tcm
...
I agree. It is not news, just lurid speculation. There's loads of this. Seems anyone can print anything. If really really pressed they can retract it a few weeks later. Pah!
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
QHM Pompey
- Thread starter Shakey
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
Where do you draw the line ?
We had a games teacher who was in court for 'touching up boys' at scouts ..... and he was named prior to proceedings .... stopped further incidents while he was prosecuted etc.
Others have been accused and into court to be acquitted - but lives ruined by the scandal.
So who decides what is best ? Hide thge name and other innocents can suffer, or print and be damned ?
The line is a fuzzy one to draw at best and I'm afraid that the safety of one human being is greater than the shame brought on another ......
If someone can actually show a way to protect innocents and still have guilty persons sorted and public protected - I'll support 100%.
Till then unfortunately shoddy rags like the Sun etc. will sell papers on human misery - shame that public want such rubbish - good news doesn't sell - scandal does.
<hr width=100% size=1>Cheers Nigel ..... <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/solentlifeuk/>http://www.geocities.com/solentlifeuk/</A>
We had a games teacher who was in court for 'touching up boys' at scouts ..... and he was named prior to proceedings .... stopped further incidents while he was prosecuted etc.
Others have been accused and into court to be acquitted - but lives ruined by the scandal.
So who decides what is best ? Hide thge name and other innocents can suffer, or print and be damned ?
The line is a fuzzy one to draw at best and I'm afraid that the safety of one human being is greater than the shame brought on another ......
If someone can actually show a way to protect innocents and still have guilty persons sorted and public protected - I'll support 100%.
Till then unfortunately shoddy rags like the Sun etc. will sell papers on human misery - shame that public want such rubbish - good news doesn't sell - scandal does.
<hr width=100% size=1>Cheers Nigel ..... <A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.geocities.com/solentlifeuk/>http://www.geocities.com/solentlifeuk/</A>
Wiggo
New member
Not that I would go out of my way to defend the tabloids, but in this instance, I really don't think this is trial by media. The Sun has reported the facts - he was arrested on certain charges (or suspicion of) and released on bail, facts confirmed by the Royal Navy.
If releasing these facts is 'wrong', then the problem lies with the criminal justice system, the Police and the CPS. Perhaps you would prefer a State where people were taken into 'protective custody' until after their trial (held in camera, obviously, lest the press report any 'allegations').
One day QHM disappears, nine months later he reappears, perhaps? If he doesn't reappear, then he was obviously guilty. If he does, we could all speculate on what he'd supposedly done to warrant a trial. Not sure it would be an improvement, are you?
<hr width=100% size=1>Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
If releasing these facts is 'wrong', then the problem lies with the criminal justice system, the Police and the CPS. Perhaps you would prefer a State where people were taken into 'protective custody' until after their trial (held in camera, obviously, lest the press report any 'allegations').
One day QHM disappears, nine months later he reappears, perhaps? If he doesn't reappear, then he was obviously guilty. If he does, we could all speculate on what he'd supposedly done to warrant a trial. Not sure it would be an improvement, are you?
<hr width=100% size=1>Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
ShipsWoofy
New member
Now that is not what I said at all, and you know it!
<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>Woof</font color=red>
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/P.html>Posting pictures tutor</A>
<hr width=100% size=1><font color=red>Woof</font color=red>
<A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.topcatsail.co.uk/P.html>Posting pictures tutor</A>
Wiggo
New member
I know. But what you're really asking for is for us to politely look away until the jury's finished, cos he's really a decent sort of bloke, after all. If he's guilty, then obviously he needs to be taken out of circulation now, not after the jury's convicted him. The problem is that people are nosey. Not you or I, obviously, cos we're decent sorts, too. So suddenly we (sorry, they) want to know why QHM has dropped off the face of the earth. Can't have him running around if he's guilty and a danger to kids, now, can we?
So as I see it, there are only three choices:
1) Anyone accused of a crime is released on immediate bail, and charged/arrested anonymously. Details only published on conviction, and trials held out of the public/media view.
