CLEARED

[the stinking enigma]

Er.. no. I didn't want to prejudice an ongoing trial. That was it yes.

[thesultanofsheight]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

 Yes dilligaf, most people will have found out after reading the headline. So, my question is (if it wasn't clear enough): why not express any concerns you had then, instead of waiting two days for a different headline telling you he was innocent?

It’s undignified when a MF comedy character fights back 

[dilligaf]

6 minutes ago, Mr. Sausages said:

 Yes dilligaf, most people will have found out after reading the headline. So, my question is (if it wasn't clear enough): why not express any concerns you had then, instead of waiting two days for a different headline telling you he was innocent?

And you gain what from your little crusade 

It was s shambles and you know it

A mans life has been changed by the publicity maybe you can’t see it

[Last Ten]

Question - Will this guy be able to take legal action against the newspaper or Courts? Or is the newspaper allowed to report alleged offences and name people legally? (in this case an innocent man).

This is a genuine question and this needs questioning and investigated by our elected members of the House of Keys as a matter of urgency.

[finlo]

27 minutes ago, Last Ten said:

Question - Will this guy be able to take legal action against the newspaper or Courts? Or is the newspaper allowed to report alleged offences and name people legally? (in this case an innocent man).

This is a genuine question and this needs questioning and investigated by our elected members of the House of Keys as a matter of urgency.

I sense another hump in our already humpy carpet!

[yootalkin2me]

1 hour ago, Mr. Sausages said:

Where was all the outrage about them naming him before the verdict? If naming the accused during a trial is such a terrible thing, why didn't anyone on here or Facebook mention their concerns before the verdict?

Personally speaking, I never knew of the case in any form until I read about it on this thread.

[Kopek]

The paper were only reporting the court proceedings, so no case there.

It would require a very strong case to accuse the prosecution of malicious intent.

The Police are covered by the procedure of their simply passing the details to the prosecution service for them to make a decision as to whether to prosecute or not

An internal Police inquiry will never be known to us, if there was over enthusiastic pursuit of the case from a particular police officer, that will remain a secret?

 

Will this person now be allowed to return to his job??? Will the police record be an excuse to sever his employment? Is that a 'leaving this court without a blemish on your character???

[Uhtred]

One would hope (though I realize I’m hopelessly optimistic) that in circumstances where a prosecution is brought and a jury returns a unanimous non-guilty verdict inside 30 minutes (which sends the clearest possibly message) that there is a rigorous review within the prosecutions department of the process whereby the decision was made to take the case to court. It seems on the face of it that someone has made a very serious error of judgment here.

[gettafa]

3 hours ago, Mr. Sausages said:

Where was all the outrage about them naming him before the verdict? If naming the accused during a trial is such a terrible thing, why didn't anyone on here or Facebook mention their concerns before the verdict?

I think there was no outrage before, because the newspaper could be seen as saying the guy is/as good as guilty.

[Lost Login]

2 hours ago, Mr. Sausages said:

Where was all the outrage about them naming him before the verdict? If naming the accused during a trial is such a terrible thing, why didn't anyone on here or Facebook mention their concerns before the verdict?

I agree to an extent with you and Declan. It is obviously an awful position for the individual and for what little I have read I wonder why they were put on trial. However with social media etc these days and I can see that if they were not many of the accusations would have been spread with accusations of a cover up. It will be of little comfort to the individual that at least this way he has clearly been found not guilty and the allegations seem doubtful at best.

With regard to the reporting it seems that the concerns on here are because he was found not guilty, totally justifiably.

In other cases or in hypothetical cases where parties are found guilty I don't remember people complaining about the media reporting what they were alleged to have done before the case was decided. e.g. this from the BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-isle-of-man-31912504 Then there was that scumbag who killed that lady walking

Maybe the paper could be less sensationist but they are only reporting what evidence is presented in court and surely they should not alter there coverage based on whether they believe a party is innocent or guilty. That is to for jury to decide. In cases such as this where the accused is innocent then there will always be concerns about details being reported. In cases where they are found guilty I am sure concerns would be raised if they did not report the ongoing trial.

Finally by way of example lets cast our minds back to the prosecution of the AG. In two trials he was never found guilty. If the media had not reported matters as they were ongoing there would have been uproar and accusations of cover up but that appears to be what posters are arguing for. I think in reporting cases it must be difficult to get the balance right and in this instance they probably got slightly wrong but I think it was appropriate to report much of the evidence they reported although I am very uncomfortable with the effect on the guy involved but I struggle to find a better option. Nobody should want no reporting until there is a verdict and the media should not second guess verdicts and let it influence the reporting  

[Shake me up Judy]

There's a difference between reporting cases (We expect no less of the media) and the naming of individuals before trial.

[WTF]

8 hours ago, Kopek said:

 

 

 Will the police record be an excuse to sever his employment? 

has he got a conviction for anything?  ( maybe wearing that hat...  )   or does just being accused of something count as a police record these days?

[Lost Login]

46 minutes ago, Shake me up Judy said:

There's a difference between reporting cases (We expect no less of the media) and the naming of individuals before trial.

That happens in hundreds of thousands of cases every year in the IoM, UK etc. People are arrested and the fact is reported or when a trial is about to start that is reported all be it the Cliff Richard's case in the UK may prevent that going forward

We all want a utopia solution. Unfortunately there is not one although we should all try and work towards as best we can

[Neil Down]

9 hours ago, Uhtred said:

One would hope (though I realize I’m hopelessly optimistic) that in circumstances where a prosecution is brought and a jury returns a unanimous non-guilty verdict inside 30 minutes (which sends the clearest possibly message) that there is a rigorous review within the prosecutions department of the process whereby the decision was made to take the case to court. It seems on the face of it that someone has made a very serious error of judgment here.

Bunch of self serving jobsworths. Nothing will happen, in fact they are probably sitting around congratulating themselves

[hissingsid]

I just hope this poor man gets to know the amount of support he has got from the public in this matter and the disgust that is being leveled at those responsible for putting him in this position I.e. The lying mother, whose name has not been revealed, the over enthusiastic prosecutors and the slimy media, I did notice a much smaller picture in the paper with a not guilty heading, too little too late.   Regarding his job he was suspended so he will automatically resume his position one would hope.   But a persons reputation is everything, especially in the Isle of Man or any small place and mud sticks.    I wish him the best but am sure he will never get over this dreadful experience.   There is nothing worse than being accused of doing something when you are innocent even when you are exonerated it cuts deep.