Exactly my thoughts. How is justice being achieved when the Crown can't prosecute because he'd never get a fair trial?

 

 

Why wouldn't he get a fair trial though? Adults are named when charged so why shouldn't a 15 year-old be? I don't think young kids should be named, say under 14, something like that.

Erm note that I never said who stabbed her to death but it's common knowledge today that she died from multible stab wounds inflicted by a pupil. So how is my statement not factual?

If there is any way his lawyers can exploit this then do you really think they won't do it? The Sun knew full well what the intention of the law was. If the law is badly drafted so that they have not technically done anything illegal, that does not make it right.

Why wouldn't he get a fair trial though? Adults are named when charged so why shouldn't a 15 year-old be? I don't think young kids should be named, say under 14, something like that.

wot

 

He's under 16.

I think the discussion has been OK so far but please try to avoid saying too much about this specific case. Try to confine the discussion to whether minors accused of a crime should be named and whether the Sun was right to exploit an apparent loophole in the law.

Why wouldn't he get a fair trial though? Adults are named when charged so why shouldn't a 15 year-old be? I don't think young kids should be named, say under 14, something like that.

Oh my jesus. How the hell is a 15 year-old supposed to cope with a media circus? Most adults struggle with it, never mind CHILDREN!

 

I really don't understand how you cannot understand that he wouldn't get a fair trial. I'll give explaining a go:

 

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have this wonderful system of trial by Jury. Extensive media coverage, like this, where a scumbag sees fit to destroy the live of a 15 year old because the law 'technically says we can', like this, tends to find it's way into the homes of pretty much everyone. Particularly poisonous bile from the sun and the Daily Hilter, they have a nasty habit of being most discussed in workplaces and across all walks of society. (Except Liverpool, who as a city refuse to buy this vile rag and should be admired for their refusal to do so) Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that everyone will have heard about that case where this 15 year old named X committed Y crime against Z in an exceptionally biased manner. Seeing as it's literally just happened it's not as if the sun has any actual evidence of what occurred just hearsay and 'sources' which 99.99999999% are made up, so as per usual is printing complete LIES. (God bless freedom of speech)

 

As we've already established, this vile rag and it's lies are spread heavily throughout the nation. So as it spreads it's lies and fictional details of what X allegedly did (not that they'd bother with that word) it taints the jury pool as people form a preconceived notion that he is guilty thanks to the extensive press coverage.

 

It's an area that has been researched and proven. It's why so many defence lawyers use it as a tactic to have the case dismissed, and they are successful more often than they should be.

 

 

So, to conclude. You are supporting a vile scum rag on it's quest to deny justice for the victims family.

In the round up of the headlines on the BBC website, the sun one is on there and if you zoom in you can see that they name the kid in the text on the front page but the BBC don't even allude to it's existence. Hopefully the rest of the media will continue to shun the story.

So they thought it acceptable to destroy a 15 year olds life? What the hell happened to innocent until proven guilty???? As if I needed more reasons to detest this vile excuse of a 'newspaper'

 

The Sun really are the worst parasites. Sky News would never criticise them Chris. Surely even you aren't stupid enough not to know that The Sun and British Sky Broadcasting are owned by the same company. (I say owned, BSB is technically an 'associate' in that News Corp have significant influence but do not consolidate it into their group accounts.) You don't chastise the hand that feeds you!

Who gives a flying shit about if it's "Technically legal" or not. It's highly immoral and against this countries high moral standards and the very basis of the justice system in the UK. INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. Not 'Innocent until the sun exploits a loophole to name and shame you'.

 

How is there every supposed to be an unbiased trail of this kid? Whether or not he committed the offence is irrelevant nor as important as a fair trail. If the trail is fair then it is without reproach and the family of this beloved teacher will be able to get closure. With The Sun existing there will be enough disgusting vile hate printed about this kid to poison any pool of jurors and seriously hamper the chances of a truly fair trail. That will allow the kids lawyers oh so many grounds for appeal and mistrials.

Do you even think before you post Chris? Seriously? Don't support this insipid and abhorrent rag by purchasing it tomorrow.

 

Spot on.

 

Quite a few people I know read these sorts of papers, and probably believe the stuff in them about immigrants and people claiming benefits as well. It's disheartening really and something needs to be done to taint the influence they have.

Oh my jesus. How the hell is a 15 year-old supposed to cope with a media circus? Most adults struggle with it, never mind CHILDREN!

