Journalists with pitchforks

[Barlow]

43 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

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.

And that is the job the newspapers do, to save others going to the courts everyday.

[A fool and his money.....]

12 hours ago, Cueey Lewis And The News said:

I think this is a bit sad. I read the story this morning and then saw a post on X from Jason Roberts who confirms that he was the journalist who challenged the decision not to publish this guys name 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/law-firm-director-fined-for-being-drunk-in-charge-of-children/

During the hearing Leonard-Morgan’s advocate attempted to prevent the media from reporting his client’s identity.

His application was refused by magistrates after challenge from a member of the press.

Honestly what is achieved by way of public interest in these situations? The guy clearly has a big problem and whether he’s an advocate or not is completely irrelevant. It’s a bit sad that someone thinks that it is in the public interest to parade this persons name around just to attract clicks to their website. It feels like fairly gutter press stuff. 

I agree in general. Although I'm not sure why this fella should have special treatment.

Although I take little notice, as far as I can tell it's common practice to release names of people appearing in court - regardless of whether they have been convicted or not.

This is the problem, I can perhaps see an argument for names being published after conviction, although I'm not necessarily in favour. Publishing someone's name before they are convicted is just wrong IMHO - although I guess there is a public gallery (which is important) so maybe that is the logic?

This individual case is no different than any other, it makes not a jot of difference that this guy is a lawyer, or owns his own company, nor that he can afford a hot shot lawyer to defend him. The press man was just doing his job asking, it's not his job to make the law, just to report it. There was no reason for special treatment, none was given.

The problem is a wider, general one. A great many people who end up in court have problems with alcohol or other substances, their employment or employment prospects often suffer as a result too. I agree none should be named, at least without conviction, this case is no different.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Amadeus said:

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. 

And many more court cases  ( the majority) don’t involve those with mental health issues. Just people indulging in criminality , why shouldn’t we know who they are?
 

Your last paragraph is just a stupid, unjustified, and ridiculous personal attack. I would have thought that you as someone who has suffered the same would be more cautious with their words.

[Amadeus]

1 hour ago, The Voice of Reason said:

And many more court cases  ( the majority) don’t involve those with mental health issues. Just people indulging in criminality , why shouldn’t we know who they are?
 

Your last paragraph is just a stupid, unjustified, and ridiculous personal attack. I would have thought that you as someone who has suffered the same would be more cautious with their words.

What do you gain from it when you read that someone has stolen something in a shop apart from some sort of ghoulish satisfaction? How is it of public interest when someone fell asleep drunk on a park bench and police deemed it appropriate to drag him or her through court? If it's to protect establishments and the public visiting them then they already have shopwatch and pubwatch for that. Otherwise it's really not of our concern, with the exception of very serious offences where there is a real danger to the public or an overarching public interest. 

I feel very strongly about this, yes, and I do find it medieval when someone is totally in favour of a digital pillory. On the one hand we're apparently all about data protection and our rights and on the other hand we're totally fine with tearing someone apart in public because they are a criminal now, no matter how minor. "Please indicate if you accept our cookie policy before we allow you to call Dave from next door who fell on hard time a feckless loser for stealing some food". In what universe does that make sense? How does this help, benefit society or contribute towards the rehabilitation of the offender? 

Those of you without sin cast the first stone comes to mind, and I'm not even religious. The courts decide the punishment, not the public - and having someone thrown to the Facebook mob like this is an additional punishment. Hung, Drawn and Twittered. The media here pretends to care about the community but they really don't, or they would investigate the real issues and start asking questions about Mone & Co. Instead they target cheap clicks in a desperate race to the bottom because anything more would require effort, ethical standards, and actual work. 

[The Voice of Reason]

And hears another thing.

What about corporate wrongdoing?

If say a water company discharges raw sewage into a river or lake illegally Should the name of that company be withheld lest the officers of that company that bear responsibility be held  to account?
 

I

[Amadeus]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

And hears another thing.

What about corporate wrongdoing?

If say a water company discharges raw sewage into a river or lake illegally Should the name of that company be withheld lest the officers of that company that bear responsibility be held  to account?
 

I

That would again come down to a decision regarding public interest. Company poisoning water for thousands of people = serious offence, public interest. Jane having a spliff after work and getting done = not so much, unless you can demonstrate otherwise?

Complex issue in some ways, granted, but maybe we could at least rally for names to be withheld pre conviction? I think a lot of harm would already be prevented with that. 

