Ipswich Murders - Man Arrested

...He should also state that he was a bit dumb doing that interview but in no way should he be vilified ,after all he is a friend and protector to the pros
Yup, but he was effectively misled by the BBC who broke their agreement that it was a background interview only intended for note taking purposes. If or when he is fully cleared, I think we can expect a grovelling apology from the BBC and/or a massive compensation claim.

The worrying aspect about this 'Americanisation' of crime reporting, is the fact that the Police are increasingly in collusion with the media - all at the expense of real justice and fair trials

The media are increasingly stepping over the line and getting away with publishing material that only a few years ago would have been in contempt of court; not in the name of good journalism or public service, but to whip up a lynch mob mentality with their increasingly dumb audience/readership in the hope of increased ratings/circulation.
 
I agree the BBC were out of order...I was watching when the reporter said it was done as background research but tonight we have decided to release it!!

However, I gather he also sold a story to the Sunday Mirror so he has to accept at least some responsibility for what has subsequently happened to him.
 
Yup, but he was effectively misled by the BBC who broke their agreement that it was a background interview only intended for note taking purposes. If or when he is fully cleared, I think we can expect a grovelling apology from the BBC and/or a massive compensation claim.

The worrying aspect about this 'Americanisation' of crime reporting, is the fact that the Police are increasingly in collusion with the media - all at the expense of real justice and fair trials

The media are increasingly stepping over the line and getting away with publishing material that only a few years ago would have been in contempt of court; not in the name of good journalism or public service, but to whip up a lynch mob mentality with their increasingly dumb audience/readership in the hope of increased ratings/circulation.
Exactly. The way the media kept peddling the idea that it was 'members of the public' that gave away these individuals indentities was enough to make a nun suspicious. How come in the past the suspects details have been kept under wraps until the Police chose to reveal them? This is a recent and unpleasant development.

They must think we were all born yesterday...................:rolleyes:
 
Of course the police were obliged to question him. His decision to spreak to the media was a little illadvised, but he was probably flattered by them into beleiving he was being helpful and was important to them.

What is very wrong in this case is the way he was so publically named and abused by the media. His family including his ex-wife have had to go into hiding, and there is currently no evidence at all that he has done anything illegal. He admits to having used the services of prostitutes and seems to have befriended and helped some of them.

Some of the comments on this thread still seem to have suspicions about his innocense, when it is the police and media who are guilty by colluding together and probably permanantly damaged this man's life.

Nothing wrong in him being questioned, but there was no call for the media publishing every detail of his life. They must be bought under controll
 
However, I gather he also sold a story to the Sunday Mirror so he has to accept at least some responsibility for what has subsequently happened to him.
I have only read in this thread and nowhere else, that he sold a story

He was confronted by the SM and unwisely spoke out in his defence (click here for story) - probably didn't have a decent solicitor ;) - and I would trust a Sunday redtop tabloid journalist doorstepping a suspected serial killer, very much less than the BBC. The fact that they doorstepped him ('The Sunday Mirror tracked down the 37-year-old loner') indicates some unprofessional/unethical policing. I don't think any paper would want to be seen to be paying a potential serial killer anyway; just imagine the backlash. I would guess the SM 'journalist' was all matey with him and promised to publish his side of the story.

EDIT ... just noticed the SM uploaded the interview audio here: videos.icnetwork.co.uk/sundaymirror2/Interview.mp3
 
fair enough Krish.....you're right I may well have picked that up here.....I guess he's a just pretty sad individual who couldn't resist the attention.
I wholly support your other comments about the police leaking info to the media BTW.
 
Some of the comments on this thread still seem to have suspicions about his innocense, when it is the police and media who are guilty by colluding together and probably permanantly damaged this man's life.
The police are the ones that seem to still have suspicions, else the would have released him completely, rather than on police bail. They clearly think there's still more to investigate regarding Mr Stephens. Also as pointed out earlier, he freely gave an interview to the Sunday Mirror knowing full well he was a main suspect PRIOR to the BBC releasing their interview so his name and details were already in the public domain and that's down to him I'm afraid.
 
Not sure about the circumstances of his SM interview. MEP says he sold a story, you say he freely gave an interview.

I suspect that tabloid journalists doorstepping an ordinary member of the public would be "freely given" an interview more often than not, possibly by lying to the target as the BBC seems to have done.

I think it would be common police practice to keep anyone questioned on police bail in the middle of such an enquiry, and it is precisely the point I am making that such an action, having been publicised, persuades many people that he is at least a "bit guilty". :(
 
'The Sunday Mirror tracked down the 37-year-old loner'
Loner - that's one of those words that the gutter press love to use in these situations isn't it? If meaningless implications were poisonous there would be very few tabloid journalists still alive.
 
