[momentaryloss]

@irish_lucy wrote:

You can be the greatest but im the best (read the title) :wink:

You are good, almost the best……well at least for a short time.

:P

[momentaryloss]

Nah, b*gger it, I am the greatest.

8)

[momentaryloss]

@momentaryloss wrote:

@irish_lucy wrote:

Too right it is and wont stop till im the best.

Andy make sure you send my cheque by a different way then Jen’s carrier pigeion as i think its GPS is broken

Your good, granted, but there’s better…………………………………..

:lol:

Wish I could take myself seriously when I write this shite.

:roll:

[momentaryloss]

@irish_lucy wrote:

Too right it is and wont stop till im the best.

Andy make sure you send my cheque by a different way then Jen’s carrier pigeion as i think its GPS is broken

Your good, granted, but there’s better…………………………………..

:lol:

[momentaryloss]

I am not clearly on one side of this debate or the other, however I do have misgivings about some of the potential uses of publicity (and indeed the clarity of the public interest against the rights of individuals in some cases where people are identified).

The definition you use of trial by media is a narrow one and only applies where the court has forbidden public disclosure. The Jimmy Savile case is not sub judice but we could hardly call it anything other than trial by media.

I am of course aware of the principle of publicity and its value in the evidential process, however in the case Jen mentioned and the Savile case, what I said in my previous posts holds true. These were cases where the circumstances of the individual crimes were well known to the Police and the CPS. These were cases where the weight of further accusations was needed to convince people, who should have acted already, to act. (I don’t believe in public floggings but I hope that someone in a senior position is reviewing these cases in the hope of learning things.) Such a failure to act is a very poor excuse for requiring publicity as part of the evidential process or excusing media extravagance. Since when did we require evidence of other crimes to prosecute a crime?

In cases where there is insufficient evidence to proceed further with an investigation because there are gaps in the evidence, that is a different justification altogether for identification data being made public as part of the evidential process. If that is as part of a targeted attempt to marshal the media and elicit responses, that is entirely justified in the public interest.

Those specific benefits are not the ones I have challenged however. It would be difficult to pretend that in all cases where the Police or media identify someone that that is the case. Certainly Jen’s case and Savile do not conform to those lofty ideals. In both cases the evidence existed, but the victims were not believed until more people came forward. Identifying the accused publicly was therefore not the critical issue, but how the abuse itself was dealt with.

That need for multiple accusations before things are taken seriously is what I have an issue with, not the Police using Crimewatch and other methods to jog memories in the hope of solving serious crimes.

[momentaryloss]

@rusty trawler wrote:

Shouldn’t we be decorating this place for the annual Christmas shindig by now?

And can we please refrain from repeating the embarrassing shenaningans of last year when drunken Brother Scep simulated coitus with Brother Sgt’s Darts trophy?

I see my plea for the Club to give all its extra money to charity and keep the inside of the Club a Christmas free zone has fallen on deaf ears.

:?

[momentaryloss]

One case of abuse is enough.

But no, it seems that if you are important, nothing is taken further until you are proved to be a serial abuser.

Do we require that someone is a mass murderer before the Police and CPS go after them? So why should it be that way in abuse cases?

I’m not decided on the issue of keeping the names of those accused of sexual crimes out of the papers until after the trial. The one thing I do know however is that trial by media is only needed because of the failure to investigate accusations properly, and take victims seriously.

We clearly have a long way to go when we are relying on the press instead of the justice system for our justice.

God help us all.

:(

[momentaryloss]

And yet Jen, presumably if the Police had taken the complaint seriously in the first place they could have investigated the other boys he had come into contact with. The whole thing could have been dealt with years ago, with no press involvement.

Each accusation has to stand up on its own or the accused will be found innocent, so the Police have a duty to investigate properly. Who is being convinced by finding other potential cases of abuse? Not a jury because they are forced to consider the evidence in each individual case, or the judge who has to direct them.

It seems it is the Police, and not the courts, who need convincing. Or maybe the Crown Prosecution Service would only moved when they saw a lot of mud being thrown. Either way their failure to act is problematic at best and reprehensible at worst.

The evidence against this abuser in your friend’s son’s case did not change because more people came forward. It is heart-breaking that it was not taken further until many years later when more victims came forward. What would have happened if the press had not picked the story up? What justice would there have been for that poor lad?

This problem is mirrored in the Savile case. We are running round pointing fingers at the BBC and everyone we can for allegedly “protecting” Jimmy Savile, or at the very least for not protecting the victims. In the case of the BBC we are criticising them for not broadcasting a story the Police had not made a move on themselves. The abuser you refer to was “prominent in his profession”, just like Savile.

But the Police already had plenty of evidence. They didn’t take it further, in either case. They simply didn’t believe the people who had the courage to make the accusation. It is incredibly depressing that despite the testimony of reliable victims in both cases, nothing was done, until we had a media circus and the attendant witch-hunt.

Rather have innocent people publicly accused and ruined, than have an abuser go free? What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

As your story illustrates, trial by media is only for the few. Most people accused of committing sexual crimes are not outed by the national press, so it is hardly the basis for a fair legal system for the victims, let alone the accused. The answer as always is for the authorities to take victims seriously and investigate their allegations thoroughly in the first place.

Relying on trial by media, although it has provided justice for some, is an unequal and unfair way of treating both the victim and the accused.

There was no need for a public outing in the case you outlined or the Savile case – just a society and a criminal justice system that takes victims’ stories seriously, doesn’t accuse them of making it up, and investigating them properly.

My heart goes out to that lad and his family – they should never have had to rely on the papers to get them justice.

[momentaryloss]

@kent f OBE wrote:

Breaking news on Yahoo:

Max clifford blah blah blah operation Yewtree.

Ok basically there are 3 categories in operation Yewtree

1. Jimmy Saville
2. Jimmy Saville and others
3. Others

Max Clifford has been arrested in category 3. So someone has made an allegation of sexual assult involving Clifford.

I don’t know obviously if he is guilty or not and if he is he deserves to pay for the crime, however the point I wish to make is that I think the law should change regarding the naming of men in these circumstances. If they are guilty then yes release their names etc, but when an allegation is made the police usually have to arrest the suspect for questioning. Could turn out he is not guilty, but mud sticks. People become wary, some say no smoke without fire, when sometimes soemone could just be getting their own back on a person for maybe a relationship break up or money matters or somthing trivial like getting custody of the goldfish.
What do you think?

Always understood the reason for a victim’s name not being released unless they release it themselves, but have always struggled with the double standard about releasing the accused’s name, given the fact that mud sticks whatever you do.

I suppose the problem is that we would have to wait until a conviction before the public could hear about some accusations. People might say that would prevent other victims coming forward or the public being warned in advance.

However would we really be in a worse place if the Police had time to investigate these things before the media witch-hunt begun? Also it would force the media to take their evidence straight to the Police, instead of working out whether to broadcast or publish, thus avoiding the Newsnight dilemma. The one problem is what would the media do if the Police failed to take an allegation seriously. If they couldn’t report, how would the Police and other agencies be held to account for any foot dragging? And how would we ever know if things were being swept under the carpet? Maybe the press could report without a name, but in these days of social networking that has been shown to be an unreliable way of hiding someone’s name.

I think you make a very valid point, but who is going to have the nerve to get it onto the statute books?

[momentaryloss]

@kent f OBE wrote:

erhum…. (bungs Momes a tenner to keep his gob shut)

That’ll do nicely.

I should add, I’m not cheap – just accommodating.

8)

[Author]

Posts