[woolley]

14 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 of 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.

I find myself down on the council estate for this one. Either name all or name none.

[The Voice of Reason]

2 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

What do you gain from it when you read that someone has stolen something in a shop apart from some sort of ghoulish satisfaction? How is it of public interest when someone fell asleep drunk on a park bench and police deemed it appropriate to drag him or her through court? If it's to protect establishments and the public visiting them then they already have shopwatch and pubwatch for that. Otherwise it's really not of our concern, with the exception of very serious offences where there is a real danger to the public or an overarching public interest. 

I feel very strongly about this, yes, and I do find it medieval when someone is totally in favour of a digital pillory. On the one hand we're apparently all about data protection and our rights and on the other hand we're totally fine with tearing someone apart in public because they are a criminal now, no matter how minor. "Please indicate if you accept our cookie policy before we allow you to call Dave from next door who fell on hard time a feckless loser for stealing some food". In what universe does that make sense? How does this help, benefit society or contribute towards the rehabilitation of the offender? 

Those of you without sin cast the first stone comes to mind, and I'm not even religious. The courts decide the punishment, not the public - and having someone thrown to the Facebook mob like this is an additional punishment. Hung, Drawn and Twittered. The media here pretends to care about the community but they really don't, or they would investigate the real issues and start asking questions about Mone & Co. Instead they target cheap clicks in a desperate race to the bottom because anything more would require effort, ethical standards, and actual work. 

Well if someone falls asleep drunk on a park bench, then I would expect the police not to deem it appropriate to drag them through the courts, unless for example they were asked to move on and refused to comply.

Yes the courts decide punishment and so they should. You talk about rehabilitation as if this were needed in respect of everyone brought before the courts. It’s certainly not always the case. People do bad things and deserve punishing for that.
Yes there may be mitigating factors which should be taken into account. But stealing, assault,  and worse for no reason at all need to be dealt with. 

And yes the Facebook mob can be particularly unpleasant. But so can people down the pub. Is that “ additional punishment”? There’s not much you can do about that. In an Island so small both forums will be full of opinions.

Trying to censor publicly available information is not the way to go. If a news article is biased in its reporting then remedies are available

[The Voice of Reason]

14 minutes ago, Amadeus said:

 

Complex issue in some ways, granted, but maybe we could at least rally for names to be withheld pre conviction? I think a lot of harm would already be prevented with that. 

Agreed

[The Voice of Reason]

3 hours ago, HiVibes said:

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.

Winning one of the two places available to win  is winning. 

You really need to grow up
 

 

[Roger Mexico]

6 hours 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 was referring to the Manx Radio piece in particular, but as it happens I read the tweet as being more about having to point out what the legal situation was to the Court who seemed to have forgotten what the rules are.

However the rules do say that the magistrates (or whoever) do have the power to forbid the publication of names if it would identify the children (among other reasons). Given that the defendant was legally represented and is a lawyer himself, I think we can assume that they made as good a case as they could for doing so and the fact they failed suggests publication would not identify them.  Certainly looking at other cases, names are withheld where appropriate.

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

2 hours ago, A fool and his money..... said:

I agree in general. Although I'm not sure why this fella should have special treatment.

I’ve never said he should have special treatment. I’m just wondering why a journalist in a case that has a connection to children (who presumably are identifiable now) lobbied so openly to have a request to not name the guy thrown out. I’d think the same in relation to anyone in the same position. 

[The Voice of Reason]

5 hours ago, CrazyDave said:

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?

Say Manchester United beat Liverpool 1-0.

Why do you need to know who scored the winning goal?

[Kopek]

Being named in court could indeed make his friends ''Rally'' around to try to help him?

 

Children are generally protected by by a tenet, that children should not be identified, the defendant would not be identified if it breached the childrens identity. However, it could be that the children have a different surname to the father, the court may have recognised that? Although the other parents at the school gates would have recognised him and his children.

His wife/partner also deserves some anonymity and assurance that her children are in safe hands when with him?

It is indeed sad when someone's substance abuse leads them to places they would not choose to be in but does that trump the Public's 'right to know'?

[Cueey Lewis And The News]

Just now, Kopek said:

Being named in court could indeed make his friends ''Rally'' around to try to help him?

Does being named in court make your neighbours rally round and help you tax your vehicles in future or does often it result in you doing the exact same thing a year or so later?