|
|
Post by ARENA on Nov 4, 2018 9:29:54 GMT
People who are wrongfully accused have their names spread all over the media.
Paul Gambaccini , for instance, was never charged with a crime as there was no evidence. The media rewrote that as 'insufficient evidence'. They should pay the compensation , not us!
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Nov 4, 2018 11:39:24 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Nov 4, 2018 11:57:13 GMT
You're right Spot , That was the statement made in 2018. Mr Gambaccini’s ordeal began in October 2013 when police arrested him at his home following allegations from two men who he does not recall ever meeting. Mr Gambaccini’s ordeal began in October 2013 when police arrested him at his home following allegations from two men who he does not recall ever meeting.
Years of lost employment , lost friends and scandalous whispering later his shredded reputation is handed back to him. Many people have suffered the same indignity at the hands of the media..Cliff Richard and Freddie Starr to name but two.
We didn't get our 'facts' from the CPS but from the media.
The time has come for anonymity till justifiably charged.
PS Nice to hear from you again Spot.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Nov 4, 2018 12:13:31 GMT
Thank you for the re-welcome, it's been a while.
It really is the 2014 CPS statement. It's quoted in a 2018 article.
I agree with you entirely that the lack of anonymity before conviction is a catastrophic abuse of police powers. I think they do it to fish for additional complainants instead of finding them investigatively. The damage to innocent victims of the process, particularly those in the public eye, is overwhelmingly more significant than any cost saving the police might achieve.
There's no closing the stable door once the police have passed their information to the media. The only ethical answer is a legal obligation to maintain confidentiality within the investigation team. Once a case reaches court the judge has the discretion to continue to impose a news blackout or not, but before then it's entirely a matter of police procedure.
|
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Nov 4, 2018 13:42:10 GMT
Totally agree, there are cases like Cyril Smith and Edward Heath who's reputation is now tarred. Now they've been named in the media everyone will look back at them with disgust.
|
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Nov 4, 2018 15:01:24 GMT
Totally agree, there are cases like Cyril Smith and Edward Heath who's reputation is now tarred. Now they've been named in the media everyone will look back at them with disgust. The dead are in a slightly different position in that they can't sue, they can't be prosecuted, they can't even be tried (though a court can try a case to determine the facts, rather than try the individual). I can say with impunity that the Queen Mother bathed weekly in the blood of virgins whom she personally despatched with Jack the Ripper's cut-throat razor, but I would be extremely unwise to ascribe the same behaviour to the Duchess of Cornwall. |
|
|
|
Post by ARENA on Nov 4, 2018 16:04:08 GMT
Thank you for the re-welcome, it's been a while. It really is the 2014 CPS statement. It's quoted in a 2018 article. I agree with you entirely that the lack of anonymity before conviction is a catastrophic abuse of police powers. I think they do it to fish for additional complainants instead of finding them investigatively. The damage to innocent victims of the process, particularly those in the public eye, is overwhelmingly more significant than any cost saving the police might achieve. There's no closing the stable door once the police have passed their information to the media. The only ethical answer is a legal obligation to maintain confidentiality within the investigation team. Once a case reaches court the judge has the discretion to continue to impose a news blackout or not, but before then it's entirely a matter of police procedure. Assuming some publicity mad MP doesn't blurt it out in the house. |
|
spot
Silver Surfer
Posts: 110
|
Post by spot on Nov 4, 2018 16:29:12 GMT
Assuming some publicity mad MP doesn't blurt it out in the house. Oh I say - Peter Hain's not an MP! I remember when he was wanted by the Metropolitan Police for bank robbery. How you progress from that to being Secretary of State for Wales is one of life's mysteries. |
|
|
|
Post by rondetto on Nov 4, 2018 18:02:34 GMT
My point was that Paul Gambiccini and Cliff Richard were here to contest the allegations and were correctly cleared. Those that were no longer with us can't contest any allegations. Though the Jimmy Saville was something of the like we had never seen before and hopefully will never see again.
|
|
|
|
Post by aubrey on Nov 4, 2018 22:45:33 GMT
Assuming some publicity mad MP doesn't blurt it out in the house. Oh I say - Peter Hain's not an MP! I remember when he was wanted by the Metropolitan Police for bank robbery. How you progress from that to being Secretary of State for Wales is one of life's mysteries.
Acquitted - framed by the South African Bureau of State Security: the South Africans hated him because he was an effective campaigner against their regime. He got to be Secretary of state for Wales by standing for Parliament and getting a seat, and then by being a good MP.
|
|
|
|
Post by althea on Nov 5, 2018 12:06:19 GMT
It is outrageous that innocent people have their names blasted across the media because they are well known.
Even people who are guilty,should not be made public until after they have been tried and found guilty.
The government had it's chance to revolutionise the press,but let the press regulate itself. Oh yes,they will do that,I don't think.
The public should not buy papers and magazines who print such prurient stories. I will not have any Rupert Murdoch papers in my house.
|
|
