Attorney general warns newspapers over contempt

[MovedGoalPosts]

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

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.

Originally Posted by martyh

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

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

[Stuart]

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

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.

[Sirius]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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

Originally Posted by Rob

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?

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 ----------

Originally Posted by Stuart

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.

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