Another knee jerk reaction from our sober politicians, this time reacting to the ‘speculation banquet’ attended by all the national newspapers in the wake of the questioning and subsequent bailing of Chris Jefferies in the Joanna Yeates murder.

Undoubtedly they gorged themselves on every last detail from his hairstyle to lurid speculation from ex-pupils as to his selection of poetry for them to study.

Almost inevitably, should no charges be pressed against Mr Jeffries, he will sue the backside off Canary Wharf’s finest. Quite rightly so. It seems they learnt nothing from the public humiliation they heaped onto Robert Murat in the Madeleine McCann case. Perhaps they did learn something – that it only costs a measly £500,000 to pay for yards of lurid copy that your readers will lap up and link to in on-line versions for years to come. Almost as good value as the CDs of MPs expenses.

However now we have an MP putting forward a private members Bill to ban the media – not from lurid speculation – but from even naming a suspect until a formal charge has been laid. It is apparently supported by the Justice Secretary and the Attorney-General, both of whom appear to have forgotten the origins of the naming of suspects.

If the police are not obliged to give the media names of those suspects that are currently being questioned under caution, then they are not obliged to give anyone the details.

This would mean that you could be taken away in a police car – ‘accompany us to the station for questioning’ – and no one would be able to find out where you were. Is that really the police state we want? People lifted off the streets and disappearing into a western version of the Kremlin?

There has been no outcry at this potential loss of an essential protection – merely relief that the excesses of the media may be curbed.

What was so difficult about putting forward a bill that would prevent the media from any comment other than name, age, and occupation of suspects – the Contempt of Court laws that have operated for years – with the added bonus of lengthy prison sentences for any editor who flouted the rules?

The present arrangement relies on the badly worded contempt laws – and libel, which although it can produce sums which may seem eye-watering to the man in the street, are too little too late to salvage a reputation or a career.

I found an interesting American article from 2008 which essentially blamed the blogosphere for the increasing encroachment on the contempt of court laws – professional newsrooms reacting to the fact that even if they withheld information, it would be published on the Internet by those with local knowledge. The race to hold onto advertisers in the face of stiff competition from the blogosphere may well be behind the current feeding frenzy.

Why else would parliament be happy to curb press freedom to name suspects – but unwilling to beef up the contempt of court rules?

Any suggestions?

Eleanor February 2, 2011 at 11:29

I am going to have trouble expressing myself here, and it has probably
already been said anyway, but it should be made easier for the ordinary man in
the street who is arrested and then not charged, to sue for defamation.
We
all know that Journalists rush in between arrest and charge to get as much
dirt out as possible because this is what people want, and it sells papers, No
one but a very odd few, care if a person’s life is ruined.
The Law that
applies after Charges should in fact kick in on Arrest.

Livewire February 2, 2011 at 06:48

Weapons-grade defence of the rhymesters needed here. It covers a broad
spectrum, from the effete end with fops prattling on about kittens and
flowers, through social comment and humour to filthy limericks (probably more
suited to Order Order as they can sound a bit Sid the Sexist).
IMHO the
most damning nudge nudge about Mr Funnyhair was his LibDem activism!
Leave
the poets alone! Prick the LibDems with bodkins then burn them without paying
a carbon tax..

Livewire February 2, 2011 at 08:14

Clarification of the cri de coeur, it’s aimed at the MSM, I agree with
all the comments.

wrinkled weasel February 1, 2011 at 13:39

The Media hit a new low over the Chris Jefferies arrest, but hey, the guy
was strange! He dyed his hair, lived alone and liked poetry. People like that
deserve to be locked up merely for speaking aloud during awkward silences.

This is neither here nor there, but the Poet John Clare was committed to an
insane asylum partly for “an addiction to poetical prosing”. Clare was
certainly mentally ill, but the doctor in charge of admissions felt his
poetical tendences were a symptom. We are not very far away from witch burning
ourselves.

