Hey someone been murdered. Let's all talkabout it here

[GordianKnot]

Ok?
Who do you think did it? Bearing in mind what you saw on the news?

you gotta love how the self righteous gossips have it that they're discussing the noos, acksherly, and anyone who says "oi, this isn't really on, is it?" is being self righteous/offensive

roffle

I think Beertrickspotter put it perfectly on another threa when describing this one.
she posted something along the lines of:
making jokes at the expense of the victim? no, not ok
Satirising the rubber-necking gossip mongers: yes, perfecly acceptable

Ah that was it. Sorry didn't mean to misquote you, just didn't want to trawl through the other thread.
Either way I echoe your sentiments completely. Beyond me how people can't seperate the two either.

Pagwatch; no fence sitting here I can assure you. The clack clack reference is because the sound of knitting needles is palpable as the MN jury tries and executes a long list of suspects in their usual rabid braying fashion. Redolent of the MM threads , times ten million.

Anyway it's no surprise but I just heard on radio 4 news that the Attorney General has had to issue a reminder to the media to abide by codes of practise regarding people being questioned - BUT NOT CHARGED - about criminal offences. Mumnset is included in the term 'media' btw.

What a grim irony it would be if all the psychobabbling vixens on MN, in cahoots with the red tops, made a fair trial impossible for anyone and the killer of that woman had to go free.

So that is why I sincerely hope MN pulls that other thread and this one as well. Then all the squabbling tabloid readers can get back to discussing neighbours or something else more suited to their intellectual capabilities. Me, I'm off this voyeuristic and spiteful thread.

It would help if someone could kindly outline what us stupid people are allowed to say.

We don't know. Nobody has made it very clear.

Perhaps someone non-stupid who knows their stuff could give us a basic guide to what sort of comments are acceptable, and what are not?

Thanks.

Anyone? Please? I have no wish to prejudice a trial. But it would seem some forms of comment are acceptable.

Can someone tell me which?

Or do you lot not know, either?

If people feel the need to discuss the case, the comments should be based on evidence and facts, rather than gut feelings or because they feel someone looks odd and therefore must be guilty, or a vague wish followed by an assumption that it should be a member of the girl's family so that the poster can feel safer in their own mind.
The girl is dead, and it's not entertainment.

Here's what the attorney general has to say.

So basically if we read something in the press which is stated as fact, it's Ok to repeat that on here - but we're not allowed to mention our own feelings, or thoughts, about these facts?

Or just thoughts and theories?

Can we say we feel sad about it, or hope it is the person they have arrested, for instance?

Can we comment on his appearance? (for those who wish to - I don't)

I think the guidelines need to be spelled out, because otherwise it's just guesswork for those of us not familiar with contempt law.

I've seen that already, Heaven, thanks for the link - but it's totally unclear, very confusing and hard to understand.

Are there any clear guidelines anywhere? Feenie, do you know about them?

We're not professional publishers, we're not journalists and we are not familiar with these laws. We need it spelling out.

I'm done on these threads, and in particular I am done answering your posts, FA. I am sick of you goading me then pretending to take the moral high ground. Enough.

What?

Goading you? I'm not goading you! That really is bollocks!

I take it you don't know the answer to my question then.

interesting

Flight

I don't know.
I can understand the urge to discuss any big news stories to be honest. I don't tend to comment hut that is because it is just not my style but I have friends who do. Understandable and harmless in my book.

I think saying ' oh lord, they have arrested x, he knows victim via y'etc is fine'

In my book ( and it is personal view) ' he looks shifty, he may have done x as well, my friends aunt knows him and thinks he is weird..' crosses a line.

I have always been interested in wrongful convictions going back to the guildford 4 and others ( ludovic Kennedy was fascinating writer on the subject as was Chris mull in). It just seems that odd sorts like Colin stagg and Stefan kiszko still are judged so quickly and the press/ media don't help.

I just hate seeing it

Thank you for the link noddyholder.
It might help some confused posters see what pagwatch and I are trying to explain.
The fears we have for our children in this intolerant, prejudiced, witchunting and mob-minded society.

Thanks ever so much, Pag. That does make it a bit clearer.

I've asked MNHQ if they are able to clarify for the benefit of all of us - and of the case.

I don't think anyone wants to damage the chances of a successful trial. The trouble os a lot of people don't know what not to say - me included.

Btw I've never used the word 'goad' before and the more I stare at it the less I am convinced I know what it actually means.

But I'm sure I'm not doing it. Certainly not on purpose.

attorney general concerned about prejudice already

To goad someone is to keep poking them in order to elicit the reaction you want.
<a class="break-all" href="http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=therionarms.com/armor/polearm1.jpg&imgrefurl=www.dardunah.com/forum/thread.php%3Fpostid%3D533&usg=__G1Ikzryw3Nw4e1WwbZPuUZZxyUI=&h=1012&w=608&sz=72&hl=en&start=17&zoom=1&tbnid=ngDLx_tEnAUzhM:&tbnh=145&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3Delephant%2Bgoad%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1246%26bih%3D634%26tbs%3Disch:10,348&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=725&ei=LPsdTbzqOIPw4gbhmbiGAg&oei=CPsdTauACsaWhQfIlIC4Dg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:17&tx=38&ty=55&biw=1246&bih=634" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=therionarms.com/armor/polearm1.jpg&imgrefurl=www.dardunah.com/forum/thread.php%3Fpostid%3D533&usg=__G1Ikzryw3Nw4e1WwbZPuUZZxyUI=&h=1012&w=608&sz=72&hl=en&start=17&zoom=1&tbnid=ngDLx_tEnAUzhM:&tbnh=145&tbnw=88&prev=/images%3Fq%3Delephant%2Bgoad%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D1246%26bih%3D634%26tbs%3Disch:10,348&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=725&ei=LPsdTbzqOIPw4gbhmbiGAg&oei=CPsdTauACsaWhQfIlIC4Dg&esq=2&page=2&ndsp=22&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:17&tx=38&ty=55&biw=1246&bih=634

These are elephant goads. You stab them into the thin skin behind the ear to make the elephant move and turn how you want it to.
HTH

Thankyou, Goblinchild. I can definitely reject the claim that I am doing that.

I've absolutely no wish to see Feenie react in an aggressive manner, that's why I posted at length on the other thread, to try and explain how she could better present what s a very good point.

I was trying not to sound patronising as well. I like Feenie and I think she is right in many ways.

If anything I have said came across as 'goading' then it's in the eyes of the reader, and was certainly not intended. I don't like that sort of thing.

My question to her downthread was genuine. I thought she would know about contempt law, because of something she mentioned earlier.

Though I will concede my 14:47 post contained elements of sarcasm. It was directed at Donnie, mostly.

my question remains sincere. Sorry about the sarcasm.

Contempt - look it up but in summary it means that if you publish something to a third party ( post on a chat forum) that amounts to substantial risk of seriously prejudicing a court case, you could be found in contempt of court. You could ( although it is unlikely ) be sent to prison.

Contempt of court applies when proceeding gs are 'active' such as a warrant is issued or someone is arrested.

There is slot more detail but that it is it, basically.

Thanks, Commander. I just don't quite understand what statements could actually prejudice a case.

I never thought anything posted on here could, unless someone was actually giving proper information regarding the person from a personal acquaintance POV - like the guy interviewed on the news who knew the chap under arrest.

He gave loads of information about him to the reporter. So how is he not in contempt, and yet someone on here saying 'he looks dodgy' is?