The thing that frightens us all..
Notifications OFFPost deleted by user
Hi Polly,
I read your post and considered not responding but then came back to it. I hope you don't see this as arguing back, but merely presenting another standpoint.
I am a journalist; I was prior to my partner getting the knock and I still am now after he's been sentenced. Your 'F You' comment was what caught me, particularly in light of the incident you're describing; which is in fact the police sharing the story, not the media or press.
I don't condone the public flogging but I do believe reporting on crime is in the public interest, and has a right to be reported. I don't think details such as if their partner has stood by them or if they have children is necessary, and I do find that hard to read and question it.
This crime is hard for us as partners, we don't deserve the guilty by association tag at all. Not that makes it ok, but it's not just us as partners and families that get a hard time when our loved one does something illegal; relatives of murderers, drug dealers, rapists, armed robbers.etc all find themselves isolated, tainted and dealing with the repercussions. Having spoken with many through support groups when I believed my partner would be getting a custodial, I spoke with partners that also felt they bore the brunt of it and more often because people gossiped and spread it rather than it being reported in the media.
If you do wish to challenge a reporter or a journalist, then my advice is to go direct and go quickly to have a story amended or taken down. Getting it taken down simply because it affects you will never be enough, as ultimately the argument of being in the public interest is protected by law and it will still stand. Getting details amended can be done, but legally we have to report where a defendant lives, their age and name. The only time this may be modified is if the defendant is a child or if it would lead to 'jigsaw identification' of a victim in their crime, such as their child or ex-partner. The media certainly don't help, but like the police and the judge and the criminal systems they simply have a job to do and have rules to follow.
Apologies if you find this difficult, and it certainly wasn't to shoot your point down but simply present from someone who even now still has to report on cases like this.
I read your post and considered not responding but then came back to it. I hope you don't see this as arguing back, but merely presenting another standpoint.
I am a journalist; I was prior to my partner getting the knock and I still am now after he's been sentenced. Your 'F You' comment was what caught me, particularly in light of the incident you're describing; which is in fact the police sharing the story, not the media or press.
I don't condone the public flogging but I do believe reporting on crime is in the public interest, and has a right to be reported. I don't think details such as if their partner has stood by them or if they have children is necessary, and I do find that hard to read and question it.
This crime is hard for us as partners, we don't deserve the guilty by association tag at all. Not that makes it ok, but it's not just us as partners and families that get a hard time when our loved one does something illegal; relatives of murderers, drug dealers, rapists, armed robbers.etc all find themselves isolated, tainted and dealing with the repercussions. Having spoken with many through support groups when I believed my partner would be getting a custodial, I spoke with partners that also felt they bore the brunt of it and more often because people gossiped and spread it rather than it being reported in the media.
If you do wish to challenge a reporter or a journalist, then my advice is to go direct and go quickly to have a story amended or taken down. Getting it taken down simply because it affects you will never be enough, as ultimately the argument of being in the public interest is protected by law and it will still stand. Getting details amended can be done, but legally we have to report where a defendant lives, their age and name. The only time this may be modified is if the defendant is a child or if it would lead to 'jigsaw identification' of a victim in their crime, such as their child or ex-partner. The media certainly don't help, but like the police and the judge and the criminal systems they simply have a job to do and have rules to follow.
Apologies if you find this difficult, and it certainly wasn't to shoot your point down but simply present from someone who even now still has to report on cases like this.
I think this is a cultural problem, certainly exacerbated by how the media and some police officers/forces fan the flames when it comes to sexual offences.
There seems to me to be several issues: non contact Internet offences involving child abuse are conflated with physical contact offences by the police and the media and so are often reported as being one and the same.
There also seems to be a view pushed by the media and social services that *all* those who commit these online offences are a physical danger to all children, including their own,; that this is untreatable and they cannot change their ways. This results in them, and their families being vilified and shunned like lepers, as though it is a disease rather than a bad habit or an addiction.