But I think there is good news, Anna. The reaction in the blogosphere was
almost overwhelmingly one of contempt for this man’s trial by media. I hope Mr
Jefferies sues the ass off everybody and wins.

As for the private members bill, I share your concern. That it will almost
certainly not be taken up is a relief. Instead, the contempt laws, the present
ones, simply need to be applied. There is no need for more legislation.

It is a sad fact that money keeps people out of the news. Had this happened
to a footballer, a lot of expensive strings would have been pulled. As ususal,
it is the ordinary man or woman who appears to be fair game because the press
always chose soft targets, cynically and with an eye on drawing in the
ochlocracy.

Snowolf February
1, 2011 at 13:20

And a full page retraction within the first 4 pages of said paper.

Snowolf February
1, 2011 at 13:19

I think the solution lies in the remedy rather than the prevention here.
Damages to be calculated as a percentage of annual turnover multiplied by days
of exposure.

So Fred Bloggs is killed. Joe Brown has his collar felt for the offence and
is plastered over the media as per Chris Jeffries for the next three days. No
charges are brought, no evidence submitted before the court. Each media outlet
forced to pay compo of oooh, I dunno, say 3% of annual turnover for each of
those three days, therefore Joe Brown walks away with 9% of that paper’s
annual turnover. And as the injured party, it must be his and his alone, not
hoovered up into some victim surcharge community fund BS.

They’d learn after the first couple of episodes.

John February 1, 2011 at 13:03

The powers and excesses of the media (and I’m looking at you, The Daily
Mail) are over-used and under-considered on too many occasions.

A reasonable case in point is my own. In 2006 I had what would in normal
parlance be referred to as a breakdown as a consequence of which I was
delusional and committed a minor offence.

Once the media ably assisted by my ex-wife was finished I was portrayed as
a mix between Fred West and Sweeney Todd: thankfully my pleading guilty at the
earliest opportunity prevented this being tested but the attentions of the
media made it near impossible for me to get or retain gainful employment.

So the media are being curtailed? Good.

John Levett February 1, 2011 at 12:22

“If the police are not obliged to give the media names of those suspects
that are currently being questioned under caution, then they are not obliged
to give anyone the details”.

Does this necessarily follow? And if it does, can an amendment to the bill
not oblige the police to inform any individual nominated by the suspect?

JuliaM February
1, 2011 at 12:34

And what use would that be, if they couldn’t then blog it or get a
reporter to take it up?

John Levett
February 1, 2011 at 12:53

I’m obviously missing the point here. Weren’t you (rightly) advocating
anonymity for rape suspects until they were charged?

Andrew P Withers
February 1, 2011 at 11:53

We are supposed to have an open Justice system, but if you read ‘The Silent
State ‘ by Heather Brooke (of MP’s expenses fame) she devotes a whole chapter
where she demonstrates this is not true any longer, and Courts are largely
operated on a secret basis.

The feeding frenzy of ‘Fleet Street’ over Christopher Jeffries a well known
‘Character’ in Bristol, who is a bit prone to being a self publicist has to be
curbed. We cannot have trial by media, and I cannot think of anywhere in the
blogosphere other than the Baby P case where trial by blog was happening. Even
then this was largely directed at the incompetant jobsworths at the council
concerned.

‘Police sources’ are the usual ‘paid’ sources for info on possible
suspects, and have been since the time of Peel. Any officer leaking this
information should be dismissed from the force, under the incoming Bribery Act
2010, the newspapers paying for this info should be heavily fined.

Contempt of Court or Perjury it appears to me unless it is high profile is
very rarely used. All suspects should be protected by an automatic court
protection, including those in rape cases.

If Jeffries had been the man, there is no way on Gods earth could he have
been afforded a fair trial.

Jeremy Poynton
February 1, 2011 at 10:18

Because they are utterly incompetent?

JuliaM February 1,
2011 at 10:17

Contrast this with their backtracking on anonymity for rape suspects…