As I said before, Yes the media are out of order. But I do wish people wouldn't take that out on the police.
Guilty or not guilty, let them do their job. It's highly unlikely they have arrested him because he had blue hair or knew a paedo. My neighbour could be one for all I know.
People need to be a bit more patient, you're jumping the gun where the police are concerned!
Sadly the British press can pretty much do what they like until someone is charged, so they are filling their boots over this guy, like they did early doors with the English bloke in the Madeleine McCann case. They couldn't give a toss about the truth, only ensuring people who want to tune in to find out whatever details they can that are none of their business are given what they want.
Sad also to see BBC 24 is just as bad on this as Sky is.
As I said before, Yes the media are out of order. But I do wish people wouldn't take that out on the police.
Guilty or not guilty, let them do their job. It's highly unlikely they have arrested him because he had blue hair or knew a paedo. My neighbour could be one for all I know.
People need to be a bit more patient, you're jumping the gun where the police are concerned!
Yeah, it's definitely the media and not the cops here. The cops haven't even charged the guy yet- the media have charged him, put him on trial AND reached a verdict.
Sadly the British press can pretty much do what they like until someone is charged, so they are filling their boots over this guy, like they did early doors with the English bloke in the Madeleine McCann case. They couldn't give a toss about the truth, only ensuring people who want to tune in to find out whatever details they can that are none of their business are given what they want.
Sad also to see BBC 24 is just as bad on this as Sky is.
All journalists are the same. I just imagine middle-aged blokes with a pot-belly, bad breath and reeking of BO sat in a newsroom typing crap to titilate their readers.
Oops. That would be down to me skimming the thread, and not reading the OP properly.
Let me change that to, "looks like the Attorney agrees with Constant PMT and Stoatie". (And I agree with you two too. :o:o)
haha It's just bugging me a bit the slating the police are getting. It's not ok for the media to slate the Landlord, but it's ok for the public to slate the ol bill?
All journalists are the same. I just imagine middle-aged blokes with a pot-belly, bad breath and reeking of BO sat in a newsroom typing crap to titilate their readers.
I first read that as typing in toilets on crap paper
I don't know the guy at all, so I can't comment on his personality. However, I am very uncomfortable with suspects being put under the media spotlight before they have been charged with a crime. Even if they are later found to be totally innocent, they will remain tainted in the eyes of many who will persist with the 'no smoke without fire' argument.
I have been rather disturbed at the subtle demonising of this suspect that began shortly before his arrest. Unflattering and sensational descriptions of him that are prejudiced and parochial.
as I mentioned in the main thread, the tabloids did the same with the guy initially detained on suspicion of being the Suffolk ripper a few years ago. They plastered his myspace profile & his less-than-flattering photos on their front pages to show what a 'weirdo' he was, & insinuating that he was obviously guilty. He turned out to be completely innocent and was dropped from the police enquiries but not before he had lost his job & his reputation trashed.
as I mentioned in the main thread, the tabloids did the same with the guy initially detained on suspicion of being the Suffolk ripper a few years ago. They plastered his myspace profile & his less-than-flattering photos on their front pages to show what a 'weirdo' he was, & insinuating that he was obviously guilty. He turned out to be completely innocent and was dropped from the police enquiries but not before he had lost his job & his reputation trashed.
Couldn't he (or anyone in this situation) sue the papers involved for defamation or something?
Couldn't he (or anyone in this situation) sue the papers involved for defamation or something?
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.
Is this really down to 24hr news? I'd say it's more to do with corners of the media - particularly the Sun - just being scum.
well newspapers have had to respond to the availability of news by making it worth buying their product
on the scum issue the mail or telegraph both had the landlord on the front page 2 days ago with, well, leading comments
dont forget that newspapers are now 24hrs because of their websites and it is a fact that they are filling most of the time
take the mcanns ...remember sky news hounding that guy who was said to be a suspect?
it was a tuesday night and yes i watched it but they camped outside his villa that he shared with his mum?....even chasing his family back in the UK......
ah yes, he likes Hong Kong Phooey which the tabs highlighted to show what a weirdo he was :rolleyes:
You'd need to have the resources to mount a libel action, for the ordinary bloke it's not feasible. I don't recall any apologies from the papers either - they don't care.
well newspapers have had to respond to the availability of news by making it worth buying their product
on the scum issue the mail or telegraph both had the landlord on the front page 2 days ago with, well, leading comments
dont forget that newspapers are now 24hrs because of their websites and it is a fact that they are filling most of the time
take the mcanns ...remember sky news hounding that guy who was said to be a suspect?
it was a tuesday night and yes i watched it but they camped outside his villa that he shared with his mum?....even chasing his family back in the UK......
Luckily for Murat he did have the resources to sue "Sky, the Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World, Sun and the Scotsman". He got lots of money in compensation. I don't know if he'd consider it worth it though :mad:
Comments
Guilty or not guilty, let them do their job. It's highly unlikely they have arrested him because he had blue hair or knew a paedo. My neighbour could be one for all I know.
People need to be a bit more patient, you're jumping the gun where the police are concerned!
Sad also to see BBC 24 is just as bad on this as Sky is.
Yeah, it's definitely the media and not the cops here. The cops haven't even charged the guy yet- the media have charged him, put him on trial AND reached a verdict.
Looks like the Attorney General agrees with the OP.
i thought so too, hi!
And you wouldn't have thought that nice Dr. Shipman was a villain to look at him. Mind you he did have a beard.
I dont think so, I read it quick but didn't see the word police mentioned once.
Attorney General warns press to beware of contempt
Oops. That would be down to me skimming the thread, and not reading the OP properly.
Let me change that to, "looks like the Attorney agrees with Constant PMT and Stoatie". (And I agree with you two too.
All journalists are the same. I just imagine middle-aged blokes with a pot-belly, bad breath and reeking of BO sat in a newsroom typing crap to titilate their readers.
haha
I first read that as typing in toilets on crap paper
I'll get my coat.
Hush! Can't have it getting out that the Attorney General agrees with me. I'm supposed to be an Anarchist!
Couldn't he (or anyone in this situation) sue the papers involved for defamation or something?
Chalk it up to the law of averages. It was bound to happen sooner or later.
Anarchist, huh? Interesting. I had you pegged for a dyed in the wool socialist.
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.
I for one am glad he's back
well newspapers have had to respond to the availability of news by making it worth buying their product
on the scum issue the mail or telegraph both had the landlord on the front page 2 days ago with, well, leading comments
dont forget that newspapers are now 24hrs because of their websites and it is a fact that they are filling most of the time
take the mcanns ...remember sky news hounding that guy who was said to be a suspect?
it was a tuesday night and yes i watched it but they camped outside his villa that he shared with his mum?....even chasing his family back in the UK......
just found a link it was robert murat
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2324200.ece
this guy was hounded shockingly and SKY were the main culprits, because i watched it with regret
Couldn't remember his name apart from he was known as 'The Bishop' which goes to show how effective the tabloids were
just googled - his name's Tom Stephens
ah yes, he likes Hong Kong Phooey which the tabs highlighted to show what a weirdo he was :rolleyes:
You'd need to have the resources to mount a libel action, for the ordinary bloke it's not feasible. I don't recall any apologies from the papers either - they don't care.
Sky don't give a toss why you watched it, as long as they can use viewing figures to generate advertising revenue.
Luckily for Murat he did have the resources to sue "Sky, the Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Mail, Evening Standard, Metro, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, News of the World, Sun and the Scotsman". He got lots of money in compensation. I don't know if he'd consider it worth it though :mad:
I hope he sues the wotsits off the media who have besmirched his name - if they have.