ChatterBank0 min ago
Innocent Until Proven Newsworthy?
We often hear how those accused of rape and sexual assault should have their identities kept secret as it could damage their reputation if found not guilty.
Along those same lines, should newspapers be allowed to get away with naming those who have not been charged of other offences?
https:/
https:/
https:/
Along those same lines, should newspapers be allowed to get away with naming those who have not been charged of other offences?
https:/
https:/
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This was the original report that I saw.
https:/
2 hours ago - SUSSEX Police have admitted the drone which brought chaos to Gatwick airport and ruined Christmas for more than 140000 may never have ...
https:/
2 hours ago - SUSSEX Police have admitted the drone which brought chaos to Gatwick airport and ruined Christmas for more than 140000 may never have ...
I totally and utterly disagree with naming anyone until at least charged. Even then I would prefer people not to be named until found Guilty and only on guilty.
Unfortuantely mud sticks and there are always those (we see it on here often) who come up with 'There is no smoke without fire'.
In this particualr case is seem Inspector Clouseau was in charge, incopetance at it's best. Perhaps the Police service should stick to speeding motorists or parking offences as that seems to be all they can do now.
Unfortuantely mud sticks and there are always those (we see it on here often) who come up with 'There is no smoke without fire'.
In this particualr case is seem Inspector Clouseau was in charge, incopetance at it's best. Perhaps the Police service should stick to speeding motorists or parking offences as that seems to be all they can do now.
"for all we know they had a good lead but it proved wrong"
Except we also know the Police were told early on they could not possibly be the ones.
This case was an unmitigating disaster. Heads need to roll.
"Did the police actually release the names or just leak them to favoured journalists?"
Probably neither. I suspect the tip off to plod was vindictive so probably papers tipped of too.
Except we also know the Police were told early on they could not possibly be the ones.
This case was an unmitigating disaster. Heads need to roll.
"Did the police actually release the names or just leak them to favoured journalists?"
Probably neither. I suspect the tip off to plod was vindictive so probably papers tipped of too.
being told they couldn't be the ones isn't definitive, they have to check out everything. I mentioned in one of these threads that their boss had given them an alibi; but someone else pointed out, correctly, that the boss could be lying.
The process has worked the way it should: people have been investigated, then released without charge. But newspapers have some apologising to do.
The process has worked the way it should: people have been investigated, then released without charge. But newspapers have some apologising to do.
"...but someone else pointed out, correctly, that the boss could be lying."
Indeed. So the "ABC" of detective work swings in: "Accept nothing; Believe nobody; Check everything." In this particular case the suspect's boss (for whom he had worked for seventeen years) told the police that he was part of a three man team who had worked together for a day and a half of the period under investigation. They were fitting facias and soffits for a customer in Groombridge. He offered to provided the customer's details and those of the two workmates so that further confirmation could be sought. Nobody contacted him.
Indeed. So the "ABC" of detective work swings in: "Accept nothing; Believe nobody; Check everything." In this particular case the suspect's boss (for whom he had worked for seventeen years) told the police that he was part of a three man team who had worked together for a day and a half of the period under investigation. They were fitting facias and soffits for a customer in Groombridge. He offered to provided the customer's details and those of the two workmates so that further confirmation could be sought. Nobody contacted him.
"...could it be the suspect was cleared on other grounds so further confirmation wasn't needed?. "
Possibly. But not before they had been detained for a second night. The boss contacted the police on Saturday afternoon and they were not released until Sunday morning (by which time he had still not been contacted). So the couple were kept in custody for a second night when evidence that they almost certainly could not have been involved had come to light.
Possibly. But not before they had been detained for a second night. The boss contacted the police on Saturday afternoon and they were not released until Sunday morning (by which time he had still not been contacted). So the couple were kept in custody for a second night when evidence that they almost certainly could not have been involved had come to light.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles2 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Could Labour Learn From The Donald?
News6 mins ago
Did Covid Change Your Lifestyle?
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.