Caroline Flack - RIP

[Conchúr]

I believe we are in danger of tying the hands of the news media too tightly in this country. It was the media that told the public about Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile, Rotherham, Stephen Lawrence, Jean Charles de Menezes, etc, etc, etc. If it gets stories wrong there's libel and defamation laws to kick them. If they steal data and other information, there's laws for that too.

The push for Leveson was mainly a reaction to establishment figures and celebrities objecting to being criticised and/or found out.

If it were possible I'd establish a scheme under which every post on social media that promotes hate and violence could be traced to its originator who would then be made accountable. Unfortunately, that could also bring other problems...

I don't think a clampdown on the laws around this area should necessarily be as controversial as many would undoubtedly seek to make them.  As far as I'm concerned, individual privacy is a two way street — while the law should seek to protect it appropriately, individuals are also responsible for taking reasonable steps to maintain their privacy.  In ye olde days, one would not reasonably expect to fall under the scope of "privacy" if they stood in their front garden with a megaphone blaring their opinions.  Posting things on social media — and therefore knowing full well that they will be viewable by the public at large — is essentially the same thing.  Regardless of the fact that one might do it from inside their own home, the intention is to publicise the view.  To me therefore, they are waiving the right to privacy for their views and should be treated as having published them.



The problem is that the law simply hasn't been able to keep up with the admittedly supersonic speed at which social media has taken a hold in society.  Older people and even some younger people who were growing up just when the Internet was really beginning to infiltrate individual personal lives were naive and ignorant to the wide range and lasting (even permanent) nature of the things they said online.  Comments on social media were viewed almost in the same way as off the cuff remarks to your mates — and nobody thought about reality of these "off the cuff" remarks being dragged up a decade later.   But the excuses aren't there anymore, everyone is now acutely aware that social media is more or less a public domain — and things written there (regardless if you do so from your own home) are invariably intended to be in the public domain.



It struck me particularly in the Colleen Rooney and Jessica Vardy storm-in-teacup-story.  OK, Rooney claimed it was a "private Instagram account", but to me, if you want things to be kept private and secret — why the f**k do you post about them online?    If I want something kept secret, it doesn't get near social media — even if my profile is on lockdown — because I know full well that once it's up there it is very much out of your hands where it ends up.  



As for the media, I don't believe there is any public interest served by identifying names of people in cases before they have had their day in court.  The only thing it satisfies is society's unhealthy obsession with peering into the private lives of others.

[patman post]

It is the newspapers who should feel ashamed, wrecking two innocent peoples lives in the drone case, no apology no compensation.

In the second case wrecking a mans life.

In the first case the papers reported what happened. If they'd exaggerated or wrongly accused people of criminal actions they could sue. I suggest it's the Police that "got it wrong" — though perhaps that's understandable in the circumstances.

The second case was also partially due to Policing mistakes. And Jefferies received what's described as substantial undisclosed damages from a settlement with the Sun, the Daily Mirror, the Sunday Mirror, the Daily Mail, the Daily Record, the Daily Express, the Daily Star and the Scotsman. Plus he had a favourable TV drama...

[papasmurf]

The first one was a Sussex report — I now remember the story, but not the names or the outcome. You've now brought them to my attention. Perhaps you should be feeling ashamed.

The second report says the person wrongly accused/defamed/libelled successfully sued. Job done, I suggest...

It is the newspapers who should feel ashamed, wrecking two innocent peoples lives in the drone case, no apology no compensation.

In the second case wrecking a mans life.

[patman post]

The first one was a Sussex report — I now remember the story, but not the names or the outcome. You've now brought them to my attention. Perhaps you should be feeling ashamed.

The second report says the person wrongly accused/defamed/libelled successfully sued. Job done, I suggest...

[papasmurf]

I know nothing about the couple accused of drone flying at Heathrow.

Really? Where were you? Outer Mongolia on holiday? The press were an absolute disgrace and none of them ever apologised.



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46709353">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-46709353



Then there is this case:-



https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30392988">https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-30392988

[patman post]

Leveson would NOT tie the hands of the press, it would stop them harassing/lying about innocent people/groups of people who can't fight back unless they are rich.

