Skip to main content
Skip to main navigation
Skip to talk navigation

Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Saved Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Flip

1 2 3

AIBU?

AIBU, can someone please explain this to me as i just can't understand it

55 replies

TheUnsinkableTitanic · 26/01/2013 07:21

News Story from Northern Ireland

OP posts:

Report

HazeltheMcWitch · 26/01/2013 14:33

What can you not understand OP? The article clearly says:
^"... the judge found that the medical evidence demonstrated that publicity could lead to suicide, with the risk both real and immediate.
...The right to life is absolute. It has consistently been described as sacrosanct, fundamental, supreme and inviolable."

You might disagree, which is your prerogative of course, but I'd be amazed if you did not actually understand.

MrsBW · 26/01/2013 14:43

What Hazel said.

Letmeintroducemyself · 26/01/2013 16:10

given that many victims of this sort of crime often feel like killing themselves - or kill themselves slowly in lives ruined by the addictions they develop from to bury their abuse, I don't see why his pain is more valid.

21 months is nothing compared to the life sentence handed out to victims and their families.

TheUnsinkableTitanic · 26/01/2013 23:55

i think thats it letmeintroducemyself - why is his pain more valid

surely every criminal would rather not have there name in the public domain

i have just never heard of a convicted criminal being able to do this (unless it was to keep the victims details of the record)

this is not about disagreeing hazel, its about trying to understand a legal system that allows a convicted criminal to protect his name because there is evidence that they might kill themselves if others knew of their crime

OP posts:

waltermittymissus · 27/01/2013 00:03

What do you not get?

His life is at risk. His right to life trumps the right for the press to have information about him.

Points about how victims are handed life sentences etc may well be valid but they won't have any bearing on the judge's decision on this. His hands are tied.

HildaOgden · 27/01/2013 00:17

It's a very small community he is from,it won't take long for the locals to find out who he is anyway.

If he is expressing suicidal thoughts,then the powers that be have to take that seriously (duty of care and all that ).It's not something that everyone child abuser or prisoner says....quite a lot of them don't seem to be overly bothered actually.

quoteunquote · 27/01/2013 00:17

I wonder if the victims were asked what they thought of this, I would like to know.

offences including indecent images of children and blackmail

so we have

blackmail,

indecent images of children,

And other offences, as the word including is used, so blackmail and child porn were not the only offences.

did he blackmail the victims?

Was it a closed court?

so anyone with a black dog on can claim anonymity? WTF

That cannot work.

Did the children get anonymity when their photos were being shared around?

Are his victims not allowed to talk freely about someone who has been found guilty, are they not allowed to write about it?

he should not be released until he can be honest and open about what he has done, it is further abuse to the victims and should not be tolerated.

SolidGoldBrass · 27/01/2013 00:24

It sounds odd, but there are likely to be factors we don't know about. Possibly this individual was coerced in some way by others or has MH problems and the police are interested in catching the others involved.
Or it's the Pope or something and the judge has been paid off. But we don't know.

TBH I think it's wierd and stupid and spiteful of the papers to publish the story. 'Person we can't name did something we can't talk about.' That's not news, it's just 'let's stir the hard-of-thinking up a bit on a slow news day.'

CajaDeLaMemoria · 27/01/2013 00:24

This is a debate that can not be won.

Some people will believe life is sacred, all life, including his. Others will be eye for an eye, and not care if he is suicidal.

Legally, there are steps that are taken to ensure any suicidal thoughts are genuine, or to ensure as far as possible. There are in depth psychiatric tests which aim to expose liars and cheats. And then there is a duty of care to those who are genuinely suicidal, which is separate to his crime. He was not sentenced to having his name published. He was sentenced to jail time, which he will complete.

Maybe he does feel shame. Maybe he's suicidal and will offer useful information that does help the victims or expose other criminals, because of that shame.

