Public Shaming!

[YearsOfHell]

Apparently, according to our great police force it is fine to put someone's face on social media and file sharing websites with the caption "named child molestor"!!
That can't be right, can it???
Does anyone know if this is right?
He hasn't even been accused of child abuse, and hasn't even been charged!!
I am fuming (as you can probably tell!!)

[heartbreaking]

Oh my goodness!! This is dreadful

[AmandaF]

Racks brains........recently a convicted sex offender brought a prosecution against someone who had posted stuff on farcebook about him. I'll try and find a link

[AmandaF]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31546879

Not sure how relevant this is??

[YearsOfHell]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-31546879

Not sure how relevant this is??

Thanks for this.
He got compensation!
Compensation is the least of our worries, I just want the truth to be told!!
He hasn't been charged or even accused of what they're saying.
He's not been charged with anything, only interviewed!!
Makes me so mad that people do these things!
Look at the ripple effect of making up your little story!!
My family is suffering enough without this ****!!
Sorry for the rant!

[AmandaF]

Rant away!!
It's frustrating, annoying, heartbreaking, etc etc etc.
Come to think of it it is illegal (I think) to name and shame prior to conviction.

[Rights Fighter]

Thanks for this.
He got compensation!
Compensation is the least of our worries, I just want the truth to be told!!
He hasn't been charged or even accused of what they're saying.
He's not been charged with anything, only interviewed!!
Makes me so mad that people do these things!
Look at the ripple effect of making up your little story!!
My family is suffering enough without this ****!!
Sorry for the rant!

Do you want me to ask a no win no fee solicitor if he can help with this?

[YearsOfHell]

Do you want me to ask a no win no fee solicitor if he can help with this?

Only if he has a magic wand!!
Seriously tho, I've managed to get an officer to come and see us, they are reluctant to act but will discuss our options. Do we need to be careful with them?
We don't want to say something that can be misconstrued.

[Rights Fighter]

Just stick to the subject: he's not been charged or accused of child sex offences and that should be addressed to the Press so they can put in an official apology.

[Jockc2330]

incorrect....please rethink

I can understand shock on first impression, but please read the article again.
This is about a convicted offender seeking redress from the social network after breaching their duty of care, as per their own code of practise.

I am aware of the case.

Regarding the press, unless the judge imposes a prohibition order or restriction notice under the Youth and Criminal Justice Evidence Act, the media can report, as long as the information does not reveal the identities of the complainant unless the complainant waives the right of anonymity.

Moderator please advise on this post.

[AmandaF]

I was merely pointing out that a CONVICTED sex offender had brought the case, so is it not more prudent for someone who has NOT been charged with this kind of offence has a right to redress?
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

[Rights Fighter]

The media should be responsible in their reporting of any such matters, and to falsely report that

a: He had been charged when he has not

and

b: that the was charged with child sex offences

.....has breached reporting guidelines. The potential result of the reporting, specifically in relation to alleged child sex abuse is dangerous and more likely to provoke a vigilante type response.

[Jockc2330]

media reporting of alleged complaints

I was merely pointing out that a CONVICTED sex offender had brought the case, so is it not more prudent for someone who has NOT been charged with this kind of offence has a right to redress?
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

Yep,

You would like to think that is the case, however and unfortunately, the media comprises of people who will cut corners and sensationalise accounts.

They will go so far as to embellish stories and report with inaccuracies.

This is my experience in the Magistrates court.

In fairness to the Judge, post inaccurate (and presumptive reporting) the Judge directed that all future reporting has to firstly: Be accurate and secondly comply with codes of practise in relation to sensitive information.

[AmandaF]

When my other half was wrongly convicted the imbecile who started the whole thing sold his story to an unsavoury Scottish tabloid, who quoted him word for word. It was at best highly inaccurate, at worst a pack of lies, even the sheriff was misquoted.
Bad enough being wrongly convicted without , as you say, the sensationalist c*** that followed and the hate campaign that was started on social media, not only against him but me as well. My whole family felt threatened but hey it didn't contravene their policy.
Great

[Rights Fighter]

I was merely pointing out that a CONVICTED sex offender had brought the case, so is it not more prudent for someone who has NOT been charged with this kind of offence has a right to redress?
Sorry for any confusion I may have caused.

You've not caused any confusion hon. There was recently another story of somebody who had been falsely accused and the ex wife had plastered it all over her FB. I'll see if I can find out anything....