FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Should the media run the trial?
Should the media run the trial?
Jump to: Newest in thread
 | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty "I don’t think the media should have the ability to publish anyone’s name before the person has even been charged let alone tried for the alleged crime. Whatever happens the allegations stick and that can have pretty catastrophic consequences for the person accused. If they are found innocent, they are still tarnished. Not just talking about “famous” people, but anyone being accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial and anonymity until the result is read | |||
"The media is a double edged sword. They are disgusting in their disregard of both truth and decency just to get a story. Positively they can be the vehicle for bringing lies and injustice to light. I agree with you that justice should stay in the courts (though that’s not always right either) but it definitely should not be in the hands of the media "I agree with you that the media is that and yes, it should be in the court too | |||
"At some point we have to have a difficult conversation as a society Do we want to continue this trend of trial by social media because sometimes victims are afraid to go to the police Or should these things be kept private until the answer is found in a fair trial If you want option one, you’ll have to accept the fact that allegations could be weaponised against anyone and their life ruined by a disgruntled partner If you want option 2 you have to accept that victims will potentially be hurt by this and might not come forward No answer is the right answer, it’s just what you would prefer." I would go with option 2, as to me option 2 looks like a choice, I can report this to the police, or I cannot for various reasons. Option 1 looks like no choice at all for the accused, but again choice for the accuser, as the accuser has a choice of going to the police were a procedure is followed, or going to the press who's procedure is a little different. but as you say there is no right answer, so needs debate. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case. They film anything in America so it’s not surprising that court cases get broadcast. Trial by media tho? Bad thing imo, they’re not the justice system and shouldn’t be acting like they are " Yes, not by the media and you are right there his case was a bit different as well. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting." Couldn't agree more even though I have made a comment, I still agree. Hopefully i'll remember for the future. | |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting." Indeed BUT there are too many of "us" and some people are too invested in the cause so it will keep popping back up. Then people on both sides see something they don't agree with and have to say something. Thus the wheel spins and the cycle continues. Neither side is innocent of provking a response and debate. Some even purposely do it. | |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting. Indeed BUT there are too many of "us" and some people are too invested in the cause so it will keep popping back up. Then people on both sides see something they don't agree with and have to say something. Thus the wheel spins and the cycle continues. Neither side is innocent of provking a response and debate. Some even purposely do it. " Yep. I'm not suggesting it can be stopped,its been going on since time immemorial. Only now we have the internet what was previously talked about in the pubs and living rooms among ordinary people is broadcast world wide for everyone to see and comment on. | |||
 And that's after the CPS have screened cases out. . There are many reasons why people distrust the system. There's not trial by media of course. But there's much work still to do to get society and the legal system to be fit for purpose. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting." Indeed this is my stance too Op. | |||
"I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case. " Not quite true. He wasn't on trial. It was a libel case that he had brought against the Sun newspaper. A civil case - where the threshold is much lower - based on balance of probability. It also later came to light that the Judge in the case had a connection to somebody at the newspaper - which should have been made known at the time and should have excluded her from presiding over it | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty
I don’t think the media should have the ability to publish anyone’s name before the person has even been charged let alone tried for the alleged crime. Whatever happens the allegations stick and that can have pretty catastrophic consequences for the person accused. If they are found innocent, they are still tarnished. Not just talking about “famous” people, but anyone being accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial and anonymity until the result is read"Are Cliff Richard,Paul Gambaccinni,Dave Lee Travis,Harvey Proctor,Kevin Spacey etc still tarnished? Alleged victims make allegations not newspapers.If allegations aren't published other victims stay silent,those victims or rather their evidence can be the difference between a predator being caught or being allowed to go on abusing.The media don't run trials or have a say in the outcome of a trial.If they did Spacey would have been found guilty.Its an insult to the intelligence of a jury that they can't tell the difference between evidence and hearsay/unsubstantiated claim,not to mention careful direction by a judge.If a juror in deliberation brings up material they have been instructed to disregard they are reported to the court. | |||
"The feeding frenzy over a technically innocent man is ugly and unjust. What a shitty aspect of our society." Its not just him people are being ugly and unjust about. | |||
