http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-New ... 0376?f=rss

The media has too much indirect influence in court proceedings as it is IMO.

How long before there is a Sky Sports Justice channel, where you can be on the outcome by betting via the red button? Watch the trial and bet on the oucome!

It's scary because I could see that happening.

I think that people should remain anonymous until convicted.

There was a huge rape case, involving a celebrity weatherman here. He spent over a year being hounded by the press, destroyed his life, destroyed his career. He was found not guilty last week...

Starship Troopers FTW.

Trial by media is a serious problem. I do support the idea of anonymity until conviction, regardless of the offence. It guarantees a fair trial then.

Yep, that was one of my first thoughts.

I always thought they could have done more with the DVD, offering extras every time the announcer said "want to know more?"

Yeah, with that kind of attention, it doesn't matter that he is innocent; he will be forever remembered as being involved in something unsavoury, simply because the press don't make anywhere near as much fuss about someone clearing his/her name.

Some branches of the media really take the p!ss out of the whole idea of freedom of the press; which is why live media coverage of trials is a bad thing IMO. You can guarantee that some of them are salivating at the very idea.

LOL. I remember thinking exactly the same thing.

I've always thought the same. Mind you, many argue that if you name a defendant then others who were not know to authorities (if they're guilty) may come forward to give evidence.

That said, if Justice was done and seen to be done you wouldn't need to encourage people.

I've never liked the logic of that. At all. If the victim knew what their assailant looked like when the crime against them was committed, why didn't they come forward then? They may not know the person's name but they could give a description upon which the police may act and, eventually, be able to pick them out of a lineup or from a video feed or photograph. If they didn't know what their assailant looked like when the crime was committed, on what basis can they suddenly identify them now?
I don't see any circumstance where the defendant in a particular crime being made public could logically lead to the previously unidentified suspects in other cases becoming known. There is no logical path by which you can get from 'we don't know who it was' to 'we know it was him' simply by publishing a photograph in the papers.
It's a fishing exercise and fishing exercises can lead to rubbish prosecutions and/or bad convictions.


Can't argue with that but I'm of the mind that 'innocent until proven guilty' has to include not ruining someone's reputation until it's proved they've actually done something.

Agreed.


I would have to agree, I can see where some people are coming from but many people have their lives ruined by false accusations.

Ask John Leslie what he thinks about this. An innocent man who's career was ruined by unfounded allegations.

We live in an age where trial by media is the norm and g*d forbid you try to restrict their entitlement to publish what they want and go hang truth, honesty, decency, fact checking etc. Etc. Etc.

I have stopped reading the papers and am fast coming to the point where I will stop all collated news services including Radio 4. How I get unbiased news reporting at that point, I just don't know.

It is tricky, the best I can do is watch Russia Today from time to time to get a different perspective on the news.

No Agenda, much better. And they keep telling Russia Today to get with it and hire hot presenters.