Name and shame the GUILTY, not the innocent
If there is one thing that annoys me about the UK justice system, it’s how they allow the media to name and shame the innocent rather than to only allow them to name and shame the guilty.
[wp_ad_camp_2]
The newspapers this morning lead with yet another household name on their front covers with allegations of sexual abuse against a minor.
The Daily Mirror front page today - Naming and shaming someone who hasn’t yet been found guilty.
This decade is fast becoming a sad set of years for those growing up in the 70s and 80s. Whenever a well-loved celebrity appears on the cover of a newspaper it seems to be reporting their death or telling of allegations of abuse against them.
We’ve all seen the likes of Jimmy Saville and Rolf Harris rightfully named and shamed. Unfortunately the details against Saville came only after his death, but the case against Rolf Harris has seen him jailed for his crimes.
Going back to today, the press have seen fit to post details of allegations against Tony Blackburn, which has led to the BBC sacking him.
Yet there has been no criminal charges brought against Blackburn. He hasn’t been seen in court or found guilty of anything, yet he has lost his job, possibly his livelihood if nobody else takes him on, and has had his name dragged through the mud.
Regardless of whatever happens, he will now be forever associated with the abuse of a girl who tragically committed suicide forty-odd years ago.
Let’s be clear on this. My issue is not with the lack of respect shown for celebrities, or an attempt to play down alleged abuse. But I am utterly aghast that yet again someone is allowed to have their name plastered all over the media without evidence against them.
It’s not just celebrities either. You only need to see local news shows or local newspapers to find that people are being named and shamed in connection with crimes they’ve yet to be convicted for.
It’s more noticeable in high-profile cases.
The police will arrest somebody. The news will name the person (normally with wording along the lines of “the person was named locally as…”), and that person then gets taken to court.
A prime example of how the media use “named locally as…” taken from the front page of Google.
If found guilty, they are subject to whatever the UK justice system throws at them,
But if innocent, they have no way of clearing their name. The damage is already done. Their name has already been printed in connection with a crime which they were subsequently cleared of.
Just reflect for a second.
What if it was your husband? Or your wife? Or a friend or part of your family? What if somebody you loved was named in connection with a horrific crime and was then found innocent?
How angry would you be? I know I’d be furious.
The laws in this country need tightening. By all means name and shame those who have been found guilty in a court of law.
But until that happens, there should be a blanket ban on naming anybody that is connected with a crime.
Lives are being destroyed, reputations ruined and all in the name of sensationalism. The world would not be worse off for not knowing the name of an alleged offender.
If someone is “named locally” in connection with a crime, then let it stay a local rumour.
The UK justice system needs to change to ensure that innocent (or “as yet not guilty” if you prefer) people have the same right of anonymity as the victims. There is absolutely no reason not to.
by DannyUK
[wp_ad_camp_1]
Twitter: jibberjabberuk
on February 25, 2016 at 9:46 am
I’m absolutely with you on this! By naming celebrities as well it brings people out of the woodwork who make up a bunch of lies as well. I know of a number of cases that have been dropped because such timewasters. On the flip side over 20 years an ex-boyfriend once told me how his older brother had been approached by a famous broadcaster. No case had been brought about at the time and he only mentioned it because he came on the TV. A couple of years he was found guilty and it was in the same area and manner as. He still maintains his innocence though!
Ness recently posted…How to Become a Better Gardener this Spring
I agree that the celebrities need to be named and shamed.
The innocent people who have been through this abuse need to be protected and not named. It’s a shame though that you do happen to get liars out there as well though that’s the only downside to naming celebrities.
I don’t think that ANYONE should be named and shamed until they are found guilty in court – celebrities or not!
DannyUK recently posted…Cost of having a large family – Odeon cinema prices
Twitter: and1moremakes3_
on February 25, 2016 at 10:23 am
I absolutely could not agree with you more. My husband is a lawyer, and he dealt with a client a few evenings ago who was accused of a not very nice thing. Accused being the most important word there. He was caught by a ‘hunter’, which is basically entrapment, and this ‘hunter’ put his video footage of the incident all over the internet before the guy had even left custody. He wasn’t charged. He has since lost his job, and is thinking of selling up. Makes me so mad!!
Leah Miller recently posted…Weight Loss Mathematics 101…
I completely agree! Its ridiculous it ruins lives and reputations, once those allegation sare made there is no going back for that person, I have no idea why they are aloud too print that tripe! If they are found guilty by a court of law by all means PRINT IT! But if not then trial by media is never ok! x
Twitter: bekb65
on February 25, 2016 at 11:00 am
This is something that really upsets me. It is wonderful that the press have free speech but I think they take it way too far. These kinds of unproved allegations should not be allowed to be printed. I can never understand why this isn’t classed as liable.
That’s a good point, actually. Why isn’t is either libel or slander?
DannyUK recently posted…Bearded Backchat with PR Chelle McCann
I agree that people should not be named, certainly not in the early stages of an investigation, and certainly not by newspapers when there is no criminal investigation at all. It can become much harder to keep quiet once things have reached the stage where someone has been charged and the case is going to court – I am not sure that there is a way of keeping things under wraps at that point.
Sonya Cisco recently posted…In Which I Forgot We Had A Garden For A Bit
Twitter: Chelseamamma
on February 25, 2016 at 1:07 pm
I am so with you on this, whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I’m with you on that. Reminds me of something that happened years ago, I don’t remember the case exactly was out of the country when it happened. My friend who lives in Bristol told me about how one man’s life was ruined because he was accused of killing a young woman who lived in the same building as him. It turns out the real murderer was another neighbour of theirs. No amount of compensation or apology can ever make-up for what they did to him, both the police and the press!
I remember that case as well! The tabloids had a field day as the man in question looked a bit odd. Turned out he was completely innocent.
