We Like The Moon Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Which makes him just the same as anybody else. Agreed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Which makes him just the same as anybody else. Agreed That is true, but should this be the case? The Police deal with all sorts of people, some very twisted in their outlook on life and others. If they do, by the very nature of their job, find themselves in a peculiar situation in their private life, does this not deserve some kind of special case status? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orange Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Which makes him just the same as anybody else. Agreed That is true, but should this be the case? The Police deal with all sorts of people, some very twisted in their outlook on life and others. If they do, by the very nature of their job, find themselves in a peculiar situation in their private life, does this not deserve some kind of special case status? NO! Why should it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 Which makes him just the same as anybody else. Agreed That is true, but should this be the case? The Police deal with all sorts of people, some very twisted in their outlook on life and others. If they do, by the very nature of their job, find themselves in a peculiar situation in their private life, does this not deserve some kind of special case status? NO! Why should it? That's what I'm asking? I know there are some pretty antisocial coppers out there with a lifetime of chips on their shoulders, but some are honest decent guys doing the job for all the right reasons. Shouldn't they, due to the type of clientele they deal with, have some kind of safety net to protect them from the possibility of pre trial exposure, which, like teachers, can ruin their careers? Whatever we think of coppers, we need them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's what I'm asking? I know there are some pretty antisocial coppers out there with a lifetime of chips on their shoulders, but some are honest decent guys doing the job for all the right reasons. Shouldn't they, due to the type of clientele they deal with, have some kind of safety net to protect them from the possibility of pre trial exposure, which, like teachers, can ruin their careers? Whatever we think of coppers, we need them! I am trying to understand your thinking on this or maybe I am missing something that you have thought of. Why should the nature of a policeman's job afford them a safety net, don't understand what you mean their contact with that type of clientele makes a difference. Many people's careers could be interrupted or affected because of their exposure to allegations of wrongdoing. Would I be right in thinking that it is basically your opinion that because you think the police are needed and supposedly exist to do good work those who carry it out should not have their role tarnished if they have actually done no wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's what I'm asking? I know there are some pretty antisocial coppers out there with a lifetime of chips on their shoulders, but some are honest decent guys doing the job for all the right reasons. Shouldn't they, due to the type of clientele they deal with, have some kind of safety net to protect them from the possibility of pre trial exposure, which, like teachers, can ruin their careers? Whatever we think of coppers, we need them! I am trying to understand your thinking on this or maybe I am missing something that you have thought of. Why should the nature of a policeman's job afford them a safety net, don't understand what you mean their contact with that type of clientele makes a difference. Many people's careers could be interrupted or affected because of their exposure to allegations of wrongdoing. Would I be right in thinking that it is basically your opinion that because you think the police are needed and supposedly exist to do good work those who carry it out should not have their role tarnished if they have actually done no wrong? That's the crux of it, yes. But I am asking for other opinions, I am unsure, as there is the issue of being seen to be doing things correctly and accountability etc! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Ayres Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 There are some Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 what form did the alleged harrasment take?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 That's the crux of it, yes. But I am asking for other opinions, I am unsure, as there is the issue of being seen to be doing things correctly and accountability etc! Doing things correctly would be, in my mind, to not advertise people's wrongdoings until it is known that they have committed such acts, i.e. that they are guilty. But it shouldn't make any difference whether it is a policeman or not if others are to be 'exposed' for their supposed crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbms Posted May 12, 2009 Share Posted May 12, 2009 There are some 'professions' that require exemplary behaviour from all involved. Social workers, councillors, MHK's, doctors and others you can think of. Their private life is public because of their jobs. Corrected Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Power Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 That's the crux of it, yes. But I am asking for other opinions, I am unsure, as there is the issue of being seen to be doing things correctly and accountability etc! Doing things correctly would be, in my mind, to not advertise people's wrongdoings until it is known that they have committed such acts, i.e. that they are guilty. But it shouldn't make any difference whether it is a policeman or not if others are to be 'exposed' for their supposed crimes. I agree with that 100%! Nobody should be publicly exposed prior to their case being proven against them full stop!! It has always been a bugbear of the supposed justice system that people are tarnished by the curiosity of the media and others. What right do we have to know the names of people accused of a crime until they are proven guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 That's the crux of it, yes. But I am asking for other opinions, I am unsure, as there is the issue of being seen to be doing things correctly and accountability etc! Doing things correctly would be, in my mind, to not advertise people's wrongdoings until it is known that they have committed such acts, i.e. that they are guilty. But it shouldn't make any difference whether it is a policeman or not if others are to be 'exposed' for their supposed crimes. I agree with that 100%! . What right do we have to know the names of people accused of a crime until they are proven guilty? because it warns the public that someone on bail may pose a risk to them or their property. if someone is held in custody, then there is no need for the public to be warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Problem with what you say about custody is that it is totally unacceptable and unjustified to hold people unless there is a great of deal of evidence to show that they WILL harm someone again and have done so. People shouldn't be held for any length of time simply to wait until they go to court in case they might rob someone. What about someone who is considered very likely to abscond before the case is brought to court? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 because it warns the public that someone on bail may pose a risk to them or their property. if someone is held in custody, then there is no need for the public to be warned. You think the fact that the media publishes stuff on people who have been arrested has something to do with 'warning' the community? If so, I very much disagree. Problem with what you say about custody is that it is totally unacceptable and unjustified to hold people unless there is a great of deal of evidence to show that they WILL harm someone again and have done so. People shouldn't be held for any length of time simply to wait until they go to court in case they might rob someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gonzo Posted May 13, 2009 Share Posted May 13, 2009 Nobody should be publicly exposed prior to their case being proven against them full stop!! It has always been a bugbear of the supposed justice system that people are tarnished by the curiosity of the media and others. What right do we have to know the names of people accused of a crime until they are proven guilty? In general, cases are not held in camera because in most modern democracies justice needs to be seen to be done, and so it's been the right of citizens to attend court cases held in public. Contempt of Court laws cover reporting matters outside the precinct of the courts. Your argument that people are tarnished by by the media and others is founded on an assumption that the media is accusing people of a crime, when in fact it's law enforcement bodies that carry out that function. The media report what's said in court under fairly strict guidelines, including three main pillars of a privilege defence against defamation: that what's reported is fair, accurate and contemporaneous. You have to report what's said in court, by both prosecution and defence (giving equal weight to both) and publish as soon as possible after the case. As for discussions on internet forums about whether somebody's guilty or not guilty or whether they deserve or don't deserve to be named, that's really your prerogative - but if you're really interested in giving somebody a fair trial I'd say it's best to avoid it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.