This story made me realise something when the original was reported on the local news
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27390908
They said they can't name the boy involved for "legal reasons" but yet the following story they can
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27392172
I understand the "legal reason" is that in the first story the boy was 15.
However I think that is wrong. I realised it was wrong when I was thinking about it. Even though the boy was obviously guilty, plenty of witnesses etc....
Surely the legal reason is that the person is still to be found guilty?
In both cases they person is still awaiting the entire legal process to be found guilty and actually be identified as the person who did the crime.
Even if not found guilty the media, in the second case, has now named that person globally, via the internet, and now people will have their suspicions no matter how "not guilty" they are. And the BBC really is pushing this one. They've even given the location of the persons house visually and brought his mother into it.
"Trial by media"?
Surely they should just be saying, in all cases, "a person was arrested, who cannot be named." Until that person is found guilty, that's all they can say. No matter how important it is to everyone else, that person deserves their own privacy until they have actually been found guilty.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27390908
They said they can't name the boy involved for "legal reasons" but yet the following story they can
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-27392172
I understand the "legal reason" is that in the first story the boy was 15.
However I think that is wrong. I realised it was wrong when I was thinking about it. Even though the boy was obviously guilty, plenty of witnesses etc....
Surely the legal reason is that the person is still to be found guilty?
In both cases they person is still awaiting the entire legal process to be found guilty and actually be identified as the person who did the crime.
Even if not found guilty the media, in the second case, has now named that person globally, via the internet, and now people will have their suspicions no matter how "not guilty" they are. And the BBC really is pushing this one. They've even given the location of the persons house visually and brought his mother into it.
"Trial by media"?
Surely they should just be saying, in all cases, "a person was arrested, who cannot be named." Until that person is found guilty, that's all they can say. No matter how important it is to everyone else, that person deserves their own privacy until they have actually been found guilty.
No comments:
Post a Comment