Guilty until proven innocent?

CyclingBantam

Seen on the BBC website today that a soap star has been accused of child sex offences. Not seen any papers yet but I imagine the tabloids are going wild over the story as well.

I know this is something that has been discussed before but what are peoples views on naming people charged with something like this?

I feel there should not be any ability to name people accuesed of particually crimes like this as this guy, if we assume he is infact innocent (which we clearly don't know), will forever be tainted and his life changed forever I don't doubt.

Thoughts...

mudcow007

funnily enough he played the part of an old bloke who was having an affair with a young girl not that long ago....

dhope

Absolutely.
Careless reporting ruins lives and careful reporting is less fun to read.

rjsterry

Some interesting thoughts on the media and its coverage of the Meredith Kercher case. Also, an interview with Chris Langham.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/oct/04/amanda-knox-mistake-media-guilty-secret
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/sep/25/chris-langham-interview?INTCMP=SRCH[/url]

Keith1983

Let's be honest, the media have been irresponsible for years. The last time the media showed any sort of responsibility was when Princes William and Harry were children. The law should be far more prohibitive in naming and shaming before people are proven guilty. Once guilt has been established then I'm all for it, but if and only guilt is proven.

veronese68

Not keen on naming and shaming. A customer of ours that comes in to collect had his picture in the local paper of child porn. He's a customer, I will continue to treat him as I usually do. I'd prefer not to know, but then he was never going to have any contact with my kids.
As the Knox case has shown a conviction doesn't necessarily prove guilt.

CyclingBantam

Keith1983 wrote:

Let's be honest, the media have been irresponsible for years. The last time the media showed any sort of responsibility was when Princes William and Harry were children. The law should be far more prohibitive in naming and shaming before people are proven guilty. Once guilt has been established then I'm all for it, but if and only guilt is proven.

Fully agree, it just seems strange how, and I know this is a bad example, you get some tv show like Road War's and will see footage of some chav driving badly and getting arrested for said driving and then have their face blurred out, and then you will get someone accused of something and it is all over the front page.

I thought after that chap who was all over the papers following the Jo Yates murder things were supposed to have changed a little.

mudcow007

The thing is...naming (possibly) disgraced "celebrity's" sells papers.

Its not just celebrity's that it happens too though.

joelsim

I agree, it should not be allowed until proven guilty. And then throw them to the lions!

The Real Radioactiveman

The news on the whole is full of bollox.

You just have to read/watch an article on your relevant industry/area/whatever it may be to realise most of what they say is factually incorrect and jazzed up to turn heads.

This may well be a sweeping generalisation based on most of the rubbish they spout about the industry I work in.

bails87

Read Flat Earth News by Nick Davies, the journo who broke the phone hacking story.

Also, see Autism/MMR, Chris Jeffries, the 'saline' nurse for examples of fair, balanced, non-prejudiced reporting. :roll:

il_principe

I do feel sorry for Langham. Yes he was stupid, but I think it\s fairly clear that he's not a paedo, just a guy who had a stupid lapse of judgement and is paying too heavy a price for it - mainly thanks to awful reporting from the tabloids. Reminds me of the guy who was wrongly accused for murdering that girl in Bristol. The tabloids tore him apart without any proof at all.

bails87

Pretty damning: http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/search/label/apology

shouldbeinbed

Never let taste or truth get in the way of a lucrative story

First.Aspect

Even if he's found not guilty, that's not the same as being found innocent, is it?

Oh, wait, I'm getting myself confused with someone else.

tx14

First Aspect wrote:

Even if he's found not guilty, that's not the same as being found innocent, is it?

Oh, wait, I'm getting myself confused with someone else.

then nobody's innocent.

rick_chasey

It's not just celebrities.

A former teacher of mine was accused. Police got involved, he got arrested etc.

Turns out he was totally innocent.

Didn't stop parents pulling children, making 'no smoke without fire' and 'he was always a little funny' interviews.

Even the headteacher tried to prevent him from continuing to work there after the suspension was lifted.

bdave262000

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not just celebrities.

A former teacher of mine was accused. Police got involved, he got arrested etc.

Turns out he was totally innocent.

Didn't stop parents pulling children, making 'no smoke without fire' and 'he was always a little funny' interviews.

Even the headteacher tried to prevent him from continuing to work there after the suspension was lifted.

We had the opposite with one of our science teachers, all the kids knew what he was up too and he had even made advances on some of his own pupils, the other teachers and headmaster included tried to brush it under the carpet until he appeared on Panorama where a film crew knocked on his door early in the morning and confronted him. Turned out he had been doing it for years and had part of his house specially converted to entice young boys (arcade machines etc).

bails87

Maybe he liked arcade machines.....


As for the 'no smoke without fire'.......can't you just say "you're a paedophile" back at them, and when they, presumably, react, you can just say "well, there's no smoke without fire".

veronese68

bdave262000 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It's not just celebrities.

A former teacher of mine was accused. Police got involved, he got arrested etc.

Turns out he was totally innocent.

Didn't stop parents pulling children, making 'no smoke without fire' and 'he was always a little funny' interviews.

Even the headteacher tried to prevent him from continuing to work there after the suspension was lifted.

We had the opposite with one of our science teachers, all the kids knew what he was up too and he had even made advances on some of his own pupils, the other teachers and headmaster included tried to brush it under the carpet until he appeared on Panorama where a film crew knocked on his door early in the morning and confronted him. Turned out he had been doing it for years and had part of his house specially converted to entice young boys (arcade machines etc).

This sounds familiar. My cousin was probably at the same school. A group of about 10 of us went round there once. There was a strict rule that nobody went anywhere alone, a bit like being in a horror film. We all knew we were fine as long as we weren't alone. We were fine, but we knew the score. I certainly wouldn't have gone alone, but I'm sure some did.

SimonAH

Obviously it is one of the most heimous of crimes (I'd take the lids off houses to get to someone who harmed my little girl) but the level of hysteria around paedophilia is astonishing these days - and the slightest hint of a rumour, let alone an open accusation, will destroy a life.

Classic is when a colleague of mine asked two young teenagers to tone down the swearing in a swimming pool changing room as he had his seven year old twins with him. Response?

"F-off or we'll tell people you touched us"

Where the hell do you go from there? Sometimes I despair of where this society is finding itself...

bobinski

As part of my job I have represented a number of teachers over the years, in excess of 100, each of them accused of an assault or a sexual offence. The overwhelming percentage of allegations have been completely fictitious, either exposed as such by witnesses the child forgot about or the recovery of cctv, Just as in the incident in the Channel 4 programme, Made in Essex. A very few have resulted in prosecutions and even fewer in convictions. There is no way I would teach or encourage my own children to teach. The number of false malicious allegations made by kids is enormous and the consequences for teachers quite awful.

rick_chasey

bails87 wrote:

Maybe he liked arcade machines.....


As for the 'no smoke without fire'.......can't you just say "you're a paedophile" back at them, and when they, presumably, react, you can just say "well, there's no smoke without fire".

Pretty much.


Try it. See what kinda response you get.

I got a lot of sh!t for picking people up on the 'no smoke' chat.

bdave262000

bails87 wrote:

Maybe he liked arcade machines.....


As for the 'no smoke without fire'.......can't you just say "you're a paedophile" back at them, and when they, presumably, react, you can just say "well, there's no smoke without fire".

Maybe he did, but you don't get a six year prison sentence for playing space invaders.