Joanna Yeates: Libel, Chris Jefferies And Thousands Of Student Die
JOANNA Yeates – now the media’s Jo Yeates – was killed – and her killer is at large. The police say women should take “usual” precautions to ensure their safety. Given that Joanna Yeates might have been abducted from her home, this advice seems weak.
Perhaps the usual precautions involve not talking to Chris Jefferies, the man released on police bail? The educated, erudite man billed as a “pillar of society” by one neighbour who actually knew him was monstered by the media until he morphed into something that resembled a blue-haired, child worrying, potential serial killer.
Ch Supt John Stratford, of Avon and Somerset Police:
“I can understand why the public in the local and wider Bristol area have concerns for their safety at the current time. Whoever killed Joanna remains at large.
“However, I want to reassure the public that at this time there is no specific intelligence or information to suggest an increased threat to their safety.”
Reuters hears that and tells its readers:
Police calm safety fears after architect’s murder
The Telegraph’s Martin Evans hears the same police advice and interprets it as:
Joanna Yeates murder: Clifton residents told killer may be in their midst
Oh?
But with thousands of students due back in the area following the Christmas break there is widespread concern that the killer could strike again if not caught soon.
In the Sun, Emily Nash tells readers of the:
Riddles police must answer to nail her murderer
Riddles? She means questions. And her to help them is an expert:
DAVID Wilson, Professor of Criminology at Birmingham City University, looks at the key questions that remain unanswered:
There is only one question: who killed Joanna Yeates. But Nash, like all tabloid hacks, like to produce a list. She opts for eight questions. But it might as easily be ten or 20.
Meanwhile, Keir Mudie tells Star readers:
RELEASED landlord Chris Jefferies has gone into hiding amid fears of a vigilante attack.
But why would people want to attack a man who must be presumed innocent – a man the police consider so dangerous they have released, albeit on bail? Maybe they read the Star’s Steve Hughes, who informed us:
Former pupils at Clifton College in Bristol told how Christopher Jefferies, 65, loved to make lewd sexual remarks to children.
How is Mr Jefferies?
Last night a relative said: “He is fine. There has been enough damage done. You will hear more about this.”
Thanks to the media, the murder of Joanna Yeates may well reach libel court before it reaches a criminal one.
READ: Joanna Yeates: Chris Jefferies Is More Robert Murat Than Serial Killer
Posted: 3rd, January 2011 | In: Key Posts, News Comments (50) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
January 7th, 2011 at 9:44 pm
A worthy ‘Redtop’ http://www.beano.com/
January 7th, 2011 at 8:00 pm
God, this ‘woe is me’ drivel from a scribbler from the Star is unbelievable. It’s akin to an armed robber telling someone off for scrumping apples.
Note to Pauley. You will NEVER hold the moral high ground. EVER. That someone who pens gossip about celebrities has the nerve to think they can lecture someone about libel would be hilarious – were it not so worryingly disordered. Looks like a clear case of someone without the slightest bit of self-awareness.
Another note to Pauley – I used the term ‘looks like’ which means I am giving opinion NOT fact. Therefore, the statement is NOT libellous.
January 7th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
So now I’m being called a ‘bully’. From someone who is prepared to defend a mega-bully like MacKenzie.
And I have nothing against people with alternative views to my own – provided they are honestly held and backed up with a genuine understanding of the issues. Indeed, you have given no indication of your views on anything at all on this thread Mr Pauley, save for the fact that you think that calling someone a ‘lowlife’ has the capacity to land a person in front of a judge on a defamation case. Given that such words are repeatedly used by persons of your ilk; I think your screeching to be somewhat empty on this one.
You’ve also shown that you don’t understand the contempt laws. But then I guess that is what you lot hire lawyers for; hey?
‘You made it up by misquoting me’
Awww. I’m just not playing fair am I? If only I had the integrity of downmarket tabloid journos hey?
January 7th, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Emma
Actually hurt feelings caused by a bit of name calling DO make for a good libel case, i think you’ll find (viz Goldsmith, etcetc).
I argue with cyber bullies like you because I can and because you don’t like anyone with a differing view standing up to you or disagreeing.
I enjoy debating with people who disagree with my views, as I like to find out why and what I can learn.
You should take your blinkers off sometime and try it.
hilariously, while despising “pondlife” tabloid hacks (Do you actually know any? Did one fail to buy you a drink or run over your cat?) you display all the same traits you claim to so despise, from your lofty tower in Smugville viz: If the story doesn’t fit your view you just make it up and put words in mouths.
For instance – I never said on this board I’d made things up. You made it up by misquoting me…
Anyway It was fun visiting Smugville on a day off but, unlike you, I don’t have seven days off a week and I wouldn’t want to live there all the time…so will have to end our exchange of views.