I have two issues to raise:- one is with the BBC who mis-lead a member of the public when taping some background interviews and then under the guise of something called "public interest" decided to stick the boot in on this guy before the legitimate legal process had taken it's course. See BBC discussion and mainly negative BBC feedback on their thread. And also some so called justification from the BBC.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6195197.stm

this is so disappointing of the BBC -you expect this kind of rubbish from the gutter press (to good of an opportunity to miss to get a BBC "exclusive"?) - and it is doubly disappointing that they haven't as yet simply admitted they were in the wrong. I suspect (and shouldn't really) that maybe they are hanging back in case they get sued. Well tough they should say now that they were wrong.

As for the Police, They have the toughest of jobs; however, they are fallible, who isn't; but the 1st arrestee has been let out on bail "pending further investigations". OK; I don't want to prejudge but I hope this is really something to do with the case and not simply a matter of quietly allowing things to cool down and then dropping it simply because they made a mistake.

The bottom line is that when a "story" like this emerges the media in general jump in and start spinning out hours and hours of infotainment to keep me and "us" up to date. TBH something should be done to reign eveyone in UNTIL after someone has been tried and found guilty. All I can see is that the media (and BBC's) definition of Public Interest should be drawn much tighter and not simply apply to satisfying the publics voyeristic need to know anything and everything juicy immediately.
 
The media are the best judges of what people actually want than anyone else and their stories are published accordingly.
 
The media are the best judges of what people actually want than anyone else and their stories are published accordingly.
Not really. They are judges of what will 'titillate' people which is another matter entirely. Besides which they have made untold blunders in the past by following what they thought people wanted to read, only to find they had misjudged the situation badly. The numerous times the Sun and DM in particular have caused a public outcry leading to the PCA getting involved is ample proof of this.

Those two also hold the record for the number of times they've been investigated and found guilty of running false stories. They constantly take the honours for champions (Sun) and runners-up (DM) in the upheld PCA complaints table.
 
None of the tabloids have misread the situation badly enough to affect sales which is all that concerns them and what you call "titivation" is what sets the cash registers jingling.

Even the the old stalwart of news the BBC has dumbed down in recent years as style has won over substance in their effort to chase the ratings.
 
None of the tabloids have misread the situation badly enough to affect sales which is all that concerns them and what you call "titivation" is what sets the cash registers jingling.

Even the the old stalwart of news the BBC has dumbed down in recent years as style has won over substance in their effort to chase the ratings.
Won't argue with that. Dumbing down is the word..............:rolleyes:
 
Won't argue with that. Dumbing down is the word..............:rolleyes:
Can't argue with dumbing down; it is particularly reprehensible of the BBC to follow that route. Taken logically to it's conclusion therfore, as long as there is a public appitite then its OK for the media to report / show anything? It's said that the most looked up stuff on the inter-web is pornograph...so maybe, in the not too distant future, the Beeb will be showing goodness knows what as long as a good propotion of the public want it? I really think that, pariculaly as a public broadcaster, they should maintain a higher standard and show restraint. In fact all of the media should - plain and simple.
 
Indeed. When you're forced to pay for the BBC service they, more than anyone, have a duty to maintain certain standards.
News is news, it's not entertainment.

I can't remember if it was the first suspect or the second but the BBC had cameras outside his parent's home while police informed them of his arrest. Obviously it wasn't enough for them that the suspects identities be splashed all over the news, their families should be too.
 
The old accepted media practice on such reporting was that factual non-intrusive reporting was okay, and not contemptuous; and in any case would be 'tomorrow's chip paper' long forgotten by the time of trial.

But 'tomorrow's chip paper' is now a permanent web archive, and the reporting has become ever more intrusive, salacious, and full of negative innuendo about the accused
- both of which can only have an adverse effect on justice and a fair trial.

It seems bizarre that when almost anything minor these days requires a health and safety audit, due diligence, pandering to the so-called PC brigade, etc etc - i.e. anything to reduce the risk of litigation - that the media and Police can be so irresponsible and reckless.
 
It seems bizarre that when almost anything minor these days requires a health and safety audit, due diligence, pandering to the so-called PC brigade, etc etc - i.e. anything to reduce the risk of litigation - that the media and Police can be so irresponsible and reckless.

All major newspapers carry libel insurance so that isn't a great problem to them. The real problem is the Press Complaints Commission and it's complete lack of teeth as the argument that "it's in the national interest" seems to cover everything and the newspaper being censured probably even sells more copies when it covers the story of it's own wrist slapping.

The only way to bring newspapers in line is to punish them more severely by ordering a period of closure. The Mirror potentially caused great harm by publishing the faked pictures of the British soldiers torturing people in Iraq and I think that if the PCC shut them down for a week it might make them check their stories out more carefully in future.
 
As well as teeth for the PCC, the CPS prosecuting the criminal offence of contempt should be properly enforced, rather than always having to agree with what BBC rentaquote / Telegraph legal editor Joshua Rosenberg has to say on the matter
- banging up the Piers Morgans and Rebeccah Wades of this world would be seen as justice to many :rotfl:
(the former having been very lucky not to have been prosecuted for insider dealing over the 'City Slickers' affair)
 

The latest video from AVForums

Is 4K Blu-ray Worth It?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom