While we have newspapers who can print salacious and misleading stories like this in order to further their own agendas, we will never make any progress whatsoever when it comes to getting the public to understand that FAs happen. Daily.
In today's Scum they have gone to great lengths to report about a couple who have put up an 8ft screen to stop their neighbour from "leering" at their children. They also reported that the couple allegedly obtained the neighbour's offence history by asking the police for a disclosure.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...y-parents.html
There are several glaring inaccuracies with this story:
1. The fence (without screen) is 6ft high. How tall are the couple's children FFS? It would be impossible to see them even without the screen.
2. You cannot ask for a disclosure, or receive any information, if the person you're asking about has NO unsupervised contact with your children. You cannot just ask about someone who merely lives in the vicinity or, in this case, someone who lives across the road and is clearly not a next-door neighbour, as you can see from their picture.
While the gutter press continue to print articles like this and mislead the public - who make up the juries which decide if the accused is guilty or innocent - the public will continue to be pig-ignorant of the facts around them, and collectively everyone accused of a crime will find it harder and harder for the facts to be heeded.
And while that continues to happen MPs will continue to also be ignorant to the fact that one FA is one FA too many, because they too read this toilet roll.
Maybe it's too much to ask for reporting to be factual and to let the public be given the right information on which to make informed decisions, instead of feeding them misleading drivel just because The Scum wants the public to be rabid towards certain sections of the community. It won't help if you've been FA'd or wrongly convicted, because the public incorrectly continues to believe that you can't be wrongly convicted or FA'd, and the blame for that lies squarely on this newsrag.
Only then will we get a legal system which does not support liars, and would be more interested in the truth than in just getting convictions.
In today's Scum they have gone to great lengths to report about a couple who have put up an 8ft screen to stop their neighbour from "leering" at their children. They also reported that the couple allegedly obtained the neighbour's offence history by asking the police for a disclosure.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...y-parents.html
There are several glaring inaccuracies with this story:
1. The fence (without screen) is 6ft high. How tall are the couple's children FFS? It would be impossible to see them even without the screen.
2. You cannot ask for a disclosure, or receive any information, if the person you're asking about has NO unsupervised contact with your children. You cannot just ask about someone who merely lives in the vicinity or, in this case, someone who lives across the road and is clearly not a next-door neighbour, as you can see from their picture.
While the gutter press continue to print articles like this and mislead the public - who make up the juries which decide if the accused is guilty or innocent - the public will continue to be pig-ignorant of the facts around them, and collectively everyone accused of a crime will find it harder and harder for the facts to be heeded.
And while that continues to happen MPs will continue to also be ignorant to the fact that one FA is one FA too many, because they too read this toilet roll.
Maybe it's too much to ask for reporting to be factual and to let the public be given the right information on which to make informed decisions, instead of feeding them misleading drivel just because The Scum wants the public to be rabid towards certain sections of the community. It won't help if you've been FA'd or wrongly convicted, because the public incorrectly continues to believe that you can't be wrongly convicted or FA'd, and the blame for that lies squarely on this newsrag.
Only then will we get a legal system which does not support liars, and would be more interested in the truth than in just getting convictions.
Comment