"The media haven’t posted the request by the uk government to (r)umble that they follow YouTube’s line and withdraw the monetisation, it came direct from the culture secretary, regardless of what he’s done guilty or innocent, this is exactly what RB has been spouting on about, gradually freedom is taken away inch by inch, before you know it you can’t say or do anything, it’s already an unfair trial and while I don’t hold much hope for RB as his behaviour is questionable on many counts, just because he has been irresponsible he still is entitled to his rights which is a fair hearing " I didn't know that, if that is true and I have no reason to doubt it is, then RB was correct well not RB but his YouTube followers. They warned him, I read the comments over time again and again. that either big phama, or this government would be out to get him. I think the irony of this situation is that they have taken his own admissions and weaponised them against him. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting." Absolutely this, if the people didn't react and become judge & jury then these "trials by media" actually "trials by public" wouldn't continue. Mrs | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!)." The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger." The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel | |||
"Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has. " YouTube have decided to remove his ability to profiting from his videos while still profiting from them itself Seems hypocritical to me | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel " Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. | |||
| |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger." The main problem we have is the media report SOME fact. They never tell us the whole story. BTW, did they report fact when they were talking about Farage and his bank account? | |||
"I think the Johnny depp case was a bit different because he’d already been found guilty in the uk before the USA case. They film anything in America so it’s not surprising that court cases get broadcast. Trial by media tho? Bad thing imo, they’re not the justice system and shouldn’t be acting like they are " Agreed... | |||
"Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has. YouTube have decided to remove his ability to profiting from his videos while still profiting from them itself Seems hypocritical to me " I thought if he didn't profit neither did they | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK." Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact." There is more to it than that | |||
"Has Russell Brand been prevented from broadcasting on YouTube? If so o haven't heard. His right to speak freely hasn't been removed. His ability to monetise that on some platforms has. YouTube have decided to remove his ability to profiting from his videos while still profiting from them itself Seems hypocritical to me I thought if he didn't profit neither did they " They still profit from people visiting the site I’d be much more happier if they took all the revenue from those clicks and sent it to a charity that helps victims | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The main problem we have is the media report SOME fact. They never tell us the whole story. BTW, did they report fact when they were talking about Farage and his bank account?" The Farage situation was bias within some,not all,elements of print and broadcast media,which was predictable.The usual suspects,the Broken Biscuit Corporation and the Grauniad(Guardian- the Beano for the pretentious fake intellectual) | |||
"So far they have only reported fact, not delivered or presumed guilt." I agree that legal professionals will most likely have poured over what has been published/ broadcast so far… but that is very limited. Ultimately, it is a judge or court that defines what is factual. Facts are established by following the evidence. In the case of the media reporting, will they have had access to RB’s side of the story? Most likely not, so it becomes one sided. And opinions are not facts. | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia" That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The main problem we have is the media report SOME fact. They never tell us the whole story. BTW, did they report fact when they were talking about Farage and his bank account? The Farage situation was bias within some,not all,elements of print and broadcast media,which was predictable.The usual suspects,the Broken Biscuit Corporation and the Grauniad(Guardian- the Beano for the pretentious fake intellectual)" I agree. I just disagree that media only present facts. | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. There is more to it than that " No there isn't.Print/broadcast something that isn't true(against a person) = Libel | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact." Then the whole media is continuously libellous. There’s much more to it that that. | |||
"So far they have only reported fact, not delivered or presumed guilt. I agree that legal professionals will most likely have poured over what has been published/ broadcast so far… but that is very limited. Ultimately, it is a judge or court that defines what is factual. Facts are established by following the evidence. In the case of the media reporting, will they have had access to RB’s side of the story? Most likely not, so it becomes one sided. And opinions are not facts." Is it an opinion that four women have made allegations about Brand?It is those allegations that are the foundation of the story. | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. There is more to it than that No there isn't.Print/broadcast something that isn't true(against a person) = Libel" Well since it’s only allegations that haven’t been proven true, I’d guess they have committed libel But that’s not how the libel laws work. It’s not as simple as that “ Libel in the UK refers to a form of defamation, which is the communication of false statements about someone that harm their reputation. Libel specifically pertains to written or published defamatory statements, including those made in newspapers, books, online content, or other written forms. To establish a libel claim in the UK, a plaintiff typically needs to prove that the statement is false, damaging to their reputation, and that it was published to a third party. Additionally, there is generally a requirement that the publisher acted negligently or with actual malice. UK libel laws have been the subject of significant reform, and they place a strong emphasis on protecting freedom of expression while also safeguarding individuals' reputations.” | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'." He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. Then