 

I really don't understand how you cannot understand that he wouldn't get a fair trial. I'll give explaining a go:

 

In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have this wonderful system of trial by Jury. Extensive media coverage, like this, where a scumbag sees fit to destroy the live of a 15 year old because the law 'technically says we can', like this, tends to find it's way into the homes of pretty much everyone. Particularly poisonous bile from the sun and the Daily Hilter, they have a nasty habit of being most discussed in workplaces and across all walks of society. (Except Liverpool, who as a city refuse to buy this vile rag and should be admired for their refusal to do so) Thus it is not unreasonable to assume that everyone will have heard about that case where this 15 year old named X committed Y crime against Z in an exceptionally biased manner. Seeing as it's literally just happened it's not as if the sun has any actual evidence of what occurred just hearsay and 'sources' which 99.99999999% are made up, so as per usual is printing complete LIES. (God bless freedom of speech)

 

As we've already established, this vile rag and it's lies are spread heavily throughout the nation. So as it spreads it's lies and fictional details of what X allegedly did (not that they'd bother with that word) it taints the jury pool as people form a preconceived notion that he is guilty thanks to the extensive press coverage.

 

It's an area that has been researched and proven. It's why so many defence lawyers use it as a tactic to have the case dismissed, and they are successful more often than they should be.

So, to conclude. You are supporting a vile scum rag on it's quest to deny justice for the victims family.

 

 

You seem to have forgotten that there were about 30 witnesses to this crime and a young man was disarmed by another teacher and is in police custody but yes, of course he could be innocent and they could have got the wrong guy!

Edited April 30, 201411 yr by Common Sense

You seem to have forgotten that there were about 30 witnesses to this crime and a young man was disarmed by another teacher and is in police custody but yes, of course he could be innocent and they could have got the wrong guy!

If if he is charged and found guilty, there's nothing to gain from announcing his name to the world now.

You seem to have forgotten that there were about 30 witnesses to this crime and the young man was disarmed by another teacher and is in police custody but yes, of course he could be innocent and they could have got the wrong guy.

When will you understand one of the most basic human rights. The right to 'innocence until proven guilty'. Until a trial there is an assumption IN LAW that he is innocent. Witnesses to the alleged event (once more, it's alleged until the court proves guilt) would not be in the jury pool, nor would their families and friends, so it doesn't matter what they do. What matters is the manipulation of the jury pool by the press who have forgotten that BY LAW this kid is innocent until a trial can prove otherwise.

 

You are seeking to deny a child of a basic human right. You are actually abhorrent.

You are seeking to deny a child of a basic human right. You are actually abhorrent.

 

 

Erm I haven't put his name anywhere have I? Blame The Sun and not me!

If if he is charged and found guilty, there's nothing to gain from announcing his name to the world now.

There's nothing to gain anyway. The family know who he is and as long as they see justice being done then that's all that matters.

Erm I haven't put his name anywhere have I? Blame The Sun and not me!

You are supporting this vile publication and their decision. Abhorrent by association.

 

You have also yet to counter any of the many valid points made in this thread as to why what they have done is disgusting and immoral with anything other that near libellous rhetoric and 'sky news says they checked with lawyers and it's legal'.

 

Why do you support the removal of a child's right to innocence until proven guilty?

There's nothing to gain anyway. The family know who he is and as long as they see justice being done then that's all that matters.

I know there's nothing to gain regardless, I was hoping it would be obvious that there's nothing to gain from naming an innocent citizen and incorrectly outing them as a murderer.

I know there's nothing to gain regardless, I was hoping it would be obvious that there's nothing to gain from naming an innocent citizen and incorrectly outing them as a murderer.

We are dealing with Chris here. Someone who apparently can't grasp the concept of presumed innocence...

ITV pulled tonight's episode of Law And Order as it was about the stabbing of a young mother in a supermarket.

Although there seems very little doubt the 15 year old is guilty - having done it in class in front of his classmates - the boy, whatever his name is, has already chosen to ruin the rest of his life.

 

He doesn't need some f***-awful, opportunistic, shit-rag to do it for him in the name of selling issues.

 

An abhorrent publication. Always will be. I hope there's significant repercussions for The Sun once Brooks and Coulson have been through the courts.

 

 

It's already been said by others. So I'll agree. The Sun is vile, Murdoch and his empire perpetuate daily political attacks on anything remotely liberal via the utterly biased and equally vile Fox News, and they've all been shown for what they are over the last few years.

 

I don't need to know the name and identity of anyone accused or convicted of murder, especially so when fame is what they seek, such as mass-gun-shooters, or my own pet hate that loathsome individual who shot John Lennon just to get famous. I refuse to ever mention his name and I suggest everyone in the world do the same when reporting on the events of 1980. Any variation on "loathsome" when referring to he-who-would-be-famous is acceptable.

Edited May 1, 201411 yr by popchartfreak

It is rather odd that the Daily Mail gets the most criticism - rightly so, but the bigger influence is The Sun. The former wouldn't be doing as well for itself if it wasn't for their website.

Although there seems very little doubt the 15 year old is guilty - having done it in class in front of his classmates - the boy, whatever his name is, has already chosen to ruin the rest of his life.

 

Not necessarily. If found guilty the perpetrator will go to a young offenders centre then maybe an adult prison once 18 for a few years but could be out before he's 30 with the rest of his life ahead of him. :angry: He should be locked up for the rest of his natural life in my opinion and that of many other people too.