Journalists with pitchforks

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

2 hours ago, Roger Mexico said:

And the journalist isn't 'boasting', they're reporting what happened in court and their intervention is part of that. 

I’m sorry but this does read like a bit of a boast and he himself says he challenged the decision. Just my impression but there also seems to be a lot of people who have responded similarly in reply. He also seem’s to claim to be some sort of barrack-room lawyer which is also unfortunate when he admits that kids were involved and therefore naming may well also expose them to harm. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Cueey Lewis And The News

[CrazyDave]

I am confused as to why so many are defending him? The only thing the guy is known for is two minute reports from court that potentially ruin peoples lives and which anyone with a C or higher in English could put together.

Pure click bait for the lowlife firms who buy the rubbish from him.

[The Voice of Reason]

I’m sorry but am I missing something here?

If you take this not naming thing to its logical conclusion Lucy Letby, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley and all sorts ofmurderers , rapists, paedophiles etc would remain anonymous. Or the crimes not reported at all.

“ An unidentified nurse at such and such hospital has been found guilty of murdering a number of babies”

Would that be right?

Or is it just a matter of degree when anonymity kicks in due to the seriousness ( or lesser seriousness) of the crime/ offence?

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by The Voice of Reason
Adjustment to last para to clarify.plus additional sentence to para one

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

2 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

If you take this not naming thing to its logical conclusion Lucy Letby, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley and all sorts ofmurderers , rapists, paedophiles etc would remain anonymous.

Hence the reason why nobody is doing that. 

[2112]

32 minutes ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

I’m sorry but this does read like a bit of a boast and he himself says he challenged the decision. Just my impression but there also seems to be a lot of people who have responded similarly in reply. He also seem’s to claim to be some sort of barrack-room lawyer which is also unfortunate when he admits that kids were involved and therefore naming may well also expose them to harm. 

I thought in a case like this, where children are involved (as they are using the case of drunk in charge of a child), then the name of the individual is not mentioned to prevent identification of the child? Whilst the whole scenario is somewhat unbecoming for a legal professional, they won’t be the first or last of Athol Streets finest, who like a drink or frequent certain pubs. 

[The Voice of Reason]

1 minute ago, 2112 said:

I thought in a case like this, where children are involved (as they are using the case of drunk in charge of a child), then the name of the individual is not mentioned to prevent identification of the child? Whilst the whole scenario is somewhat unbecoming for a legal professional, they won’t be the first or last of Athol Streets finest, who like a drink or frequent certain pubs. 

Or the first and the last of anybody of any vocation or trade who likes a drink or frequents certain pubs.

Without incident. What’s your point?

[CrazyDave]

11 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

I’m sorry but am I missing something here?

If you take this not naming thing to its logical conclusion Lucy Letby, Ian Brady, Myra Hindley and all sorts ofmurderers , rapists, paedophiles etc would remain anonymous. Or the crimes not reported at all.

“ An unidentified nurse at such and such hospital has been found guilty of murdering a number of babies”

Would that be right?

Or is it just a matter of degree when anonymity kicks in due to the seriousness ( or lesser seriousness) of the crime/ offence?

 

What difference would that make to anyone’s lives? Other than protecting the offenders perfectly innocent family?

Why do you need to know her name was Lucy Letby?

[Two-lane]

If the name of someone who has been convicted should not be published, then clearly the name of someone who has been accused should also not be published.

That would stop the "me too" accusations, such as the naming of Russell Brand (if that is the wrong name, substitute something reasonable).

Of course, people who have been found not guilty, would also not be named - it would not be necessary, anyway.

Photographers outside the courts would be banned in case they got a photo of a possibly accused. Courts would be held in secret so that no members of the public who might know the accused would be allowed in.

Microphones would be installed in the snug, in case Ena and Vera start gossiping about what Len has got done for.

The police could still put out wanted posters, but the face would be blanked out. And no name.

In fact, if the names of people who do bad things should not be published, so should the names of people who did good things not be published. Stopping the names of politicians being published would be a good start.

And all the history books should be edited to remove the names of the guilty.

 

[Blade Runner]

1 hour ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

I’m sorry but this does read like a bit of a boast and he himself says he challenged the decision. Just my impression but there also seems to be a lot of people who have responded similarly in reply. He also seem’s to claim to be some sort of barrack-room lawyer which is also unfortunate when he admits that kids were involved and therefore naming may well also expose them to harm. 

That post is just boasting that he stuck it to "The Man" (In his own head)

The case was hardly Watergate FFS

What a crock of sh1t

 

[TheTeapot]

I think if the guy had been convicted of being drunk and incapable there is no problem with him being named. That's how it is. 

But drunk in charge of children is different, obviously. There is potential harm involved in naming. This little situation sits uncomfortably. Still, I'm sure the judge/deemster/magistrate/whatever carefully thought it through.

[Amadeus]

5 hours ago, Stu Peters said:

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.

I’m not suggesting that court records suddenly become non public so if you’re indeed so passionate about having to know who did what, then nothing would stop you to go to the courts every day and find out.
 

There should also be a threshold where people can be named after conviction if the offence was sufficiently serious such as terrorism for example. But this public shaming, this vile digital pillory for very often vulnerable individuals who are already struggling is simply disgusting and does more harm than good, especially on such a small island. 

Your reply also displays a simply shocking lack of understanding of substance addiction and the problems that face many vulnerable members of our community. Do you really think someone chooses to screw their life up in this way? And many many many court cases do involve mental health issues. Do those people also deserve to be shamed and smashed further? Is that your idea of justice? 

I know you’re the MHK for Middle but I didn’t know it stands for Middle Ages. 

[Fred the shred]

If this poor sod had lived in Pulrose there is no lawyer who would contemplate asking for his client not to be named.    Double standards.

[HiVibes]

9 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

I know you’re the MHK for Middle but I didn’t know it stands for Middle Ages. 

He's an MHK for middle, having come distant second, some would call that the first loser, though as you know winning is not a requirement in local politics.

[Derek Flint]

Jason was right. This was a matter of open justice. Identities are only routinely protected when there is a likelihood of risk to a defendant. For example, the police officer charged with the murder of Kris Kaba. However, if he is convicted it will be a matter of public record and his name will be released 

[CrazyDave]

11 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

Jason was right. This was a matter of open justice. Identities are only routinely protected when there is a likelihood of risk to a defendant. For example, the police officer charged with the murder of Kris Kaba. However, if he is convicted it will be a matter of public record and his name will be released 

Legally you are right.

It still stinks though.