cd.thomson
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 10:29 AM |
|
|
someone explain this news report
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8455161.stm
leaving aside the actual nature of the offences and racial stereotyping, can anyone explain why a news report detailing how 6 men who have been found
innocent of all charges have been identified down to the road they live on??
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 11:46 AM |
|
|
I don't think naming the "innocent" parties and the street on which they live is a good thing. Firstly because mud sticks and even
an accusation of that tarnishes your name. Secondly, the material facts of the case reflect badly on them.
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 11:48 AM |
|
|
my thoughts exactly!
Craig
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 12:30 PM |
|
|
Just read that. I usd to live around the corner.
Quality area that was, took 16 years to get away! 
I think it's the media again pushing for "freedom of information" and "the public has the right to know these things".
If the public want to know then let them get off their arses and go and sit in the public gallery. It reminds me of when the local paper used to print
everyones name and address and what they'd been in court for every day. Completely unnecessary. The media need putting down imo, leeches that
they are.
[Edited on 13/1/10 by mistergrumpy]
|
|
|
Steve G
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 05:18 PM |
|
|
I notice they haven't published the name of the girl though!!! Sounds like either she's been conned by that group and actually was raped,
or has had serious regrets afterwards and set out for revenge.
As they say though - mud sticks and personally I think its totally out of order to have named them.
What i do wonder though is how it got to court in the first place if the CPS had the MSN Messenger logs and presented no evidence at court??? Sounds
like a total waste of time / money - surely the CPS should have dropped the case before going to court if they were going to do that???
|
|
|
MikeRJ
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 06:48 PM |
|
|
It's an odd story, I don't see how logs of an internet chat session prove that she consented in person to all of the men?
|
|
|
smart51
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 06:50 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by MikeRJ
It's an odd story, I don't see how logs of an internet chat session prove that she consented in person to all of the men?
It just has to prove that what she says is unreliable then you have reasonable doubt and can't convict.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 11:22 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cd.thomson
leaving aside the actual nature of the offences and racial stereotyping, can anyone explain why a news report detailing how 6 men who have been found
innocent of all charges have been identified down to the road they live on??
I didn't see any mention of race or racial stereotyping in the article or that they have any predilection towards rape inferred by the article.
Did you read it differently to me ? It didn't say they were found innocent but that the judge ruled they be found not guilty. If the judge had
ruled that their names and details were not to be published it would have been different but it may save some other gullible victim from the same
fate. How many cases do you read of where the jury are not allowed to hear the list of a defendants previous convictions and they are let off to
re-offend ?
[Edited on 13/1/10 by Peteff]
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 13/1/10 at 11:34 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mistergrumpy
It reminds me of when the local paper used to print everyone's name and address and what they'd been in court for every day. Completely
unnecessary. The media need putting down imo, leeches that they are.
So you wouldn't like to know that a paedophile lives next door if you have children, where do you draw a line on what's worth reporting
and what's not ?
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
cd.thomson
|
| posted on 14/1/10 at 09:20 AM |
|
|
no, sorry peteff, what I said was a little out of order re:race but my intention was to preempt any less savoury contents about the people involved
(probably not likely on this forum of course).
I see your point on the textbook paedo example but my counterpoint is these guys have not been found guilty.
The result is there is a list of names and partial addresses on public display where at best everyone knows they get up to some pretty
"exciting" stuff in their spare time and at worst theyre rapists in the community until proven innocent (which appears to be your
conclusion?).
[Edited on 14/1/10 by cd.thomson]
Craig
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 14/1/10 at 02:32 PM |
|
|
quote:
So you wouldn't like to know that a paedophile lives next door if you have children, where do you draw a line on what's worth reporting
and what's not ?
You're obviously wound up about something here Pete.
You right I probably would like to know if there's a paedophile living next to my kids but then what do you class a paedophile as? Someone
caught with photo's on their computer? Someone who's actually gone and raped a child? Where do you draw the line here? The word has lost
its meaning because of newspapers keep shouting it.
Looking from the other side what if that person's been inside and served their time and to all reason as according to those in charge is
rehabilitated? Then what right have to to invade their privacy? The Human Rights Act number 8 states "Everyone has the right to respect for his
private and family life". Tricky one isn't it. I guess kind of a moral dilemma. Then you have the fact that when the Sun newspaper printed
details then of sex offenders then all the deadlegs who could read went around to a paediatricians house and broke one of their bones if I remember
rightly. Vigilantism by people who are just wanting any excuse for a fight and form opinions based on their own made up 'facts'.
To drop to the other end of the scale what right have a newspaper, again impacting on someones private life to publish details that said person has
been in court for not paying their TV license or anything else.
It's not the newspapers place to do that no matter how you look at it. If someone really wants to know something it's up to them to get up
and find it. The information is there if they desperately want it. A grimy newspaper shouldn't be spreading the facts with their
"sensationalist" attitudes to further their own cause.
|
|
|
Ninehigh
|
| posted on 16/1/10 at 08:50 AM |
|
|
Maybe we should try and get the Sun banned then, and the Star while we're at it. In fact everything below the Independant etc should be banned
imho.
What would you actually do if you found out your next door neighbour had a thing for 9 year olds anyway?
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 16/1/10 at 04:18 PM |
|
|
I just ignore the paper now. The mail is the latest one that I discovered in the last few months on the internet and what a big steaming pile of cack
that is!
Dunno what I'd do if my neighbour had a thing for 9 year olds I don't have any children and tend to deal with sex offenders regularly at
work so I guess I tend to overlook their 'interests' really if I'm honest. I'd probably just be watching them like a hawk and
paying attention a bit more. Not much else you can do.
|
|
|
