Thank you for your comment and taking the time to address my curiosity. For further clarification, could you answer another question or two?

Would Anorak refrain from publishing comments in its threads on this case from other publications if those comments were considered libelous and speculative then?

For example, if an article speculated what the man in the cupboard with the three children had been up to while in there with them, would Anorak then reprint excerpts from said article with those speculations? Or scrupulously avoid doing so?

The US media and judicial systems are different from the British. Our jurors are advised they are not allowed to read the press or discuss the case they are serving on while they are jurors. They are expected to abide by those rules. We do not muffle the entire country while a trial is going on and hide information from the general population.

After months and sometimes years of reporting on a notorious case before any judicial action is taken, to me, it seems like shutting the barn after the horse has escaped, to say NOW you cannot talk or speculate about the case. People have been reading and making judgements right along. Some people have better memories than others and no matter what is written from the point of arrest, etc., or if articles are removed from the internet, they will remember what they have read. Our country (US) expects jurors to set aside this information and concentrate solely on what is presented in the court room and act impartially upon that information alone (tough job, though it is) when coming to a verdict.

91
DuncanR Says:

March 15th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Everybody

I am repeating here a comment posted earlier by Carmen which some may not have seen

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

MODS AND ADMIN

OK, I understand where you are coming from, but you should understand this. Because a newspaper has reported that this was said, doesn’t necessarily make it true. The original commentator may not have been telling the truth. If it isn’t true, then a libel action can be taken against the original commentator, the newspaper which reported it, and YOU for repeating it.

The onus would be on you to prove that it was true, not just that it was said.

Our main concern here is that the child’s reputation should not be damaged. Nothing illegal may have taken place, in terms of actions against the child. She may not have been held against her will. She should not be labelled as being the victim of anything untoward until the truth is known.

Which leads us to a secondary position, IF anything has taken place that later proves to be illegal, we would not want the perpetrator to escape justice because they were able to show that speculation had taken place on this forum that made a fair trial impossible.

We will be watching carefully everything that is said - if in doubt, don’t say it.

Any wags or wits who think their voice being heard is more important than that child’s reputation or a fair trial of anyone involved in possible wrong doing will find themselves in moderation faster than they can type.

Think before you press ’send’ everybody. OK?

————————-

I read the above carefully and then noted the recent new thread from today that Anorak has written, entitled “Shannon Matthews: Paul Drake, Mick Donovan and Claiming the Reward.”

http://www.anorak.co.uk/tabloids/182026.html

It seems Anorak has no problem repeating speculation from the tabloids on the Shannon Matthews case to attract people to the site to read it, but wants to stifle expression and comment on it. I am truly puzzled.

What was going on??? I haven’t a clue. It sounds very weird.

“My dad’s bigger than your dad!”

I thought it was too good to last; all that common sense and other pointless stuff.

Now you lot are the sort of children whos SHOULD be abused and deserve to be negelcted.

sheesh, i thought it was me who was meant to be saying that sorta stuff about you, not yourself….

can;t yu follow a thread? 2 of my posts were to carmen, 1 to logic and the other ones weren’t complaining about your postings, they were mocking them.

cheers!

love to her and her family

with all due respect, it is not really the news we are invited to comment on, it is the media response to the news.

and the media’s treatment of the news is very similar to the poster’s treatment of the news, so picking fault with julie’s posting, seems very much in the spirit of poking a pin in pomposity, wherever it might be…

my views about another poster werer as relevent as the feelings of said poster.
what i said was a response to her posting. if she chooses to issue vacuous statements about how she is feeling, surely a satirical news site can cope with the satirising of said vacuous posting.

no?

and i feel so sad about the heavily publicised death of a small child. (erm.. duh…)

so sad that i didn’t have the emotional resources to even think of the scores of children dying brutally every day.
i will light a candle in here memory. it will help.
i once had that hilary clinton in the back of my cab once.

>That’s what this site is about. What else do people do on here?? Do you want all >discussion sites to be shut down?

i thnk you might find that other people discuss the topics. regular reporting of feelings is not what a satirical site thrives on. a report on feelings is not discussion and it is not comment or even opinion.