Was the Argus right to print the names of the players accused of the sex assault?

[ROSM]

Where were you yesterday?

I was here - same as you.

If you read what I wrote, I said that in my view, you can have that but just not on here and the reasons are that those who own and 'publish' this site cant run the risk of suffering the legal repurcussions caused by people who dont understand and respect the boundaries.

I cant see whats so difficult about that. Why dont you leave your front door open permanently? because I suspect you cant run the risk of people coming into your house and stealing from you. Not everybody will but some may.

 

[el_ciddy]

Hopefully they're saving a frontpage for when the players get exonerated later.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

No thery don't. Its common for them to wait months and months.

I'd be intrested to know the charge rate for people that are arrested 6 months after the event.

I bet it's in the very low single figure %

I bet the convition rate is almost zero.

In my opinion, the police are taking this with a pinch of salt, and are going through the motions. If it was a serious offense, they would have arrested the players within hours or days. Why are they going to let sex offenders wonder around for 6 months. It will drag on for months, and then no charges will be brought.

Have you not read any of the news articles relating to this? From what you've just written, I assume not, and that you're just letting your pathological resentment of the police override any sense of rationality on this one.

 

[Titanic]

Have you not read any of the news articles relating to this? From what you've just written, I assume not, and that you're just letting your pathological resentment of the police override any sense of rationality on this one.

mmm... [MENTION=894]Mr Burns[/MENTION] or [MENTION=249]edna krabappel[/MENTION]... which one to believe??

 

[Lady Whistledown]

But he hasn't.

They reported that he was arrested - true. He's been ruled out of the investigation within a day, his name could't be clearer, and we'll have to wait for tomorrow's Argus to find out but I would hope and expect that will be made clear.

It's not prefect to have the players named but lets be honest we all probably would have known sooner or later anyway (probably sooner) but if it was not confirmed the names would be open to dangerous speculation, there was at least one tweet yesterday naming Noone and Hall, obviously totally wrong and whoever did that could potentially be in trouble but if the names aren't confirmed then it is going to hang over half the squad in that way.

I agree that the presentation of it was strange, with the club badge all over it and a picture of the stadium, but people are talking about a trial by media etc. It's hardly Stephen Lawrence is it. All we know is who was arrested.

I'm surprised at myself, but I agree with you.

Firstly, I think people's judgement in this matter is being heavily clouded by the fact that it's Albion players involved. History is littered with people who have been arrested and publicly named. In the vast majority of cases, and I'm talking about those where no further action is subsequently taken, there is no lifelong stigma over it. I just got in from work, logged on to the computer, and pretty much the first thing I saw on the Argus site was that one of the players involved has been released without charge. You can hardly say it's not been given due prominence as it was on the top of the site. Anyone from this club or anywhere else who wants to give that player stick over the matter in future would have to be a total moron....and frankly I'm sure the player in question, as a professional footballer, is more than used to people shouting all sorts at him and will be able to treat it like water off a duck's back.

If this were six Palace players, or Man United players, or players of any other club, would there be protests on here? Or if it were six builders from the same company, or six teachers, or six postmen? Think back to previous incidents where "an unnamed footballer" has been linked to this or that offence or court case. There have been entire THREADS on NSC where people have tried to guess who they were. I saw a number of regular NSC posters making stupid jokes (I use that term very loosely) on Facebook or Twitter yesterday speculating or outright naming the players, so it strikes me as a little sanctimonious that I now see a few of the same people getting huffy about the Argus's actions, which are legal whether you like them or not.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

Spot on Edna!

 

[symyjym]

The Argus would have been accused of special treatment and bad journalism if they actively tried to hide from what is reported on the BBC and elsewhere.

 

[Scotty Mac]

I'm surprised at myself, but I agree with you.

Firstly, I think people's judgement in this matter is being heavily clouded by the fact that it's Albion players involved. History is littered with people who have been arrested and publicly named. In the vast majority of cases, and I'm talking about those where no further action is subsequently taken, there is no lifelong stigma over it. I just got in from work, logged on to the computer, and pretty much the first thing I saw on the Argus site was that one of the players involved has been released without charge. You can hardly say it's not been given due prominence as it was on the top of the site. Anyone from this club or anywhere else who wants to give that player stick over the matter in future would have to be a total moron....and frankly I'm sure the player in question, as a professional footballer, is more than used to people shouting all sorts at him and will be able to treat it like water off a duck's back.

