...a public newspaper has let us all know where a paedophile resides (who had served his sentence - TEN years ago, no less), and someone is murdering prostitutes in East Anglia...will the New Year bring with it media-influenced yearning to take the law into our own hands?
2006-12-12 11:09:36 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Nice one Prak...thought your wee personal comment was somewhat tabloidesque - but for your info, I read all the newspapers where I work, but take the Independent home (as I have done since 1987). Who judges the judges you ask - does that not depend on which newspaper is in the dock? Perhaps I should come up with a Latin send off, but it's now 1.10am and I'm extremely tired - and have to be at Stansted Airport in six hours time. Good night!
2006-12-12 12:07:59 · update #1
Ah...fivehundredmonkeys - the dear who thought making a joke out of epilepsy was 'fun' - you may have not liked my answer, and obviously this is your way to return the serve - in an entirely different subject altogether. You must be part of the wee group of morons who will make people 'pay' (if that's the term I'm looking for) if they don't agree with you.
2006-12-14 05:37:56 · update #2
The media has no morals. They promote things to sell more copies and don't care really about social responsibilities.
I am disgusted with the British media in general. It's getting to the point where the Sun will soon encourage us to dress as Klansmen and form lynch mobs.
2006-12-12 11:16:56 · answer #1 · answered by monkeymanelvis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's illegal for a newspaper to do this and if it does it faces shutdown. The News of the World ran a similar thing years ago; in week 1 it produced 50 names and addresses, and was threatened with punitive fines and eventual order of shutdown (which can be done in the national interest if a newspaper has become too unruly. It isn't a light step to take though).
You seem to be reading all the trashiest papers (I've just answered another one of yours on a similar theme) and so why not try reading some better ones? The Times is the foremost newspaper in the world and never prints an unverified story, although sometimes it can be fooled into believing a falsehood is true as can we all. Usually if a paper is wrong and it isn't its own fault they print an article explaining what happened and why (The Hitler Diaries in the Sunday Times being the foremost example.)
Whilst it is true that the mass of the great British Public (god bless 'em) don't share the levels of education and disciplined thought that some of us on here may have, it's hardly fair to deny them a newspaper that prints leaders that they may have an interest in.
As to taking the law into our own hands, you'll find that the kind of person who leads a lynch mob is not a great reader anyway. I agree that it's irresponsible of the paper to run this story but you don't say what kind of paper it is; I suspect it is some back-street rag set up by people untrained in proper investigative procedure and ignorant of journalistic law.
You can't tar all newspapers with the same brush and I thank God that despite our glorious leader His Holiness St Tony of Blair's best efforts our media remains free and not gagged like those of France. Who would have broken the Iraqi dossier scandal? Who would have brought Jeffrey Archer to justice? In America, how would they have known about Nixon? How many more lies would this or any other government get away with?
Quis custodiet custodiens? Why, I do believe it's dear old Fleet Street, not that there's any actual press left on there any more.
2006-12-12 11:42:16 · answer #2 · answered by prakdrive 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
See the News of the World have put up £250,000 to capture the person who is killing prostitutes in Ipswich. Papers like this usually come up with such awards. But has anyone successfully claimed a giant amount in the past. If nobody has, I wonder how such a newspaper would treat anyone who does the right thing. But shouldn't the witness tell the police first?
2006-12-13 01:57:42 · answer #3 · answered by irishrose877 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You patronising dullard. I bet it's always gnawed away at you that you're not as clever as you think you are. The idiot vigilantes will be just like you, ill-informed, catching a small part of the actual story that suits their purpose, then ham fistedly striking back.
To wit "SCUM BASTARD! (Sorry if I upset some of you - more mature - guys with my reply)"
You onanistic single cell organism.
2006-12-13 11:09:51 · answer #4 · answered by fivehundredmonkeys 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As an aside to this, I think it's terrible how media corrupts the English language, the word "paedophile" used to refer to someone who loves children.
It is now used to refer to someone who abuses children or a sexual offender.
2006-12-12 11:13:18 · answer #5 · answered by Alan B 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
undoubtedly..because normal law abiding folk are outnumbered by nutters, freaks.psychos,and , pete from big brother...
2006-12-12 11:22:52 · answer #6 · answered by lancashiretasty 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
didn't you know only bad news sells newspapers
2006-12-12 23:16:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