Rag that ran the Grays' out of town?

lostexpectation

Which paper was it the a journo colluded with the police to run an innocent family out of town?

obviously the kerry something or other...
I havn't been able to find much written about this case

does he not get any punishment or reprimand along with the case been found against the local vigilanties, I mean gardai?

http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0117/gray.html

I think the guy did rape somebody underage but he'd done ten years and probably staying in kerry to be away from the area where he committed the crime, it was awful malicious of the journo to bring it down on the family.

CLADA

lostexpectation wrote:

I think the guy did rape somebody underage but he'd done ten years and probably staying in kerry to be away from the area where he committed the crime, it was awful malicious of the journo to bring it down on the family.

You think?

In a small community like Ballybunion the family should have known better than to bring a sex offender into their home and try to keep the locals in the dark.

If this guy needs to get away why don't you invite him over to stay and help him in his rehabilitation?......... No!.. I didn't think so

flogen

The whole issue of notifing residents if a convicted sex offender moves into their area is a particularly hairy one and while extremely interesting, it's not for this forum.
Please can people stick to the media aspect of the story.

With that in mind, while I'm not saying I think people should be kept in the dark when rapists move in next to them, I don't think the media has a right to flout the law and incite an witchhunt for what it believes to be the greater good.

The issue of the media crossing the legal boundaries is a delicate one, and there's no black and white in the issue in my mind. I think in this case, however, as in the issue of the NoTW name and shame campaign, flouting the law does more harm than good.

hmmm

If as a society we think that people should be informed of sex offenders living in their area (and I think we should have this information), then we should draft a law that rescinds a persons right to privacy in this regard. What we can't have is the increasingly insidious and illegal interference in our affairs by the state because big brother knows best - if agents of the state want to breach our rights, it's up to the public and their elected representatives to give them the authority. In this case, they took it upon themselves to break the law.

That's what is so important about this case, but of course you're going to hear liveline full of callers saying "I wouldn't like this person living near me!" which is missing the point.

flogen

hmmm wrote:

That's what is so important about this case, but of course you're going to hear liveline full of callers saying "I wouldn't like this person living near me!" which is missing the point.

Very true.
The likelihood is that the Gardai who leaked this information, while found guilty of wrongdoing, probably know that they have the public support behind them.
The hard truth is that some things, while arguably right to do, are not always legally allowed. The job of politicians (and by effect the people) is to make the law as fair as possible so that the right thing and the legal thing are one and the same at every opportunity.
Until then, as right as some people may feel it is, the fact is that wrong has been done. It may be hard to swallow but convicted rapists who have served their time in prison have a right to privacy.

From a media POV something was interesting to me about this case.
The Gardai were found to do wrong, while (I don't think) any case has been filed against the newspapers that published the information.
Now, it's fair to say that the Gardai were liable for leaking the information, but that leak was effectively useless unless a media organisation decided to use it and make it public.

So, my question is, how much of the onus of blame should be laid at the door of the media, and how much should go to the Gardai? Both knew the effect their leak/publication would have on the family and both went ahead with it despite this. Both also knew that by leaking/publishing this information they were denying people's rights.

Finally, should the blame for all Garda leaks be placed at the door of the organisation rather than the individual? Let's say a Garda leaks something with a more honest and fair intention (information on corruption or bullying), which results in someone elses (maybe a Garda) privacy or rights being infringed upon...
I suppose my question is should an organisation be held responsible for the effect of whistleblowers?

Judt

It's 50/50; the leak is useless without the media, and the media was useless without the leak. Both sides have to obey the law.

santosubito

I haven't seen any proof so far that a Garda did leak the information.
The judge said it was his view, in the balance of probablities, that ot came from a Garda...but that ain't proof.
Could have come from anybody.
The reporter said he got his first piece of information from a woman civilian. For what it's worth, loads of people could have known the rapist was down there. Examples include: prison officers, probation officers, social workers, his victim's family, etc.
I'm afraid you're all just guessing it was a Garda.

hmmm

Judt wrote:

It's 50/50; the leak is useless without the media, and the media was useless without the leak. Both sides have to obey the law.

mmmmm. In a democracy, a free media is one of the key pillars of maintaining the democracy itself. There's a valid argument to make that the media should be able to ignore the law if it feels that the "state" requires it to do so.

Judt

hmmm wrote:

mmmmm. In a democracy, a free media is one of the key pillars of maintaining the democracy itself. There's a valid argument to make that the media should be able to ignore the law if it feels that the "state" requires it to do so.

In an ideal world where you can trust journalists to be more lofty in their outlook than the supposedly corrupt forces leading the state? Sure. In the real world, where many if not most journalists are after a scoop, a story to get themselves and their publication noticed, I'm not so sure that one can simply say "The media can flout whatever law it wants in order to protect what it views as the public interest."

As a journalist I know that certain types of stories will get me easy exposure - sex, violence and scandal being three very good ones, and best when used in combination. If I wanted to do so and then I could play the national interest card there would be no holds barred in our media.

lostexpectation

well the guy had done ten yrs in prison what more could you ask for....

I looked before for info about the articles, couldnt find any, this wasn't journalist doing his civil duty by all acccounts its a campaign of malicious articles about the offended and the family...

J.R.HARTLEY

lostexpectation wrote:

well the guy had done ten yrs in prison what more could you ask for....

I looked before for info about the articles, couldnt find any, this wasn't journalist doing his civil duty by all acccounts its a campaign of malicious articles about the offended and the family...

are you aware that he was a repeat offender. so the people in that area woulld have been in danger.

haz

J.R.HARTLEY wrote:

are you aware that he was a repeat offender. so the people in that area woulld have been in danger.

All sex offenders are repeat offenders, sexual offences have the highest recidivism rate of any crime. The Grays' nephew, James O'Donoghue, is currently in prison for a further offence.

constitutionus

so i take it none of you know the name of the paper behind all this then? if it turns out to be the local version of "the sun" how many of you will be championing their non existant right of people to know who's living next to em? remember boys and girls this case they won was on privacy ,its violation by the rag ,and the courts believed em. irregardless to what ever their relation has done you dont have the right to victimise and abuse an innocent third party in what amouts to an almost marcarthy like campaign. after all the "do you know if your brother/mother/father is a paedo too!?!" mentality has the potential to destroy way more lives than it saves. particularly when you consider most paedos target their own families, not strangers

haz

constitutionus wrote:

so i take it none of you know the name of the paper behind all this then?

The Kerryman newspaper published an article on April 9, 1999, under the heading “Garda concern over sex pervert”. I assume the red-tops all followed once the scent was up.

The Grays did not sue the Kerryman, or any media outlet. The outcome may have been a little different with the paper's legitimate interest defence. James O'Donoghue received no compensation for breach of privacy.

santosubito

The paper was the Kerryman, followed up by the Examiner and The Star. The journalist was Conor Keane, then of the Kerryman, now business correspondent with the Examiner.
Edit: Haz just beat me to it.

lostexpectation

well dept of justice = -€70,000

constitutionus

thanks guys. just realised how snotty my original post was sorry didnt mean to be but the thread was about which paper ran the story and noone had answered it yet! must say im surprised at the examiner, i thought it was a bit low brow for them .but its compleatly in line for the star.

i do understand the fear people feel on this issue but we cant run our country on fear or next thing you know papers are running profiles on different countries in an effort to sway which nationalites we let into the country or banning people who drink heavily cause "they might get into a car one day!".
most definetly the gardai should be keeping an eye on these people but i cant see what announcing to the public can do in real terms beside forment fear. and thats one step a little too close to a mob mentality for my liking