the whole media is continuously libellous. There’s much more to it that that." It's getting silly now... The times wrote "four women have alleged" That is factually correct. It doesn't mean those allegations are true. | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. " He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. | |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting. Indeed this is my stance too Op. " Hi becs, that is good I also agree with that, sometimes it is good to comment on how wrong they are too | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. Then the whole media is continuously libellous. There’s much more to it that that. It's getting silly now... The times wrote "four women have alleged" That is factually correct. It doesn't mean those allegations are true. " Ah that makes sense, thought they meant fact as in they know for a fact he’s done it Cheers for cheering it up | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. Then the whole media is continuously libellous. There’s much more to it that that. It's getting silly now... The times wrote "four women have alleged" That is factually correct. It doesn't mean those allegations are true. Ah that makes sense, thought they meant fact as in they know for a fact he’s done it Cheers for cheering it up "That's my take on it. I may be wrong though. | |||
"You know, I really hope he's innocent. Not for his sake, but for the sake of everyone who has somewhat branded him already! For example, his work, youtube, the media... Just to say "f*ck y*u" in the politist of ways just like Johnny Depp did after he proved his innocence. Until the media actually has the decency to think lets not public such stuff until we know the full fact and wait until the trial has been done and the verdict has come in, I dont think anyone who is a household name is safe for such derogetory (I know my spelling is awful!). The media don't publish or broadcast anything until lawyers have crawled over it with a fine toothcoomb.So far they have only reported fact,not delivered or presumed guilt.That is in the mind of the reader/viewer which says more about them than the messenger. The lawyers don’t make sure it’s fact. We can never know what’s fact The lawyers make sure they can’t be sued for libel Libel is reporting something that isn't fact. There is more to it than that No there isn't.Print/broadcast something that isn't true(against a person) = Libel Well since it’s only allegations that haven’t been proven true, I’d guess they have committed libel But that’s not how the libel laws work. It’s not as simple as that “ Libel in the UK refers to a form of defamation, which is the communication of false statements about someone that harm their reputation. Libel specifically pertains to written or published defamatory statements, including those made in newspapers, books, online content, or other written forms. To establish a libel claim in the UK, a plaintiff typically needs to prove that the statement is false, damaging to their reputation, and that it was published to a third party. Additionally, there is generally a requirement that the publisher acted negligently or with actual malice. UK libel laws have been the subject of significant reform, and they place a strong emphasis on protecting freedom of expression while also safeguarding individuals' reputations.”" The press haven't made the allegations four alleged victims have,the press reporting that is not libel because the press have passed no judgement on the validity of the allegations. | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. " He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. " I'm confused | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. " Why are you arguing? What he said was factually correct. Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. You accused him of lying about it, maybe you should just swallow this one and apologise. | |||
| |||
"Don't forget the 'media' especially social media is made up of you and I. Many of us have contributed on this subject in recent days. The easy way to stop 'trial by media' whatever that really means is for us all to stop commenting." I believe its wrong and shouldnt be broadcast or really commented about until the person been arrested gone to trail and found guilty or innocent .but that's not the world we life in and we are all guilty into buying into the media and commenting as our Lovely forum moderator has said . | |||
| |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. Why are you arguing? What he said was factually correct. Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. You accused him of lying about it, maybe you should just swallow this one and apologise. " Nope | |||
"Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. Why lie? It is so easily googled! I don't understand this. He brought a defamation case against the sun. He lost the case. "The article stated, "Overwhelming evidence was filed to show Johnny Depp engaged in domestic violence against his wife Amber Heard," who "recounted a detailed history of domestic abuse incidents, some of which had led to her fearing for her life." After a three-week trial in London in July 2020, Andrew Nicol, a High Court judge sitting without a jury, rejected Depp's claim in a verdict announced later that year, ruling that the published material was "substantially true"." Wikipedia That is that The Sun was not guilty of libel (civil case), not the same as Depp being guilty. You're usually one who says 'just because they're not guilty, doesn't mean they're innocent'. He said Depp was found not guilty. How could Depp be found not guilty when there wasn't a criminal case against him in the UK? He lost his defamation case against the Sun. He said Depp had not been found guilty. You got your words muddled. He couldn't be found not guilty or guilty as it wasn't a criminal case. Why are you arguing? What he said was factually correct. Depp had not been found guilty in the UK. You accused him of lying about it, maybe you should just swallow this one and apologise. " Didn’t you know some people are always right ! Even when their wrong  ….Some people just get caught up in all the drama they are emotionally invested due to past experiences which taints their thought process.