Or maybe he's lying. But psychiatrists are not stupid, and they will be watching him.

quoteunquote · 27/01/2013 00:30

TBH I think it's wierd and stupid and spiteful of the papers to publish the story

You are aware it is in the public interest to know when a precedent is set?

and newspapers report news, hence the name?

IneedAsockamnesty · 27/01/2013 00:41

Could be lots of reasons as to why its a valid decision and many of those reasons could not be in the publics interest to know.

Or there could be none

Booyhoo · 27/01/2013 00:43

i agree with bound and seeker

Birdsgottafly · 27/01/2013 01:16

Of course the papers are going to publish this story, it is a challenge to the "rights of the Press".

No-doubt that it will be debated over the coming week.

HopAndSkip · 27/01/2013 02:41

If you think that's bad... Have a look at this one.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html?ICO=most_read_module

CadleCrap · 27/01/2013 06:07

Hop

TheArbiter · 27/01/2013 06:23

'so anyone with a black dog on can claim anonymity?'

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

The issue here was that the judge felt there was an immediate risk to the man's life. The issue was not that the man suffered from depression.

Disagree with it all you want, but don't make intellectually lazy statements.

TheSkiingGardener · 27/01/2013 06:39

It isn't the victims standing in front of the court though, it is this man, who has been medically assessed. The judge has a duty to take medical facts into consideration. If a judge can't do that because of the emotive nature of the crime, then he shouldn't be a judge.

TheFallenNinja · 27/01/2013 06:47

Its either a priest or a politician.

Just happen to have a good lawyer is all.

nooka · 27/01/2013 07:03

Seems a bit odd to me. The chap appears to be in prison, so surely they would just put him on suicide watch? It's not that unusual for people accused or convicted of crimes to attempt to kill themselves, and he is in a controlled environment and will be for almost another two years. Is this 'right to life' some quirk of the NI legal system perhaps?

3birthdaybunnies · 27/01/2013 07:03

The trouble is that by publishing the story it is an advert to everyone waiting for trial about how to keep your anonymity. We don't know all the facts in the case, and as awful as their crime may be, there is a right to life. By publicing it there will be more people claiming this when it is not true and potentially more money spent on assessments and suicide watch where it is not needed.

Pinkerl · 27/01/2013 07:20

I also don't understand what's difficult to understand here. A judge has ruled that there is a significant risk of suicide here.

BlueyDragon · 27/01/2013 07:21

nooka, try the European Convention on Human Rights for your right to life. Suicide watch isn't a perfect solution to all threats of suicide and the court will have considered the Prison Service's capabilities when looking at this.

Courts act differently depending on the mental state of defendants. Which is why one MP (can't remember her name) was found unfit to try for the expenses scandal, whilst others were tried and convicted. Because the justice system cannot and should not be a system of trial by media/vigilante. The courts are really reluctant as a general rule to interfere with the principal of open justice so protecting the defendant's anonymity in this way is really unusual.

What TheSkiingGardner said.

PlentyOfPubeGardens · 27/01/2013 07:29

Is this 'right to life' some quirk of the NI legal system perhaps?

Um ... no, it's article 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It's quite a popular idea, and a good one IMO.

talkingnonsense · 27/01/2013 07:45

Might the person in question be very young himself (18), or other reasons that could explain the comparatively short sentence and anonymity? Perhaps they police can get other names from him, or use him in some way if he isn't known to be caught? Or is that too American tv drama?!

nooka · 27/01/2013 07:47

Sorry I didn't mean in general, of course I know it is in the European Convention, I meant with regard to prison sentencing and publicity. Simply because it's not something I've heard of before, so I wondered if this was a uniquely NI interpretation. The timing seems odd too, given the man was sentenced in December, so would there not have been some public notice at the time? In general anonymity appears to be applied very very sparingly in court (I thought it was just minors for defendants) so it does seem quite different from the norm (and wouldn't he be on the sex offenders register too?)

Flip

1 2 3

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.