11 ms·

Not before plastering the faces of an innocent couple nationwide. I think they deserve reparation for this.

jackweirdy 8y ago
As far as we know it wasn't the police who reported their names and addresses. Police typically don't release names until someone is charged. Newspapers reported their names, usually that happens off the back of neighbours tipping off the papers for cash about the police knocking on doors.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  Or an envelope of cash to a bent copper
  - eponeponepon 8y ago
    Bent coppers charge a lot. The guy two doors down probably won't stand to lose his job, so will like as not spill the beans for a pint.
- dazc 8y ago
  'Police typically don't release names until someone is charged.' Various celebrities could argue otherwise.
  - teh_klev 8y ago
    Yep, the Cliff Richard raid is a prime example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Richard#2014:_Property_search,_investigation_and_BBC_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Richard#2014:_Property_s...
redcalx 8y ago
The paper's that did that made clearly libellous claims - because the couple had not yet been charged with an offence when their names were published. Those paper's can now expect libel claims against them, although given the clear breach of libel law I expect they will wish to settle out of court rather than take on the extra expense of a court case they can't win.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- monochromatic 8y ago
  I’m not too familiar with UK libel law. Is it not a defense that they were reporting on statements they were given? Is there a reasonableness question?
  - abrowne 8y ago
    AFAIK the police specifically didn't release the names.
  - redcalx 8y ago
    As per a sibling comment, the names were leaked, they were not officially announced.
  - ams6110 8y ago
    I thought there was an actually arrest made? Don't know about the UK, but in the US arrests are public record.
  - DanBC 8y ago
    There's a difference between saying "Mr and Mrs Bloggs were arrested in connection to the Gatwick drone chaos" and "ARE THESE THE MORONS WHO RUINED CHRISTMAS?" in 144pt font on the front page with a fuck-off huge photo of them. http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/181330292801/hendopolis-mail-on-sunday-are-these-the-morons http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/181330292801/hendopolis-ma... But this newspaper probably won't have to pay out anything. They've been careful with their wording; they do this a lot; they have lawyers on staff; and defamation is difficult in the UK.
KineticLensman 8y ago
One UK precedent for reparation is the treatment of retired teacher Christopher Jefferies who was arrested for the murder of his tenant Joanna Yeates. His character was totally assassinated by the UK media before he was released without charge (Vincent Tabak was later convicted of the murder) [0]. Jefferies' only crime was to be 'unconventional' in the opinion of the media. He launched legal action against six newspapers and accepted substantial damages. His story was turned in a TV drama [1] in 2014. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3429354/plotsummary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3429354/plotsummary
gambiting 8y ago
Yep, UK and US are abhorrent when it comes to this. Where I'm from(Poland) it's literally illegal to print the full name and show the face of the accused until after the trial. Once someone is arrested all the newspapers can do is say "Arthur G. was arrested on suspicion of X" with a blurred out photo of their face. The penalties for breaking that law are substantial and newspapers have paid extremely heavy fines for breaking it so it's generally adhered to.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
clort 8y ago
Interestingly I heard that 'some media' had published their names yesterday and I thought that was pretty crass. I know several media organisations are that though so its not really a surprise, and I hope they manage to sue them for undue distress or whatever. Today though, the BBC are saying "<full name> and <full name> from Crawley are saying that they feel completely violated by the media attention". I can't understand what is going through the editors mind when they approve sentences like that.. there is literally no reason any member of the public would need to know their names, and having the BBC repeat them on the hour every hour is just kicking them when they are already down.
- Scoundreller 8y ago
  Perhaps they had no choice once their names were leaked. Better to have publications about your vindication instead of just your arrest. And BBC should have enough SEO to bury the arrest stories.

As far as we know it wasn't the police who reported their names and addresses. Police typically don't release names until someone is charged. Newspapers reported their names, usually that happens off the back of neighbours tipping off the papers for cash about the police knocking on doors.

C1sc0cat 8y ago
Or an envelope of cash to a bent copper
- eponeponepon 8y ago
  Bent coppers charge a lot. The guy two doors down probably won't stand to lose his job, so will like as not spill the beans for a pint.
dazc 8y ago
'Police typically don't release names until someone is charged.' Various celebrities could argue otherwise.
- teh_klev 8y ago
  Yep, the Cliff Richard raid is a prime example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Richard#2014:_Property_search,_investigation_and_BBC_litigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cliff_Richard#2014:_Property_s...

redcalx 8y ago

The paper's that did that made clearly libellous claims - because the couple had not yet been charged with an offence when their names were published. Those paper's can now expect libel claims against them, although given the clear breach of libel law I expect they will wish to settle out of court rather than take on the extra expense of a court case they can't win.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
monochromatic 8y ago
I’m not too familiar with UK libel law. Is it not a defense that they were reporting on statements they were given? Is there a reasonableness question?
- abrowne 8y ago
  AFAIK the police specifically didn't release the names.
- redcalx 8y ago
  As per a sibling comment, the names were leaked, they were not officially announced.
- ams6110 8y ago
  I thought there was an actually arrest made? Don't know about the UK, but in the US arrests are public record.
- DanBC 8y ago
  There's a difference between saying "Mr and Mrs Bloggs were arrested in connection to the Gatwick drone chaos" and "ARE THESE THE MORONS WHO RUINED CHRISTMAS?" in 144pt font on the front page with a fuck-off huge photo of them. http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/181330292801/hendopolis-mail-on-sunday-are-these-the-morons http://suttonnick.tumblr.com/post/181330292801/hendopolis-ma... But this newspaper probably won't have to pay out anything. They've been careful with their wording; they do this a lot; they have lawyers on staff; and defamation is difficult in the UK.

KineticLensman 8y ago

One UK precedent for reparation is the treatment of retired teacher Christopher Jefferies who was arrested for the murder of his tenant Joanna Yeates. His character was totally assassinated by the UK media before he was released without charge (Vincent Tabak was later convicted of the murder) [0]. Jefferies' only crime was to be 'unconventional' in the opinion of the media. He launched legal action against six newspapers and accepted substantial damages. His story was turned in a TV drama [1] in 2014. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates [1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3429354/plotsummary https://www.imdb.com/title/tt3429354/plotsummary

gambiting 8y ago

Yep, UK and US are abhorrent when it comes to this. Where I'm from(Poland) it's literally illegal to print the full name and show the face of the accused until after the trial. Once someone is arrested all the newspapers can do is say "Arthur G. was arrested on suspicion of X" with a blurred out photo of their face. The penalties for breaking that law are substantial and newspapers have paid extremely heavy fines for breaking it so it's generally adhered to.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

clort 8y ago

Interestingly I heard that 'some media' had published their names yesterday and I thought that was pretty crass. I know several media organisations are that though so its not really a surprise, and I hope they manage to sue them for undue distress or whatever. Today though, the BBC are saying "<full name> and <full name> from Crawley are saying that they feel completely violated by the media attention". I can't understand what is going through the editors mind when they approve sentences like that.. there is literally no reason any member of the public would need to know their names, and having the BBC repeat them on the hour every hour is just kicking them when they are already down.

Scoundreller 8y ago
Perhaps they had no choice once their names were leaked. Better to have publications about your vindication instead of just your arrest. And BBC should have enough SEO to bury the arrest stories.