Even when people are found not guilty their guilty anyway ..Trial by social media is wrong but sadly it’s the norm now …
He will never get a fair trial anyway that’s even if it goes to trial as let’s be honest I’m not sure how they could ever prove anything their was drugs alcohol orgies women throwing themselves at him constantly ..
I don’t think any trial should ever be put on tv it just don’t sit right with me .. | |||
"The media is a double edged sword. They are disgusting in their disregard of both truth and decency just to get a story. Positively they can be the vehicle for bringing lies and injustice to light. I agree with you that justice should stay in the courts (though that’s not always right either) but it definitely should not be in the hands of the media "yes i agree  | |||
| |||
" He will never get a fair trial anyway that’s even if it goes to trial as let’s be honest I’m not sure how they could ever prove anything their was drugs alcohol orgies women throwing themselves at him constantly ." He can still get a fair trial. Evidence is presented and judged, and only the evidence presented can be judged, not a person’s profile. Any past sexual history beyond what is presented is not applicable. In all cases like this, it hangs on wether consent was given and maintained for the duration of any sexual activity. Of course the thorny issues around abuse of power and privilege, not to mention if those involved were in a position where consent could be given. It’s why these things are best trialled in court rather than the media. | |||
" He will never get a fair trial anyway that’s even if it goes to trial as let’s be honest I’m not sure how they could ever prove anything their was drugs alcohol orgies women throwing themselves at him constantly . He can still get a fair trial. Evidence is presented and judged, and only the evidence presented can be judged, not a person’s profile. Any past sexual history beyond what is presented is not applicable. In all cases like this, it hangs on wether consent was given and maintained for the duration of any sexual activity. Of course the thorny issues around abuse of power and privilege, not to mention if those involved were in a position where consent could be given. It’s why these things are best trialled in court rather than the media." The trial would be fair. The problem is and will always be, people. After a trail and a verdict of guilty/not guilty there will be those that can't accept the outcome and will continue to champion their original stance with lots of excuses and "reasons". Both sides! If Brand got a guilty verdict, his supporters would continue on with the "out to get him" chant. If Brand got a not guilty verdict, you will have some continue to shout that doesn't mean he didn't do those things. They won't accept maybe these women lied. The system let them down etc etc In the case of him being not guilty (regardless of truth or not) that stigma sticks and there will be those that will continue to treat him as if he were guilty. If he did it, I have no sympathy for him or anything that comes his way. But if he didn't, it is still an accusation that sticks around in the minds of some people and I sympathise greatly for that. | |||
| |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty
I don’t think the media should have the ability to publish anyone’s name before the person has even been charged let alone tried for the alleged crime. Whatever happens the allegations stick and that can have pretty catastrophic consequences for the person accused. If they are found innocent, they are still tarnished. Not just talking about “famous” people, but anyone being accused of a crime should have the right to a fair trial and anonymity until the result is read"That is right, the media shouldnt be allowed to publish names and yes, it should go for anyone too | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do." The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. " I'm not up with news how are the government invoiled in this case . | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. " The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. | |||
| |||
| |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government." Apologies. Chair of select committee, not Govt. | |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty "Personally, I think that the press should be banned from making criminal allegations, they should give all "evidence" to the police. There is no way that a fair trial is remotely possible after this media lynching. Cal | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Apologies. Chair of select committee, not Govt. " Your point stands though (I was actually referring to the poster you were replying to). I don't think she should have written - let the companies reach their own decisions - as I agree it gives ammunition to those who believe it's "The establishment vs Freedom Fighter Brand". But obviously important for people not to suggest the government is doing anything when it's not. | |||
| |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Apologies. Chair of select committee, not Govt. Your point stands though (I was actually referring to the poster you were replying to). I don't think she should have written - let the companies reach their own decisions - as I agree it gives ammunition to those who believe it's "The establishment vs Freedom Fighter Brand". But obviously important for people not to suggest the government is doing anything when it's not." Fully agree, I'm usually the first one to point something like that out. Momentary lapse in concentration. Hopefully it's clear now that it wasn't the Govt who got involved. | |||
" Personally, I think that the press should be banned from making criminal allegations, they should give all "evidence" to the police. There is no way that a fair trial is remotely possible after this media lynching. Cal " I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread. 1) I'm not fan of modern media, but we *need* it to publish people's opinions, including that of other people's alleged guilt! We cannot leave everything to 'the officials'. We have to have a free press, we just need to keep it in check. 2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.) 3) It *is* still possible to have a fair trial! It's happened countless times in the past, and it's what the whole legal cavalcade is designed to deal with. It's quite rare when trials are truly scuppered. pt | |||
