sadoldgit

Ok so someone says they are not guilty of killing 10 women but are charged of multiple murders and are remanded in custody. At this point they are technically still innocent but deemed to be a danger to the public so are kept in remand (for a maximum of up to 182 days after which the Crown would have to apply for an extension). Because they are still technically "innocent" should they still be held on remand?

Not sure that is true about exoneration Pap. I see stories in the local paper where people are found not guilty and you certainly see not guilty celebs all over the news (think O J Simpson, Pistorius - of murder etc). I do think people are more interested in guilty verdicts though and perhaps filter out many not guiltys.

Trials are very public affairs. Anyone can sit in the public gallery. Offenders who are not in remand walk in and out of court. Local and sometimes national reporters sit in the gallery. TV crews are sometimes outside. The court lists are published with the alleged offenders names ie R v Bloggs. People are referred to by name in court (and celebrities would be obvious). To keep anonymity until a verdict is almost impossible. Once someone is charged the Crown believe there is a case to answer. At that point I cannot see why anonymity is so important. We all know that the accused needs to be found guilty and might not be. Why are sex offenders any different? If charged and acquitted of fraud would you prefer to keep your name out of the papers? Thing is, if there is enough evidence to charge then people have a right to know what is going on in the legal system. But as I say the OP is misleading and this is not about anonymity until the verdict.

Sorry have just read the article now and was misled by the OP. Yes, of course they should remain anonymous before a charge is made. Before a guilty verdict is a different argument entirely.

One upon a time when bringing a prosecution you couldn't mention if the accused had previous or not. Now you might think if he had six previous charges of rape and was up for rape again that should be known to the jury. But no, it was seen as prejudicial against the accused. Now the CPS can apply for something called Bad Character. If the judges allows it we can now bring up previous offences that we think the jury should be aware of. I raise the point on this thread because it is very difficult to get a conviction for rape and anything that helps should be considered (within the legal framework of course).

It is a tricky one. People get named for other offences so you could argue why should sex crimes be any different. The argument that other victims might come forward is a strong one. We have seen it with the likes of Saville etc. Yes, the offenders get a lot of bad publicity but they also get a great deal of publicity if they are found not guilty. These people have to turn up in court for the Prelim hearing and PCMH so it would be difficult to keep famous names out of the paper. Not an argument against at all but you get my drift. Having worked with the sex crime unit in the CPS I can say that they lawyers there we in favour of naming offenders because it can help with multiple offenders. There used to be an expression - helping police with their enquires. There is an understanding that everyone is innocent until proven guilty but then I think of the hardship that Dave Jones went through and that was harsh. As said, tricky one. To follow up Faraway Saints comment, there are many people who get cleared, or are not prosecuted for rape or serious sexual crimes who are guilty. Anything that can be done to bring rapist to book should be done and if naming offenders helps in anyway then I would go with it. I can see a good argument against though.

The World Cup is arguably the biggest sporting competition in the world. This is a total shambles and as has been said before, we can only hope that the various countries stand up against this. In the immortal words of Harry Enfield, Oi, Blatter, No!

Enjoy! I just hope you don't get the urge to give someone a right hook afterwards

What about some loyalty to the viewers, the production staff, the programme? I used to think those two were ok and that Clarkson was the problem. They of all people know exactly what happened. They may have been off of their heads on booze at the time but would have been brought up to speed later. To be fair to May he did say that Clarkson was guilty of being a nob later. Still bullies always have their acolytes. I would have had a lot more respect for the side kicks if they had carried on. Are we likely to see a new petition from 800,000 asking for May and Hammond to make the three programmes without Clarkson? No probably not. So it is not about the show, it is all about Clarkson. God help us at the election.

As MacKenzie's layout was seen by more and more people, a collective shudder ran through the office (but) MacKenzie's dominance was so total there was nobody left in the organisation who could rein him in except Murdoch. (Everyone in the office) seemed paralysed—"looking like rabbits in the headlights"—as one hack described them. The error staring them in the face was too glaring. It obviously wasn't a silly mistake; nor was it a simple oversight. Nobody really had any comment on it—they just took one look and went away shaking their heads in wonder at the enormity of it. It was a 'classic smear'. The above taken from a history of The Sun

MacKenzie explained his actions in 1993. Talking to a House of Commons National Heritage Select Committee, he said: "I regret Hillsborough. It was a fundamental mistake. The mistake was I believed what an MP said. It was a Tory MP. If he had not said it and the Chief Superintendent (David Duckenfield) had not agreed with it, we would not have gone with it." MacKenzie retracted the apology in November 2006, saying he apologised because the newspaper's owner, Rupert Murdoch, had ordered him to do so, stating: "I was not sorry then and I'm not sorry now".[163] MacKenzie refused to apologise when appearing on the BBC's topical Question Time on 11 January 2007.[164] The above was taken from Wikipedia. It is basic journalism to check sources. MacKenzie was the most outspoken critic of Liverpool fans. Why weren't others as vocal?

Was he the only one? I don't recall any other papers going to town on the Liverpool fans in the same way that The Sun did.

Possibly not the worst player ever to pull on a Saints shirt but certainly gives the worst a run for their money.

Too late!

I see that Kelvin McKenzie was giving the copper who lied about the gate at Hillsborough a hard time in his column in The Sun today and is saying he is going to sue. Kelvin McKenzie was the editor of The Sun at the time and was responsible for its appalling coverage of the tragedy. To lay the blame for the way his newspaper chose to cover the event tells you all you need to know about the type of people Murdoch employs.

Bloody hell, I wonder what she would flash if WHU won a cup? She really needs to get busy with that razor though. For those with staying power, did you see the pictures of the Hull City lass? What on earth is going on there?

Perhaps you are on a decent salary UJ but to a lot of us £67K is a great deal of money. I was on £40k with company car, paid petrol etc 15 years ago. I am now on £25k with no benefits. I can tell you that £67k seems like a lot to me now. If I had stayed in the other job I would probably think it average.

Yep, lots of new builds going up in Ashford, Kent with low deposits.

floater

carne

Money is supposed to be the root of all evil. As an inanimate object you might wonder why it could cause so much trouble! The problem is not with money as such, it is with certain people's attitude towards it. Give lots of it to people with feelings of self entitlement and you will probably create monsters.

aerosol or ball type?

wraps

Yes I do. You are clearly the Cape Crusader of Camden Town and one of the many Superheroes that we are so lucky to have looking after us. Quite frankly I am shocked that you only get paid a paltry £50k for the work you do for us. It is a scandal.

I thought his leaving had more to do with a fall out with his bro? I believe his work is based in New York where they pay more don't they?