Have a nice weekend and don’t take everything so personally. Chill a bit – I’m sensing you have so much pent-up frustration, anger and broken dreams … learn to love yourself and others will love you.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:38 pm
Oh, and by the way, hurt feelings caused by a bit of name calling don’t really make for a great libel case.
January 7th, 2011 at 2:16 pm
Mr Pauley,
What part of ‘line is thin’ do you not get? Clearly I was saying there WAS a line – thin though it may be. As for MacKenzie, this is a guy who has ACTUALLY been done for contempt of court – more than once. He also claimed in an infamous front page that Liverpool fans were guilty of robbing their own dead. He’s pondlife and I have no qualms about labelling him such.
And I think, given you have admitted on this very thread that a good proportion of the stories you have written about various people have been untrue; claiming I am libelling you for calling you a hypocrite is ludicrious.
But what are you doing arguing with us anyway? Those important stories about Cheryl Cole don’t just fabricate themselves…
January 7th, 2011 at 1:57 pm
No – you just try.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:53 pm
Vimes
Let me make this simple: The company may have done – I didn’t personally.
And your dad was wrong – we polish them every day
January 7th, 2011 at 1:43 pm
And there was me thinking it was your employers – so much for corporate loyalty, but I’m sure that Mr. Desmond is the understanding sort. “Toxic”, “vitriol” – you do like your hyperbole, don’t you, but, as my dear old Dad used to say, “you can’t polish a turd”.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Vimes/Emma
Being more – or equally – outraged by a consenting topless model (Sam Fox) than the implications of a convicted child killer on licence, using a new name, in a new town, downloading child porn and even comparing the two says more about you both than a thousand words ever could.
You must read more carefully before calling me a hypocrite (another defamation)
I didn’t say I’d take action merely warning you that others might not be so open-minded about your toxic, anonymously, penned, vitriol. Because the libel law applies to smug internet smartasses like yourselves as well as red top hacks, like me.
Oh by the way, re McCanns … I didn’t pay out a million and I never wrote any of those stories – see, you’ve just defamed me again.
January 7th, 2011 at 1:03 pm
I love that. A tabloid hack accusing someone of being defamatory. Good luck with that if you want to take me to court. Another typical tabloid trait – hypocrisy.
‘he expressed “concern” but didn’t take “action”’
This means nothing. It would appear the Met may not have taken the action they should have taken with regards to the NOTW. Non-action does not mean no case to answer.
‘RUBBISH the word “Open” is inappropriate’
Active then.
The Contempt of Court Act says proceedings are active when:
(a)arrest without warrant;
(b)the issue, or in Scotland the grant, of a warrant for arrest;
(c)the issue of a summons to appear, or in Scotland the grant of a warrant to cite;
(d)the service of an indictment or other document specifying the charge;
(e)except in Scotland, oral charge.
So arrest activates proceedings so far as the press is concerned. That is when issues of prejudice are to be watched.
‘Wasn’t pre-pubescent by any means ‘
I didn’t say ‘pre-pubescent’; I said ‘pubescent’ which she was. And just because her parents’ may have consented, it does not mean the situation was remotely ethical. For her or any other sixteen year old.
And perhaps I am out of the loop, but I have never seen Frankie Boyle on anything other than ‘Mock the Week’.
It is interesting though, that you seem think that writing a one or two articles; with some salient and decent points besides a crater full of utter pigswill; actually makes you a credible journalist.
January 7th, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Frankie Boyle isn’t fit to lace Jerry Sadowitz’s drinks – as for “defamation”, who was it again, who had to pay out over a million during the McCann debacle? See kettles, see pots.
January 7th, 2011 at 12:24 pm
Emma
“Emma”
Ever considered a job as a comedy writer? Frankie Boyle needs some new ones “Barely the age of consent” ho ho – a topless (note, not naked woman) BARE-ly at the age. Again you deal in crass right-on generalities.
Actually, she was OVER the age of consent (16). Wasn’t pre-pubescent by any means and actively, with the support of her parents, wanted to do something that again is perfectly legal, once you are OVER the age of 16.
Not sure I’d want my daughters taking that particular career path but its a free country. Sam did very well out explolting those “middle aged men” – though to be fair in her forthcoming book does tell of her experiences, not all good.
FYI: Most readers who enjoy Page Three are actually under the age of 25, hardly middle aged – you were probably still a student who hadn’t even finished your Mphil by then!.
January 7th, 2011 at 12:15 pm
“Emma”
Once again I ask … If you are NOT Star (or tabloid) reader why are you loftily concerned about trashing the “trash” we write? You obviously see through it all thanks to your EngLit degree and Mphil, our readers seem happy, or as I pointed out they wouldn’t continue buying the papers in millions – so who are you trying to protect? Surely not those “poor less educated people” who cannot think for themselves and need to be saved from themelves?
