And if they find 100% proof he has done it? then theyre releasing a murder'er back into society. Its a horrible experince for him if hes innocent and he certainly needs apologies from the newspapers portraying him in the way they are but if hes guilty? will we think he deserves the way hes portrayed and more? horrific situation.
It has now gone beyond the stage of mattering whether he did it or not. The english justice system is built on the fundamental premise that the accused get a fair trial. This is no longer possible therefore he cannot be tried.
Yes, damn the police for trying to catch murderers.
My issue is with the media rather than the police. Their character assaination of this man is unforgivable at this point in the investigation, as is their utter glee which they do it with.
I don't blame the police for wanting to investigate him as he was close to the victim and they have to rule out everything, however my main concern is they are focusing too much on him because he's such an easy target. It does feel like they have already decided he has to be guilty.
Yes, damn the police for trying to catch murderers.
Absolutely, it isn't the police we should be looking at it's the media and particularly the lines of language and subject they dance around trying to make legal whilst making all sorts of insinutations.
The police are only doing what they're meant to be doing.
The British media live for oppertunities like this. An eccentric loner to bully and they're creaming their pants. It's really disgusting and I can't believe they can get away with it.
Utter bastard scum, the lot of them. :mad:
Do you know why stories are reported like this? Because people LOVE them. That's right, people such as your good self. People rarely want facts in these cases, they want a villain to root against.
If people cared about proper reporting and in-depth stories, then the Independent would have a much high readership and the Sun would be taken as seriously as the bloke who wanders around Oxford Circus with the placard screaming "THE END IS NIGH!"
I'll admit my bias, seeing as I trained as a journalist. I remember a professor of mine who was a pretty good newspaper man before he went on to teach saying that I wrote at "too high a level for the audience to understand." You see, most readers of tabloids read and comprehend at the level of a 10 year old.
So if you really, really want to blame someone, blame the people who lap up this shitty, shitty reporting. I'd go on the game before I wrote for a tabloid.
I believe the rest of my post made my feelings clear theres no need for your sarcasm thanks.
Great way to misunderstand me. Far from being sarcastic, I was deadly serious. I realy think he has been arrested because he looks a bit odd and is an easy target for the police. Your apology is expected.
It has now gone beyond the stage of mattering whether he did it or not. The english justice system is built on the fundamental premise that the accused get a fair trial. This is no longer possible therefore he cannot be tried.
That statement is ridiculous to me, of course it matters if he did it, and the jury are guided by the law, they cannot convict without proof, admittedly there have been major fk ups in the past and hopefully we've learnt from them they will be guided that if there is a shadow of a doubt hes innocent he must be found that way,they cant convict on cicumstansial evidence.
Great way to misunderstand me. Far from being sarcastic, I was deadly serious. I realy think he has been arrested because he looks a bit odd and is an easy target for the police. Your apology is expected.
None will be forthcoming, your post read as very sarcastic indeed, perhaps if you'd bothered to explain your comment it wouldnt have come across so badly.
And if they find 100% proof he has done it? then theyre releasing a murder'er back into society. Its a horrible experince for him if hes innocent and he certainly needs apologies from the newspapers portraying him in the way they are but if hes guilty? will we think he deserves the way hes portrayed and more? horrific situation.
Whether he is innocent or guilty isn't the issue right now.
What people are angry about is the trial by media this person has been subjected to, and rightly so.
The fact is the media in the UK can ruin someone's life at the drop of a hat if they decide they want to, whether there is enough evidence to suggest whoever they're going after has done something terrible or not. Doesn't that scare you?
That statement is ridiculous to me, of course it matters if he did it, and the jury are guided by the law, they cannot convict without proof, admittedly there have been major fk ups in the past and hopefully we've learnt from them they will be guided that if there is a shadow of a doubt hes innocent he must be found that way,they cant convict on cicumstansial evidence.
He cannot get a far trial. How exactly are you going to find 12 people for a jury who haven't seen and heard all this coverage?
Do you know why stories are reported like this? Because people LOVE them. That's right, people such as your good self. People rarely want facts in these cases, they want a villain to root against.
If people cared about proper reporting and in-depth stories, then the Independent would have a much high readership and the Sun would be taken as seriously as the bloke who wanders around Oxford Circus with the placard screaming "THE END IS NIGH!"
I'll admit my bias, seeing as I trained as a journalist. I remember a professor of mine who was a pretty good newspaper man before he went on to teach saying that I wrote at "too high a level for the audience to understand." You see, most readers of tabloids read and comprehend at the level of a 10 year old.
So if you really, really want to blame someone, blame the people who lap up this shitty, shitty reporting. I'd go on the game before I wrote for a tabloid.
