Coroner's Courts And Privacy

[hc4361]

I have just read a report in a national newspaper about a man who accidentally killed himself whilst engaging in a solo 'sex game' for want of a better expression.

I feel for the family. The news report goes in to great detail about the death and items found in his house.

I really don't see why this is in the public interest. If the matter must be reported at all a simple verdict of accidental death should be enough, not the salacious details.

[ToraToraTora]

let's have the salacious details so we can judge!

[calmck]

This happened to a friend of mine and his family were devastated as they had no idea of certain aspects of his life. Details, in my opinion, are not in the public interest and should not be made public.

[hc4361]

Sadly the family would always find out if they attend the court hearing but it doesn't need to be published in the papers.

[woofgang]

While I sort of agree with you, as things stand, Coroners Courts are public functions and reporting restrictions can only be made for certain reasons eg if a child is involved or if the detail can prejudice a court case. The press are a bunch of gutter dwelling tripe hounds of course but limiting their freedom is a dodgy business.

[Mamyalynne]

I can see your point and also agree with Woof, however sections of the Press know what some readers want - sad but true.

[hc4361]

Yes, it is a very sad reflection of society, mamya

[Peter Pedant]

we dont know the back story

one particularly salacious case of a dead doctor and his patients were given a public airing
and half way thro the coroner said -we are only doing thisbecuase the widow has denied everything and said it is a pack of lies .....

unfortunate for all concerned including the lady who sobbed into a hankie - no no no, it wasnt like that! it wozzernt!

[Peter Pedant]

o god the general [rinciple of public justice .....

Lord Donald McDonald ( attorney general 1890-5) was in the Times yesterday, saying the latest GCHQ film is a pack of disgracious lies,

she was indicted in real life, but not on that and I (Lord D of McD)(**) cant telll you what one because they were state secrets.... yeah well he would say that wouldnt he (*)

(*) Mandy Rice Davies a famous pristitute in the sixties
(**) PP cd tell you - - but I wd then have to shoot you

[Peter Pedant]

// reporting restrictions can only be made for certain reasons eg if a child is involved or if the detail can prejudice a court case.//

usually the coroners case is almost the last - after the criminal case

the arena kidz are still not certified
because Ali McShooter McBomb has just been arrested and MAY be indicted for terrorism. I cannot tell you if the two cases are connected !! (*)

I am not sure if a coroner can command silence
If he is a high court judge - he may be able to as a high ct judge because a judge can on the grounds of contekpt of court

(*) I have changed the names to protext the names of the parents and children

[ummmm]

I agree entirely. That is the first thing I thought when I read the headline. I didn't read the story.

[youngmafbog]

This is nothing new, if the public didnt respond to it they wold not report it. However that is unlikely to happen any time soon especially given the public's penchant for reality TV.

The other problem with banning it is who gets to choose what is in the publics interest?

[pixie374]

I wouldn't "ban" it. But a bit of respect and privacy would be nice. Once someone has died, there is no confidentiality any more. The same happens on AB, I've noticed. Real names and details get posted, which that person never offered themselves.

[andy-hughes]

Never underestimate the media's ability to present something as being 'in the public interest' when the reality is that it is something that 'interests the public' which is not the same thing at all.

[hc4361]

So true, Andy

[ummmm]

Young - how do they know how the public responded?

[Peter Pedant]

didnt someone say - if the public dont wanna read it then its isnt news?

or news is what they DON'T want you to read.

Clive Ponting, Tisdall, Matrix churchill
all cases where the Great and Good said so shocking we must not shock the innocent shockable public by publishing .... and
the shock was govt incompetence costing money and lives

Arena inquest
( why is there a delay? we all know they are dead and how they died)
the police and MI5 have refused to disclose documents because they are so shocking to the parents

in face the grim faced parents are saying that the documents shock only in the extent that it shows incompetence in the those refusing to disclose ....

the jduge is reading them all ( previously they took it on trust - no really ! the judges did not look behind PIIs until Matrix Churchill where the defence showed incredibly the undisclosed documents exonerated the accused !) - yes to make it clear, judges looked at PIIs and said - oh these are so secret I am told I wont even look at them myself !

[hc4361]

They know exactly how many times an item has been clicked on in the online paper, ummm

[ummmm]

Yes, but whoever clicks on it might read it with a sense of disgust and be put off that particular news source. I avoid as much as possible clicking because of a headline, I tend to read the comments first.

It's pretty clear on FB that many people click the links just to take the pee out of so called journalism.