3 ms·
Because the BBC does not fall under German juristication.
by bildung 7y ago
Because the BBC does not fall under German juristication.
- tom_mellior 7y agoThat's not the point. The BBC was not forced to redact the name, yes. This still left the BBC free to redact it, or not hint at the name at all (like the Guardian). The BBC seems to have made a conscious decision to make the case easier to Google. They didn't need to do that.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoIn the UK people in criminal cases are always fully named (except minors). In fact, at least in local news it is customary to publish name and residence location (to avoid confusion). E.g. a newspaper article would say that "John Doe of Dodgy Street, London has been sentenced today at the Old Bailey to 10 years for drug trafficking", often with the police mugshot as illustration. My local news site runs an article every month with these details for all the people sentenced locally during the past month.
- tom_mellior 7y ago> In the UK people in criminal cases are always fully named (except minors). If that were some sort of important guiding principle of all of the UK press in general, you'd think that the BBC would have dug up the person's name in this case. I don't have much data to go on, but I thought that the BBC might apply different standards than tabloids or the local news.
- mytailorisrich 7y agoThe interesting point here is that the BBC refrained from naming the person, not that they named the other details of the case. As said, in the UK it is not viewed negatively to name people and specifics in criminal cases, quite the opposite: It is something the public expects and demands.
- tom_mellior 7y agoAgain, the Guardian's readers don't seem to demand this. And the BBC's readers don't seem to demand it either. You might be confusing tabloids with all of the UK press.