"Rumble responds While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, r*pe, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform. Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet - meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform. We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform. Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands." Thanks for that brillent update . | |||
| |||
| |||
"Rumble responds While Rumble obviously deplores sexual assault, r*pe, and all serious crimes, and believes that both alleged victims and the accused are entitled to a full and serious investigation, it is vital to note that recent allegations against Russell Brand have nothing to do with content on Rumble's platform. Just yesterday, YouTube announced that, based solely on these media accusations, it was barring Mr. Brand from monetizing his video content. Rumble stands for very different values. We have devoted ourselves to the vital cause of defending a free internet - meaning an internet where no one arbitrarily dictates which ideas can or cannot be heard, or which citizens may or may not be entitled to a platform. We regard it as deeply inappropriate and dangerous that the UK Parliament would attempt to control who is allowed to speak on our platform or to earn a living from doing so. Singling out an individual and demanding his ban is even more disturbing given the absence of any connection between the allegations and his content on Rumble. We don't agree with the behavior of many Rumble creators, but we refuse to penalize them for actions that have nothing to do with our platform. Although it may be politically and socially easier for Rumble to join a cancel culture mob, doing so would be a violation of our company's values and mission. We emphatically reject the UK Parliament's demands." Rumbles response is a sweet f$uk you. And it is Rumble saying 'The UK Parliament's demands', The culture media is a department of government, or Parliament if you wish. This doesn't feed into conspiracy, as it was foretold long, long long time ago by his followers who were concerned, as other you tubers have been demonetised, and even there platforms removed. I know this as I watched some of his videos, and read the comments not all were favourable. RB is through now, they have shut his mouth, took away his income and his future, if he didn't have a family I would be concerned for his wellbeing. | |||
" Personally, I think that the press should be banned from making criminal allegations, they should give all "evidence" to the police. There is no way that a fair trial is remotely possible after this media lynching. Cal I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread. 1) I'm not fan of modern media, but we *need* it to publish people's opinions, including that of other people's alleged guilt! We cannot leave everything to 'the officials'. We have to have a free press, we just need to keep it in check. 2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.) 3) It *is* still possible to have a fair trial! It's happened countless times in the past, and it's what the whole legal cavalcade is designed to deal with. It's quite rare when trials are truly scuppered. pt" Not at the expense of justice! The job of the press is to report the "News", by reporting "unproven" accusations, they could actually prevent any sort of conviction and "if" he is innocent, they have ruined his life & career. There have been far to many occasions where the press have made sensational claims that turned out to be totally untrue, printed names and pictures of innocent people who have gone on to be victimised, assaulted & even take their own lives... all because the "press" got it wrong. Surely we are all entitled to "innocent until proven guilty"? Regardless of how famous we are, or how unpleasant a person we are... it's a basic human right. Cal | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government." Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? " She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. | |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty "The tipping point for me is whether or not a store is being published in the public interest rather than pure gossip. This one clearly passed the threshold, and I am fine with the findings being published If it wasn’t for journalism like this, bill Cosby would never have been brought to justice, for example, and Watergate case would never have seen the light of day. | |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty "It's disgusting and ruins chance of a fair trial. | |||
" Personally, I think that the press should be banned from making criminal allegations, they should give all "evidence" to the police. There is no way that a fair trial is remotely possible after this media lynching. Cal I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread. 1) I'm not fan of modern media, but we *need* it to publish people's opinions, including that of other people's alleged guilt! We cannot leave everything to 'the officials'. We have to have a free press, we just need to keep it in check. 2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.) 3) It *is* still possible to have a fair trial! It's happened countless times in the past, and it's what the whole legal cavalcade is designed to deal with. It's quite rare when trials are truly scuppered. pt" All agreed. And yes, press do take their findings to police. Some posters seem to suggest that that is all they should do, do the investigative work, hand over their findings and publish nothing. But press aren’t some sort of free investigative service, investigative work has to be financially viable. | |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty
It's disgusting and ruins chance of a fair trial. "No it doesn’t, as the Spacey case proves. Sad that you have so little faith in the court system | |||
| |||
| |||