2) As above, but the person is held in protective anonymous custody until after the trial. QHM could resurface in a few months, with no concrete allegations against him in the public domain. But you still have to explain your absence, and I don't think this will be popular with the civil liberties groups...
3) Anyone accused of a crime is arresetd/accused openly, and released on bail at the discretion of a magistrate, depending on the severity of the accusation/likely danger. Freedom of speech means that the reporting of magistrates proceedings will result in newspaper reports like this one in The Sun.
Option 3 may be flawed, but I still think it is the best available to us.
<hr width=100% size=1>Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
So as I see it, there are only three choices:
1) Anyone accused of a crime is released on immediate bail, and charged/arrested anonymously. Details only published on conviction, and trials held out of the public/media view.
2) As above, but the person is held in protective anonymous custody until after the trial. QHM could resurface in a few months, with no concrete allegations against him in the public domain. But you still have to explain your absence, and I don't think this will be popular with the civil liberties groups...
3) Anyone accused of a crime is arresetd/accused openly, and released on bail at the discretion of a magistrate, depending on the severity of the accusation/likely danger. Freedom of speech means that the reporting of magistrates proceedings will result in newspaper reports like this one in The Sun.
Option 3 may be flawed, but I still think it is the best available to us.
<hr width=100% size=1>Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
Its_Only_Money
New member
Hmmm...the only change I'd like to see is where the offence merits anonymity for one side for any reason (eg rape), then all parties to the proceedings should get the same protection (of course if the victim waives right to anonymity then both sides should be public), this would prevent maliscious trials whereby the efefcts of the publicity of the allegations are used to achieve the effect required, in the knowledge that an actual trial may/will collapse well after the damage is done to the accused.
This case obviously doesn't have quite this angle but it could still be sensible to have an initial cloak up until an initial hearing at which it can be decided if (for instance), the key evidence regarding card numbers/websites/individuals details appears to stack up, anonymity could be automatically dropped thereafter once there is a case to answer. It would be nice to assume for instance that the police and cps have all their evidential ducks in a row in every case but, well, um that's been shown to not quite be the case before......
<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds
Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based
This case obviously doesn't have quite this angle but it could still be sensible to have an initial cloak up until an initial hearing at which it can be decided if (for instance), the key evidence regarding card numbers/websites/individuals details appears to stack up, anonymity could be automatically dropped thereafter once there is a case to answer. It would be nice to assume for instance that the police and cps have all their evidential ducks in a row in every case but, well, um that's been shown to not quite be the case before......
<hr width=100% size=1>Rgds
Simon
Its Only Money
Fairline Sprint
Solent-based
fireball
New member
If the police thought he was a significant risk wouldn't they have taken straight to court?
If he's guilty then he deserves all the court can throw at him and more ..
if not then he has suffered significantly for something he hasn't done ..
either way he and his family suffers ...
I do think that sometimes the publishing of names does nothing to help the case or the "threatened public" and perhaps the information could be withheld at the early stages of a case. In this case he has not even appeared before a magistrate yet so there might not actually be a case to answer.
The Press do seem to have a rather unhealthy interest in publishing anything that might become news rather than waiting for a verdict.
<hr width=100% size=1>
If he's guilty then he deserves all the court can throw at him and more ..
if not then he has suffered significantly for something he hasn't done ..
either way he and his family suffers ...
I do think that sometimes the publishing of names does nothing to help the case or the "threatened public" and perhaps the information could be withheld at the early stages of a case. In this case he has not even appeared before a magistrate yet so there might not actually be a case to answer.
The Press do seem to have a rather unhealthy interest in publishing anything that might become news rather than waiting for a verdict.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Birdseye
Well-known member
The argument here is about risk to the public versus damage to the accused even if found innocent. On the basis of the information published about the alleged offenses there is no evidence of risk to the UK public, whilst we all know that there is considerable damage to the individual whatever the outcome.
<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.
<hr width=100% size=1>this post is a personal opinion, and you should not base your actions on it.
