Unless proved otherwise, the arrest was legal. It is not illegal to arrest someone who turns out to be innocent.
I hope he sues the wotsits off the media who have besmirched his name - if they have.
He could possibly still sue the media for linking him with a paedophile. To many (especially prison inmates), that would harm the reputation of a murderer.
It's shameful and shows that in the media these days being accused and suspected of a crime, means you must be guilty until someone can prove otherwise.
It's shameful and shows that in the media these days being accused and suspected of a crime, means you must be guilty until someone can prove otherwise.
It shows the modern media or a large aprt of it are nothing more than gutter dwelling hacks with no respect for people, their families, the legal process and justice system or actaully the truth most of the time, as long as it sells papers they couldnt give a flying fig.
If he's guilty then they will all pat themslves on the back and run stories about how weird he is , if he is innocent then they will either ignore it toally or run stories on his terrible time at the hands of bungling police who arrested him for no good reason.
its win win for the media thyese days and I think its time that was stopped .
Its proven time and time again that the law needs to be changed.
Those questioned or arrested without charge should have their names withheld from the press.
In all fairness names should not be revealed until convicted except in some cases where names are given to aid investigation.
There is absolutely no justification for the names to have been released to the press in this case.
Regardless of the outcome mud sticks and this guy will have his name and reputation tarnished forever
I'd imagine that, while that seems the logical thing to do, the temptation to just forego the money in order to just not be mentioned in the papers AT ALL anymore might be quite strong.
Sadly suing for libel in the UK is a rich man's game.
Quoted for truth IMO.
The papers can also be quite vengeful, liable to return on fishing expeditions for 'something'.
I don't do the Tabloids but the main terrestrial news channels aren't up to much either, mooching about looking for 'something' to report.
24hr news abhors a vacuum.
I don't do the Tabloids but the main terrestrial news channels aren't up to much either, mooching about looking for 'something' to report.
24hr news abhors a vacuum.
I remember when The News was The News.
Now on ITV at least , its gossip and speculation .
The little I see of Sky News seems to follow similar lines .
I prefer to hear about whats happened rather than what might have happened or what is yet to happen
The Mail reckons he's guilty because he's gay...
The Mirror reckons he's guilty because he's posh and taught at a public school...
The Telegraph and Sun reckon he's guilty because he's LibDem....
(plus he doesn't like football which makes him extra weird according to the Sun)
and The Guardian reckons he's guilty because he belongs to a Prayer Book Society.
Is it wrong to hope that one day sky news and kay burley will harass an unstable shotgun owner on his property?
I've got a vague memory of a Farmer using a revolver on a regional TV reporter once.
The few clips I've seen of that woman she doesn't cover herself in glory neither in her approach or her lack research, understanding of the subject at hand.
The Mail reckons he's guilty because he's gay...
The Mirror reckons he's guilty because he's posh and taught at a public school...
The Telegraph and Sun reckon he's guilty because he's LibDem....
(plus he doesn't like football which makes him extra weird according to the Sun)
and The Guardian reckons he's guilty because he belongs to a Prayer Book Society.
The Mail reckons he's guilty because he's gay...
The Mirror reckons he's guilty because he's posh and taught at a public school...
The Telegraph and Sun reckon he's guilty because he's LibDem....
(plus he doesn't like football which makes him extra weird according to the Sun)
and The Guardian reckons he's guilty because he belongs to a Prayer Book Society.
That seems to tick a lot of boxes.
I wonder what they will make of the Neighbourhood watch activity.
I couldn't believe the cal The Mirror was coming out with this afternoon. If this guy is innocent he might as well move to Antarctica or back to Shropshire ( same thing really ) after this.
Irrespective of whether Jefferies is guilty or not - how on earth do you know he is a nice chap OP?
It takes time, personal involvement, much interaction and plentiful conversation with someone - depending on how that person is relevant to your life [as employer, colleague, friend, brother-in-law, teacher etc. etc. etc], and how they choose to reveal their nature to you - before you will know who are they are - [and only within limits according to how private they are].
Then think about what they choose to conceal and not talk about.
Do we ever know anyone truly. How you can judge this man's character without knowing him, and assume he's a nice guy is just beyond me.
All the bollocks in various posts on this page are good evidence as to why names should not be revealed until conviction.
Why should anyone be able to post such shite about someone who is at this moment an innocent man and still will be even if he's charged.
Someone else rather relevantly mentioned Colin Stagg and his being charged meant that the real killer was then allowed to kill again before he was caught many years later.
Something those quick to convict should think about
I wonder if people are on a bit of a gee-up with 'look at the eyes' and the like, maybe it's meant as a throwaway remark.
I mean we're all subject to first impressions and jumping to conclusions, but when it comes to banging people up for years, you should reserve that sort of snapshot for TV and Film characters.
More of us need to actively seek out a better media across the board. As we have seen, they set the agenda, as much by what they don't print and what they do....