I can't see what anyone's problem is, (except newspaper editors/owners.) Being legally force to correct,apologise, promptly with the same prominence as the offending article.  The innocent couple trashed the press about the drone flying at London Heathrow being one such case.

I know nothing about the couple accused of drone flying at Heathrow. But i suspect that if they keep making a song and dance about it I and many more might do so. I don't think you've made your case...

[papasmurf]

I believe we are in danger of tying the hands of the news media too tightly in this country.

Leveson would NOT tie the hands of the press, it would stop them harassing/lying about innocent people/groups of people who can't fight back unless they are rich.

I can't see what anyone's problem is, (except newspaper editors/owners.) Being legally force to correct,apologise, promptly with the same prominence as the offending article.  The innocent couple trashed the press about the drone flying at London Heathrow being one such case.

[patman post]

The press are a very large part of the problem and the implementation of Leveson is long overdue.

I believe we are in danger of tying the hands of the news media too tightly in this country. It was the media that told the public about Cyril Smith, Jimmy Savile, Rotherham, Stephen Lawrence, Jean Charles de Menezes, etc, etc, etc. If it gets stories wrong there's libel and defamation laws to kick them. If they steal data and other information, there's laws for that too.

The push for Leveson was mainly a reaction to establishment figures and celebrities objecting to being criticised and/or found out.

If it were possible I'd establish a scheme under which every post on social media that promotes hate and violence could be traced to its originator who would then be made accountable. Unfortunately, that could also bring other problems...

[cromwell]

I agree that the media are only part of them problem — as ultimately they will tend to produce what society wants to 'consume', and write the stories they know will sell.  Sadly, in a world where vast amounts of information and learning opportunities are at our fingertips, society instead uses the power of the internet and media to leer voyeuristically into the private lives of others — reducing us to a world where smartphone screens have become little more than the pane of glass separating leering gawking tourists in Amsterdam from the Red Light prostitutes.  Some sneer, some salivate ... but each of them still looks at this person behind the glass with an impersonal fascination.  So long as they are behind that glass, they somehow don't seem as human.  



But there are starting points, some which are easier than others.  To me, the very first one needs to be much tighter control on what can be reported and who can be identified for cases which are yet to be decided upon in court. It is viewed as contempt of court in the UK for example for the media to identify the complainant in a case dealing with a rape charge, and similar rules should apply in the identification of the accused (that is how it works in the Republic of Ireland — while the media furore over the trial of the Ulster rugby players on rape charges in Northern Ireland showed the shortcomings of not having such laws in place in the UK).  There are solid legal reasons behind such controls, not just moral ones, because media reporting and the subsequent formation of a 'Trial by Public Opinion' can undoubtedly prejudice cases, tarnish the concept of the presumption of innocence, and impede genuine justice for those who are found not guilty.



Other ways forward include the establishment of a fit-for-purpose legal framework which governs the classification of allegations being made by social media with the intent to make them public (thus you can differentiate between messages on private group chats and "tweeting" to the world at large). Social media has essentially given every person the capability to do what once only the media could do — broadcast information to a potentially vast audience in a matter of seconds. Freedom of speech for the media is not generally interpreted as having the freedom to say absolutely anything regardless of maliciousness or defamation (at least not without legal recourse for those whom the content relates to).

 :hattip pretty much nails it.

[papasmurf]

Tell me Pappy, have you ever thought well, it looks as though I have just made a bigger fool of myself than usual and maybe a few words of thanks to Nick might be in order? No? Of course not, I don't know why I asked.

I have Nick on ignore and have had for a long time.

[Conchúr]

Whilst you make a valid point about Leslie but that the media and social media as you point out can make or break people is IMO a great part of the problem.



There was a time in this country when people and any alleged wrongdoing couldn't be commented on till they were charged,there was brief reporting around that and no further till any trial.



You only have to look at the abysmal treatment of Christopher Jeffries not just by the redtops but so called quality news organisations.



As is usual smurfy is right about the media but as usual he not only over eggs the problem but deposits a chicken farm on it,the media are only part of the problem there are so many in the population in general who would be only too happy to see the return of the ducking stool,burning at the stake and stocks and poking people through bars at bedlam and happily with no involvement of judicial process.....unless of course they're in the firing line.