I agree with pregnant and scared that it is in the public interest that crimes are reported. However with these types of crime there is a lack if knowledge and understanding amongst the judiciary, the media, the police, social Work and the wider public. Unfortunately I don't currently have any ideas as to how this can be tackled, many of those who do seem to be accused of "enabling"
There seems to me to be several issues: non contact Internet offences involving child abuse are conflated with physical contact offences by the police and the media and so are often reported as being one and the same.
There also seems to be a view pushed by the media and social services that *all* those who commit these online offences are a physical danger to all children, including their own,; that this is untreatable and they cannot change their ways. This results in them, and their families being vilified and shunned like lepers, as though it is a disease rather than a bad habit or an addiction.
I agree with pregnant and scared that it is in the public interest that crimes are reported. However with these types of crime there is a lack if knowledge and understanding amongst the judiciary, the media, the police, social Work and the wider public. Unfortunately I don't currently have any ideas as to how this can be tackled, many of those who do seem to be accused of "enabling"
Post deleted
Well said Daffodil.......i agree wholeheartedly.
Post deleted by user
Post deleted by user
I can't speak for every journalist, and there are certainly many that do push for click bait headlines and sensationalised reports.
From my standpoint, I always include the balance of a judges summary which if help has been sought or rehabilitation started then is included. I also legally have to include both prosecutor statements AND defence statements including mitigation.
What makes it harder is if a judge or the court uses a word like paedophile then it often gets put in a headline because it's a direct quote, so actually isn't the reporter's opinion. It's still bloody frustrating though because you can also craft a perfectly well balanced article that doesn't seek to humiliate or make a monster of someone, and then a sub editor will completely amend it and stick a totally different headline on
I understand the anger against the press, but would you argue that a murderer's case shouldn't be reported in case someone knew his or her mother? Or that a drug dealer's case shouldn't be reported because he or she has a partner or a family?
Also we're not all morons, but I certainly appreciate it can feel that way.
I have tried to use my position for better within the media, and last year even wrote an article for the metro describing being pregnant and how I was standing by my partner. I hoped it shed a little more light on the 50-70% of us standing by our loved ones after their offending, and that it doesn't happen because they're monsters.
From my standpoint, I always include the balance of a judges summary which if help has been sought or rehabilitation started then is included. I also legally have to include both prosecutor statements AND defence statements including mitigation.
What makes it harder is if a judge or the court uses a word like paedophile then it often gets put in a headline because it's a direct quote, so actually isn't the reporter's opinion. It's still bloody frustrating though because you can also craft a perfectly well balanced article that doesn't seek to humiliate or make a monster of someone, and then a sub editor will completely amend it and stick a totally different headline on
I understand the anger against the press, but would you argue that a murderer's case shouldn't be reported in case someone knew his or her mother? Or that a drug dealer's case shouldn't be reported because he or she has a partner or a family?
Also we're not all morons, but I certainly appreciate it can feel that way.
I have tried to use my position for better within the media, and last year even wrote an article for the metro describing being pregnant and how I was standing by my partner. I hoped it shed a little more light on the 50-70% of us standing by our loved ones after their offending, and that it doesn't happen because they're monsters.
Polly, I missed your message before mine posted.
An editor will push certain cases, usually once we've had court listings through or if transcripts have come through from court that day. There's also some consideration given for what is likely to be of interest eg. In my patch there's an overwhelming amount of youth knife crime so we cover a lot more of these cases than others, particularly as the city is trying to curb it.
Your point about public interest is a fair one. We were always taught "what interests the public is not always in the public interest" so it can work both ways.
Have you been to court yet for your son Polly? It's always luck of the draw with media and I can't vouch for what your local paper might cover, but I keep everything crossed that you don't get covered or if it does then it's a short and factual piece instead x
An editor will push certain cases, usually once we've had court listings through or if transcripts have come through from court that day. There's also some consideration given for what is likely to be of interest eg. In my patch there's an overwhelming amount of youth knife crime so we cover a lot more of these cases than others, particularly as the city is trying to curb it.
Your point about public interest is a fair one. We were always taught "what interests the public is not always in the public interest" so it can work both ways.