I don't think I'm even going to bother responding to you when you have seen fit to judge me so harshly for no real reason at all.
The fact that you're also a trained journalist and the attitude with which you've replied to me makes it clear it would be pointless trying to debate with you on this issue, so I'm not going to.
Do you know why stories are reported like this? Because people LOVE them. That's right, people such as your good self. People rarely want facts in these cases, they want a villain to root against.
If people cared about proper reporting and in-depth stories, then the Independent would have a much high readership and the Sun would be taken as seriously as the bloke who wanders around Oxford Circus with the placard screaming "THE END IS NIGH!"
I'll admit my bias, seeing as I trained as a journalist. I remember a professor of mine who was a pretty good newspaper man before he went on to teach saying that I wrote at "too high a level for the audience to understand." You see, most readers of tabloids read and comprehend at the level of a 10 year old.
So if you really, really want to blame someone, blame the people who lap up this shitty, shitty reporting. I'd go on the game before I wrote for a tabloid.
I go to the Independant for my proper news every day, i also read the sun for entertainment purposes, gossip, factor stuff etc. The only unbiased and fair reporting ive seen on this is from the independant
None will be forthcoming, your post read as very sarcastic indeed, perhaps if you'd bothered to explain your comment it wouldnt have come across so badly.
How exactly did it read as sarcastic? There were no smileys and I stated that I believe that is why he was arrested. I truly believe that and have stated that for the past couple of days. Your own paranoia detected sarcasm and now you do not have the integrity to recognise and apologise for your mistake.
I'm glad the attorney general stepped in. Did anyone see the footage of him on Sky news that was in slow motion so when he raised his brow he looked really menacing.
When Barry George was convicted of Jill Dandos murder it was reported that he had a cleft palate and bulging eyes, as if physical flaws immediately make someone a bad person.
When Madeleine McCann went missing Professor Canter from the University of Liverpool said
Its really sad that society judges people whose appearance is slightly out of the norm.
Reminds me of when that Raoul Moat stuff was going on and the Sun shown pictures of him as a baby. One of the pictures had him with his fists clenched and it had a comment underneath it, something to the effect of him destined to be bad etc (Can't remember sorry). It was madness.
How exactly did it read as sarcastic? There were no smileys and I stated that I believe that is why he was arrested. I truly believe that and have stated that for the past couple of days. Your own paranoia detected sarcasm and now you do not have the integrity to recognise and apologise for your mistake.
My ignore list grows.
Im happy to be on it and stand by my post. Have a nice time on the boards although i suspect it will be quiet if you put everyone who disagrees with you on ignore.:rolleyes:
Do you know why stories are reported like this? Because people LOVE them. That's right, people such as your good self. People rarely want facts in these cases, they want a villain to root against.
If people cared about proper reporting and in-depth stories, then the Independent would have a much high readership and the Sun would be taken as seriously as the bloke who wanders around Oxford Circus with the placard screaming "THE END IS NIGH!"
I'll admit my bias, seeing as I trained as a journalist. I remember a professor of mine who was a pretty good newspaper man before he went on to teach saying that I wrote at "too high a level for the audience to understand." You see, most readers of tabloids read and comprehend at the level of a 10 year old.
So if you really, really want to blame someone, blame the people who lap up this shitty, shitty reporting. I'd go on the game before I wrote for a tabloid.
I agree in general with where you're coming from , but I do hate this argument of bringing up the average comprehension age of 10. If a newspaper is presenting a story on the basis that the reader is not going to be an expert on the subject, then it's perfectly acceptable to present it in simpler terms. If I went off to learn Mandarin, I would be starting at the comprehension level of a pre-schooler and no one would judge me for it. In fact it's an arguably better way to ensure that people are not misunderstanding the facts.
However, in cases like this that are nothing more than sensationalism catering for the voyeuristic side of human nature then some self control from the media is the sensible way to go rather than expecting the public to refrain. There's no harm in reporting black and white facts, but the innuendo and inference in some media outlets style of reporting is their responsibility and should be curbed either by themselves and their public duty or legislation.
I go to the Independant for my proper news every day, i also read the sun for entertainment purposes, gossip, factor stuff etc. The only unbiased and fair reporting ive seen on this is from the independant
It's the only paper I read besides looking through the FT from time to time. The Independent doesn't insult its audience and it's journalism like I was taught. Sure, it leans left, no doubt about it, but it has a good balance of right-leaning reporters and columnists as well.
Whether he is innocent or guilty isn't the issue right now.
What people are angry about is the trial by media this person has been subjected to, and rightly so.
The fact is the media in the UK can ruin someone's life at the drop of a hat if they decide they want to, whether there is enough evidence to suggest whoever they're going after has done something terrible or not. Doesn't that scare you?