"I agree media should keep out of it other than investigating and giving these evidence to the proper authority what really boils my piss is naming the person but the accuser isn't both should be given the same fine if found guilty name them not just because it's a celebrity." So you are saying that investigative journalists should not be allowed to publish their findings. That would kill investigative journalism overnight, which would be disastrous. Daniel kinahan has never been found guilty of a crime. Your proposal would mean that he and his family were still able to operate without hindrance. Thanks to the press, that is not the case. | |||
"It's funny though, isn't it? Because the RB fans are trying to argue that the reason he's being targetted is because he was using his youtube page to expose what he saw was illegal practices being carried out by the government and the mainstream media... the very one he himself made a lot of money from being part of. So he was using a 'media' platform to report on issues and to apparently expose corruption. However, when it flips and he's accused of these crimes, they're now saying the media has no business getting involved in or reporting on illegal things because it could taint court proceedings. So which of the two is it? They shouldn't report on things that are illegal or they should? Because it cannot be both. And just to clarify, government corruption, and the historical sex crimes of entertainers are both in the public interest. We shouldn't dismiss one just because we might like what someone says. " Agreed. I also find it hugely self-serving that Brand has recast himself as someone who decries the “MSM”, having built his fame and fortune there. Now that he no longer wants to use those broadcasters and has built different lucrative outlets for himself, he pretends he wasn’t part of the MSM himself. | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. " Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. " I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about. | |||
"With the recent allegations towards russell brand and before him, johnny depp and others too. What do you think about that their cases are being made public like this and where the media have a say of the outcome? In my view the media shouldnt run the trial, because a case should be where it belongs to, in the court. There is a saying that I like, with the media you are guilty before you are guilty and with the authority you are innocent until proven guilty
The tipping point for me is whether or not a store is being published in the public interest rather than pure gossip.
This one clearly passed the threshold, and I am fine with the findings being published
If it wasn’t for journalism like this, bill Cosby would never have been brought to justice, for example, and Watergate case would never have seen the light of day. "I see BC as the flip side, he has been accused by a load of women since 1965, yes 1965 most stating the same MO, he usually tried to drug these women, before SA. So it took 50 plus years to convict him, he served 3 years and his conviction was overturned. This surprised me even though I am a fan, I still thought what the hell. The supreme court turned down his request to look into his case which says a lot to me. BC followed the narrative of Hollywood made people a lot of money and was friends with powerful people. | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about." No. The Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is the government. They have not said anything about RB. The Culture, Media and Sport committee scrutinises the work of the above government department. It's made up of MPs, but is not the government, and is not actually responsible for anything. The Chair has written to social media companies, wrongly in my view, but she's entitled to, especially if she felt the media organisations involved had not acted properly or to understand what they were doing. But the government has not done or said anything. | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about." Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. | |||
| |||
 | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about. Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. " The reporter of this story has been interviewed by C4, it is a years worth of investigation taken over 4 years, the reporter was also required to undertake other stories such as the pandemic, please watch the C4 news on catch up to see what I saw. | |||
" With the likes of Brand and co the old saying "Live by the sword....." he was more than happy to make his millions using the "Media" he now apparently despises but still uses and the amusing thing is ? or is it the irony ? of his stance and others like him without some kind of mass media the powerful/rich/leaders will have no one to try to hold them to account and expose the corruption ?? and so the very thing they reckon is happening will happen ? and just look at the countries where press freedom is under attack or severely limited ( Russia/Saudi Arabia/Brazil/Poland etc etc ) and so him and his fan base whinging about ......i suggest they bugger off and go and live in some of these countries ..xxx "There is another saying "you have to be in it to win or know it" | |||
| |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about. Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. The reporter of this story has been interviewed by C4, it is a years worth of investigation taken over 4 years, the reporter was also required to undertake other stories such as the pandemic, please watch the C4 news on catch up to see what I saw. " Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks | |||
