CLEARED

[quilp]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

Quilp I probably wouldn't have gone with that headline myself. But "My girl ..." suggests it's one persons view, and I think the context is provided by the sub heading. You'd see that before the picture or the name.  

It doesn't seem that different to the 3fm report from when he has charged. 

 

 

You see, you're intellectualising this declan, without considering the average dimmo zooming in on the headline without knowing the actual facts or bothering reading on and assuming that the man was guilty, in the, "there's no smoke without fire!" kind of perception. Why can't you see that? More than the next person you must know the way social media works amongst the plebs and dregs. They would rather interpret any story how they want rather than consider the reality. And without doubt, this man's reputation is forever besmirched because of it. 

[the stinking enigma]

There'll be that many extra visitors to see the new exhibit that'll they'll be able to afford to stick him in a glass cage.

[P.K.]

51 minutes ago, quilp said:

You see, you're intellectualising this declan, without considering the average dimmo zooming in on the headline without knowing the actual facts or bothering reading on and assuming that the man was guilty, in the, "there's no smoke without fire!" kind of perception. Why can't you see that? More than the next person you must know the way social media works amongst the plebs and dregs. They would rather interpret any story how they want rather than consider the reality. And without doubt, this man's reputation is forever besmirched because of it. 

Did anyone comment on the effect that type of "story" might have had on the jury?

[John Wright]

14 minutes ago, P.K. said:

Did anyone comment on the effect that type of "story" might have had on the jury?

The jury that had actually seen and heard the mother say just that to them in court?

What would have the greater effect, seeing and hearing mum make the allegation, or reading that mum made the allegation?

Apparently they didn’t accept mums evidence, or the report.

[P.K.]

1 hour ago, John Wright said:

The jury that had actually seen and heard the mother say just that to them in court?

What would have the greater effect, seeing and hearing mum make the allegation, or reading that mum made the allegation?

Apparently they didn’t accept mums evidence, or the report.

All true.

Had I been on the jury though a newspaper splash like that would have got me thinking about the mother's motivation re putting her daughter into the public spotlight.

[Declan]

I think they would have thought about that already and the defence advocate seems to have asked them to think about it. 

[John Wright]

2 hours ago, P.K. said:

All true.

Had I been on the jury though a newspaper splash like that would have got me thinking about the mother's motivation re putting her daughter into the public spotlight.

PK, how was the mother putting her daughter in the public spotlight?

its not as if the report is of an interview. It’s a report of what was said, on oath, at court.

There will have been a very great deal of consideration about prosecuting, given a 5 year old main witness. Not just by mum, but by PPU at police, and Prosecutions at AG’s. Not something they’d undertake without being satisfied there was a prima facile case, that it was in the public interest and in the child’s interest. The child, and family benefit from protection from being identified.

Its all well and good slamming the media. 

What are your, and others, suggestions for reporting of arrest, charge and trial, and annonimity of victims, and defendants in sex offence, and other trials.

Its not simple. Lots of Tommy supporters want them on video,  named and shamed throughout, if they’re brown and Muslim. What’s their view if the defendant is white, Christian, etc.

Should the mother now be identified?

In Cliff’s case no one else came forward, in the Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Stuart Hall cases the publicity helped other victims come forward and the similar fact evidence helped convict.

[Gizo]

Must be the thinnest of threshold to take to trial.  It’s takes 12 people of differing education and knowledge to throw this case out within 30 minutes. Who are these people in Chambers who can justify this? 

Cant remember the forum member on here banging on about the flimsy prosecutions thrown out. He’s bloody right. 

[P.K.]

38 minutes ago, John Wright said:

PK, how was the mother putting her daughter in the public spotlight?

its not as if the report is of an interview. It’s a report of what was said, on oath, at court.

My mistake. I thought it was prior to the case being heard.

As to Stephen Yaxley- Lennon supporters all they seem to be trying to do is fan the flames of racism. 

They clearly get off on the publicity that goes with their brainless activities....

[John Wright]

10 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Must be the thinnest of threshold to take to trial.  It’s takes 12 people of differing education and knowledge to throw this case out within 30 minutes. Who are these people in Chambers who can justify this? 

Cant remember the forum member on here banging on about the flimsy prosecutions thrown out. He’s bloody right. 

Isle of Man. 7 not 12, apart from murder.

[Gizo]

Ok. 7 randoms worked out within 30 minutes this is a set up. Whilst god knows how many years of law training but zero common sense in chambers thought it pertinent to prosecute. But hey, a bottomless pit of lawyer fees can be obtained. 

[Andy Onchan]

5 hours ago, quilp said:

Aye, so it was...

You see nothing wrong with the headline, in bold? It suggests one thing, with an air of certainty... 

That headline is not indicative of a local Editor's oversight or even a sub-editor, past or present.

Slightly off track but relevant (as it's a media outlet), I read that Johnson Press is in financial trouble. Perhaps their headlines are not edgy enough(as above) to improve their sales?

[John Wright]

18 minutes ago, Andy Onchan said:

That headline is not indicative of a local Editor's oversight or even a sub-editor, past or present.

Slightly off track but relevant (as it's a media outlet), I read that Johnson Press is in financial trouble. Perhaps their headlines are not edgy enough(as above) to improve their sales?

What’s it got to do with Johnson Press? They haven’t owned IoM Newspapers for quite some time

[John Wright]

45 minutes ago, Gizo said:

Ok. 7 randoms worked out within 30 minutes this is a set up. Whilst god knows how many years of law training but zero common sense in chambers thought it pertinent to prosecute. But hey, a bottomless pit of lawyer fees can be obtained. 

And that’s why we have trials, judges and juries, rather than a civil servant just saying “guilty”. And as for the bottomless pit, AG prosecutors are salaried civil servant.

There’s a well defined code, and the thresholds to be reached before a prosecution takes place are high.

Of course it’s become slightly blurred recently because of pressure to prosecute any sexual offence on the say so of the alleged victim, who, for a little while was considered only able to tell the truth and never to be doubted, never to  have their evidence weighed.

Of course prosecutors can get it wrong, but if they didn’t there would be no not guilty verdicts and trials would be redundant.

At the end of the day it’s a great illustration of the need for an independent defence bar, rather than a public defender unit.

That being said it would be interesting to know when, if at all, the prosecutor was told about the apparent dispute between MNH and mum. Not likely to have been volunteered. If I’d been defending I wouldn’t have disclosed that line of questioning.

[Lost Login]

On ‎8‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 10:44 AM, interestedman said:

Quite - and Newspapers and reporters should abide by a code of ethics and standards.  Bottom line, the reporting and headline in the first instance was disgraceful.  They could of and should of waited until the case had concluded and written a balanced report.

I agree that the headline was a bit excessive, but provided the report was an accurate summary of what was said in court then fine. We should not expect the media to censure what they report on whether somebody is guilty or not and the idea that the media should wait until a case is concluded is ridiculous. Should noting have been reported in respect of say the Rolf Harris case until the jury returned a verdict. The media report cases as they are on going, sometimes hour by hour. All that should be expected is they accurately report what was presented in court.

I find it interesting that in this topic many are demanding there is no reporting until a case has been decided yet nobody appears to be making the same demands in respect of the Juan Turner case.