Have you been to court yet for your son Polly? It's always luck of the draw with media and I can't vouch for what your local paper might cover, but I keep everything crossed that you don't get covered or if it does then it's a short and factual piece instead x
Post deleted
Post deleted by user
Post deleted
Post deleted by user
Polly, ha it can be hard to read when things are changed but ultimately everyone has things double checked in some jobs and a sub editor is there to read over and check words. There's many jobs where someone else can come in and undermine or change what you've done, this is just as frustrating.
Lee, I'm sorry you've had a poor experience and also for the person who called you after being attacked. Completely not on, and we all hope it's a one off as we all often discuss here how the police can add markers to homes, can and should protect families. I hope that person has been given all the support they need.
One thing I have been vocal about and have pushed for is that reporting on crime, when shared to social media should have comments turned off. They are usually monitored but never enough to catch every troll or vigilante that takes it too far. Report the news but don't allow the public debate.
Like I said earlier, none of this is to rile or be deliberately difficult but as someone who has been on both sides - the journalist and the non offending partner - I thought my view might give another side.
No journalist is sitting there and twisting or deliberately wanting to report non-facts, the legal consequences and the financial penalties are too great (yes we get fined and can even lose our jobs and accreditation). It might not seem that way on the receiving end, and if you truly feel your case has been reported in the media untruthfully and can evidence it with court transcripts or court approved notes (tee line shorthand.etc) then challenge it. The Press Complaints Commission is your first point of call and can support with legal action.
Lee, I'm sorry you've had a poor experience and also for the person who called you after being attacked. Completely not on, and we all hope it's a one off as we all often discuss here how the police can add markers to homes, can and should protect families. I hope that person has been given all the support they need.
One thing I have been vocal about and have pushed for is that reporting on crime, when shared to social media should have comments turned off. They are usually monitored but never enough to catch every troll or vigilante that takes it too far. Report the news but don't allow the public debate.
Like I said earlier, none of this is to rile or be deliberately difficult but as someone who has been on both sides - the journalist and the non offending partner - I thought my view might give another side.
No journalist is sitting there and twisting or deliberately wanting to report non-facts, the legal consequences and the financial penalties are too great (yes we get fined and can even lose our jobs and accreditation). It might not seem that way on the receiving end, and if you truly feel your case has been reported in the media untruthfully and can evidence it with court transcripts or court approved notes (tee line shorthand.etc) then challenge it. The Press Complaints Commission is your first point of call and can support with legal action.
For me yes my son has done wrong
He has been honest from day one of the arrest
He is serving his sentance
And yes I understand it is news etc
Is it in the interest of the public NO it's not
Why
Because if the police reported what he was actually charged with its still shit but the way they reported it was just so wrong beyond belief
I have wanted to post his chargers and shout out look at what they said but look.at the truth but I haven't because they have already been judged
Xx
He has been honest from day one of the arrest
He is serving his sentance
And yes I understand it is news etc
Is it in the interest of the public NO it's not
Why
Because if the police reported what he was actually charged with its still shit but the way they reported it was just so wrong beyond belief
I have wanted to post his chargers and shout out look at what they said but look.at the truth but I haven't because they have already been judged
Xx
It's true we are non offending partners and we don't deserve any of this.
But our loved ones did something wrong and the end of it, it’s not the media that make the problems for nop it’s the public.
Or is the suggestion that the media should never report crimes from the court? If we don't report on the crimes of iioc, sexual communication.etc then do we also not report on other crimes too? Yes, we are all here to discuss THIS crime but we're not the only ones who have taken issue with media reporting I'm sure, and I agree something must change but to censor the reporting of it isn't the way.
The definition of public interest is 'the welfare or well-being of the general public" and society.'. We might not like it but being aware of a fair justice system, that our criminal system works and that criminal actions have repercussions is part of that.
The answer is to speak out about these crimes to raise awareness but that won’t happen easily, and inclusion of services like Stop It Now and LFF and Stop SO is needed; and there have been some outlets that do include it. In fact, those that do have been highlighted here.
If the crime was handled like a mental health crisis then the support would be different. There are other countries that manage this, but here our system doesn't support this yet.