DannyUK recently posted…Bearded Backchat with PR Chelle McCann
Twitter: daysinbed
on February 25, 2016 at 4:14 pm
You make a vey valid point and as someone who was accused of something (not this type of thing) but accused of being a bad mum (when I was not) it was spread around the community and then proven in court they had got it wrong yet I still got all the judgement and everything which comes with being labelled as something I was not! in my case I was accused of being mentally ill when I wasn’t but the damage was done for the ones who are innocent the damage is done even when they are innocent . It makes me mad!
Twitter: anadultieradult
on February 25, 2016 at 5:28 pm
I totally agree with you. What happened to innocent until proven guilty as well? As soon as someone is named as under suspicion the public has already tried and convicted them!
Twitter: ediwithkids
on February 25, 2016 at 5:45 pm
I also totally agree with you on this one. So often names are never released over crimes (Successfully) but the crimes alone can be reported to show that police investigate these types of things. Allegations this serious in nature should lead to a fair trial, not one biased by the media’s interpretation. It puts the justice system at too much risk all for the sake of selling a scandal.
Laura recently posted…Activities: Dynamic Earth
Twitter: littlehouselea
on February 25, 2016 at 6:13 pm
Agreed. Like other people who’ve commented, what about innocent until proven guilty?
Zoe recently posted…Fantastic family day out on electric bikes
Twitter: pagan500
on February 25, 2016 at 7:00 pm
I definitely agree, so many cases have been dropped due to contamination by the media.
Twitter: etusty
on February 25, 2016 at 9:00 pm
I totally agree with you. It’s sensationalism, and surely by the media putting names out there, it screws up the truth behind the investigations
Twitter: faded_spring
on February 25, 2016 at 11:51 pm
While I agree that if there is enough evidence to show they are offenders then we should know but to condemn people who have very little evidence is disgusting, especially when they are innocent!
Twitter: kizzybasslcj
on February 26, 2016 at 5:41 am
I totally agree. I am currently studying Journalism and we discuss this quite regularly in our workshops. I hope that if I ever work in the news industry that things have improved and rather than sensationalizing a story to sell a few more papers.
Kizzy recently posted…Winter light
Twitter: TangoRaindrop
on February 26, 2016 at 7:51 am
My best friend had to change her name because these rags named and shamed her as the victim of a horrific pre mediated sexual attack. It was awful. I remember her hiding out in my house away from the telephone calls from these dreadful reporters. It should be a criminal offense.
Elizabeth recently posted…#ImpossibleExperiences with Into The Blue
Twitter: mentalparentals
on February 26, 2016 at 8:14 am
I agree with this SO much! Whilst it’s important for the media to report the news, the idea is that people are “innocent until proven guilty”. Well, too many people are getting tarred with the guilty brush before they’ve even been to trial. It’s just plain wrong.ht
Twitter: MamasHaven
on February 26, 2016 at 10:50 am
We had a murder down the road a few weeks ago. A man in his sixties supposedly elicited sex and the girl showed up with two pimps and murdered him. How do I know this and much more detail I never wanted to know? Because the local newspaper decided to publish the whole thing. It left me furious as it showed no respect to the deceased. I did not want to know all that and I felt very sad for his family, having to see that plastered everywhere in the papers.xx
I believe you are innocent until proven guilty, that is the law in the country and naming and shaming people is just vile. If they are guilty or found guilty then fine, print away but until then, it is about selling papers and ruining people’s lives, if infact they are innocent.
Twitter: idaintyit
on February 26, 2016 at 5:31 pm
I completely agree with you! No one should be named and shamed until they have had their day in court and are proven guilty, celebrity or no celebrity! It can ruin lives and half the time the people are completely innocent! If prove guilty then yes shame away!
Twitter: icklepicklex
on February 26, 2016 at 8:43 pm
I agree – innocent until proven guilty – if the person is innocent, they will never clear their name after being named in the media. Kaz
Twitter: rachaelphillips
on February 27, 2016 at 1:00 pm
couldn’t agree more! the thing is, mud sticks and whilst the person may be found innocent people will always have those stories in the back of their head. I think about the guy who plays Ken Barlow in Corrie, he’s in his 80’s the stress of all that could’ve killed him and he’d have gone to his grave with people thinking he was a pervert.
Although I think we know 100% that Jimmy Saville was a disgusting man who did vile things to a LOT of people, it’s worth remembering that he’s never actually been found guilty of any crime in a court. *I’m not condoning it or saying he’s innocent in anyway!!!!*
Did you see the story a few weeks back with that guy who was accused of sexual assault on the London Underground? But it was then proven he didn’t do it but only after his face was all over the papers and he was dragged through court. How is that fair. Naming and shaming like you said should only happen when they are found guilty.
Twitter: myrabev
on February 28, 2016 at 7:51 am
I absolutely agree with naming and shaming the guilty NOT the yet to be found guilty or innocent. The media these days are taking a mickey out of the justice system which honestly should be tightened.
Twitter: PostmanSpotting
on February 28, 2016 at 10:32 pm
You’re right, of course. Most people would probably say that they agree with you but the fact is that newspaper editors and owners aren’t complete idiots. They do this because it works – it sells papers. People buy the papers to see the gossip and then retell it as fact. The ‘court of public opinion’ doesn’t care too much for evidence. It’s water-cooler chat and not a courtroom that damns people.
Once you’re in the paper and reported, however subtley the wording, you’ve no chance. How could anyone represent themselves differently against a media empire? Damn, you’ve got me ranting….
I completely agree. There’s no way that any media will stop naming and shaming. Even when papers are forced to publish an apology it will never have the impace that the publishing of something nasty would.
DannyUK recently posted…Bearded Backchat with Lisa from The Contented Family