(And we've gone one up,stuff eufa)  :-P   :-P  :-P  :-P

I agree that the media are only part of them problem — as ultimately they will tend to produce what society wants to 'consume', and write the stories they know will sell.  Sadly, in a world where vast amounts of information and learning opportunities are at our fingertips, society instead uses the power of the internet and media to leer voyeuristically into the private lives of others — reducing us to a world where smartphone screens have become little more than the pane of glass separating leering gawking tourists in Amsterdam from the Red Light prostitutes.  Some sneer, some salivate ... but each of them still looks at this person behind the glass with an impersonal fascination.  So long as they are behind that glass, they somehow don't seem as human.  



But there are starting points, some which are easier than others.  To me, the very first one needs to be much tighter control on what can be reported and who can be identified for cases which are yet to be decided upon in court. It is viewed as contempt of court in the UK for example for the media to identify the complainant in a case dealing with a rape charge, and similar rules should apply in the identification of the accused (that is how it works in the Republic of Ireland — while the media furore over the trial of the Ulster rugby players on rape charges in Northern Ireland showed the shortcomings of not having such laws in place in the UK).  There are solid legal reasons behind such controls, not just moral ones, because media reporting and the subsequent formation of a 'Trial by Public Opinion' can undoubtedly prejudice cases, tarnish the concept of the presumption of innocence, and impede genuine justice for those who are found not guilty.



Other ways forward include the establishment of a fit-for-purpose legal framework which governs the classification of allegations being made by social media with the intent to make them public (thus you can differentiate between messages on private group chats and "tweeting" to the world at large). Social media has essentially given every person the capability to do what once only the media could do — broadcast information to a potentially vast audience in a matter of seconds. Freedom of speech for the media is not generally interpreted as having the freedom to say absolutely anything regardless of maliciousness or defamation (at least not without legal recourse for those whom the content relates to).

[Borchester]

Figures as you state for 2018 plus several methods are grouped together, they don't separate out hung by ligature.

In my personal experience of  suicides in my life time, only one male hung themselves, one female threw herself from a roof and got spiked on the railings at road level. The rest were various from shooting themselves with 12 bores or pistols, overdoses, exhaust fumes slashed wrists.

Perhaps the methods are changing over time.

Tell me Pappy, have you ever thought well, it looks as though I have just made a bigger fool of myself than usual and maybe a few words of thanks to Nick might be in order? No? Of course not, I don't know why I asked.

[Nick]

Do I have to explain everything to you?

Go on then...



Explain how Caroline Flack spending loads on beauty products has any relation to suicide and that of people with PTSD?



This should be interesting.

[papasmurf]

you must have KNOWN I would look it up ... not least because from my family connections I just didn't believe you.



And lo, the ONS actually have figures, albeit for 2018



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2018registrations#suicide-methods">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... de-methods">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2018registrations#suicide-methods



It's actually the MOST COMMON among all deaths, and the most common for each sex, although i will be fair, poisoning comes a close second for women.



I suspect the distressed and deranged mind works the same way regardless of chromosome makeup.

Figures as you state for 2018 plus several methods are grouped together, they don't separate out hung by ligature.

In my personal experience of  suicides in my life time, only one male hung themselves, one female threw herself from a roof and got spiked on the railings at road level. The rest were various from shooting themselves with 12 bores or pistols, overdoses, exhaust fumes slashed wrists.

Perhaps the methods are changing over time.

[johnofgwent]

Personally given the rarity of women committing suicide by hanging, I await the investigation result.

you must have KNOWN I would look it up ... not least because from my family connections I just didn't believe you.



And lo, the ONS actually have figures, albeit for 2018



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2018registrations#suicide-methods">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... de-methods">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/bulletins/suicidesintheunitedkingdom/2018registrations#suicide-methods



It's actually the MOST COMMON among all deaths, and the most common for each sex, although i will be fair, poisoning comes a close second for women.



I suspect the distressed and deranged mind works the same way regardless of chromosome makeup.