CLEARED

[hampsterkahn]

One of the best- written  “letters to the editor”  I have  seen in  years  apears in the Examiner  21 August  under the title “ No white wash for safeguarding “.

 It has been written  by a Mr Tony Parr.It  eloquently illustrates the the  crude , clumsy ,callous   and unlrofessional pre-trial reporting of the case against this innocent man and the shortcomings of MNH with regard to basic safeguarding.

Well worth a read ( The letter,  not the rest of the paper)

 

[thesultanofsheight]

8 hours ago, hampsterkahn said:

One of the best- written  “letters to the editor”  I have  seen in  years  apears in the Examiner  21 August  under the title “ No white wash for safeguarding “.

 It has been written  by a Mr Tony Parr.It  eloquently illustrates the the  crude , clumsy ,callous   and unlrofessional pre-trial reporting of the case against this innocent man and the shortcomings of MNH with regard to basic safeguarding.

Well worth a read ( The letter,  not the rest of the paper)

 

Thanks will have a read. 

[John Wright]

Tony Pass is an ex museum employee and then was Chairman of the Trustees. His comment about whether there really has been proper safeguarding training is the real killer.

Ive been a museum trustee, twice. I resigned on the second occasion because the trustee body was unfit for purpose, an accident in corporate governance waiting to happen and was effectively ignored by professional staff.

I hope this time it has the courage to hold the director to account.

[thesultanofsheight]

Poor justification by the editor at the bottom of that again. 

[Shake me up Judy]

This was trial by media - end of. Should have been a front page apology from the editor. I hope this guy is awarded damages for the calumny he's suffered to his reputation. What are his chances John ?  

[gettafa]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

Ive been a museum trustee, twice. I resigned on the second occasion because the trustee body was unfit for purpose, an accident in corporate governance waiting to happen and was effectively ignored by professional staff.

 

I lost a bit of faith in that lot when I saw the Chairman of the Trustees (another advocate btw) who was so important he just rolled up and parked his car outside the Museum front door on the disabled spot.

(Of course the chap could have my guts for garters, and my house too, about this because it is not 'illegal' as it is not on a public road. But my point still stands)

[John Wright]

6 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

This was trial by media - end of. Should have been a front page apology from the editor. I hope this guy is awarded damages for the calumny he's suffered to his reputation. What are his chances John ?  

It wasn’t trial by media, it was (sensational) reporting by the media of what was said at a public trial. Imagine he was Muslim and it wasn’t reported, and the cries of cover up.

The editor is correct. Legally the inclusion of an address and photo, assuming they get it right, prevents someone else being incorrectly thought to be on trial, and avoids damages.

Has he a claim, well what do you think the paper has actually done that gives rise to one.

[Shake me up Judy]

Let me ask you another way then John. Had you been this innocent man on trial, would you be content with the newpaper's 'fair and balanced' reporting of the accusation against you, or would you be seeking damages ? 

[John Wright]

5 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

Let me ask you another way then John. Had you been this innocent man on trial, would you be content with the newpaper's 'fair and balanced' reporting of the accusation against you, or would you be seeking damages ? 

Being discontented and having a claim are very different.

As it stands, and as I posted much earlier in the thread, it’s a matter for Tynwald, and there are complex balancing and proportionality issues. I’ll re post.

[John Wright]

On 8/2/2018 at 10:01 AM, John Wright said:

There is a big issue here, between the right to know, openness and transparency in the justice system, which is said to inspire confidence, because justice is seen to be done and not some secret system, and the damage done to an innocent person who’s life is ruined by being named at charge, reported through trial, acquitted, but finds that the charge and acquittal are forever listed on an enhanced. Criminal check.

We did have anonymity for defendants in sex offence trial for a while. Then we went back. We do give victims anonymity. Should it be only sex offences, why distinguish? 

How to we deal with the fairly strong evidence that publicity has brought forward other victims in many prominent cases but counterbalancing evidence of false memory syndrome.

I don’t know the answer. I don’t think there is a perfect one. 

 

[hissingsid]

This reporting was shameful, the headline was for eye catch, well it certainly caught a lot of eyes that are totally disgusted by it.   Perhaps the museum should not be encouraging children to try on clothes without correct oversee, although should the mother not been assisting the child or at least be standing beside her.   The Museum management have let the staff down badly by leaving them open to allegations.   This poor man and his family have been to hell and back and there will always be bad memories for them.    I just hope he is aware of the public support he has and sympathy for the way he has been treated by the media.

[ecobob]

The media are there to sell papers, to make a profit for the owners and shareholders. To do this they have to attract readers. Sensational headlines are nothing new. However, and this is a big however, they also have a responsibility to the public and they ‘used’ this situation to the detriment of a man who was innocent until proven guilty. The reply from the editor is hogwash and he knows it.  They may have a duty to report but they also have a duty to any accused person. There is absolutely no doubt that this man was put at risk due to the nature of this reporting decision. Front page, full headline, no explaination, no mention of ‘alleged’. This is what happens when a local community newspapers turns into a larger money money scheme for its bosses across the water. It won’t get any better. It will only get worse. It’s a testament to the accused’s strength that he was still around to hear the verdict. There are many lesser souls who would have left this mortal coil to avoid the shame. No doubt the editor would have been able to explain that verdict away too. 

[thesultanofsheight]

The worst and most pathetic excuse in that to me was the justification for naming him and publishing his address: so that it was clear that others of the same name weren’t possibly associated with the court appearance. So it’s ok if a bunch of torch wavers turn up at his house specifically and duff him up now they know exactly who he is - but we couldn’t risk they might turn up at another person of the same names’ house by accident and duff them up! It’s so poor an excuse it’s beneath contempt. 

[Neil Down]

1 minute ago, thesultanofsheight said:

The worst and most pathetic excuse in that to me was the justification for naming him and publishing his address: so that it was clear that others of the same name weren’t possibly associated with the court appearance. So it’s ok if a bunch of torch wavers turn up at his house specifically and duff him up now they know exactly who he is - but we couldn’t risk they might turn up at another person of the same names’ house by accident! It’s so poor an excuse it’s beneath contempt. 

Even worse was Darbyshires page 11 miserable excuse for doing it.

[Andy Onchan]

43 minutes ago, ecobob said:

The media are there to sell papers, to make a profit for the owners and shareholders. To do this they have to attract readers. Sensational headlines are nothing new. However, and this is a big however, they also have a responsibility to the public and they ‘used’ this situation to the detriment of a man who was innocent until proven guilty. The reply from the editor is hogwash and he knows it.  They may have a duty to report but they also have a duty to any accused person. There is absolutely no doubt that this man was put at risk due to the nature of this reporting decision. Front page, full headline, no explaination, no mention of ‘alleged’. This is what happens when a local community newspapers turns into a larger money money scheme for its bosses across the water. It won’t get any better. It will only get worse. It’s a testament to the accused’s strength that he was still around to hear the verdict. There are many lesser souls who would have left this mortal coil to avoid the shame. No doubt the editor would have been able to explain that verdict away too. 

I'm more inclined to think that the reporter in question knew exactly what he was doing and for his own reasons, not the newspaper per se.

Said gentleman usually does a good job at digging around where IOMG cock-ups are concerned but I can't help thinking this time he let his alter ego get in the way.