thesultanofsheight Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 6 minutes ago, Declan said: 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? This has clearly been a very contrived attempt to discredit the man. I’m sure you media folks stay together defending the indefensible but this situation stinks to be honest. If I was that guy I’d be taking legal advice on it. It’s the IOM and sadly people will still be making reference to the “paedo” in 25 years time. They published his name, address, and picture in the paper when he had only been charged with an offence that was subsequently unanimously thrown out of court by a jury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhtred Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 16 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: This has clearly been a very contrived attempt to discredit the man. I’m sure you media folks stay together defending the indefensible but this situation stinks to be honest. If I was that guy I’d be taking legal advice on it. It’s the IOM and sadly people will still be making reference to the “paedo” in 25 years time. They published his name, address, and picture in the paper when he had only been charged with an offence that was subsequently unanimously thrown out of court by a jury. Unanimously thrown out tells you one thing...unanimously thrown out in 30 minutes tells you a very great deal more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Horrible situation for the guy. Was anybody complaining about the reporting before the verdict? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 24 minutes ago, thesultanofsheight said: This has clearly been a very contrived attempt to discredit the man. I’m sure you media folks stay together defending the indefensible but this situation stinks to be honest. If I was that guy I’d be taking legal advice on it. It’s the IOM and sadly people will still be making reference to the “paedo” in 25 years time. They published his name, address, and picture in the paper when he had only been charged with an offence that was subsequently unanimously thrown out of court by a jury. I'm not a media folk. And that's a very contrived attempt to discredit me. Why would the newspaper contrive to discredit some fellow who works as a porter in at the museum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Declan said: Think it might have been on an assistant's watch, the editor seems to be on holiday. Yep, he's been on holiday for two weeks. Doubt he had anything to do with it, but as there were no reporting restrictions he may well have run the story too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Down Posted August 2, 2018 Author Share Posted August 2, 2018 56 minutes ago, Declan said: I'm not a media folk. And that's a very contrived attempt to discredit me. Why would the newspaper contrive to discredit some fellow who works as a porter in at the museum? It's happened though. In 5/10/15 years time nobody will care a jot about the story or Butt or any of his "reporters". The man whose name has been slurred will still have that stigma attached to his name Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 hour ago, Declan said: I'm not a media folk. And that's a very contrived attempt to discredit me. Why would the newspaper contrive to discredit some fellow who works as a porter in at the museum? Why would I want to discredit you? People seem to be very touchy on here today. I think almost unanimously people seem to think that this was an incredibly crappy thing to do except you. And those specifically calling for Butt’s head - his social media account seems to suggest he’s been on holiday at the time. Someone has done an awful hatchet job on this bloke though it really is a disgrace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 11 minutes ago, Neil Down said: It's happened though. In 5/10/15 years time nobody will care a jot about the story or Butt or any of his "reporters". The man whose name has been slurred will still have that stigma attached to his name The responsibility lies with the people who brought him to court, without sufficient evidence, not the people who reported what happened when he got there. I'm honestly, astounded people read a headline and seek to put it in context. I don't think the story attached a stigma to him. Only an idiot would read that story and disregard the fact the trial was ongoing and subsequently not read the coverage of his acquittal. Is there anyone out there that knows of the first story but not the second or puts more weight on the first than the decision of the court. You don't. Nobody who's posted on this thread does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shake me up Judy Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 It's the IOM Declan. Plenty of people's lives have been ruined by the public appetite for lies, scurrilous rumour, innuendo, malicious gossip, witch hunts, and the fantasies of vexatious individuals. You should get out more. I've even known lives to have been ended because of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 1 minute ago, Shake me up Judy said: It's the IOM Declan. Plenty of people's lives have been ruined by the public appetite for lies, scurrilous rumour, innuendo, malicious gossip, witch hunts, and the fantasies of vexatious individuals. You should get out more. I've even known lives to have been ended because of it. Why would I want to get out more, you make it sound horrible! But don't you think the responsibility lies more with the authorities and the person making the allegation? The witch hunt seems to be addressed at the messenger rather than the cause of the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 2 hours ago, Declan said: Why would I want to get out more, you make it sound horrible! But don't you think the responsibility lies more with the authorities and the person making the allegation? The witch hunt seems to be addressed at the messenger rather than the cause of the problem. It’s all irrelevant. As SMUJ says lives have been destroyed by malicious gossip and if the guy tops himself because if all the whispering and innuendo because of what’s happened being plastered all over the papers would you change your rather strange stance on this? As SMUJ points out plenty of lives have been destroyed on this Island due to similar incidents over the years. Half the time it’s deliberate too so that people are then ostracized by the community or decide to leave the Island etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 I wouldn’t blame the newspaper because the blame is the person who made an incorrect allegation and the prosecutors for taking it to court with little evidence. Paper just reported what went on as a result. Are you seriously saying they shouldn’t? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheTeapot Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 You could argue that blame should lie with the newspaper for printing a headline that seems to be a quote from the accusers evidence. Which is surely prejudicial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thesultanofsheight Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 3 minutes ago, TheTeapot said: You could argue that blame should lie with the newspaper for printing a headline that seems to be a quote from the accusers evidence. Which is surely prejudicial. I agree. Also the accuser and the court don’t deliver his name, address, and picture to 35,000 households in order to sell advertising space on the back of people’s macabre interest in public paedo with hunts. Yes Declan I’m seriously saying they shouldn’t in a small Island community until someone is found guilty of the charges against them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Sausages Posted August 2, 2018 Share Posted August 2, 2018 Dont blame the paperboy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.