Tia Sharp

[LadyBeagleEyes]

Is this now a banned topic on MN?
With the new arrests, and nothing being posted, I'm assuming it is.
Fair enough if that's the decision, I'm just curious.

Maybe a lawyer could confirm - is this moderation done in case jurors are biased before the trial?
I can imagine that's really difficult with so many forums on the internet.

This article on contempt of court may help explain why MNHQ (and all of us) need to be so careful.

There is nothing wrong with being a "self appointed moderator" - if that is the phrase of the day for those who decry speculation for being both tasteless and against guidelines.

Those who want to speculate have many other places where they can do it, in person or on line. No need to push it where it's not wanted.

Terrible things keep happening to children, statistically likely by someone they trust. It's natural we would to, and keep trying to, make sense of it.

As this is unfolding, what appears to be becomes more and more shocking. I think if there's a way we can talk about it without causing harm, we should and probably need to. It's not to be ghoulish or to gossip. If what I think - and highly likely we all think - has, it's horrific beyond belief. We are species that needs to communicate and share - that's how we've survived. If we can discuss this sensitively without causing harm, I can understand why.

MN and MNers need to be careful not just to avoid getting into trouble with the law but most importantly to avoid prejudicing a trial. It would be appalling if a trial collapsed because of speculation in the media or on sites such as MN. At the most extreme, you could be talking about a guilty person going free.

Understandable that people want to talk about a shocking and horrible case. Even if the arrests are just arrests that don't progress to charges, it's just so ruddy grim that her own grandmother is under suspicion, for heaven's sake.

How could Mmnttrs prejudice a trial? SEriously!? Are jurors shipped in from abroad, are they not people? what are we saying that other people aren't saying? It's ridiculous! but predictable.

People saying things in private is one thing; posting on a public, google-able forum is different.

Because if statements are made that assume guilt, it could influence jurors. That's the law, always has been the law. It's not new. What is new is that gossip and casual conversation now takes place online, not just in the pub. Pub conversations are ephemeral. The internet is not - comments made online can be heard around the world and can exist in perpetuity.

In order to get a fair trial, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Mumsnet is a big, well-known website. It's not impossible that jurors in any trial that is brought in this case might be MNers or at least lurkers, so if the talk forums are crawling with 'I knew it was X because s/he has funny eyes' or bizarre rumours about one of the neighbours being an alien it could affect the jury's deliberations.

I'm sure that many other MNers have, like me, sat on a jury. The case I was on was a very high profile case, with daily reporting in the national press. At the outset of the case, the judge warned us (the jury), that we were NOT to read any of these news reports and we were to avoid any broadcast news, since there was a possibility that reporters opinions could affect the way we viewed the case and could prejudice the outcome of the trial. It was very difficult, but I know that most of us did manage to avoid the press reports ( this was in the days before the internet, so probably easier to do then than it would be now).

I think it is absolutely right that MNHQ are 'censoring' what is said. Not only because we do not want them to be prosecuted at all, but also, and more importantly, because I can't believe that any MNer would like to see whoever is responsible for this dreadful crime to walk away from the consequences because a group of people could not exercise restraint in the comments they published online.

Christine has been released without charge, Hazel has been charged with Murder.

hasn't she been bailed to re-appear?

She has been released on bail to reappear at a police station. Not the same as being released without charge.

I'm very sorry for her mother. I cannot imagine what she is going through.

It concerns me that they are not able to say the body has been identified and I hope this does not mean what I think it does. I hope she did not suffer, is what I am trying to say.

I am sure that the details of the case will become apparent at some stage but until then, there's nothing any of us can say that will help.

Rest in Peace

They are very unlikely to read "months" of speculation in the press. When did you last read something about, say the Philpott family?

Indeed there is very little speculation in the media - t'internet is however alive with it. Some sites seem to permit this; others do not. That's the site owners call, and users should either heed it or move elsewhere.

But MNHQ's first reason was that it's in dreadful taste: "most important of all - a mother has lost her daughter, in the most terrible of circumstances. And a family have lost a child. It's a situation every parent dreads, and we really don't think it's the time to point fingers/blame anyone".

tiggy it doesn't matter much whether you think discussing it on MN is no better or worse than a chat around the watercooler (and to be honest, I don't like the water cooler and pub gossip around such cases either) - if you put it in writing onto the web, you could end up in court yourself.

tiggytape yeah, I agree. Although, to be fair, in this case, the media have reigned themselves in as soon as arrests have been made. It probably helped that the Mirror and Sun both had been fined quite heftily because of their reporting in the Christopher Jefferies case. Of course that doesn't undo the reporting up until the arrests have been made, but is at least something.

FWIW, I find offline gossip just as bad as online gossip and do say so, when, e.g. in the office people start chatting about such things.

Just beyond horrible for the mother and other family members to have so many people gossiping about this terrible event.
I don't want to hear 'they won't be on the Internet, they will have better things to do'
Because no one knows that and IME families DO go on the Internet and they DO look for their child's name.
Expressing sadness, outrage, shock is one thing. It's natural.
Salacious stuff - that's different.
Can't we leave that to the Sun forum members?

I hate the way MN descends into a place i don't want to e a member of when a child is murdered

Please can we all just leave this alone until the court case is concluded, even if that is months and months away? There's just no need to speculate, judge and pick over the bones of what might or might not have happened.

which posts are salacious?

I really don't understand.People why people discussing the case is so bad (when they are clearly stating they are talking about their own opinion) and how it is diffrent from the 24 hour news endlessly discussing it.

Sorry if mine offended anyone. I suppose it is going round in my head, it helps to offload it somewhere but this is probably not the place.