Donate SIGN UP

Innocent Until Proven Newsworthy?

Avatar Image
sp1814 | 20:16 Sun 23rd Dec 2018 | News
40 Answers
We often hear how those accused of rape and sexual assault should have their identities kept secret as it could damage their reputation if found not guilty.

Along those same lines, should newspapers be allowed to get away with naming those who have not been charged of other offences?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6524457/Police-continue-quiz-double-glazing-worker-Gatwick-drone.html#comments

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/22/gatwick-drone-turmoil-pair-arrested-are-local-police-say

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/gatwick-drones-arrest-couple-released-without-charge-paul-gait-elaine-kirk-crawley-sussex-police-a8696876.html

Gravatar

Answers

1 to 20 of 40rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
No, they shouldn't, but they will as the lawmakers are in their thrall.
Ideally not,no, however in this instance I hope the couple concerned have good advice, as if they play their cards right this could be the best thing that ever happened to them and ong term it's unlikely to adversely affect their reputations.
I agree they should not have been named at least until they were charged.
that Guardian report doesn't name them, even when others had. But yes, I would have thought there was a case for suppressing names until charges are laid. After that, it's fair to report on the justic process, even if the accused are eventually cleared.

And now they're saying maybe there never was a drone? What is going on?
I think it is disgraceful that they were named without having been charged - and images of them plastered all over the media. I hope they are appropriately compensated for the likely distress caused.
Question Author
The problem anyone named by newspapers have is that lawyers would be able to argue that the story (that they were being questioned) itself was big news, and that people would want to know who the suspects are.

What feels wrong at the moment is that there were reports yesterday that made the pair out to be weirdos with very strong suggesothat they were ‘eco-warriors’ (this could’ve come from the police).

It reminds me a bit of the Christopher Jeffries case a few years back.
I'm disappointed at the Police not having something more solid before this couple were plastered all over the media. Sounds like another Sir Cliff type level of up ***.
the *** rhymes with lock.
The daily mail is an appalling gossip mongering rag which stirs up trouble for whomever it gets in it's sights. This latest 'naming and shaming' of people who allegedly flew drones over Gatwick is disgusting and I would hope that it is charged with inciting hatred and similar charges. Disgraceful way to behave.
// I agree they should not have been named at least until they were charged.//

nooooo - the law is the opposite way round
rules about prejudice come in WHEN they have been charged

like sir doo dah - they can be named until they are charged. Sir Cliff recovered damages under some pretty odd circumstances ( = rich mens justice but twas ever so).

A tenant in rent arrears named me to the police as a child molester (hers of course). I had to put up with it whilst insisting that being named, did NOT prevent me from serving other court papers on her for debt (kinda linked if you think about it). It all came out in the end (pun intended) and she went under in the sum of £29k
yeah 29 000 ( er £28400 was some one else's)
This is how the law is meant to work

I got the debt pinned to her muvvuz address
because that was where she lived when the judgement came in...and the law is meant to work like that

1964 case - scrunty and son are investigated by fraud police - was an actionable case in law ( loss:affected share price)
// It reminds me a bit of the Christopher Jeffries case a few years back.//

the bling blong of Christopher Jeffries is available on Netflix and is worffa a viewing.
he was the author of his own misfortune
( orffa sorry I am on AB. memo to myself: "must do more AB-speak for clarity or else standard AB thicko wont geddit at all")

he said to the hacks more than
he said to the police
and promptly got arrested on suspicion of mairder
the rest was Bristol [Clifton] small mindedness
it wasn't only the DM mally.
Before being charged I believe reporting and headlines should show a level of restraint - the one from the Mail on Sunday certainly doesn't even though it purported to ask a question.

https://tinyurl.com/y987dvfe
Question Author
TTT

Indeed not, but the DM was the only ones to call the pair morons. And then scraped their social media profiles for photos of the pair.
Tora Tora Tora.....it may not have been the only one but it was one and it is not the first time it has stirred the pot using people who have been proved innocent of any charge by 'naming and shaming' Several pages of stirring up trouble. Dreadful rag...
SUSSEX Police have admitted the drone which brought chaos to Gatwick airport and ruined Christmas for more than 140,000 may never have existed at all.
Link?

Gatwick police say they cannot discount possibility there was no drone ...


https://www.independent.co.uk › News › UK › Home News






2 hours ago - Detectives investigating the Gatwick drone attacks which caused three ... the couple arrested by Sussex Police on Friday night were released ...
Sorry about the presentation. I got the first report from Google whilst looking for something else.
Could it be true that during that entire farce (not to the passengers involved, obviously) nobody in "authority" had actually seen a drone?

1 to 20 of 40rss feed

1 2 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Innocent Until Proven Newsworthy?

Answer Question >>

Related Questions

Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.