Comments on: Is this legal? http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011 Freelance writer Gary Marshall on technology, music, Macs and more Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:25:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Gary http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4262 Gary Sat, 23 Dec 2006 09:01:40 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4262 Hi Paul. I think you're right, the coverage so far has often been appalling. Certainly the media have been warned about their interviewing, because people may be potential witnesses. Hi Paul. I think you’re right, the coverage so far has often been appalling. Certainly the media have been warned about their interviewing, because people may be potential witnesses.

]]> By: Paul Clark http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4261 Paul Clark Fri, 22 Dec 2006 20:10:43 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4261 I think most of the media coverage has been pretty bad for this case. Also the fact that most media outlets doing on the spot broadcasts can't be helping the Police as they go about their business. I think most of the media coverage has been pretty bad for this case. Also the fact that most media outlets doing on the spot broadcasts can’t be helping the Police as they go about their business.

]]> By: mupwangle http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4260 mupwangle Fri, 22 Dec 2006 11:33:33 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4260 They appear to have charged the second guy so obviously the papers will be full of apologies for the first one. They appear to have charged the second guy so obviously the papers will be full of apologies for the first one.

]]> By: gabor http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4259 gabor Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:35:42 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4259 From time to time I'm reminded why I never read the Sun. This is shocking. It's disgraceful. We do not need to know at this time about the men who are being questioned. If (hopefully when) there is a conviction, we will be deluged with background stuff. Leave it till then. In the meantime, what is it that we say in the UK? No, I don't mean "no smoke without fire", but innocent until proven guilty. From time to time I’m reminded why I never read the Sun. This is shocking. It’s disgraceful.

We do not need to know at this time about the men who are being questioned. If (hopefully when) there is a conviction, we will be deluged with background stuff. Leave it till then.

In the meantime, what is it that we say in the UK? No, I don’t mean “no smoke without fire”, but innocent until proven guilty.

]]> By: mupwangle http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4243 mupwangle Wed, 20 Dec 2006 12:06:16 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4243 >>...judgement call I think having a picture of him strangling someone may count. >>…judgement call

I think having a picture of him strangling someone may count.

]]> By: Gary http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4242 Gary Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:51 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4242 I'm pretty sure that the rules apply from the second someone's arrested (not charged), and the media can be done for contempt if it does anything to prejudice a potential future trial. Whether the current coverage is prejudicial's a judgment call, I think. I’m pretty sure that the rules apply from the second someone’s arrested (not charged), and the media can be done for contempt if it does anything to prejudice a potential future trial. Whether the current coverage is prejudicial’s a judgment call, I think.

]]> By: Tony Kiernan http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4241 Tony Kiernan Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:23:49 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4241 I thought that you could name them until they were charged, or something else completely illogical. I'm sure the Sun's lawyers will be well on top of the legality of this. I thought that you could name them until they were charged, or something else completely illogical.

I’m sure the Sun’s lawyers will be well on top of the legality of this.

]]> By: mupwangle http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4240 mupwangle Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:29:20 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4240 This is cider - there is a bit of a party theme happening. This is cider – there is a bit of a party theme happening.

]]> By: Ms Mac http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4239 Ms Mac Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:48:44 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4239 Oh, I thought it was a joke mock-up of The Sun. Only because surely no self respecting woman would actually date Noel Edmonds? The word verification for this comment is cake. Mmmmm.... cake. Oh, I thought it was a joke mock-up of The Sun. Only because surely no self respecting woman would actually date Noel Edmonds?

The word verification for this comment is cake. Mmmmm…. cake.

]]> By: Squander Two http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4238 Squander Two Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:42:06 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4238 The law is that their names aren't to be released, yes, but it's been ignored for some time. There was a brief stage where the BBC insistently obeyed the law while everyone else ignored it, so that the BBC would report "A man has been arrested" while you could switch over to ITV and hear "Tom Roberts, a plumber from Bristol, has been arrested." I suspect the BBC finally caved because that seemed stupid. Fact is that <i>The Sun</i> and other tabloids will give small cash gifts to anyone who contacts them with the suspect's name, and most police stations contain at least one person who'll take that money. Worth remembering when we're told about the security of the ID Card database. <i>> the US trial-by-media system</i> Interestingly enough, they name suspects for the same reason we (in theory) don't: to protect them. The police have to name anyone they arrest in the US to ensure that the suspect's friends and family hear about it and can rally to his defense; it's to stop the state disappearing people. In other words, their system is actually based on the assumption that anyone arrested is innocent -- as, of course, they are until proven guilty. In the UK, we're supposed to have presumption of innocence, but the very fact that the law forbids the release of suspects' names shows that both the public and the law really assume that anyone arrested must be guilty. I think that tells you a lot about the difference between Brits and Americans. The law is that their names aren’t to be released, yes, but it’s been ignored for some time. There was a brief stage where the BBC insistently obeyed the law while everyone else ignored it, so that the BBC would report “A man has been arrested” while you could switch over to ITV and hear “Tom Roberts, a plumber from Bristol, has been arrested.” I suspect the BBC finally caved because that seemed stupid. Fact is that The Sun and other tabloids will give small cash gifts to anyone who contacts them with the suspect’s name, and most police stations contain at least one person who’ll take that money. Worth remembering when we’re told about the security of the ID Card database.

> the US trial-by-media system

Interestingly enough, they name suspects for the same reason we (in theory) don’t: to protect them. The police have to name anyone they arrest in the US to ensure that the suspect’s friends and family hear about it and can rally to his defense; it’s to stop the state disappearing people. In other words, their system is actually based on the assumption that anyone arrested is innocent — as, of course, they are until proven guilty. In the UK, we’re supposed to have presumption of innocence, but the very fact that the law forbids the release of suspects’ names shows that both the public and the law really assume that anyone arrested must be guilty.

I think that tells you a lot about the difference between Brits and Americans.

]]> By: rutty http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4237 rutty Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:32:47 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4237 I rolled my eyes when I saw the Sun this morning. They have a 20 year old photo of the supposed suspect apparently strangling his second wife - he must be guilty then. The tabloids must have been jumping with glee when this story came along. I rolled my eyes when I saw the Sun this morning. They have a 20 year old photo of the supposed suspect apparently strangling his second wife – he must be guilty then.

The tabloids must have been jumping with glee when this story came along.

]]> By: Gary http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/archives/1011/comment-page-1#comment-4236 Gary Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:24:39 +0000 http://www.bigmouthstrikesagain.com/2006/12/20/is-this-legal/#comment-4236 It does seem that we've adopted the US trial-by-media system all of a sudden. It does seem that we’ve adopted the US trial-by-media system all of a sudden.

]]>