to ask what the offending headline on the Metro is?

[justanothernotsoyummymummy]

I haven't read it and don't want to upset the OP of the other thread.

How would you upset her if you looked at it on your own (private) computer? OP wouldn't actually know, would she??

There is an article about Syria.

No, I mean I didn't want to ask on the other thread. I'm on my phone and the Metro website doesn't seem to have said headline.

I couldnt find it either which was annoying (on my phone)

I think if you post about something on AIBU asking for opinions then you could at least provide a link

It took a bit of digging as it doesn't pop up on the home page but it could be this, metro.co.uk/2013/09/02/coronation-streets-michael-le-vell-pleads-not-guilty-to-child-sex-charges-3946321/

I couldn't find it either.

Maybe PM the OP her and ask

It states that she was holding her teddy bear while he raped her.

Awful if he's guilty. Awful if he's NOT guilty as his life will never be the same.

But I don't really understand the fuss about the headline. If true it's despicable what he did, bear or no.

its a horrible article but not actually the one I expected it to be.

thats not the 'headline' thats on the link though? thats just further (horrible) info in the actual article.

and surely asking the OP would upset her more than posting a link would have done in the first place surely?

I think it may have been changed for the electronic edition. I seem to recall it was similar to the headline on this article:
www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/02/michael-le-vell_n_3855509.html?uk-crime

Yes it's been changed for the electronic I think.

Presuming it is about michael levell - Why don't they save these shocking headlines for after the verdict has been delivered. I don't know if he is guilty or not by these type of headlines means even if found innocent a lot of people will believe he is guilty and look upon hm badly.
I thnk the law needs to be changed so that these type of headlines can only be published afte a guilt verdict and so the accused can only be named following a guilty verdict as too many people have their lives ruined. I have no sympathy for any one who abuses children and think they should be punished severely both by the system and other inmates, but we need to let the punishment come after a guilty verdict and not ruin someone's life before the jury has made that decision of guilt.

Sole I couldn't possibly ask OP as she was too upset by it.

I'm now very confused...

Yes, it's about her holding a teddy during said crime.

The online version tends to have a less sensationalist headline, and I don't think it ever carried the print version.

Running, I agree entirely.

Sorry about the shocking level of typos in my post above

Yes, it was very similar to the HuffPo one but shorter, punchier.

has he been convicted of this crime? it is terrible which ever way you look at it and the guilty should be hanged but if he is innocent.. mud tends to stick.

Everybody is in open Court now. It is not like before when juries could be affected. Trials are public to protect everyone. In the case that he is found not guilty, that will be because the evidence has been tested. I know mass media makes this very different to having to turn up in Court to hear it, but that is what we have. Other countries don't have open Courts and the result is not good.

very bad situation for all concerned but at least mrs t as you rightly say, everything is open to scrutiny in the country.