Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

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:
MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:15

How can sensoring the press in this way do more harm than good. How can naming someone before they are found guilty help the police.

All i can see it doing is people prejudging the person and therefore making it easier to get a conviction.

onimolap · 11/02/2011 10:16

Poppies!

The predictive keyboard attacks my typos again.

Police!

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:17
Grin I thought poppies might be what you called them in your area!
OP posts:
MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:18

Chil1234 - I feel by publishing the name then this does have an adverse affect and people will judge with no real evidance. this will affect jurys decisions because of all the hype of a high profile case.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 10:18

I think that the media can be a very useful tool in crime detection but only if used responsibly. Controlled information imparted to the press is usually well planned.

It falls down when people are hung, drawn and quartered by the press before any trial.

You can't really control what is discussed on facebook but you can bet that all the gossip and rumour that was being discussed would be seen as useful info in the investigation.

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:20

Can i ask an honest question.

If you see a man is said to be resbonsible for a murder, it is in all the papers then you bumped into him/her in the street. what would you think?

Me I would think he/she is a murderer and i will move away sharpish. Yet it has not been proven.

What would other people think in this situation?

SuchProspects · 11/02/2011 10:23

Censoring the press would hinder their ability to hold authorities to account 0 take the spat over phone hacking for instance. People not charged, but possibly because the police were beholden to the newspaper. Not proved by any means, but one small example of how the proper role of the press can require naming people who have not been charged.

The police can be helped by naming because people who actually know the suspect may have information they didn't realize was relevant until they know the suspect. But this reason is only relevant where the police have released the name (not relevant, I believe, in the particular case mentioned in the OP)

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:23

Also where i live is not a nice area, if one of the dickheads who are always causeing alot of trouble (guns,drugs,fights etc) were named as being accused for murder, i would garentee loads of people would come crawling out the woodwork to try and put this person away even if they never did this act.

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 10:23

I quite like the word 'poppies' as a nickname for the police.Grin

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:24

I think I had a one night stand with this man in my younger days and am now concerned. I think that answers your question MrSpoc :(

OP posts:
Chil1234 · 11/02/2011 10:24

If someone has been taken in for questioning it is usually written up as 'a man is helping police with their inquiries'.... but now with the avalanche of info available via FB, Twitter and all the rest, it's impossible for mainstream media to ignore names when they crop up on high profile cases.

If someone is released without charge, why would you think they were a murderer?

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 10:27

Yet people still do Chil1234. There are still alot of people who belive that there is no smoke without fire.

For example, therec was a strange man who used to live at the bottom of my walk when i was a kid. everyone teased him but no one new why. Yet everyone said he must of done something for everyone to tease him.

potplant · 11/02/2011 10:27

I thought the police didn't release the name of the person charged in Bristol when he was taken in for questioning - wasn't he 'named locally'.

The press should only be able to report names if requested by the police ie 'X wanted for questioning'. And of course, once charged and convicted.

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 10:28

People seem to think that FB, Twitter & all the various internet forums etc, give them the right to say whatever they like about whoever they like. That shouldn't be the case at all. Whoever publishes the names should be held accountable.

EldritchCleavage · 11/02/2011 10:32

I don't agree people should not be named until convicted. Being charged is an official and public act and we should all know who has been charged (but not necessarily anything before that).

We are supposed to have open justice in this country. How can witnesses or other victims come forward unless they know who has been charged?

I think we need to think very carefully before making the criminal justice process secret.

Chil1234 · 11/02/2011 10:32

"was a strange man who used to live at the bottom of my walk when i was a kid...."

And if the 'strange man' had been mentioned in the newspaper as being questioned & released by police in a murder inquiry his life wouldn't have been any different than it was already.

Naming people who are actually arrested is, arguably, more damaging. If you're arrested - as opposed to questioned - there has to be some basis for it.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:34

Eldritch - he hasnt yet been charged, he is in for questioning.

OP posts:
JBellingham · 11/02/2011 10:34

potplant - I don't know the process of how the Bristol chap got his name released, but it ended up with an innocent man, who looked a bit odd so thats 'fair game', had his private life and career splashed all over t he country. I assume even now people will look at him thinking 'oh there's that weirdo and maybe murderer' because Joe Public is ignorant and foolish.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 10:38

OJ Simpson, anyone?

OP posts:
onimolap · 11/02/2011 10:39

I would not want to see the police inhibited from naming suspects when they have reason to do so.

But in the cases under discussion here, they have not done so.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 10:39

Different country, different rules, allsquare

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 10:41

If people were held accountable for releasing names, gossiping, bitching, speculating and all the rest that goes on on the internet, fewer people would do it.

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 10:41

The video of the car chase was released by the police, wasn't it, IIRC.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 10:44

Yes, Totem. Different rules about disclosure apply in the USA.

JBellingham · 11/02/2011 10:44

I think its a matter of stopping the feeding frenzy. In the Bristol case I remember thinking when I saw the coverage everywhere "how can this guy get a fair trial?". Then he was released and another person is being done for it. I have not seen any apologies, but I have noticed that they all seem to have calmed down (hopefully with shame) a bit when discussing the current suspect. However this will soon pass as the public's need for sensation and vicarious gossip feeds the press.