Journalists doing their job and reporting on court doesn’t cause the problems, it's the idiots that take it at headline or don't look at the details and act on it.
The issue is the public, not people trying to do a job that comes with legal sanctions and years of training and who are just trying to earn a wage so they can feed their families.
We are all here in this forum to support each other, but creating an echo chamber with no other views won't help any of us. I'm a journalist but I'm also an nop, a mum, a partner and whilst I understand the frustrations, making this a group just to berate media isn't going to help anyone. If anything, it makes me feel more isolated than before.
But our loved ones did something wrong and the end of it, it’s not the media that make the problems for nop it’s the public.
Or is the suggestion that the media should never report crimes from the court? If we don't report on the crimes of iioc, sexual communication.etc then do we also not report on other crimes too? Yes, we are all here to discuss THIS crime but we're not the only ones who have taken issue with media reporting I'm sure, and I agree something must change but to censor the reporting of it isn't the way.
The definition of public interest is 'the welfare or well-being of the general public" and society.'. We might not like it but being aware of a fair justice system, that our criminal system works and that criminal actions have repercussions is part of that.
The answer is to speak out about these crimes to raise awareness but that won’t happen easily, and inclusion of services like Stop It Now and LFF and Stop SO is needed; and there have been some outlets that do include it. In fact, those that do have been highlighted here.
If the crime was handled like a mental health crisis then the support would be different. There are other countries that manage this, but here our system doesn't support this yet.
Journalists doing their job and reporting on court doesn’t cause the problems, it's the idiots that take it at headline or don't look at the details and act on it.
The issue is the public, not people trying to do a job that comes with legal sanctions and years of training and who are just trying to earn a wage so they can feed their families.
We are all here in this forum to support each other, but creating an echo chamber with no other views won't help any of us. I'm a journalist but I'm also an nop, a mum, a partner and whilst I understand the frustrations, making this a group just to berate media isn't going to help anyone. If anything, it makes me feel more isolated than before.
Hi Lost, again that's a sweeping statement and not every journalist is the same.
That's the infuriating thing here, the implied message that every journalist is the same as one another. Simply not true.
Just like our partners or loved ones are not all the same and that people who commit these crimes aren't all the same.
That's the infuriating thing here, the implied message that every journalist is the same as one another. Simply not true.
Just like our partners or loved ones are not all the same and that people who commit these crimes aren't all the same.
Pregnantandscared
It's an awful journey to be on but we seek the comfort of this forum
I don't condone what my son has done
But the police reported his case far beyond belief
The keyboard warriors spat out there poison
Because of the way it was reported
How can we hope for our loved ones to be able to move on
A mainstream prisoner can commit a crime they serve there time but for our offenders it stays with them for life x
It's an awful journey to be on but we seek the comfort of this forum
I don't condone what my son has done
But the police reported his case far beyond belief
The keyboard warriors spat out there poison
Because of the way it was reported
How can we hope for our loved ones to be able to move on
A mainstream prisoner can commit a crime they serve there time but for our offenders it stays with them for life x
Thanks Lost, saw your cross posts and it's appreciated.
I agree, and I do wish I could speak more openly with my colleagues to build more of a force around this and drive more to speak out/handle this better. Maybe one day, or maybe if the police and other forces handle NOPs better then the media can follow suit.
I agree, and I do wish I could speak more openly with my colleagues to build more of a force around this and drive more to speak out/handle this better. Maybe one day, or maybe if the police and other forces handle NOPs better then the media can follow suit.
Upset mum I'm sorry for your experience. If it's the police that reported it then I can't comment, I'm a journalist and we report differently and are held to different legal standards.
I wasn't going to post on this thread for fear that I wouldn't be balanced if I did. As I posted on another thread my ex was in the local paper the day after I gave birth. The article made reference to our unborn daughter. I was actually kept in hospital because the midwives who were caring for me had read the article and wasn't sure if I could be sent home as "he has now been released " which I hadn't told any healthcare professionals as hadn't seen any other than during labour and had other things on my mind. There was no balance to the article. The stuff from defence that was used was appallingly misreported and twisted as though everything cps said was gospel but all defence was "claimed".
