The Argus names the arrested Albion players

[hans kraay fan club]

Yes but you know people are THICK. I bet money I will get at least 5 people in the next week say to me "Have you heard, 5 players from that team you support sexually assaulted some woman".

VERY poor from the Argus. Watch their readership go from tiny to nonexistent.

Correct.

The actual headline is out of order in my opinion.

It screams "ALBION STARS ACCUSED OF SEX ASSAULT", when the reality is "Albion stars questionned over alledged sex assault".

Nobody knows if all six are "accused of assault". Could be one accused, and 5 witnesses, for example.

 

[Djmiles]

Should be interesting to see if these players are included in the matchday squad for tomorows game.

 

[hitony]

Would love to know what Gus thinks about all of this. His next press conference could be interesting. Suspect he has been told not to discuss it though.

I hope he does not discuss anything apart from football....hes got enough on his plate with just that. let the powers that be within the club sort anything that MIGHT need sorting out.

 

[The Large One]

Would love to know what Gus thinks about all of this. His next press conference could be interesting. Suspect he has been told not to discuss it though.

What can he say that wouldn't incur the wrath of the judiciary?

 

[Giraffe]

I hope he does not discuss anything apart from football....hes got enough on his plate with just that. let the powers that be within the club sort anything that MIGHT need sorting out.

I'm sure that's right. But would love to have a private chat with Gus about it. Bet he is fuming, one way or another.

 

[pipkin112]

A Palace fan has now posted the front page of the argus on the BBS

 

[Springal]

I'm sure that's right. But would love to have a private chat with Gus about it. Bet he is fuming, one way or another.

Fuming about what ?

 

[public school boy]

If the name of the accuser is kept secret then this should also apply to the accused. In cases such as these in British law the name of the accuser seems to be protected but the name or names of the accused are published. Does the law need changing? If the Argus have publish the names of the accused they are not doing anything wrong or illegal. I think the reason that people are annoyed is because they are Brighton players. i doubt whether any one would complain if the players in question were from Palace.

 

[zego]

... ...

Nobody knows if all six are "accused of assault". Could be one accused, and 5 witnesses, for example.

Could be SIX witnesses.

 

[drew]

What do you mean 'risk possible prosecution'?

Assuming the Argus' source was an official one - Sussex Police's Press Officer, for example - the Argus is within its rights to publish the names of the accused. I haven't read the report, so I don't what exactly has been said, but if they've stuck to the hard facts, I struggle to see what the issue is. If they had implied guilt (something that the Mirror and the Sun did with that case in Bristol last year, and they were found guilty of Contempt of Court), that's where problems start occurring for them, the accused and the case.

Whether the media should be allowed to publish the names of the accused ahead of any prosecution and conviction (i.e. calling for the accused to have a right to anonymity until conviction) is another debate entirely.

How do you arrive at the conclusion the source was official. More than likely that it wasn't I would have thought.

It's a newspaper. It's going to publish the names as soon as it legally can. As to whether it should be allowed to in the cases like this - take it up with your MP, don't blame the Argus for doing it's job.

Exactly - There's a ludicrous amount of sanctimony from people who have probably spent the last 24 hours frenetically scouring the web for the names...

I came to that conclusion several pages ago. A lot of sanctimonious bullshit from most people on here who all of a sudden have become very precious about what can and cannot be reported by the press (not a dig at Bozza or the Mods as I think they are doing an excellent job protecting the forum) purely because it involves our club. From my point of view, there are arguments on several levels for naming and not naming those involved in allegations which are investigated by the Police. I don't think it is as clear cut as you should never name someone prior to be actually convicted. As an example, you may have a person is a position of responsibility with young children, a priest for example, and if the Police have one case, the release of the name may encourage other victims to come forward. In this case, I doubt the names have been released by the Police and would very much suspect that someone has leaked the info to prevent speculation of others involvement.

You cannot blame the Argus for publishing a negative story about the club because this is very big local news. Had these players been at other clubs then there are many, although probably not all, that would have joined in the feeding frenzy that ensued with other cases involving footballers, Titus Bramble, Marlon King, Ryan Giggs etc etc.
If they did something then I hope they are dealt with accordingly but equally I hope and that this will follow the course that many other cases involving footballers do in that there is no case to
answer.

We don't know the circumstances so we will have to wait until 21st March.

 

[hitony]

Could be SIX witnesses.

And who said speculation would not start!!

 

[SULLY COULDNT SHOOT]

thanks Bozza, got them now.

Gone to @northstandchat and cant find anything

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Could be SIX witnesses.

Could be. That's why I said 'for example'.

Unilkely to be six witnesses though - otherwise there would need to have been another arrest, at the same time.

 

[Bozza]

Cheers Tony - As long as know mods go through peoples PMs they're private yeh - like I think one of them did to me once! But i'll leave it there - they know who they are.

No-one has access to PMs other than me.

And I've got a lot better things to do than read them.

 

[Mellotron]

Am I right in thinking if they are proved INNOCENT, the accuser will STILL not be named?

 

[Giraffe]

Fuming about what ?

Take your pick:

Fuming about his players being wrongly accused
Fuming because of the disruption to Thursday's training

Depends on his viewpoint I guess. Either way I don't think he will be greeting it as good news

 

[The Merry Prankster]

what a shit mess all round .

Very much so.

 

[Sheebo]

No-one has access to PMs other than me.

And I've got a lot better things to do than read them.

OK. Didn't mean you btw...!

 

[The Large One]

How do you arrive at the conclusion the source was official.

I didn't arrive at any conclusion, I based it on an assumption, though a fairly logical one.

They risk an almighty contempt of court charge if the source wasn't official.

More than likely that it wasn't I would have thought.

Why is it more than likely that it's not an official source?

 

[Sheebo]

Could be. That's why I said 'for example'.

Unilkely to be six witnesses though - otherwise there would need to have been another arrest, at the same time.

Pretty sure they aren't witnesses but remember the Wales fan murder - about 4 or 5 Welsh fans arrested and everyone assumed it was Cardiff vs Swans - turned out to be key witnesses and the actual culprit was arrested at a later date.