If this were six Palace players, or Man United players, or players of any other club, would there be protests on here? Or if it were six builders from the same company, or six teachers, or six postmen? Think back to previous incidents where "an unnamed footballer" has been linked to this or that offence or court case. There have been entire THREADS on NSC where people have tried to guess who they were. I saw a number of regular NSC posters making stupid jokes (I use that term very loosely) on Facebook or Twitter yesterday speculating or outright naming the players, so it strikes me as a little sanctimonious that I now see a few of the same people getting huffy about the Argus's actions, which are legal whether you like them or not.

this

 

[Giraffe]

The Argus would have been accused of special treatment and bad journalism if they actively tried to hide from what is reported on the BBC and elsewhere.

I don't think anyone is saying they should've hidden it, but perhaps the over top way they showed the names was not proportionate.

I don't recall them doing this for any other sex attacker. And do they always show the place of work and the company logo of the business that the accused works at?

 

[symyjym]

I don't think anyone is saying they should've hidden it, but perhaps the over top way they showed the names was not proportionate.

I don't recall them doing this for any other sex attacker. And do they always show the place of work and the company logo of the business that the accused works at?

The club would have known about the front page and would have gone along with it. It sends out a good message from the club for not stopping it, and is a lesson for everyone invovled in the future of the club and will be used as an example.

Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't heard any complaints from the club yet.

 

[Giraffe]

The club would have known about the front page and would have gone along with it. It sends out a good message from the club for not stopping it, and is a lesson for everyone invovled in the future of the club and will be used as an example.

Maybe I'm wrong but I haven't heard any complaints from the club yet.

I will be amazed if they agreed the format of the front page. I think frankly you are talking nonsense.

 

[Tony Meolas Loan Spell]

You know what. We NEED Max Clifford.

 

[Lady Whistledown]

Mr Burns. I almost can't be bothered to say this as I realise nobody will ever change your standpoint on the subject, but for the benefit of others:

In a hypothetical case where the identity of suspected offenders were known, and there was sufficient grounds to arrest them- let's say for a burglary- it would be considered an abuse of process not to arrest them at the earliest opportunity. For an arrest to be lawful, police require reasonable grounds to suspect an individual of involvement...don't ask me to define what reasonable is, because it covers a myriad of factors. They don't require a stack of evidence at that stage as often the person's interview influences what evidence needs to be gathered and it's essential to get that account in order to progress things.

Anyway, if I turned up at a custody centre with a person I'd just got round to nicking for this random burglary that happened a year ago (this is still a 100% hypothetical case, please note), having not done anything with it in the meantime, the Custody Sergeant would more than likely tell me to do one and let him go, because there was no necessity for that person to be arrested at that point. There was nothing to be gained by arresting them because anything I needed to do with the person (eg search their house for stolen gear, seize items for forensic examination) could and should have been done at the time of the offence, and would now probably have been lost with the passage of time. Even if by some miracle the Sergeant authorised the detention of that person for interview, which I very much doubt they would, then the CPS would quite possibly dismiss the job subsequently on the basis that it's an abuse of process and the police have lost too much potential evidence by sitting on it for so long. So it's not actually in anybody's interest to waste time for the sake of it. Secondly, the victim: it'd be a bit of a piss take to the burglary victim to tell them in November that we have a suspect but that we can't be arsed to go and pick them up until May.

If you actually read what's been written so far about the Albion players' matter, it was made quite clear by the police spokesperson why the arrests had been made at that time. All it means, in the most simple legal terms, is that there was deemed to be reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement, and the police want to speak to them about it so that they can give their own accounts. On that basis, one player has now been completely exonerated, and the others will need to wait while further investigations are carried out to determine what happens next. For those five, it implies neither innocence nor guilt. It's just a step in an investigation, which will be worked out in due course.

 

[symyjym]

I will be amazed if they agreed the format of the front page. I think frankly you are talking nonsense.