The editors who I approached were very kind to me and removed the links/article. I should probably add it was there for 10 months because I had better things to do with my time. Perhaps rather than wasting our energy fighting the media we should fight to raise awareness. There is definitely something that needs to be done to alter the language used in articles and in society in general towards people who commit these crimes. I like the idea of comments being turned off on articles to prevent idiots finding like minded idiots. I believe there should be restrictions on posting anyones address because this shows no regard for others who reside there, family or not. Sending love to all. I know how scared I was but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be xx
The editors who I approached were very kind to me and removed the links/article. I should probably add it was there for 10 months because I had better things to do with my time. Perhaps rather than wasting our energy fighting the media we should fight to raise awareness. There is definitely something that needs to be done to alter the language used in articles and in society in general towards people who commit these crimes. I like the idea of comments being turned off on articles to prevent idiots finding like minded idiots. I believe there should be restrictions on posting anyones address because this shows no regard for others who reside there, family or not. Sending love to all. I know how scared I was but it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be xx
Distressed, I read your post the other day and you are prime example of calling out bad reporting. I'm glad the editorial team were kind when you contacted them, and removed the article - from what you describe it had things in it that should never have been reported and were unfair.
Court reporters have to follow three principles - fair, accurate and contemporaneous. That means giving both sides with defence and prosecution, accurate details and publishing on time so the details are in line with the legal proceedings. Flouting these is what makes poor journalism. I'm sorry you experienced it Distressed.
Court reporters have to follow three principles - fair, accurate and contemporaneous. That means giving both sides with defence and prosecution, accurate details and publishing on time so the details are in line with the legal proceedings. Flouting these is what makes poor journalism. I'm sorry you experienced it Distressed.
If I could wish for one thing it would be to remove the Google effect
Our offenders serve there time and my son has a long way to go before he is out x
Our offenders serve there time and my son has a long way to go before he is out x
I don't disagree with the "public interest" aspect of reporting.
what I disagree with is when journalists report with opening lines like "has a supportive wife despite his actions" making it feel like I'm doing wrong.
I don't agree that a persons Road name should be published at all as that brings more risk to not only the family involved but neighbours also. If it need to be reported be honest and balanced and just post name and town at most. What benefit is it to post anything further.
The impact of media is worse than the justice system itself. Because it then results in people taking it upon themselves to dish out what they call justice by way of threats damage and intimidation. Media contributes to that considerably but then the media do not accept any accountability for their part being the trigger point.
what I disagree with is when journalists report with opening lines like "has a supportive wife despite his actions" making it feel like I'm doing wrong.
I don't agree that a persons Road name should be published at all as that brings more risk to not only the family involved but neighbours also. If it need to be reported be honest and balanced and just post name and town at most. What benefit is it to post anything further.
The impact of media is worse than the justice system itself. Because it then results in people taking it upon themselves to dish out what they call justice by way of threats damage and intimidation. Media contributes to that considerably but then the media do not accept any accountability for their part being the trigger point.
Post deleted by user
Lots of European countries do not name individuals who have been convicted, let alone add a photo unless the crime was very high profile and serious. They have much better justice systems than ours in my view. The "public interest" argument irritates me. It's easy to say that, but what does it really mean. Is it really in the public interest to do something that means a family may have to move home, an offender will change their name, and it likely makes an offenders ability to find work more difficult. We know that offenders who are out of work, are more likely to reoffend, so where is the "public interest" in that? In the internet age, a story will stay for many decades online, and come at the top of a search fot that individual. It was less of an issue in the past. I don't see any public interest in that. You don't need a name and an image to report on the case, it's not the most important aspect of a story. As I noted other countries do not do this, why do we?
We often talk about offenders having to look at the impact of their actions. What about journalists, do they not hold some reponsibility for making the situation worst for a child, by including the offenders name and street address, causing the family to move, landing the family into poverty, and all the bullying that may follow? There is a big difference between "what is of interest to the public", and what is in the "public interest". Other countries manage this, why is the UK so behind the times?
