VillaGoMarching Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Im glad the police are still working on this investigation, the media seem to be bored of it now. Just a few weeks ago that creep Clifford was on 'This Morning' talking about the Saville allegations, arrogant prick probably thought he was untouchable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Well with it being Max Clifford the papers better be extremely careful what headlines they write, if they aren't sure of their facts and they get it wrong it will cost them. That said I'd imagine there are a lot of people out there, in the press and otherwise who have been waiting many years to get their knives into Clifford. You can almost hear them being sharpened. I think there are quite a few who would say he has had it coming to him for a while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Why are they not releasing the name of the 80 year old man that was arrested too? When you know this persons links I can see why. Can you see who it is yet! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted December 7, 2012 Moderator Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't know why people's names are being released while they're still innocent. It's a terrible thing to tarnish someone in the eyes of the public before they've even been found guilty of anything. Imagine being innocent but being incorrectly associated with a paedo case? That shit would always follow you around no matter who says otherwise. The relish with which the public learn each new name isn't in the least bit surprising and that's all the more reason to be careful with who the police and media choose to destroy. The problem here is that the public have no problem with the P.T.Barnum-esque manner in which the police and media are carrying out the investigation. We just need to make sure the right people - and ALL the right people - get thrown to the wolves in due course. Because as we can see, the wolves don't particularly care who they devour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't know why people's names are being released while they're still innocent. It's a terrible thing to tarnish someone in the eyes of the public before they've even been found guilty of anything. Imagine being innocent but being incorrectly associated with a paedo case? That shit would always follow you around no matter who says otherwise. The relish with which the public learn each new name isn't in the least bit surprising and that's all the more reason to be careful with who the police and media choose to destroy. The problem here is that the public have no problem with the P.T.Barnum-esque manner in which the police and media are carrying out the investigation. We just need to make sure the right people - and ALL the right people - get thrown to the wolves in due course. Because as we can see, the wolves don't particularly care who they devour. Spot on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 I don't know why people's names are being released while they're still innocent. It's a terrible thing to tarnish someone in the eyes of the public before they've even been found guilty of anything. Imagine being innocent but being incorrectly associated with a paedo case? That shit would always follow you around no matter who says otherwise. The relish with which the public learn each new name isn't in the least bit surprising and that's all the more reason to be careful with who the police and media choose to destroy. The problem here is that the public have no problem with the P.T.Barnum-esque manner in which the police and media are carrying out the investigation. We just need to make sure the right people - and ALL the right people - get thrown to the wolves in due course. Because as we can see, the wolves don't particularly care who they devour. If names were kept secret until a finding of guilty, that would mean court cases taking place in secret. That seems worse. We should certainly avoid the "perp walk" nonsense of the USA, and things like the dramatisation of the police taking camera crews to film them waking up Harry Redknapp's missus early one morning. I don't think that means total secrecy, though. Where there have been particular problems, it's been when the gutter press have whipped up hysteria, for example with Chris Jeffries and a few years back the Portsmouth paedophile vigilante stuff, with morons attacking a paediatrician following the Scum's ill-judged campaign. It's a difficult call for the police, as well. They have failed over many years to investigate paedophile rings of the rich and well-connected, and there is now growing public distrust of their ability and will to deal with this. It's hard to see how they could try to rebuild some of that trust, if they don't keep people informed of arrests. Of course what would restore some confidence is seeing that they are uncovering the heavier end of all this, not only rounding up a few celebs who may have abused the power and influence they held over some young and impressionable people a few decades ago. Releasing information also helps avoid the feverish speculation, especially if people can be more confident that full information is released. The use of superinjunctions and D notices don't help this process, because we know that certain information is being kept from us where it affects the powerful. In a climate where people are more confident that there isn't an ability on the part of the rich and connected to cover up their crimes, perhaps the bush telegraph would be less busy. As for the stigma, some of that is inevitable. But it would be far less if the press didn't on the one hand crucify helpless people, and on the other go along with the ability of the rich to buy silence. I suppose that's too much to ask. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 The police are going after this crowd hammer and tongs in order to redeem themselves in the eyes of the public. Old tactic, different crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshVilla Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Clifford deserves everything he gets About time he got his just deserts imo a complete and utter rat of a human being Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 7, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 7, 2012 Why are they not releasing the name of the 80 year old man that was arrested too? When you know this persons links I can see why. Can you see who it is yet! ;-) Give us a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Give us a clue. **** hell! Una Stubbs? Noooooo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Who's the 80 year old ? Any leads Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Who's the 80 year old ? Any leads B6 bloke, above... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted December 7, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted December 7, 2012 b6bloke is 80? Wow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 re the 80 year old man who the world and his Kangeroo seems to have found out about + Clifford + Hall .. anyone else concerned that the whole aspect of innocent until proven guilty seems to be disappearing .. 2 of them have been publicly named , even if they are now found innocent that will hang over their heads for the rest of their life , and the 3rd person is already worried about the harm to his reputation even though he hasn't been formally named shouldn't it be complete anonymity until such point as you are found guilty ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 shouldn't it be complete anonymity until such point as you are found guilty ? Court cases held in secret? Guantanamo Bay/Pyongyang style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 shouldn't it be complete anonymity until such point as you are found guilty ? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Court cases held in secret? Guantanamo Bay/Pyongyang style? well no put it this way , in a rape case how often do you find out the name of the victim ... where as the accused in a lot of cases is named before the case has even taken place ... it does suggest there are ways of keeping the names out the public domain ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 No. interesting but any particular reason why ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Kangaroo Court ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) in a rape case how often do you find out the name of the victim It depends whether mates of the rapist are on twitter, I suppose. Why the no? Largely because it would require courts to sit in camera, surely? I wouldn't mind too much if there were reporting restrictions about those arrested until they were charged but I'd much prefer it if people realized that to be accused of something, arrested or even charged with something does not mean that person is guilty or has done it. Edited December 7, 2012 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts