carpet and people not being held accountable. True - but being on an anonymous forum means you can have it both ways. Arguably the whole premise of this thread was hypocritical, as soon as the OP named the “guy” - interesting… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Phantom Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 26 minutes ago, Kipper99 said: Hold on. This is a report after conviction and sentence. What’s wrong with that? Surely there’s a difference between reporting charge and early appearances, and even trial, when someone is presumed innocent and reporting after conviction, when they’ve been found guilty? I think the reporting is pretty sensitive. No mention of the circumstances surrounding the children. Criminal Justice must be public, seen to be done. That includes press reporting. This only got the level of coverage it did because of two things, the guy drank himself stupid and was drunk and unable to look after himself ( or some children in his care ) and fell down in the street, and then some very foolish lawyer ( who, ironically, has not been named )tried to pull the anonymity card. That on its own was guaranteed to result in wider coverage. Half the time on here posters moan about alleged sweeping under the carpet and people not being held accountable. Jason Roberts and the press/media can’t win. How is reporting this in the public interest? It does more harm than good. And not giving his full name doesn’t mean it’s not in public. The court records are still there. There is no need for the press to publish full names, none. Do not confuse the court publishing something with a commercial outlet chasing revenue publishing something. The two are very different. it’s just that the press over here doesn’t care about the harm they cause as long as people click on their links. Look at Germany where only the first name and the first letter of the last name can be published in the media. Sometimes not even that. Clear pictures of suspects are also a no (with exceptions). Justice is still being served. They could easily do that here and still get their clicks. They just don’t care and neither do most MHKs. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 Oh and I’ll never forget the Iomtoday story where they blanked out the face of a dog next to a clear picture of a suspect. Whoever did that is unfit to be anywhere near a news outlet. 2 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 24 minutes ago, Amadeus said: Oh and I’ll never forget the Iomtoday story where they blanked out the face of a dog next to a clear picture of a suspect. Whoever did that is unfit to be anywhere near a news outlet. that's just funny and is a great piss take of the can't use my photo me brigade highlighting the absurdity of it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Banker Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 26 minutes ago, Amadeus said: How is reporting this in the public interest? It does more harm than good. And not giving his full name doesn’t mean it’s not in public. The court records are still there. There is no need for the press to publish full names, none. Do not confuse the court publishing something with a commercial outlet chasing revenue publishing something. The two are very different. it’s just that the press over here doesn’t care about the harm they cause as long as people click on their links. Look at Germany where only the first name and the first letter of the last name can be published in the media. Sometimes not even that. Clear pictures of suspects are also a no (with exceptions). Justice is still being served. They could easily do that here and still get their clicks. They just don’t care and neither do most MHKs. There’s far too much of this reporting of people who are found drunk etc particularly those who are before the courts for some offence multiple times, the majority are either receiving help or in need of it & the constant naming & shaming of those individuals needs to be stopped. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 i guess the question is who can/should you name then ? and/or why even report on it at all ?? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 There is a view that the threat of having your name published in the press is a huge part of the deterrent and can prevent reoffending? In this case, for the sake of his children, I think it is probably a huge mistake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mistercee Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 In cases like this isn't anonymity usually given to protect the identity of children? 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stu Peters Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 Having known and worked with him for many years, I can only say that Jason Roberts is a fine journalist and a lovely bloke who also plays a mean blues harp. He reports news, not speculation, without fear or favour. A basis of court hearings is that they are open to the public, so to report on convictions is right and proper. 4 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 4 minutes ago, Stu Peters said: Having known and worked with him for many years, I can only say that Jason Roberts is a fine journalist and a lovely bloke who also plays a mean blues harp. He reports news, not speculation, without fear or favour. A basis of court hearings is that they are open to the public, so to report on convictions is right and proper. 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. 5 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 (edited) 1 hour ago, Stu Peters said: Having known and worked with him for many years, I can only say that Jason Roberts is a fine journalist and a lovely bloke who also plays a mean blues harp. He reports news, not speculation, without fear or favour. A basis of court hearings is that they are open to the public, so to report on convictions is right and proper. The point being the chaps lawyer asked for his name not to be reported. I think that’s fairly reasonable in the circumstances (his kids are then identifiable). 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. If 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. Presumably Roberts thinks he’s socking it to the system with these sort of grubby tactics. Edited October 20, 2023 by Cueey Lewis And The News Or .. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 (edited) 9 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 is he was a brickie or an advocate naming him serves no purpose at all when his crime appears to be addiction lead. plenty of drunks that aren't lawyers get named in the press , and no doubt they have kids too , not heard anybody whining about them being named in the papers. why is it deemed the public are/could be interested in them and not the lawyer ?? maybe change your handle to 'cueey lewis and only the news and information i deem should be in the public domain'. Edited October 20, 2023 by WTF 2 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: plenty of drunks that aren't lawyers get named in the press , and no doubt they have kids too , not heard anybody whining about them being named in the papers. why is it deemed the public are/could be interested in them and not the lawyer ?? 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted October 20, 2023 Share Posted October 20, 2023 You’re all scared of being in the papers because you’re a bunch of reprobates. 3 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.