We often talk about offenders having to look at the impact of their actions. What about journalists, do they not hold some reponsibility for making the situation worst for a child, by including the offenders name and street address, causing the family to move, landing the family into poverty, and all the bullying that may follow? There is a big difference between "what is of interest to the public", and what is in the "public interest". Other countries manage this, why is the UK so behind the times?
Just a point on street names. Journalists have to put them as otherwise it's misidentification.
If we just wrote 'John Smith, 45, Leeds' then it could be ANY John Smith and we'd be done for libel. The reporting has to cover the offender, and whilst the family are affected, we can't exclude a road name because they live there. Journalists are legally bound to give legal name, age at conviction and current address.
I don't agree with adding details about family or using the P word unless it's been said by the judge and even then it's in quotations as it's something that's been said and we have to quote what's been said. The press are there to show a conviction has been given for an illegal act and justice has been served.
For my local paper, where I cover the courts, we don't tend to use a picture or the mugshot from the police. We just use a stock image of the courthouse.
As I've said before, I can't speak for every journalist and paper but that's my side of it.
If we just wrote 'John Smith, 45, Leeds' then it could be ANY John Smith and we'd be done for libel. The reporting has to cover the offender, and whilst the family are affected, we can't exclude a road name because they live there. Journalists are legally bound to give legal name, age at conviction and current address.
I don't agree with adding details about family or using the P word unless it's been said by the judge and even then it's in quotations as it's something that's been said and we have to quote what's been said. The press are there to show a conviction has been given for an illegal act and justice has been served.
For my local paper, where I cover the courts, we don't tend to use a picture or the mugshot from the police. We just use a stock image of the courthouse.
As I've said before, I can't speak for every journalist and paper but that's my side of it.
Post deleted
Thanks Daffodil, I'll find it now and see if I can help.
Post deleted by user
Regarding, "If we just wrote 'John Smith, 45, Leeds' then it could be ANY John Smith and we'd be done for libel"
It is a good point, that a street name can be used to make sure that someone else with the same name is not mistaken for the offender. However, I would have thought that for libel, there would have to be evidence that the claim as false, as opposed to reporting on true information where another person could be mistaken accidently for the target. It's likely the confusion will happen anyway. I wouldn't know the street address of a huge amount of people I have interacted with. Although I would be interested to see if anyone had been successful with this. This guy in ROI was not succesful:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-newspaper-libel-action-by-man-with-same-name-as-uninsured-driver-40649285.html
I lived on a street with two women who had the same name. And obviously most of us are aware there are multiple people with the same name in a city. Another aspect is, if a photo is printed, then surely there is no need for a street name too. As I noted above, of course the journalist does not need to report the name at all, and that's common place in countries with a higher standard of ethics and journalism. I think we have a very warped view in the UK of what "public interest" is, and it is used as an excuse to profit from others misery, and adversely affects rehabilitation.
When it comes to "open justice", it is a shame that journalists rarely if ever report the names of the police officers or the forensic officer in cases where the case was dropped due to the evidence being challenged. That journalistically speaking is really the story. People in a professional capacity continuing to go foward with cases that lack merit. As a member of the public I need that information for my defence.
It is a good point, that a street name can be used to make sure that someone else with the same name is not mistaken for the offender. However, I would have thought that for libel, there would have to be evidence that the claim as false, as opposed to reporting on true information where another person could be mistaken accidently for the target. It's likely the confusion will happen anyway. I wouldn't know the street address of a huge amount of people I have interacted with. Although I would be interested to see if anyone had been successful with this. This guy in ROI was not succesful:
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-throws-out-newspaper-libel-action-by-man-with-same-name-as-uninsured-driver-40649285.html
I lived on a street with two women who had the same name. And obviously most of us are aware there are multiple people with the same name in a city. Another aspect is, if a photo is printed, then surely there is no need for a street name too. As I noted above, of course the journalist does not need to report the name at all, and that's common place in countries with a higher standard of ethics and journalism. I think we have a very warped view in the UK of what "public interest" is, and it is used as an excuse to profit from others misery, and adversely affects rehabilitation.