| |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too." He may not even be charged with anything. If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about. Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. The reporter of this story has been interviewed by C4, it is a years worth of investigation taken over 4 years, the reporter was also required to undertake other stories such as the pandemic, please watch the C4 news on catch up to see what I saw. Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks " To argue the point I made you will need to watch the actual interview with the reporter, and not throw a sound bite without the actual context, also "if you can't say nothing nice...." in other words no need to be rube I haven't been to you. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too." A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision. Jury is a different matter, it depends on who is actually picked. Are they biased and fair to beginnwith, some people are. There are people that take it seriously, some will go with whatever just to get it over with. Media will influence some of them however, it just depends. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too." Our legal system may not be without flaws, but it is a whole lot better than you suggest, and well beyond media influence. But let’s be clear, so far no charges have been brought on RB, just accusations. The threshold for charges is high, as these type of cases are difficult to prosecute with a low conviction rate. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. Our legal system may not be without flaws, but it is a whole lot better than you suggest, and well beyond media influence. But let’s be clear, so far no charges have been brought on RB, just accusations. The threshold for charges is high, as these type of cases are difficult to prosecute with a low conviction rate." Its not judges people worry about being influenced. Its jury members. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. He may not even be charged with anything. If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. " I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all. | |||
| |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about. Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. The reporter of this story has been interviewed by C4, it is a years worth of investigation taken over 4 years, the reporter was also required to undertake other stories such as the pandemic, please watch the C4 news on catch up to see what I saw. Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks To argue the point I made you will need to watch the actual interview with the reporter, and not throw a sound bite without the actual context, also "if you can't say nothing nice...." in other words no need to be rube I haven't been to you." I wasn’t rude. In fact, I was very polite. But we are agreed, a detailed investigation took place over a 4 year period. Thanks | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision. Jury is a different matter, it depends on who is actually picked. Are they biased and fair to beginnwith, some people are. There are people that take it seriously, some will go with whatever just to get it over with. Media will influence some of them however, it just depends. " You seek to have a very poor view of the jury system. In practice, it works pretty well. It’s not just a bunch of twits who have read stuff online and made up their minds before hearing the evidence in court. Also. He hasn’t been charged with anything. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. He may not even be charged with anything. If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all." Agreed. And r we may see a civil case, like with trump / Carroll | |||
"RB is not going to court, the government have him now no need to spend the extra cash, now I read from posts on here that government minsters are writing to other platforms RB uses and asking him to be demonetised is that correct? If so I say again this is no surprise, if you have watched his channel read the comments of some of his 6.1 million followers and subscribers, this is old news it is new for you due to not watching his channel and you will not see his channel as the next move will be to remove it completely. Youtube came to fore as a free speech platform, but during the pandemic, there share prices were put at risk by the market, due to world governments insistence that they do something about the platforms that asked questions about current affairs of the time. when one is not aware then any story will do. The Govt getting involved in this plays right into the hands of anyone who says the establishment are trying to cancel him. The government haven't got involved. I think he's referring to an MP, chair of a Select Committee, writing to social media companies, but that's obviously got nothing to do with the government. Why is a Minister of State writing to businesses about RB not the government getting involved? She's not a Minister of State anymore. She's a chair of a Select Committee. That was my bad for saying Govt. Ah, I'd not fact checked properly then. Still don't see why she's sticking her oar in. I have done some checking myself, the cultural, media and sport committee is responsible for "the culture of anything that affects the peoples of this country apparently giving them a reason to interject in the RB case". but to ask for him to be demonetised is not within their power as this has nothing to do with culture, nor is the allegations at this time as no Leagle process has taken place to affect our culture, only rumour and gossip, which this whole thread is about. Not sure I would describe a 4 year investigation as “rumour and gossip”. Thoroughly researched allegations. The reporter of this story has been interviewed by C4, it is a years worth of investigation taken over 4 years, the reporter was also required to undertake other stories such as the pandemic, please watch the C4 news on catch up to see what I saw. Yeah, a 4 year investigation, like I said. Not full time, perfectly natural that reporters work on multiple stories, but conducted over a 4 year period. Thanks To argue the point I made you will need to watch the actual interview with the reporter, and not throw a sound bite without the actual context, also "if you can't say nothing nice...." in other words no need to be rube I haven't been to you. I wasn’t rude. In fact, I was very polite. But we are agreed, a detailed investigation took place over a 4 year period. Thanks " watch the interview on c4 catch up. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. He may not even be charged with anything. If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all. Agreed. And r we may see a civil case, like with trump / Carroll " If that's the verdict that's the verdict, but it will certainly be fair. To the OP (of this post too), I've actually been screwed by the justice system, but I was totally small fry and my case was indeed pre-decided (if i had the money...) The greater the light, the greater the intensity though, aand the higher the professionalism and scrutiny etc involved. One thing is forever true too... People in the dock are always complaining of preconceived justice and conspiratorial factors. They often actually want and need the media to convey this too. So pressure can work both ways! Pt | |||