It terrifies me. I am perplexed as to how they have gotten away with it.for so long without one of their victims going on a rampage down fleet street with a gun.
It terrifies me. I am perplexed as to how they have gotten away with it.for so long without one of their victims going on a rampage down fleet street with a gun.
It's crazy that we censor silly gossip sites like TMZ and National Enquirer in this country but our own mainstream gutter press are allowed to behave like a pack of wild animals and tear apart anyone they choose, with no repercussions. Total, absolute madness.
He cannot get a far trial. How exactly are you going to find 12 people for a jury who haven't seen and heard all this coverage?
There have to be some who won't have. I haven't. I have no idea how the media are portraying this man - aside from what people have posted here. But then I haven't really followed this story in any depth. I hadn't even heard of this guy until it was mentioned here.
Whether he is innocent or guilty isn't the issue right now.
What people are angry about is the trial by media this person has been subjected to, and rightly so.
The fact is the media in the UK can ruin someone's life at the drop of a hat if they decide they want to, whether there is enough evidence to suggest whoever they're going after has done something terrible or not. Doesn't that scare you?
from my previous post-
f the guy turns out to be innocent i'll feel terrible for writing him off like this and for the way the media have basically hung drawn and quarterd him since.
I also stated it was a very difficult position to find yourself in, and asked how do we deal with it? so yes it does scare me but that dosent detract from the fact that he may infact be guilty? then what? will the people shouting about his rights be shouting so loudly then? i dont think the newspapers should be able to report on it at ALL unless he was actually charged.
I agree in general with where you're coming from , but I do hate this argument of bringing up the average comprehension age of 10. If a newspaper is presenting a story on the basis that the reader is not going to be an expert on the subject, then it's perfectly acceptable to present it in simpler terms. If I went off to learn Mandarin, I would be starting at the comprehension level of a pre-schooler and no one would judge me for it. In fact it's an arguably better way to ensure that people are not misunderstanding the facts.
However, in cases like this that are nothing more than sensationalism catering for the voyeuristic side of human nature then some self control from the media is the sensible way to go rather than expecting the public to refrain. There's no harm in reporting black and white facts, but the innuendo and inference in some media outlets style of reporting is their responsibility and should be curbed either by themselves and their public duty or legislation.
If you want mass readership, then you absolutely have to make the information available to all and that is no bad thing. There's a way of doing it and then there is just gross dumbing down--something I hate.
Loner(check.)Keeps himself to himself(check.)Lack of interest in women(check.)Low personal hygiene(check.)Eccentric(check.)Not Jeffries but men in general:D:p:D
Was discussing this with my mum this morning- we came to the conclusion that if there was a hideous murder on my street I should probably get rid of half the contents of my flat, as I seem to fit a few too many profiles...
Was discussing this with my mum this morning- we came to the conclusion that if there was a hideous murder on my street I should probably get rid of half the contents of my flat, as I seem to fit a few too many profiles...
Mind you, I don't really keep myself to myself.
Haha! Stoat, funnily enough, you did kind of spring to mind when I read that post!
I also stated it was a very difficult position to find yourself in, and asked how do we deal with it? so yes it does scare me but that dosent detract from the fact that he may infact be guilty? then what? will the people shouting about his rights be shouting so loudly then? i dont think the newspapers should be able to report on it at ALL unless he was actually charged.
Even if he is guilty, trial by media helps nobody. It is NOT the way to handle things like this.
Comments
I believe the rest of my post made my feelings clear theres no need for your sarcasm thanks.
It has now gone beyond the stage of mattering whether he did it or not. The english justice system is built on the fundamental premise that the accused get a fair trial. This is no longer possible therefore he cannot be tried.
My issue is with the media rather than the police. Their character assaination of this man is unforgivable at this point in the investigation, as is their utter glee which they do it with.
I don't blame the police for wanting to investigate him as he was close to the victim and they have to rule out everything, however my main concern is they are focusing too much on him because he's such an easy target. It does feel like they have already decided he has to be guilty.
Absolutely, it isn't the police we should be looking at it's the media and particularly the lines of language and subject they dance around trying to make legal whilst making all sorts of insinutations.
The police are only doing what they're meant to be doing.
Do you know why stories are reported like this? Because people LOVE them. That's right, people such as your good self. People rarely want facts in these cases, they want a villain to root against.
If people cared about proper reporting and in-depth stories, then the Independent would have a much high readership and the Sun would be taken as seriously as the bloke who wanders around Oxford Circus with the placard screaming "THE END IS NIGH!"
I'll admit my bias, seeing as I trained as a journalist. I remember a professor of mine who was a pretty good newspaper man before he went on to teach saying that I wrote at "too high a level for the audience to understand." You see, most readers of tabloids read and comprehend at the level of a 10 year old.
