Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think its disgusting that a murder suspect for a very nasty murder has been named before he's even been charged

112 replies

allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 09:46

Title says it all really...

First of all it was only on FB that I saw him named, and I pointed out how very wrong it is. But now I see that BBC news have named him too.

AIBU? Or does the public have a right to know?

OP posts:
Glitterknickaz · 11/02/2011 09:48

I can't see anything on bbc homepage, what are you referring to?

JBellingham · 11/02/2011 09:50

If you recall back to the murder in Bristol recently the media demonised an innocent man.

JimmyChooChoo · 11/02/2011 09:50

What murder OP?

Glitterknickaz · 11/02/2011 09:51

ahhh yes was that the guy they reckoned 'looked odd', JBellingham?

HecateQueenOfWitches · 11/02/2011 09:51

No. The public do not have the right to know that someone is suspected of having committed a crime.

It's all very well the details being given out - suspected of X, Y, Z is not saying that the person has done it, merely that they are suspected of having done it, but the reality of that is that the very large extremely stupid pitchfork mob will just decide that there is no smoke without fire.

I think that people should not be named unless they have been convicted

OR the police are trying to find them, they have done a runner and they are named in order to hopefully locate them.

onimolap · 11/02/2011 09:52

Please would you provide a link to the BBC report?

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 09:54

If I link it them I'm publicising the name, but figure that BBC have already published it so cant do any more harm.....

BBC story

OP posts:
MollysChambers · 11/02/2011 09:55

YANBU. Is this the murder of the pregnant teenager? Being linked to something like that, even if you have done nothing wrong, will follow you around for the rest of your life.

onimolap · 11/02/2011 09:56

Actually, think I might have found it. The BBC do not give source of their information, and I've just checked the website of the relevant police force and they have not released it.

pawsnclaws · 11/02/2011 09:59

YANBU. I hate this aspect of the media. Funny how all the amateur detectives on the Jo Yeates murder went quiet when it appeared that the "funny looking" landlord wasn't involved after all.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 09:59

I think the source may very well be facebook, he was being named within about an hour of being arrested. I understand it is difficult if not impossible to police the internet, but "proper" news networks shouldnt be allowed to do it...

OP posts:
kreecherlivesupstairs · 11/02/2011 10:00

YANBU. As someone else said, that sort of allegation/accusation follows you around. The old no smoke without fire.
The man who was initially arrested in Bristol is an excellent case in point.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 10:02

Did the Bristol arrest have his bail cancelled?

onimolap · 11/02/2011 10:05

Allsquare: I agree - there's a lot of it about; not just suspects but also victims (which is heartless in a different way).

But I'm not sure what can be done. The authorities are conducting themselves properly. Owing to its licence-fee status, I'd like to think the BBC would behave more to the standards of the authorities, but they would probably say they should not be subject to more limits than apply to other news outlets.

The great shame is that what's posted is immediate, global and nigh on permanent.

KnittedBreast · 11/02/2011 10:06

completly agree they shouldnt be able to name anyone until they have been charged.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:06

Is there any way of complaining to the BBC does anyone know?

OP posts:
JBellingham · 11/02/2011 10:10

scurryfunge - he was arrested, questioned, big press hoo haa as he was slightly 'unconventional' then released without charge (dunno if he was on police bail) and then they subsequently arrested charged and are soon to take to court a completely different person. But as soon as the first guy was arrasted the media had a field day with him, front page news every day. the govt overseer chap had to issue a warning to the press to tell them to stop demonising suspects. (trying not to name the chap or case but i am sure people remember)

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:10

PS I agree on the victim thing too.

A friend from school was murdered (God I live in a terrible area) and so many of the people who came out of the woodwork to "grieve" wouldnt have even know if she hadnt been named. On the one hand, I see it as being a good thing for the family that they have all the public support, but on the other hand, i would imagine they dont want to be in the public eye themselves...?

OP posts:
MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:11

I agree it is totally wrong. You are suposed to be innocent until proven guily.

The media stirs up all this type and then when it goes to court infront of the jury no matter what precautions have been put inplace the jury will no doubt be privy to the news articles and be influanced by them.

There should be a total ban on naming anyone until found guilty. Once there are found guilty they should be aloud to name anyone they like regardless.

SuchProspects · 11/02/2011 10:12

I think there is more harm in censoring the press. But I do think it would be reasonable to have harsher punishment and better enforced laws around libel and publishing information that causes a miscarriage of justice.

Naming suspects may help police inquiries in many ways and silence about crimes can help to hide them. But sensationalist reporting is detrimental to society..

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 10:13

Re the Bristol murder, last thing I read was he was still a suspect even though they'd arrested & charged the neighbour.Confused

I agree they should wait until someone is charged before releasing names. This always happens. If it's down to someone in the police leaking info to the press they should be sacked.

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:13

Being charged does not mean someone is guilty.

I think no-one should be aloud to publish the name until they have been found guilty.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:14

So does ANYONE think they should be named then? Seems a bit of a unanimous AIBU at the mo!! Shock

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 11/02/2011 10:14

If information is out in the public domain then newspapers and broadcasters are going to use it, especially when it is a very high profile case. They have a duty of care not to prejudice a future court case by raking up too much information on the person but their name is usually used. Part of the logic for publishing the name is that it could prompt witnesses to come forward.

Once a person has been arrested then there are stricter rules on what can and cannot be published. The arrested man in the Joanna Yeates murder, for example, was last reported when he appeared in court to register his plea.

onimolap · 11/02/2011 10:15

As in this instance the suspect was not named by the poppies, there is no reason to think it is a helpful move. I think the BBC report should say "the suspect, who has not been named by the police, is reported on the Internet to be...."

I tried to look up "how to complain" on the BBC website - only got answers about how to complain about other bodies!