Bergman
New member
He can only be held for (I think) 36 hrs without charge.
This can be extended by application to a magistrate.
Once charged he has to appear in magistrates court at earliest opportunity
At that point the individual and the charge are in the public domain - as all courts are public domain - justice been seen to be done!
Keeping arrest and charges secret is I suggest very dangerous ground - it may be kept secret from family lawyers etc - ie you just silently disappear.
<hr width=100% size=1>
This can be extended by application to a magistrate.
Once charged he has to appear in magistrates court at earliest opportunity
At that point the individual and the charge are in the public domain - as all courts are public domain - justice been seen to be done!
Keeping arrest and charges secret is I suggest very dangerous ground - it may be kept secret from family lawyers etc - ie you just silently disappear.
<hr width=100% size=1>
T_S
New member
But you have to agree with Woofy, our press here in the UK sucks! Granted this maybe by a very very slim chance that the Sun for once have printed the truth about the charges, but that does not mean to say the man is guilty.
Although I work with children and the nature of anything connected with child abuse etc disgusts me to a point of despair, I still feel that allegations of any nature should not be released to the press, until it has been to court and a judgement made.
If this man is innocent along his wife whom has been named also, and most important their children, are now probably suffering all kinds of abuse. Of course it goes without saying that if guilty as charged then there is NO fitting punishment! Even for viewing pictures on the internet.
<hr width=100% size=1>Trailer Sailors get there by road!
Although I work with children and the nature of anything connected with child abuse etc disgusts me to a point of despair, I still feel that allegations of any nature should not be released to the press, until it has been to court and a judgement made.
If this man is innocent along his wife whom has been named also, and most important their children, are now probably suffering all kinds of abuse. Of course it goes without saying that if guilty as charged then there is NO fitting punishment! Even for viewing pictures on the internet.
<hr width=100% size=1>Trailer Sailors get there by road!
T_S
New member
I think that news of a paper coughing up thousands in compensation is always good news! /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif
<hr width=100% size=1>Trailer Sailors get there by road!
<hr width=100% size=1>Trailer Sailors get there by road!
bedouin
Well-known member
But you're missing a point - AFAIK he hasn't been charged with anything.
It shows how clever the Sun journos are in convincing people that he has been charged when all that's happened is that he's been questioned.
<hr width=100% size=1>
It shows how clever the Sun journos are in convincing people that he has been charged when all that's happened is that he's been questioned.
<hr width=100% size=1>
T_S
New member
As I don't read the papers I did have a glimpse at the link that was provided, but even so what I did say that tabloids should not be allowed to print anything on allegations etc until a judgement has been made!
<hr width=100% size=1>Trailer Sailors get there by road!
<hr width=100% size=1>Trailer Sailors get there by road!
I
Iota
Guest
Bashing the armed forces seems to be very much in vogue may be because they are an easy target and cannot respond in full.
The incidents of credit card cloning is far greater than is generally known as is identity theft. A responsible paper would have held the story until the police investigation is complete and if and only if it goes to trial. Why oh why do we like to take cheap shots at people who are vaguely in the public eye. Who leaked this to the press and why? The RN does not wash their dirty lined in public.
Iota
<hr width=100% size=1>
The incidents of credit card cloning is far greater than is generally known as is identity theft. A responsible paper would have held the story until the police investigation is complete and if and only if it goes to trial. Why oh why do we like to take cheap shots at people who are vaguely in the public eye. Who leaked this to the press and why? The RN does not wash their dirty lined in public.
Iota
<hr width=100% size=1>
tome
New member
I take your point Wiggo, but still feel that in this instance the accused should have been provided with anonimity until the prosecution was completed.
I know of a case where a father abused his and other families children. He committed suicide when caught, and his wife and two children moved to another part of the country.
A 12 year friend of the abused children, who wasn't herself abused, but was concerned about what happened to her friend, her friends fathers suicide, and her friend moving away, and only seeing her twice a year, went looking at paedophilic sites, (she didn't use her mums credit card, but that was a real possibility), to try and get a handle on things, and understand better. Luckily her mum is computer savvy, and tracks the childrens internet usage. She had a very long talk with her about this.
