Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12736586

Sounds like common sense to me..

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

Seems very sensible to me, Might stop men's names being made public when they have been arrested in respect to allegations of rape but BEFORE they have been charged.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

With most offences people should not be named until they have been found guilty, not just charged. Even if they are found innocent, once names and shamed with trial by media, it is too late to get their character restored in the eyes of many who will have seen a "no smoke without fire" stance. And if the person making the allegation can be anonymous then the alleged offender should have equal rights to anonymity until they have been found guilty.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

Yup that'd be a step forward.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

I disagree with that ,being charged with a crime usually means that there is substantial evidence that says you committed that crime, going to court is a way of either getting your peers to agree that the evidence is correct and you are guilty or it is wrong and you are innocent and should be a matter for the public .I agree that in rape,child abuse cases ect the way that the press report the charges is wrong delving into peoples background and creating a false image of someone is wrong and should be stopped but naming someone charged with these crimes is correct imo

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

So if you're charged with messing with 2 9yr old girls. you're quite happy to have your identity known. even if you're not guilty and survive long enough to prove your innocence?

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

Mud sticks. Right or wrong - it does.
Final outcome, guilty or not, doesn't always give a true character/behaviour reference. Privacy should be protected until a final decision has been made.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

What does that have to do with our justice system.Because some people refuse to accept that a person can be innocent of messing with a 9yr old that doesn't mean the systems wrong ,it means that society is wrong.

But since you want to play it that way how about if a peodophile gets off on a technicality or is just plain found innocent despite having commited the offences ,wouldn't you want him named ?.Our whole justice sytem is based on trial by our peers in public not in secret

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

Have you read the OP?

If charged they would be named.No secrecy involved.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

,


I know,i was replying initially to Rob ,have you not read the posts:rolleyes: ;)

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

Yes but that's just his opinion,it's not what is actually being suggested..;)

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

and i haven't suggested otherwise ,just gave my reasons why people should be named if they are charged ,of course if you have Gary on ignore then i can understand your error because the post of mine you quoted was directed at him who agrees with rob that people should not be named untill they are found guilty ,which is totally different to what the attorney general is proposing

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

No One should be named in this country until they are charged or found guilty. Don't forget we have the Murdock press that can twist anything they print to there agenda and if that influences the outcome of a court case what do they care as long as it sells papers or gets bums on seats for sky news.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

I agree , haven't suggested anything else ,

just to clarify cos i think people have the wrong idea of my stance on this subject ...i disagree with rob in post 3 people should be named when charged and not before

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

:tu:

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

I would hope that being charged, should mean there is some evidence. Sometimes that may have been reviewed by the CPS, but not always. But if you follow your line of thinking it means that if a person is charged, in your eyes they are guilty. Why not just go straight to jail then?

Yes there may be technicalities why some who perhaps should be found guilty aren't. But more importantly what about those who are found not guilty correctly. By that time the damage has been done with the media circus happily reporting the lead up to the case and all the shenanigans during it. You'll be lucky to see anything more than a by paragraph if they are found not guilty and nothing like the level of coverage of the proven innocence to balance the negativity.

The point is that the trial must be by the judiciary system, not be the media and thus naming any one who has not been given that legal trial is unfair. Whilst I'm not one for all the civil liberties do gooding, I have to accept that if that means that someone is released on a technicality, and remains anonymous so they do commit something else, that is a shame, but the risk of that outweighs the damage to reputation of the genuine innocent who has been maligned by media trial.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

No I don't have Gary on ignore..I just don't 'listen' to him anymore.;)

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

What if they are charged incorrectly, and ultimately found innocent? This does happen, but the media in general (and papers in particular) tend to forget to publish retractions of their stories unless forced to do so.

Innocent until proven guilty is an important concept in our legal system, and one that the media does not appear to subscribe to.

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

:LOL: :tu:

Re: Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt
 

No it doesn't Rob ,what it means is that when a person is charged of a crime by society then they will be tried in public by society .For a person to end up in court then there must be substantial evidence against them which doesn't mean they are guilty, just likely to be guilty although i will admit that is not always the case .If people in society cannot accept a not guilty verdict given by a jury then that is a problem with society not the legal system .I do however agree that people should not be named just because they have been arrested

---------- Post added at 20:51 ---------- Previous post was at 20:48 ----------

Again a problem with the media and society not the judiciary system ,it's the same as your example of someone getting off and hurting someone else... a shame these things happen but no system is perfect