Oh how patronising…
Yes, I’ve written a few stinkers – you picked a handful from the thousands i’ve written. There have been some good ones too for e.g- recently I first highlighted Frankie Boyle’ s offensive comments re a disabled boy, Aids and Cancer … or did you think he was funny? Was that”trash” too? Various disabled groups, advertisers and viewers thought not (600,000 turned off the next week). Oh and he lost the moral high ground to KATE PRICE of all people. Ironic indeed.
Being a “showbiz writer” I tend to deal with showbish and TV – “trashy” stuff. We are not the paper of record but try to entertain and also give out readers a taste of the real world in concise fashion.
Far from being hysterical I simply had trouble with cut and paste on a strange Blackberry, hence the double comments.
A word to the wise … I’d also advise you to look up the law of “defamation” as I would say judging someone a “pathetic low life” and “amoral piece of trash” edges pretty close and you might wish to bear this in mind when you comment on other matters on websites, even when hiding your full name. Defamation applies to internet forums as well as newspapers …
“Just because a government is running scared of tabloid press…” RUBBISH. A law is either broken or not. So far the UK’s top legal officer deems there’s no case to answer at present – he expressed “concern” but didn’t take “action”
I agree with you that things have changed on what is reported since I started out on local papers. Of course unchecked papers will push the boundaries – just as Frankie Boyle does, films, writers do and TV (EastEnders cot death storyline) you name it ….
“A case is open once an arrest” … RUBBISH the word “Open” is inappropriate.
Yes Murdoch owns the Sun but also The Times (known as the “paper of record”) And Sky News which has a good track record, more so than the BBC , of BREAKING news impartially.
January 7th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
Vimes – you are bang on the money.
I always find The Sun’s outrage at paedophiles to be the height of hypocrisy; given that when MacKenzie was editor, he put naked photos of girls barely at the age of consent in his publication (Sam Fox was only 16 when she started to pose for page 3).
Which is why I think his condemnation of Jon Venables’ downloading child porn to be utterly risible. The line between someone who distributes internet child porn and someone who puts pubescent naked girls in a national daily for middle aged men’s gratification is very thin imo.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:52 am
A Daily Star reporter claiming the moral high ground – now that’s true irony. As the Bard of Barking once sang:
“Where politics mix with bingo and tits, in a money and numbers game,
Where they offer you a feature on stockings and suspenders,
Next to a call for stiffer penalties for sex offenders”.
January 7th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Having a quick google on Nigel Pauley’ s name (not being a Star reader, I’m not terribly well acquainted with his ‘work’); it seems:
He has claimed (wrongly) that the BBC was inundated with complaints about a gay kiss in Eastenders. He claimed (wrongly) that Cheryl was taking Ashley back; and that Michael Jackson’s ‘killer’ will face the death penalty (untrue). He also seems to have a line in commenting on trashy TV shows.
Hardly the cream of the journalistic crop.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:52 am
‘I’m lower than an catatonic amoeba without knowing if i’m an Oxbridge graduate or a council house gramma school boy’
I think it matters not a jot what your education is or your social background. The fact that you think it does matter merely exposes you further as a pathetic lowlife – no matter what your academic background.
‘You don’t know if I’m black or white or gay or straight’
Again – I couldn’t give a hoot. You seem to think that it would make a difference to whether I think you are an amoral piece of trash or an upstanding member of society. It doesn’t. Again, the fact that you think it relevant is pretty telling. The fact that you repeated yourself with this sentence makes you look like a belming, hysterial ment. Exactly the type of person who would pen worthless tripe for a red top.
‘If you don’t understand the concept of “market forces” and supply and demand, maybe you should have swapped “Media Studies” ‘
Grow up – who is making assumptions now? My background is in English Literature AND I have an MPhil in Criminology.
‘no newspaper has actually broken any contempt law yet’
Actually, I would argue this is untrue. A case is technically ‘sub judice’ after an arrest (the press seem to think it after being charged but the Contempt of Court Act of 1981 is clear that a case is open once an arrest has been made). Just because we have government who run scared of the tabloid media (particularly when they are owned by Murdoch) does not mean a law has not been broken.
January 7th, 2011 at 10:31 am
[...] also agree with the view of blogger Anorak that Jefferies has been “monstered by the media until he morphed into something that resembled a blue-haired, child worrying, potential serial [...]
January 7th, 2011 at 12:24 am
Emma just to remind you that Anorak boats of “exposing prejudice, inhumanity, stuff shirts, misogyny, a biased news agenda, conformity, misanthropy, spin and the worst and best of human culture”
And yet, I fear that you are guilty of exactly the same stuffed shirt conformity misanthorpy spin bias stereotyping and shortsighted prejudice which you accuse the red top press of deploying.