I'm not saying that anyone is innocent or guilty here, merely that by publishing the name at this stage it will have a huge impact on the future of the accused and his family whether innocent or otherwise. This seems to fly in the face of natural justice to me.
<hr width=100% size=1>
I know of a case where a father abused his and other families children. He committed suicide when caught, and his wife and two children moved to another part of the country.
A 12 year friend of the abused children, who wasn't herself abused, but was concerned about what happened to her friend, her friends fathers suicide, and her friend moving away, and only seeing her twice a year, went looking at paedophilic sites, (she didn't use her mums credit card, but that was a real possibility), to try and get a handle on things, and understand better. Luckily her mum is computer savvy, and tracks the childrens internet usage. She had a very long talk with her about this.
I'm not saying that anyone is innocent or guilty here, merely that by publishing the name at this stage it will have a huge impact on the future of the accused and his family whether innocent or otherwise. This seems to fly in the face of natural justice to me.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Wiggo
New member
Well spotted. I don't know the correct sequence of events or terminology (perhaps someone can enlighten) but a proper re-read reveals:
He was arrested (presumably on suspicion of something)
He was taken into custody and questioned
His PC was taken for examination
He was released on police bail
No evidence of having been charged. So what happens now, and how quickly? Refreral of the police evidence/case to the CPS then charged, presumably? Or dropped quietly with no apology...
<hr width=100% size=1>Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
He was arrested (presumably on suspicion of something)
He was taken into custody and questioned
His PC was taken for examination
He was released on police bail
No evidence of having been charged. So what happens now, and how quickly? Refreral of the police evidence/case to the CPS then charged, presumably? Or dropped quietly with no apology...
<hr width=100% size=1>Si hoc legere scis, nimium eruditionis habes.
snowleopard
Active member
mud sticks...
whether the case is proved or thrown out, people will still be saying 'there's no smoke without fire' years down the line.
if you want evidence of that, take the case of the MMR vaccine. a story cooked up for nefarious reasons and since comprehensively disproved, yet there are tens of thousands of parents still putting their children's lives at risk because they think there must be something in it.
this guy has been pilloried by the press on the basis of one inconclusive piece of evidence. it was just such an unsupported piece of evidence that triggered the false child abuse allegations in yorkshire and orkney.
<hr width=100% size=1>
whether the case is proved or thrown out, people will still be saying 'there's no smoke without fire' years down the line.
if you want evidence of that, take the case of the MMR vaccine. a story cooked up for nefarious reasons and since comprehensively disproved, yet there are tens of thousands of parents still putting their children's lives at risk because they think there must be something in it.
this guy has been pilloried by the press on the basis of one inconclusive piece of evidence. it was just such an unsupported piece of evidence that triggered the false child abuse allegations in yorkshire and orkney.
<hr width=100% size=1>
gjeffery
New member
One of the few to do anything positive about pot markers. Does anyone know if the regulation requiring very positive marking is having effect?
Overall, it is a pity that those in government don't live up to the standards that they expect of the armed forces. The personal administration of the "home sec", together with his abstraction of private morals from public office, are an example and an inspiration for us all.
<hr width=100% size=1>
Overall, it is a pity that those in government don't live up to the standards that they expect of the armed forces. The personal administration of the "home sec", together with his abstraction of private morals from public office, are an example and an inspiration for us all.
<hr width=100% size=1>
bedouin
Well-known member
It's ironic that only a couple of weeks back I was trying to convince some others on this forum that these forms of identity theft are potentially very serious.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>
l'escargot
New member
Identity theft is usually about trying to obtain significant amounts of cash and goods by deception - I would be very surprised if there are any recorded one off incidents of using cards to obtain access to these type of "services". They are more likely to empty your bank account or buy expensive (resaleable) goods.
<hr width=100% size=1>
<hr width=100% size=1>