Is it the same reason they can’t name Thomas Partey of Gilfy Siggurdson…
Probably
The MP is only the first few lines of the quite long article that goes on to describe lawfare and the chilling effect it has on free speech and our media.
Our media has now become too afraid to report on the 1% because of legal action that would likely be taken against them that would be very very expensive to fight and carries a high risk of bankruptcy.
I wish we couldn’t name anyone arrested for anything until they are sentenced being investigated should not be made public.
This is tough. I think perhaps I agree with it, however counter intuitive that may seem.
Once convicted, Fuck him, obviously, but releasing information that he has been charged it even that he was questioned will end his career in short shrift and, if we release the names of political leaders, particularly MPs, who are accused of sec crimes opens a can of worms, and allows any prospective MP to do away with the competition at whim.
Do I think that is what is happening here? No I do not, but the principle remains true.
The reporter is very vague on exactly which laws are preventing him publishing the name. Pretty sure that means the media are actually more afraid of repercussions in the way of future access to press briefings. There don’t seem to be any laws protecting an average person accused of sexual offences. Imo I think anonymity should be the norm, unless there’s a specific reason to identify the accused.
There are loads of examples of people being wrongly arrested and who were completely innocent. No one has the right to ruin their lives until proven guilty
I’m sure it’s no coincidence they very clearly used a cutout of Starmer. This is borderline slander.
7 comments
Is it the same reason they can’t name Thomas Partey of Gilfy Siggurdson…
Probably
The MP is only the first few lines of the quite long article that goes on to describe lawfare and the chilling effect it has on free speech and our media.
Our media has now become too afraid to report on the 1% because of legal action that would likely be taken against them that would be very very expensive to fight and carries a high risk of bankruptcy.
I wish we couldn’t name anyone arrested for anything until they are sentenced being investigated should not be made public.
This is tough. I think perhaps I agree with it, however counter intuitive that may seem.
Once convicted, Fuck him, obviously, but releasing information that he has been charged it even that he was questioned will end his career in short shrift and, if we release the names of political leaders, particularly MPs, who are accused of sec crimes opens a can of worms, and allows any prospective MP to do away with the competition at whim.
Do I think that is what is happening here? No I do not, but the principle remains true.
The reporter is very vague on exactly which laws are preventing him publishing the name. Pretty sure that means the media are actually more afraid of repercussions in the way of future access to press briefings. There don’t seem to be any laws protecting an average person accused of sexual offences. Imo I think anonymity should be the norm, unless there’s a specific reason to identify the accused.
There are loads of examples of people being wrongly arrested and who were completely innocent. No one has the right to ruin their lives until proven guilty
I’m sure it’s no coincidence they very clearly used a cutout of Starmer. This is borderline slander.