Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Niecie · 11/02/2011 11:45

Also they didn't lock up innocent people - not on a permanent basis. How long was it before the guy in Bristol was released? Less than a week.

Perhaps they arrested him because he refused to answer their questions, not because they had made their mind up. You don't know why they arrested him. They had to have suspicion but maybe he refused to speak and arresting him was the only way getting answers.

Anyway, lets not get into the ins and outs of one case.

Would you have been happy for Raoul Moat not to have his name and picture published when he was roaming the countryside shooting people at random because he hadn't had a conviction? Nobody knew what he was capable of - it was important to let the public know.

JBellingham · 11/02/2011 11:53

Niecie - "Anyway, lets not get into the ins and outs of one case." then on to Raoul Moat?

Are you confusing him with Derrick Bird?

Either way he was not demonised in the press before he was charged. Totally different thing.

Niecie · 11/02/2011 11:54

Re the paedophile/murderer next door, I don't know. It depends on what I knew of the situation and how well I knew the neighbours. Not having been in that situation I can't comment. I would like to think I would be rational about it and if there was no evidence and I knew the neighbour well enough then yes I would let my children play in their garden. I might be more vigilent however because that is human nature. It is irrelevant if the real perpetrator is caught or not. If the neighbour didn't do it, then they didn't do it.

If they were new to the area and I knew nothing about them then I would be suggesting that their children came to my garden!

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 11:57

Raoul Moat was actively shooting people anyway, I think thats a tad different to being a possible suspect for ONE murder.

OP posts:
Niecie · 11/02/2011 11:59

Raoul Moat, not demonised by the press?! He as portrayed as a nutter (which he was it seems) then there was a manhunt for several days. He didn't get charged because he was dead.

But really, you would be happy that a man on hairtrigger like that could be roaming your neighbourhood, could potentially shoot anybody who so much as looked at him the wrong way, and you wouldn't want to know? You really wouldn't want to help the police get him or at least not inadvertantly hinder them just because you had no idea who he was?

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 12:00

Niecie you did not need a conviction for Raol Moat - he was walking down the street shooting at people / police - he was a crazed murderer. there was no way of getting the wrong man in this case. So your point is not relivant in this case.

Niecie - you cant just say if the neibour did not do it then they did not do it. If the other person was not caught every one else would still think the neibhbour did it but the police did not have enough evidence to convict.

Niecie · 11/02/2011 12:01

Yes it is different but some of you are advocating not releasing the name of suspects until they have been convicted. That includes people like Raoul Moat or anybody who the police are looking for for a serious crime. You can't say oh they only killed once that's different. How do you know?

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 12:02

Niecie - Roal was caught on film, CCTV etc committing the shootings.

I would fully support the police releasing his image in the case as it is very clear he was guilty. there was no way to deny it.

But if there was a shooting in a school and no one knew who the shooter was then it would be wrong to publish accused people.

Niecie · 11/02/2011 12:02

Would you think they did it even though they weren't charged and they had been released?

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 12:04

Niecie I understand what point your are trying to make.

I agree that in certain cercumstances it can be warrented - i.e if there was substantial proof, CCTV of the murder, and a big threat to the public then yes.

But if it is just someone they are accusing then no, this is wrong.

JBellingham · 11/02/2011 12:04

The point of the OP I think was to point out the dangers releasing details of an innocent person who has been charged by the police.

Derrick Bird and Raoul Moat are not in any way connected to what the OP was discussing.

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 12:05

Yes it is different but some of you are advocating not releasing the name of suspects until they have been convicted. That includes people like Raoul Moat or anybody who the police are looking for for a serious crime.

Um no, I meant those in custody.

If they are looking for someone then that's different.

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 12:06

Niecie please can you expalin to me your last post? i just did not understand it or the point you are trying to make.

If you mean that if Raol was not dead and got off in court would i be happy that they released his details then i still would as it was clear he was guilty but would of had one amazing lawer.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 12:06

There will always be a certain mentality where people judge others as guilty regardless of the person never reaching court. Informed people with half an ounce of sense know not to make assumptions.

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 12:11

that is true scurryfunge and i think that is the whole point of why people are concerned about the press releasing peoples names until they have been charged/found guilty etc.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 12:16

If those assumptions are made regardless of press coverage, then it does not matter whether the press release the names necessarily. The press reflects opinion and not always the right one.

I think more is gained in an investigation if the press is carefully fed pieces of info.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 12:19

scurryfunge - the amount of crime in my area shows something for the mentality of the population. I think most of them share that half oz.
Even if the world at wide didnt do anything if he was released without charge, the locals would.

OP posts:
scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 12:20

allsquare, I know what you mean and any press release would have little impact on what the locals have already judged to be.

MrSpoc · 11/02/2011 12:23

what if the locals did not know the situation then the press released it? then the locals have been miss informed by the press as in the Bristol case.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 12:26

The locals haven't necessarily been misinformed by the press.

There were enough grounds to arrest the man and that was what was reported. The information that allowed police to arrest him would have come from the public.

Original poster
allsquareknickersnofurcoat · 11/02/2011 12:26

Only people who knew him knew beforehand anyone who didnt would have to specifically look for it. Thanks to the papers, now everyone knows.

OP posts:
Niecie · 11/02/2011 12:27

scurryfunge - that was exactly my point ages ago before we got side tracked from my main argument to how I would feel if I was wrongly accused as though that is relevant. It is not the way the police handle things but the way the media do.

Rather than not releasing the name of suspects whether they are in custody, or been arrested or being searched for by the police, the media should only be allowed to release information that is relevant to a case and leads to more evidence. The change in law shouldn't be about gagging the police but to prevent the papers from printing things that are of no benefit to the police and which therefore are not in the public interest.

To go back to the Bristol case, have any of you considered that the guy in Bristol was released because somebody came forward after hearing of his arrest, to prove that he wasn't the murderer? It might not have been the case but putting it out to the public may have saved the guy from an unfair conviction.

scurryfunge · 11/02/2011 12:31

Everyone knows he has been released on bail too allsquare.

TotemPole · 11/02/2011 12:34

The press reflects opinion and not always the right one.

At times they lead opinion.

EldritchCleavage · 11/02/2011 12:36

I don't understand saying releasing peoples names until they have been charged/found guilty etc. because they are such completely different things.

I fully support not releasing names UNLESS AND UNTIL people have been charged (and actually the police don't, officially-the media find out through leaks, local gossip or the odd cop who sells on the information), but I profoundly disagree with not releasing names until people have been convicted after trial (which could be 2-3 years later). Are we to have secret trials so no one finds out who the accused is in case they are acquitted?

How will witnesses know to come forward with e.g. alibis, further complaints, whatever unless they know who has been charged?