This is why I don’t watch the news. At all | |||
"No. Will they though? Probably
This is why I don’t watch the news. At all
"You must get it from somewhere though | |||
"No. Will they though? Probably
This is why I don’t watch the news. At all
You must get it from somewhere though"Oh here and there… you know. I have my sources
FFS | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision. Jury is a different matter, it depends on who is actually picked. Are they biased and fair to beginnwith, some people are. There are people that take it seriously, some will go with whatever just to get it over with. Media will influence some of them however, it just depends. You seek to have a very poor view of the jury system. In practice, it works pretty well. It’s not just a bunch of twits who have read stuff online and made up their minds before hearing the evidence in court. Also. He hasn’t been charged with anything. " Oh I don't seek, I have a poor view. But not of the jury system but people in general. Some people do and will go with anything if it gets a verdict over with quickly. People can be and are manipulated and influenced by lots of things, consciously or subconsciously. I didn't say he has been charged. It's hypothetical. | |||
"No. Will they though? Probably
This is why I don’t watch the news. At all "What about reading it, though? I rarely watch the news, I find it much easier to stay detached reading it. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too." "Kevin Spacey won't get a fair trial,the media have branded him guilty" Kevin Spacey-Not Guilty,jury decision not judges direction or trial collapse. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. A sole judge won't be pressured unless they are generally corrupt to begin with. Social media and mainstream media won't influence their decision. Jury is a different matter, it depends on who is actually picked. Are they biased and fair to beginnwith, some people are. There are people that take it seriously, some will go with whatever just to get it over with. Media will influence some of them however, it just depends. You seek to have a very poor view of the jury system. In practice, it works pretty well. It’s not just a bunch of twits who have read stuff online and made up their minds before hearing the evidence in court. Also. He hasn’t been charged with anything. Oh I don't seek, I have a poor view. But not of the jury system but people in general. Some people do and will go with anything if it gets a verdict over with quickly. People can be and are manipulated and influenced by lots of things, consciously or subconsciously. I didn't say he has been charged. It's hypothetical. " My view of the jury system is quite different. If anything, I feel that people are found not guilty more often than they should, rather than lazy juries having made up their minds and not bothering to listen to evidence like you suggest. The burden of proof is very high. | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. "Kevin Spacey won't get a fair trial,the media have branded him guilty" Kevin Spacey-Not Guilty,jury decision not judges direction or trial collapse." But do people believe he's innocent? Will he be allowed to continue his acting career as it was before the allegations? | |||
"I dont think that russell brand will get a fair trial, because the court will feel pressured and their decision could be influenced by the media as they have already decided that he is guilty, but lets hope that he will get a fair trial too. He may not even be charged with anything. If he faces charges, I have no reason to believe that he won’t be given a fair trial. These sort of allegations are very hard to prove, as multiple footballers have shown, for example. I also think that he wont be charged with anything either and yes, the alegations are very hard to prove, if anything actually happened at all. Agreed. And r we may see a civil case, like with trump / Carroll " Yes, we may see that, usually these kind of allegations comes up when they are height at their fame as well. | |||
" Personally, I think that the press should be banned from making criminal allegations, they should give all "evidence" to the police. There is no way that a fair trial is remotely possible after this media lynching. Cal I don't agree with any of that, or any same thoughts expressed throughout this thread. 1) I'm not fan of modern media, but we *need* it to publish people's opinions, including that of other people's alleged guilt! We cannot leave everything to 'the officials'. We have to have a free press, we just need to keep it in check. 2) The media do take things to the police and it's a crime not to (though maybe they could be held to account more when they don't imo.) 3) It *is* still possible to have a fair trial! It's happened countless times in the past, and it's what the whole legal cavalcade is designed to deal with. It's quite rare when trials are truly scuppered. pt Not at the expense of justice! The job of the press is to report the "News", by reporting "unproven" accusations, they could actually prevent any sort of conviction and "if" he is innocent, they have ruined his life & career. There have been far to many occasions where the press have made sensational claims that turned out to be totally untrue, printed names and pictures of innocent people who have gone on to be victimised, assaulted & even take their own lives... all because the "press" got it wrong. Surely we are all entitled to "innocent until proven guilty"? Regardless of how famous we are, or how unpleasant a person we are... it's a basic human right. Cal" The media have not reported him as guilty , they have reported him as accused. If the reader assumes guilt then that is where we have a breakdown of innocent til proven guilty None of this is a new concept either. Even without social media or the main stream media a rumour can go round a local area and people will naturally form an opinion on it. The only difference is the scale of that now. And at what point do we say live by the sword die by the sword. If you make your living in the media of course they are going to continue to take an interest in you. Whereas if it was me or you we wouldn’t merit 2 column inches. | |||
