CLEARED

[John Wright]

4 minutes ago, Linz said:

What they did was disgusting. Poor man. I see there are a lot of comments on there today attacking IOM Newspapers. Quite right too. 

If they hadn’t they’d have been accused of a cover up. After 40 years working in the Law on the Island, and understanding that the press have limited resources, I still don’t understand how the media choose which courts to send reporters to and report, and which not,

I do notice that many of the people complaining about factual, and legal, reporting, are the same ones who would complain about cover up if it weren’t reported, and complain now about some Court lists not being on line.

[John Wright]

All I can do is refer to the Supreme Court decision on Monday reported on the BBC. I’m waiting to read the judgment as soon as it’s published on line. I’ve said I’ll post the link.

As I understand it it took a positive decision to include it!

[Declan]

26 minutes ago, Linz said:

What they did was disgusting. Poor man. I see there are a lot of comments on there today attacking IOM Newspapers. Quite right too. 

I'm not really sure what the newspaper have done wrong. It was clear to me from just glancing at the front page, that the trial was on-going and they were recounting the case for the prosecution. Doesn't everyone take that with a pinch of salt, and reserve judgement thinking "it'll be interesting to see the outcome of this case"?

If court proceedings aren't reported, if people charged with serious crimes aren't named before the trial isn't there a danger of these things getting ignore and swept under the carpet. We've seen through Saville, Cyril Smith, the grooming gangs the danger of keeping this hidden. 

There seems to be fault here, but that this was brought to trial on flimsy evidence. But that's fault of the prosecutor, who would have known that this would be reported. They're the ones doing the damage, not the newspaper. 

[thesultanofsheight]

Come on Declan they even published the poor buggers address. They didn’t have to do that. That’s just nasty. They’re probably lucky nobody duffed him up they gave away so much information about him. 

[Shake me up Judy]

The grooming gangs were never identified before conviction Declan. This links to the Tommy Robinson case as well. The identity and ethnicity of the grooming gangs was covered up by the justice system and the newspapers - unlike the innocent victim in this local case who was hung out to dry from the start. 

[woody2]

1 minute ago, Shake me up Judy said:

The grooming gangs were never identified before conviction Declan. This links to the Tommy Robinson case as well. The identity and ethnicity of the grooming gangs was covered up by the justice system and the newspapers - unlike the innocent victim in this local case who was hung out to dry from the start. 

+1

[Declan]

2 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

The grooming gangs were never identified before conviction Declan. This links to the Tommy Robinson case as well. The identity and ethnicity of the grooming gangs was covered up by the justice system and the newspapers - unlike the innocent victim in this local case who was hung out to dry from the start. 

Exactly. The criticism of the grooming case was that the accused weren't identified first. Now the very same people are saying they shouldn't report this case. Or is it only Muslims you want named? 

[manxman1980]

11 hours ago, quilp said:

There is also the assumption that naming someone accused of such offences may lend strength to other historical victims of sex offenders, encouraging further disclosure.

The BBC recently had a report (can't find it) of a young teacher similarly cleared, 10 years ago or so, of indecent assault and rape, who was refused a position at a school because he'd been under suspicion, the fact he'd been cleared of any crime mattered not. Maybe insurers see 'perceived risk.' Whether this is right or not...

Nothing to do with insurers... 

I worked in education and one of my duties was to check the enhanced disclosures and "list 99" checks that were performed on all staff who had access to children and vulnerable adults.  At that time the Chief Constable could make a comment on an individual if they had concerns over the individuals suitability for working with vulnerable groups.  If I encountered such a comment the first step was to speak to the applicant to find out more about the comments.  We would then perform a risk assessment and decide whether that person could work with vulnerable groups.  Consideration was always given to how much time the person would spend alone or unsupervised with a vulnerable person and whether the risks could be reduced.  

The duty of care for my employer was firmly towards the vulnerable people and we would withdraw offers if there were significant concerns.   Unfortunately it can mean that someone who has never been found guilty can find themselves excluded from working with vulnerable people.

[paswt]

51 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said:

Come on Declan they even published the poor buggers address. They didn’t have to do that. That’s just nasty. They’re probably lucky nobody duffed him up they gave away so much information about him. 

A man I knew well in London was in Mc D's when it was robbed by a gang and he and the staff were herded into a basement store , in escaping he was stabbed in the back .

The local paper reported the incident and the police(?) had helpfully provided his name and address , place of work ( and job title!) and confirmed that he had been assisting them in identifying the culprits , all of which was  printed on the front page  !!!  

From that day his life was a nightmare , moved house, packed in his job , was terrified of reprisals by the gang , was affected mentally , became a recluse , didn't locater himself too well and turned to drink and died in his early 50's.

It just goes to show that some reporters /editors of local/national  papers are appalling  individuals who would cheerfully  destroy another human being to sell their disgusting rags.

Rant over............ RIP Colin you are still remembered by those who worked with you

[paswt]

41 minutes ago, Declan said:

Exactly. The criticism of the grooming case was that the accused weren't identified first. Now the very same people are saying they shouldn't report this case. Or is it only Muslims you want named? 

"the very same people" ...........Not strictly true Declan , .................... I for one think that nobody should be identified until after the case has been heard .

Hope this helps

[John Wright]

There is a very clear and important distinction between a trial of a single defendant for one off offence and multiple trials, for multiple offences with multiple defendants where there is overlap, defendants may be involved in more than one trial and the aim of non reporting orders is to ensure no contamination that means trials 2, 3 and 4 aren’t compromised. 

[hissingsid]

John how do you know he was trained not to do a simple thing like straightening a child's fancy dress.   In retrospect it was not the wisest move, but an act like that is done just almost automatically.   This mother seems a right piece of work, name protected of course because of the child.   I find the link between her having a dispute with Manx Heritage and this supposed assault being the reason she has lied and exaggerated almost certainly the reason she has pursued the matter.   I always feel very sorry for men that are accused of rape and given massive publicity then proved innocent and get a couple of lines in the same paper.   Their lives having been ruined especially in small communities.   I think accusers should be named in all cases.    It should be an even playing field.   Women want equality, they have got it so it should work both ways, if a man accuses a woman of sexual harassment both parties should be named.

[Lxxx]

10 hours ago, interestedman said:

http://www.iomtoday.co.im/article.cfm?id=42064&headline=In the Examiner%3A Museum indecent assault trial under way&sectionIs=news&searchyear=2018

Something needs to be done - you surely can’t publish a headline like this with picture of the accused etc only to be found not guilty a few days later.  The first read of the story is horrific - clearly a different picture two days later.  

The Isle of Man Examiner would be hearing from a member of the legal profession on instruction from myself if this was about me. Disgusting journalism.

[Neil Down]

1 hour ago, woody2 said:

+1

+2

[Neil Down]

1 hour ago, Shake me up Judy said:

The grooming gangs were never identified before conviction Declan. This links to the Tommy Robinson case as well. The identity and ethnicity of the grooming gangs was covered up by the justice system and the newspapers - unlike the innocent victim in this local case who was hung out to dry from the start. 

Also the five sub human creatures that threw a corrosive substance into a three year old child's face.