CLEARED

[thesultanofsheight]

2 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

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.  

To be fair they printed his full name, the street he lived in and a full colour picture on the front page. Looks like someone really wanted to fuck him over. It has all been pretty despicable really. 

[Neil Down]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

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. 

you couldn't be more wrong if you tried. The paper could have waited until the trial finished and then published a story (minus the name/address and photograph) which would have been more accurate. The paper was hoping for a typical knee jerk reaction from those people who want to be outraged and in the process sell more of their shitty "news" paper

[quilp]

2 hours ago, Declan said:

I'm not really sure what the newspaper have done wrong. It was clear to me from just glancing at the front page... 

It seemed very clear to me that the strong inference from that front page was that a crime had definitely been committed. By the person named in the report. Seemed very implicit.

It is totally abhorrent, red-top-type sensationalism. That editor needs his butt very swiftly kicked...

[Max Power]

Most organisations dealing with young and vulnerable people give their staff safeguarding training. It's pretty simple straightforward stuff like don't find yourself alone with a child at any time, don't touch them unless they are in danger, don't help them to get dressed without parental permission, don't talk dirty, report anything suspicious to your superior without delay. 

[hissingsid]

So could he now take a civil case of defamation of character against this woman ? The Newspaper should make a front page apology , the same size as the story...this will happen..not a chance . 

[Max Power]

I watched a programme on this sort of thing. It seems that it is very easy for a parent or police officer to convince a child that something has happened which shouldn't have. This is sometimes the basis of a lot of these cases which end up in court.

[piebaps]

The newspaper reported the trial as they are allowed to. They reported that he was on trial, what he had been accused of and that he was found not guilty. I can't see how they defamed him.

That said, I agree that the editor who agreed to publish this is a shitbag of the highest order. He's getting a proper slagging on the papers website today too and quite rightly so.

The IOM will be a better place when he leaves. I bet his dad is properly ashamed of him.

[quilp]

9 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Most organisations dealing with young and vulnerable people give their staff safeguarding training. It's pretty simple straightforward stuff like don't find yourself alone with a child at any time, don't touch them unless they are in danger, don't help them to get dressed without parental permission, don't talk dirty, report anything suspicious to your superior without delay. 

You can undergo all the safeguarding training under the sun. It is no defence (obviously) to false accusation and media sensationalism. 

[Uhtred]

6 minutes ago, hissingsid said:

So could he now take a civil case of defamation of character against this woman ? The Newspaper should make a front page apology , the same size as the story...this will happen..not a chance . 

Well, indeed. Now that we know the child suffered no harm - it can’t have done, the man was totally exonerated - what’s the problem if the child is identified via the publication of the mother’s name? Just as it was (apparently) in the public interest to prosecute this man, it must be just as much in the public interest to identify someone whose accusation is dismissed unanimously by a jury in 30 minutes. And while we’re at it, let’s be told who was the Senior Investigating Officer...that’s quick to happen after a conviction. 

[Max Power]

1 minute ago, quilp said:

You can undergo all the safeguarding training under the sun. It is no defence (obviously) to false accusation and media sensationalism. 

No it isn't, but it helps you not to put yourself in that situation, which is the purpose of it. I think many youth organisations have suffered a decrease in volunteers because they are scared of falsely being accused of wrongdoing. 

[Declan]

1 hour ago, quilp said:

It seemed very clear to me that the strong inference from that front page was that a crime had definitely been committed. By the person named in the report. Seemed very implicit.

It is totally abhorrent, red-top-type sensationalism. That editor needs his butt very swiftly kicked...

Think it might have been on an assistant's watch, the editor seems to be on holiday. 

Like I said it seemed straightforward to me that the trial was ongoing and that this was one side of the story. Even the headline, which I do think was a little sensational begins "My Girl..." which I read as one person's version of events.

Maybe I'm more fair minded than others but I didn't jump to a conclusion on his guilt based on the front page at all. Are people really that knee-jerk? 

Perhaps the follow-up story in the Independent deserved equal prominence. 

[quilp]

It was that banner headline what did it. If you didn't catch the implication, well...

Quite right that Adrian Darbyshire and Richard Butt should attach equal prominence to the verdict, instead of suspending comments from the average Joe (att.LDV) on both articles...

[Declan]

42 minutes ago, Uhtred said:

Well, indeed. Now that we know the child suffered no harm - it can’t have done, the man was totally exonerated - what’s the problem if the child is identified via the publication of the mother’s name? Just as it was (apparently) in the public interest to prosecute this man, it must be just as much in the public interest to identify someone whose accusation is dismissed unanimously by a jury in 30 minutes. And while we’re at it, let’s be told who was the Senior Investigating Officer...that’s quick to happen after a conviction. 

Automatic naming of unsuccessful accusers is dangerous road to go down. 

I can see in other cases that could result in an injustice. If a woman genuinely has been raped, goes to the cops, they decide to prosecute someone but there's not enough evidence to convict, or they've got the wrong man, and then the woman is automatically named. That would be wrong, it would discourage other rape victims coming forward. 

However, if the woman lied, charge her with perverting the course of justice, and name her as a result of that process. 

[Declan]

3 minutes ago, quilp said:

It was that banner headline what did it. If you didn't catch the implication, well...

 

The headline doesn't identify the man. And it's immediately by a large heading saying Indecent Assault Trial Underway. That's more prominent than the man's name or his picture, so if they knew his name they also knew he was still under trial. Are people really that stupid that they ignore that?  

[quilp]

Generally, yes, people are stupid...