to think the media shouldn't reveal quite so much information about someone until they are convicted

[ohnoshedittant]

Just watching the Ch4 news about the developments in the Jo Yeates murder. They have a new suspect who they have in custody. Thanks to Ch4 I now know his name, age, where and when he was born, his job, his qualifications, where he lives and who he lives with and have seen a photo and graduation video.

What if he didn't do it?! He isn't going to be able to go back to his life now. I'm not sure how the media revealing that information to the public is helpful.

AIBU?

Totally agree -
whatever happened innocent before being proven guilty

They tried changing that law about naming rape suspects. Didn't last long if I remember.

Totally agree. Should not be legal to name people unless they've been charged or even convicted. It's appalling how they ruin people's lives like this.

YANBU - couldn't agree more. Thought the same when her landlord was arrested. Posts all over Fb saying 'oh so the landlord did it'.....then he was released. 40 odd yrs as a respected professor and being named as a murder suspect will probably be all he's remembered for. Not nice.

YADNU!!! Was just saying exactly the same thing to DH.

It seems wrong. However..... it could also lead to someone else coming forward with evidence either about the suspect, or to give the suspect an alibi. So I suppose it can work both ways.

YANBU

Article 6 of the Human Rights Act provides for the right to a fair trial.

Ergo if you splash details of someone suspected of a crime all over the media prior to charge and conviction and even afterwards, it is possible they could use Article 6 to escape trial or have a conviction quashed on appeal. Becuase given the amount of information given out by the media, it is possible that anyone who sits on a jury could be prejudiced by what they've read in the media and therefore the accused cannot have a fair trial.

totally agree, had the same conversation with DP last night. Can't see how they get away with it.

Totally agree!!I thought that myself about the Jo Yeates case.
Never understand why they do this and then you think back to those 'people' who harmed Baby P(for example)and their identities weren't revealed for a couple of years!!Or those boys in the James Bulger case who have new identities.These people are proven guilty!
The odd looking ex-teacher who was on the front page of every newspaper for being the suspect of Jo Yeates is not guilty but his life will never be the same now.Extremely unfair..

YANBU, I was speaking to people at my work when the witchhunt news reporting of the landlord was at its peak and we all thought it was intrusive and trial by media, now the same thing is happening with this new guy, the papers go too far.

YANBU I was thinking about this recently

The identities in the Baby P case were not revealed because there was a second trial pending.

The information about the individual currently in custody was all gathered from the public domain. Another reason to think before you post, and to create a culture where no-one ever posts pix of third parties without their consent.

'the papers go too far.'

Fuelled by the overwhelming needs of elements of the public who want their criminals to be easily identifiable by appearance or mannerisms, and rely on the medieval practice of
' Oh, I felt it in my waters that he was a wrong 'un. '
The threads that ran on here, condemning the other arrested suspect on those grounds were deplorable.

Totally agree, and I work in the media, and sometimes wonder why - and how - they are revealing so much.

They are on dangerous ground.

I agree, what happened to inocent until prooven guilty?

What if he didn't do it? the poor blokes life could be ruined (if he did do it then fair enough).

The press should not be able to to publish personal details of someone who has not been proven guilty.

I have a feeling its a repeat of the 1st arrest and he will be released later today . It must be so hard on the family, i'm sure they just want closure.