I'm guessing the apology was buried away on page 10? :rolleyes: I heard one of the recommendations of the Levenson report includes making such apologies much more prominent in newspapers, which is a good thing.
They should make the apology the same size and position as the original false article.
They should make the apology the same size and position as the original false article.
I am of the same opinion and if a story took the front page and more inside then they shoudld devote the same amount to the apology, and if that means just pages of the words "we are sorry" so be it, it may make them think tiwice before printing speculation and at times completely false information just to sensationalise and get readers.
The only time when a smaller apology (not having to take the same space) on the front page may be ok is when they it could not be expected for any reasonable person to have thought differently with the information at hand
Are we allowed to name "he who won't be named" yet? As much as I dislike people's names being banded about the media when we're supposed to presume innocence before guilt, DS is awful if they let forum member's name some of the accused but not others. How is that right in any decent society?
Also, can I apologise for my comments yesterday? In the clear light of day I realise I was being really ignorant and unfairly judgemental towards the victims, which I now feel rather embarrassed about. Sorry to anyone I might have offended.
Are we allowed to name "he who won't be named" yet
If you mean the person named in the immediately preceding post to yours, obviously we can. What we can't do is discuss the case, given that such discussions almost immediately stray into contempt of court and/or libel.
"In February, it published a report that found a Sapphire unit, in Southwark, south-east London, had "encouraged" victims to withdraw rape allegations to boost detection rates in 2008-09. "
Clifford is the establishment's scapegoat. He's got too much dirt on too many people and this is a good opportunity to get rid of him.
Several videos of Clifford admitting covering up sex abuse scandals for senior politicians have been sent to the Met, but they don't seem to be targeting anybody big.
Clifford, Rolf Harris, some unknown comedian who was friends with Gary Glitter. These minor showbiz celebs are just to keep the ignorant masses shocked yet satisfied.
Clifford is the establishment's scapegoat. He's got too much dirt on too many people and this is a good opportunity to get rid of him.
Several videos of Clifford admitting covering up sex abuse scandals for senior politicians have been sent to the Met, but they don't seem to be targeting anybody big.
Clifford, Rolf Harris, some unknown comedian who was friends with Gary Glitter. These minor showbiz celebs are just to keep the ignorant masses shocked yet satisfied.
Now is the time for him to speak out LOUDLY naming and shaming those he claims he's covered up for. They should all go down together if the evidence so exists.
Are we allowed to name "he who won't be named" yet? As much as I dislike people's names being banded about the media when we're supposed to presume innocence before guilt, DS is awful if they let forum member's name some of the accused but not others. How is that right in any decent society?
Also, can I apologise for my comments yesterday? In the clear light of day I realise I was being really ignorant and unfairly judgemental towards the victims, which I now feel rather embarrassed about. Sorry to anyone I might have offended.
Now is the time for him to speak out LOUDLY naming and shaming those he claims he's covered up for. They should all go down together if the evidence so exists.
The names are already out there but the Digital Spy moderation would not have it. All I will say is that when you have a hotel that was visited by sex abusers and then some showbiz celebs and big-time politicians, the the latter groups deserved to at least be investigated.
Not one arrest. Not a whimper of an investigation by either police or media.
So why are they only going after male celebrities of certain ages? What about the politicians and royals? There will doubtless be some with scandals to their names, it's the way of these things.
So why are they only going after male celebrities of certain ages? What about the politicians and royals? There will doubtless be some with scandals to their names, it's the way of these things.
In general, it seems like the Savile report was the end of it. We all want the true extent of the Savile web to be exposed. But it seems there is no intention of that. Yewtree resources are being directed to cases not related to Savile. It's all very disappointing.
The names are already out there but the Digital Spy moderation would not have it. All I will say is that when you have a hotel that was visited by sex abusers and then some showbiz celebs and big-time politicians, the the latter groups deserved to at least be investigated.
Not one arrest. Not a whimper of an investigation by either police or media.
Comments
I suspect there will be some nervous celebs out there because of this.
They should make the apology the same size and position as the original false article.
I am of the same opinion and if a story took the front page and more inside then they shoudld devote the same amount to the apology, and if that means just pages of the words "we are sorry" so be it, it may make them think tiwice before printing speculation and at times completely false information just to sensationalise and get readers.
The only time when a smaller apology (not having to take the same space) on the front page may be ok is when they it could not be expected for any reasonable person to have thought differently with the information at hand
You can tell by how it's reported. Fair trail for all needs to be conducted which includes those who have made a complaint.
Also, can I apologise for my comments yesterday? In the clear light of day I realise I was being really ignorant and unfairly judgemental towards the victims, which I now feel rather embarrassed about. Sorry to anyone I might have offended.
If you mean the person named in the immediately preceding post to yours, obviously we can. What we can't do is discuss the case, given that such discussions almost immediately stray into contempt of court and/or libel.
It's fine to live it large, but always make sure she's legal first.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9620223/Jimmy-Savile-He-was-the-tip-of-the-iceberg.html
Interesting links with Jersey.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22300360
What if she lies?
If you're not 100% sure, then keep it zipped up.
Several videos of Clifford admitting covering up sex abuse scandals for senior politicians have been sent to the Met, but they don't seem to be targeting anybody big.
Clifford, Rolf Harris, some unknown comedian who was friends with Gary Glitter. These minor showbiz celebs are just to keep the ignorant masses shocked yet satisfied.
Tonight: two reports by @ExaroNews shedding further light on child sex abuse in Richmond 30 years ago. #Fernbridge http://www.exaronews.com
Maybe money is a factor too in some cases.
Now is the time for him to speak out LOUDLY naming and shaming those he claims he's covered up for. They should all go down together if the evidence so exists.
The poster has apologised. See below:
It's like ten thousand spoons....when all you need is a knife!
The names are already out there but the Digital Spy moderation would not have it. All I will say is that when you have a hotel that was visited by sex abusers and then some showbiz celebs and big-time politicians, the the latter groups deserved to at least be investigated.
Not one arrest. Not a whimper of an investigation by either police or media.
So why are they only going after male celebrities of certain ages? What about the politicians and royals? There will doubtless be some with scandals to their names, it's the way of these things.
In general, it seems like the Savile report was the end of it. We all want the true extent of the Savile web to be exposed. But it seems there is no intention of that. Yewtree resources are being directed to cases not related to Savile. It's all very disappointing.
If you mean this one it is being investigated
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cyril-smith-named-in-barnes-abuse-case-8468370.html