Do you seriously think that the Argus would burn their bridges with the club? They are in a privilaged position and it does not make sense for them to go F you to the Albion.

Why would the Argus do this this?

 

[ROSM]

I don't recall them doing this for any other sex attacker. And do they always show the place of work and the company logo of the business that the accused works at?

Not always but they have done it in the past - both at the arrest and the charge/trial stage in certain circumstances.

 

[Billy the Fish]

If you actually read what's been written so far about the Albion players' matter, it was made quite clear by the police spokesperson why the arrests had been made at that time. All it means, in the most simple legal terms, is that there was deemed to be reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement, and the police want to speak to them about it so that they can give their own accounts. On that basis, one player has now been completely exonerated, and the others will need to wait while further investigations are carried out to determine what happens next. For those five, it implies neither innocence nor guilt. It's just a step in an investigation, which will be worked out in due course.

Which is all well and good, a complaint has been made so OB bring everyone in as part of their investigation, ask a few leading questions and hope someone sings like a canary that's all above board.

What I think people have a problem with is the tone of the Argus article. The vast majority of the general public will have no idea of the process you've just described. It wouldn't surprise me if most of your average joe public law abiding readers who've never had any experience with the police read that headline and assume they've all been charged with sexual assualt. From the way it is written, IMHO that is what the paper wants people to think.

If you throw enough shit, some is going to stick, this is the problem with reporting crimes in the modern media. I'm not just saying this because it's the Albion either, there's quite a few who have expressed similar views on the stephen lawrence thread a few weeks back.

 

[andybaha]

I vote yes because it ends the speculation as to who it is and who it isn't. I'm sure there are a few players and their families/girlfriends who are very pleased that it is now known who wasn't questioned by the police.

However, I do not think the names needed to emblazened over the front cover and they may wish they had treated it in a much more sympathetic way at a later date. It probably sold a few extra newspaper today, but if the Albion withdraw their support for the Argus there will be a good few people that only buy the Argus for the Albion news that would think twice in future.

 

[So.CalGull]

Do you seriously think that the Argus would burn their bridges with the club? They are in a privilaged position and it does not make sense for them to go F you to the Albion.

Why would the Argus do this this?

Having worked at Southern Publishing/Newsquest for about 10 years in the 90's, I saw first hand the two headed beast that is the editorial department...the sports desk is staffed by well established long term journos, where as the news desk had a much higher turnover of staff, I saw 5 editors in my time there, each one trying to make their mark, in their ways using their employmet situation to launch onto bigger and better positions in printed media.

Many a time, especially during the, Goldstone/Withdean dramas, the sports desk and news desk would come to a crossroads regarding what one wanted printed and what got printed...the sports desk has a very different relationship with local teams and sporting associations than the news desk does, they have different interests and objectives when it comes to covering news, even the same story.

This is not the sports desk work, it is the work of the news editor, who has no vested interest in the story other than it is a sensational piece for the front page...I imagine the sports desk are looking to the skies to see what the outcome will be regarding any kind of backlash from the Albion, but knowing the people in place at the sports desk, and the decent PR/media officer at the club, who should know the internal departmental politics of any media organisation, I doubt that relations have been strained to heavily.

 

[Spiros]

If you actually read what's been written so far about the Albion players' matter, it was made quite clear by the police spokesperson why the arrests had been made at that time. All it means, in the most simple legal terms, is that there was deemed to be reasonable grounds to suspect their involvement, and the police want to speak to them about it so that they can give their own accounts. On that basis, one player has now been completely exonerated, and the others will need to wait while further investigations are carried out to determine what happens next. For those five, it implies neither innocence nor guilt. It's just a step in an investigation, which will be worked out in due course.

In this case - and in any case where it's an investigation into the facts - why do the police feel the need to share sufficient details to enable the men accused (or not) to be identified? Why not just say '6 men were arrested today as part of an investigation into an alleged sexual assault'? The Argus just print the facts that they have been given by the police, surely? At the very least the police shouldn't be sharing the identities of these men until they have been charged with something, especially as their accuser has the right to anonimity

 

[aolstudios]

I will be amazed if they agreed the format of the front page. I think frankly you are talking nonsense.

this!