You are happy to “assume” I’m lower than an catatonic amoeba without knowing if i’m an Oxbridge graduate or a council house gramma school boy. You don’t know if I’m black or white or gay or straight. You assume I’m not because of where I work .. . Dangerous territory Emma. Is the irony lost on you of you views – or do you resort to personal abuse because you’re not artioculate to win an argument – despite your superior, you assume, education because YOU don’t work for a red top!
You resorted to personal abuse. the sort you oh so despise in tabloid papers. Just because I work on the Star. You don’t know if I’m black or white or gay or straight. You assume I’m not because of where I work .. . Dangerous territory Emma
I’ve never claimed to hold myself as “a banner for free speech” I was however once runner-up to the late Clare Rayner in the National Medical Journalism Awards/ and Midlands journalist of the Year for a week-long feature on Aids which took a month to research, if that helps.
If you don’t understand the concept of “market forces” and supply and demand, maybe you should have swapped “Media Studies” or that now useless Arts degree for one in “Economics” – (Yes, I studied economics, oh and politics …)
I take it you also didn’t study “Law” because you’d understand that no newspaper has actually broken any contempt law yet – the AG (Attorney General) has expressed “concern” at some of the reporting but taken no action. A sign perhaps that no law has been broken.Of course at a future date lawyers may argue a suspect may not get a fair trial because of reporting, but that’s what lawyers are paid to do …
January 6th, 2011 at 1:20 pm
‘They obviously like what we do. In a commercial market if they didn’t we wouldn’t sell any copies. We don’t force them to buy us…’
This has got to be the most pathetic defence of gutter ‘journalism’ I have seen in a while. Worse than even Kelvin MacKenzie claiming yesterday that the press had every right to tear into ‘the landlord’ even if he is innocent.
Does the tabloid press also have a right to break the law with regards to contempt or court Mr Pauley? And admitting that you pander to the lowest common denominator is hardly a convincing argument for holding yourselves up as the banner of free speech is it?
And if you think I’m adopting a superior position here; well you’d be correct. But then a catatonic amoeba wouldn’t have many problems adopting a superior position to a hack from the Star.
January 4th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Nigel – I enjoy the Daily Star. And I’d let Katie Price edit it.
January 4th, 2011 at 5:50 pm
and another raw nerve…
January 4th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Yep, we’ll listen to anyone with a story to tell – which excludes Dear June, who, with all the typical single-mindedness of a student activist turned anonymous cyber-critic (who needs to grow up, but that’s another story) continues to slate a something which by his/her own admission she has seen only once, at the bottom of a cat litter tray … ha , how original.
You don’t like what we do and don’t buy it but snipe at us and the sun, mail etc. Millions of people do enjoy what we do and buy papers like ours everyday. They obviously like what we do. In a commercial market if they didn’t we wouldn’t sell any copies. We don’t force them to buy us…
Get over it. Keep buy the Guardian and Indy, which incidentally, both sell around a third of our circulation.
January 4th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
I saw the Daily Star once, it was doing double duty at the bottom of a cat litter tray……
Mr Pauley dear, Mr Anorak seems to irk you somewhat or do you prefer the cat’s comment
January 4th, 2011 at 2:58 pm
Nigel – Keir Hardie and JFK – anyone else on the Star’s payroll?
January 4th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
June – to be fair if they were an ace sniper they’d hardly be reduced to writing green-eyed drivel about hard-working red top hacks and much-read tabloid newspapers on a free-for-all internet blogging site, would they?
Snipers usually hit the target first shot – pot-shotters blast away like the crazed farmer with the buck-shot shotgun on bugs bunny, occasionally hitting the target, more by luck than judgement.
Then again, to be fair, it took Lee Harvey Oswald a couple of pot shot “sighters” before he found his range …
January 4th, 2011 at 2:31 pm
do you know if snipers go to Specsavers, Yampster…?
January 4th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Some snipers of my acquaintance take pot-shots on their days off. It helps them relax
January 4th, 2011 at 1:26 pm
I’m aware I am correct.
Surely a sniper with the equipment you have mentioned would hardly be taking potshots
January 4th, 2011 at 12:47 pm
June
You’re correct in your pedantry regarding “eyes” not literally taking “potshots”
However, of course, metaphorically speaking most snipers would use their “eyes” whether “ful’ or “gleeful” to look through the telescopic sight before pulling the trigger to take a pot shot at a target..
Mr Anorak.
Thanks for correcting Keir’s name. I was told of the mistake earlier – but didn’t have internet access to get in touch with you until i arrived in the office.