As the manic street preachers said,
If you tolerate this, then your children will be next....
Apparently he's interested in Christina Rossetti. No, actually according to the Mail he is OBSESSED with Christina Rossetti and Rossetti was, according to the Mail, OBSESSED with DEATH, therefore, according to the Mail, Jefferies is OBSESSED with DEATH!
I am ashamed of the media in this country.
& then after all their insinuations the Mail has the brass neck to say they can't accept comments for legal reasons!
I think the hatchet job has been disgraceful - very similar to the one they did on Murat.
Ok, if he did do it they'll all be patting themselves on the back, but at least try to be impartial.
Obviously, with this latest extension, the speculation and rumour will ramp up another notch, but I think the damage has already been done really - enough mud has been thrown now that many people will think he did it, even if he's released without charge.
Comments
He could possibly still sue the media for linking him with a paedophile. To many (especially prison inmates), that would harm the reputation of a murderer.
It does seem that a few people are confusing the police and the media.
lol you're not kiddin :rolleyes:
It shows the modern media or a large aprt of it are nothing more than gutter dwelling hacks with no respect for people, their families, the legal process and justice system or actaully the truth most of the time, as long as it sells papers they couldnt give a flying fig.
If he's guilty then they will all pat themslves on the back and run stories about how weird he is , if he is innocent then they will either ignore it toally or run stories on his terrible time at the hands of bungling police who arrested him for no good reason.
its win win for the media thyese days and I think its time that was stopped .
Those questioned or arrested without charge should have their names withheld from the press.
In all fairness names should not be revealed until convicted except in some cases where names are given to aid investigation.
There is absolutely no justification for the names to have been released to the press in this case.
Regardless of the outcome mud sticks and this guy will have his name and reputation tarnished forever
Quoted for truth IMO.
The papers can also be quite vengeful, liable to return on fishing expeditions for 'something'.
I don't do the Tabloids but the main terrestrial news channels aren't up to much either, mooching about looking for 'something' to report.
24hr news abhors a vacuum.
I remember when The News was The News.
Now on ITV at least , its gossip and speculation .
The little I see of Sky News seems to follow similar lines .
I prefer to hear about whats happened rather than what might have happened or what is yet to happen
Colin stagg was 'guilty' too because he was considered a 'weirdo'...
Wjhat happened to innocent until proven otherwise in a court of law in front of jury of his/her peers
The Mail reckons he's guilty because he's gay...
The Mirror reckons he's guilty because he's posh and taught at a public school...
The Telegraph and Sun reckon he's guilty because he's LibDem....
(plus he doesn't like football which makes him extra weird according to the Sun)
and The Guardian reckons he's guilty because he belongs to a Prayer Book Society.
That seems to tick a lot of boxes.
I've got a vague memory of a Farmer using a revolver on a regional TV reporter once.
The few clips I've seen of that woman she doesn't cover herself in glory neither in her approach or her lack research, understanding of the subject at hand.
He also has very very bad hair...
Saw him on the news and said the same!
I couldn't believe the cal The Mirror was coming out with this afternoon. If this guy is innocent he might as well move to Antarctica or back to Shropshire ( same thing really ) after this.
It takes time, personal involvement, much interaction and plentiful conversation with someone - depending on how that person is relevant to your life [as employer, colleague, friend, brother-in-law, teacher etc. etc. etc], and how they choose to reveal their nature to you - before you will know who are they are - [and only within limits according to how private they are].
Then think about what they choose to conceal and not talk about.
Do we ever know anyone truly. How you can judge this man's character without knowing him, and assume he's a nice guy is just beyond me.
Why should anyone be able to post such shite about someone who is at this moment an innocent man and still will be even if he's charged.
Someone else rather relevantly mentioned Colin Stagg and his being charged meant that the real killer was then allowed to kill again before he was caught many years later.
Something those quick to convict should think about
You are privy to this how, exactly...?
As the police have gone back to court to extend the time they can keep him in custody I think Simon is guessing - much like the rest of his post
I mean we're all subject to first impressions and jumping to conclusions, but when it comes to banging people up for years, you should reserve that sort of snapshot for TV and Film characters.
More of us need to actively seek out a better media across the board. As we have seen, they set the agenda, as much by what they don't print and what they do....
As the manic street preachers said,
If you tolerate this, then your children will be next....
Sobering thought..
& then after all their insinuations the Mail has the brass neck to say they can't accept comments for legal reasons!
Ok, if he did do it they'll all be patting themselves on the back, but at least try to be impartial.
Obviously, with this latest extension, the speculation and rumour will ramp up another notch, but I think the damage has already been done really - enough mud has been thrown now that many people will think he did it, even if he's released without charge.
Absolutely disgusting. Why on earth is this allowed?
Jeffries has a few quid. I hope he sues then into the ground when he is released without charge as he almost certainly will be.