When it comes to "open justice", it is a shame that journalists rarely if ever report the names of the police officers or the forensic officer in cases where the case was dropped due to the evidence being challenged. That journalistically speaking is really the story. People in a professional capacity continuing to go foward with cases that lack merit. As a member of the public I need that information for my defence.
It's a very interesting topic to discuss. Why do they post convictions? The bottom line is gossip and also to keep the public informed that the criminal justice system is "working". People argue that sharing these particular crimes are for awareness which I think is a load of tripe - even someone who watches every "sting" and reads every newspaper will never remember every offence/alleged offender unless they are local to them or knew them already. Also, the majority of cases as we see on here don't tend to stem from attraction, some stem from ignorance of the law etc but cases like this are sensationalised and anyone who commits a crime like this is branded as a *you know what*. The more and more I have investigated the criminal justice system the more I see it is not fit for purpose. I believe the majority of people who get a buzz out of sharing these articles and hang off every word have very little in life to be proud of and their only flex is to be able to lord it over not being a *you know what*. Realistically there is no reason to share any crimes/outcomes but what would the masses do without the tripe they love to consume...
BaffledB
Totally agree with you x
I know we have no control over the media if it is posted or not
For me I just wish they posted the actual truth the police post was horrendous
The prosecution went for his jugular and the judge corrected him several times due to not accurate in what he had done
But yet the police reported exactly what the prosecution had said and that is just wrong
If they posted the actual truth and charges then it would would not have painted him as something he is not
That is what I find totally unfair xx
Totally agree with you x
I know we have no control over the media if it is posted or not
For me I just wish they posted the actual truth the police post was horrendous
The prosecution went for his jugular and the judge corrected him several times due to not accurate in what he had done
But yet the police reported exactly what the prosecution had said and that is just wrong
If they posted the actual truth and charges then it would would not have painted him as something he is not
That is what I find totally unfair xx
Post deleted
The media is the one thing that frightens me the most and is something that we may have to face the repercussions of any day now. I am petrified of the unknown and what is going to happen next.
I just wanted to discuss the issue of the street name. I understand the town being printed if they see that in the locals interest, but why the street name? This immediately puts people in danger and it can be easy to work out exactly where someone lives.
We live on a small street and it's not the nicest street. There has been gun crime and is always something happening outside. I am actually scared for my partners safety and my own safety if the street name gets released.
And as far as I can see, the articles published only highlight the most negative points out of context.
I just wanted to discuss the issue of the street name. I understand the town being printed if they see that in the locals interest, but why the street name? This immediately puts people in danger and it can be easy to work out exactly where someone lives.
We live on a small street and it's not the nicest street. There has been gun crime and is always something happening outside. I am actually scared for my partners safety and my own safety if the street name gets released.
And as far as I can see, the articles published only highlight the most negative points out of context.
Post deleted by user
The Ministry of Justice published guidelines in 2011, which made it clear that there are exceptional cases where,
"Information that could be used to identify offenders’ families (over and above a surname that they share with the offender) should not be released, especially if this would place them at risk of ostracism, harm (e.g. reprisals) or infringement of their own right to respect for their private and family life"
It seems to me, that this is the difference, between our cases and other types of offences. The level of public anger is much greater and so is the risk of vigilante attacks. Of course, if the family members were treated as victims, they would have automatic protection of anonymity.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/reporting-criminal-records-media/
There is one MP, Andrew Murrison, who spoke about this in parliament. I hope he can convince others, that media reporting should be restricted, in these cases.
"Information that could be used to identify offenders’ families (over and above a surname that they share with the offender) should not be released, especially if this would place them at risk of ostracism, harm (e.g. reprisals) or infringement of their own right to respect for their private and family life"
It seems to me, that this is the difference, between our cases and other types of offences. The level of public anger is much greater and so is the risk of vigilante attacks. Of course, if the family members were treated as victims, they would have automatic protection of anonymity.
https://unlock.org.uk/advice/reporting-criminal-records-media/
There is one MP, Andrew Murrison, who spoke about this in parliament. I hope he can convince others, that media reporting should be restricted, in these cases.