Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt

**Maggy** · 15-03-2011, 15:09

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

Quote:

The media could be prevented from naming people arrested by the police but not yet charged, the attorney general has told the BBC.
Dominic Grieve QC may ask Parliament to introduce a ban on identifying uncharged suspects.
Mr Grieve said that pressure for a change in the law of England and Wales might grow if "frenzied" pre-charge publicity increased.
But he promised he would act only if it became absolutely necessary.

Sounds like common sense to me..

Sirius · 15-03-2011, 16:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

Sounds like common sense to me..

Quote:

Asked whether it was necessary to tighten the law, Mr Grieve referred to recent moves in Parliament by Anna Soubry, a backbench Conservative MP, to give defendants anonymity between arrest and charge.

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.

MovedGoalPosts · 15-03-2011, 17:02

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.

Osem · 15-03-2011, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

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.

Yup that'd be a step forward.

15-03-2011, 17:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob

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.

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

Gary L · 15-03-2011, 17:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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?

Caff · 15-03-2011, 17:43

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.

15-03-2011, 17:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

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?

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

**Maggy** · 15-03-2011, 17:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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

Have you read the OP?

Quote:

The media could be prevented from naming people arrested by the police but not yet charged

If charged they would be named.No secrecy involved.

15-03-2011, 18:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Have you read the OP?

If charged they would be named.No secrecy involved.

,

I know,i was replying initially to Rob ,have you not read the posts

**Maggy** · 15-03-2011, 18:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

,

I know,i was replying initially to Rob ,have you not read the posts

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

15-03-2011, 18:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

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

Sirius · 15-03-2011, 18:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by marty

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 etc 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

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.

15-03-2011, 18:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sirius

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.

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

Sirius · 15-03-2011, 19:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

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

Thanks for clearing that up.