So if you really, really want to blame someone, blame the people who lap up this shitty, shitty reporting. I'd go on the game before I wrote for a tabloid.
Great way to misunderstand me. Far from being sarcastic, I was deadly serious. I realy think he has been arrested because he looks a bit odd and is an easy target for the police. Your apology is expected.
That statement is ridiculous to me, of course it matters if he did it, and the jury are guided by the law, they cannot convict without proof, admittedly there have been major fk ups in the past and hopefully we've learnt from them they will be guided that if there is a shadow of a doubt hes innocent he must be found that way,they cant convict on cicumstansial evidence.
None will be forthcoming, your post read as very sarcastic indeed, perhaps if you'd bothered to explain your comment it wouldnt have come across so badly.
Whether he is innocent or guilty isn't the issue right now.
What people are angry about is the trial by media this person has been subjected to, and rightly so.
The fact is the media in the UK can ruin someone's life at the drop of a hat if they decide they want to, whether there is enough evidence to suggest whoever they're going after has done something terrible or not. Doesn't that scare you?
He cannot get a far trial. How exactly are you going to find 12 people for a jury who haven't seen and heard all this coverage?
I don't think I'm even going to bother responding to you when you have seen fit to judge me so harshly for no real reason at all.
The fact that you're also a trained journalist and the attitude with which you've replied to me makes it clear it would be pointless trying to debate with you on this issue, so I'm not going to.
I go to the Independant for my proper news every day, i also read the sun for entertainment purposes, gossip, factor stuff etc. The only unbiased and fair reporting ive seen on this is from the independant
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/police-granted-extension-to-question-yeates-landlord-2173358.html
Matter of FACT and to the point, not sensationlist at all.
How exactly did it read as sarcastic? There were no smileys and I stated that I believe that is why he was arrested. I truly believe that and have stated that for the past couple of days. Your own paranoia detected sarcasm and now you do not have the integrity to recognise and apologise for your mistake.
My ignore list grows.
Reminds me of when that Raoul Moat stuff was going on and the Sun shown pictures of him as a baby. One of the pictures had him with his fists clenched and it had a comment underneath it, something to the effect of him destined to be bad etc (Can't remember sorry). It was madness.
Im happy to be on it and stand by my post. Have a nice time on the boards although i suspect it will be quiet if you put everyone who disagrees with you on ignore.:rolleyes:
I agree in general with where you're coming from , but I do hate this argument of bringing up the average comprehension age of 10. If a newspaper is presenting a story on the basis that the reader is not going to be an expert on the subject, then it's perfectly acceptable to present it in simpler terms. If I went off to learn Mandarin, I would be starting at the comprehension level of a pre-schooler and no one would judge me for it. In fact it's an arguably better way to ensure that people are not misunderstanding the facts.
However, in cases like this that are nothing more than sensationalism catering for the voyeuristic side of human nature then some self control from the media is the sensible way to go rather than expecting the public to refrain. There's no harm in reporting black and white facts, but the innuendo and inference in some media outlets style of reporting is their responsibility and should be curbed either by themselves and their public duty or legislation.
It's the only paper I read besides looking through the FT from time to time. The Independent doesn't insult its audience and it's journalism like I was taught. Sure, it leans left, no doubt about it, but it has a good balance of right-leaning reporters and columnists as well.
It terrifies me. I am perplexed as to how they have gotten away with it.for so long without one of their victims going on a rampage down fleet street with a gun.
It's crazy that we censor silly gossip sites like TMZ and National Enquirer in this country but our own mainstream gutter press are allowed to behave like a pack of wild animals and tear apart anyone they choose, with no repercussions. Total, absolute madness.
There have to be some who won't have. I haven't. I have no idea how the media are portraying this man - aside from what people have posted here. But then I haven't really followed this story in any depth. I hadn't even heard of this guy until it was mentioned here.
I can't be that unusual in that respect surely.
from my previous post-
I also stated it was a very difficult position to find yourself in, and asked how do we deal with it? so yes it does scare me but that dosent detract from the fact that he may infact be guilty? then what? will the people shouting about his rights be shouting so loudly then? i dont think the newspapers should be able to report on it at ALL unless he was actually charged.
If you want mass readership, then you absolutely have to make the information available to all and that is no bad thing. There's a way of doing it and then there is just gross dumbing down--something I hate.
Was discussing this with my mum this morning- we came to the conclusion that if there was a hideous murder on my street I should probably get rid of half the contents of my flat, as I seem to fit a few too many profiles...
Mind you, I don't really keep myself to myself.
Haha! Stoat, funnily enough, you did kind of spring to mind when I read that post!
Even if he is guilty, trial by media helps nobody. It is NOT the way to handle things like this.