Discussion in 'Music Chat' started by Kink, Dec 19, 2012.
Sorry if this has already been posted http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-20779665
Yeah, this was a bit of a shock.
Weird that 2 girls have been arrested too, must be an odd case.
What goes through these people's minds?
I'm guessing a rider request got leaked, the 2 women were the people collecting it all.
150 Cans of Stellar Artois
20 Bottles of Pink Champagne
a 13 year girl to violate
Dirty bastard. Knew it when he did that music video dressed as the childcatcher (wish I could remember which video it was)
Pretty sure you won't get odds on the headline "Pontypeado" being used.
Trial by media already but from the charges it doesn't sound very good.
Dark as ****.
I put something up on twitter this morning about it and was very careful to use words such as 'alleged' just as a 'innocent until proven guilty' stance.
Im quite shocked by the amount of responces i got sticking up for him, and how its all total b*llshit. Im not into the whole trial by media he is clearly going to get however Im not understanding the blinkered support hes receiving. Odd
Adding the word "allegedly" to something otherwise potentially libellous is no legal defence whatsoever (source: the lawyer @davidallengreen on Twitter, who's an expert on this stuff). This is a general fact, I'm not commenting on your Tweets which I haven't seen. Reporting verbatim what has come into the public domain via official channels (i.e. the facts about the charges) is about as much as is permissible.
I think it's very unwise for anyone to talk about this at all until the guy is either convicted or acquitted. Not least because if he is acquitted, he's going to need a lot of help.
I agree, but the thing with these cases, in terms of historic cases with people coming forward, is that the police are SUPPOSED to have a huge weight of evidence before making an arrest.
Personally I don't think names should be named until after court cases, but that is deemed impractical. So as it stands, it's ridiculous (and it's censorship of the worst kind: against the public) to tell people not to opine on twitter, on forums or down the pub.
I agree with this in so many different cases. The old 'no smoke without fire' thing usuallu gets mentioned but imagine if you were accused of the same and you were completely innocent and proven so in a court of law. The stigma would never disapear.
Denied bail. In custody til Dec 31st. Via James McMahon on Twitter.
There's a real difference between, 'wanted for questioning', and, 'charged', though.
Possession and distribution of child porn is something that they would have pretty clear evidence of (I would imagine). The conspiracy charges are probably a lot harder to prove and their evidence is probably less clear cut. (All total speculation). Given that he's been formally charged lends me to the belief that the police are fairly confident that he done it.
Is there some kind of very basic resource for social media users that explains media law relating to trials and things like that? If not, there should be.
I can barely remember most of it, but we had a big ****-off book, no small part of which was about what specific things you can and can't report both before and during a trial (which is different in both cases). Stuff that people can get hammered for on Twitter but can't be expected to know.
As far as I can remember, it's mainly about the potential of prejudicing a jury during a trial (as well as defamation)
Someone did post a guide recently (after the McAlpine stuff) - might have been @Fleetstreetfox, can't remember, but it was aimed at twitter/facebook users.
Lostprophets were embarrasingly bad, a boyband for people who thought of themselves as 'alternative'.
the first EP was suppose to be ok, i never got round to listening to it. hopefully ferne cotton is ok.
I don't disagree on the second paragraph, although obviously I don't make the law. I do wish people were able to exercise self-restraint though. The whole "why can't we just be nice?" thing has died with the Internet age. You (rightly) got aggrieved the other day when a certain Leeds-based band said that they liked to deliberately annoy you. They have every right to do that, but wouldn't it be nice if they didn't?
I realise, incidentally, that the parallels are extremely loose here but hopefully you know what I mean. I'm talking about the stuff where people are now having a laugh because they didn't like the band, making jokes that juxtapose their song titles with current events and so on, when I talk about what I particularly don't like. Stuff like "I really didn't see this coming"... no big deal, if a little pointless.
Actually, they don't. It was just banter and I don't think they don't really only post here to annoy me. But you can't harass somebody online. And if they did, you wouldn't be able to talk about it!
The question is: is the internet just chatting down the pub, or is it published media? It can be both.
What it really is, is every human alive spilling their mind puke endlessly into a void.
Just seen what the charges are on the independant website.
I feel very sick.
He shall be pleading not guilty.
Separate names with a comma.