Privacy in Ireland?

Stinicker

Anyone here think that it is a complete and total joke that we have Court Correspondents in our local newspapers? I mean you can get arrested on a Saturday night for being Drunk and Disorderly or for failure to pay Motor Tax and get taken to court and then in the local rag the following week "Mr. X, 123 Street, Was fined €x etc."

I think this is surely in breach of human rights and before the end of the day half the town knows what you did even though it was none of their business and a total minor matter where a fixed penalty would be better. Yet if you rape a child or kill someone "The Identity is withheld" is often the case?

I was reading my local rag today and say some local people whom I know names plastered all over the paper for what are nothings yet they are treated like criminals and named and shamed before the public.

orourkeda

Dont end up in court then

Godge

But if they have been convicted in court, then they are criminals!!?!! Seriously, I have no sympathy for anyone convicted of a crime who is then named in a newspaper - unless they are innocent.

Justice must be seen to be done, and if it is to be seen to be done, it must be in public. Basic rules of a democracy.

The reason many of those convicted of rape/sexual assualt are not named is to protect the victim i.e. Unnamed person is convicted of raping his daughter/niece/nephew etc.

Dudess

I've always found this strange too: "Mr John Murphy, 32, of Firgrove Avenue was in custody on the night of 25th March 2009 for being drunk and disorderly" - wtf?! Why is that a matter of public interest?

Biggins

They will think twice then hopefully before doing daft things again them we can only hope.

Turtyturd

Stinicker wrote: »

Anyone here think that it is a complete and total joke that we have Court Correspondents in our local newspapers? I mean you can get arrested on a Saturday night for being Drunk and Disorderly or for failure to pay Motor Tax and get taken to court and then in the local rag the following week "Mr. X, 123 Street, Was fined €x etc."

I think this is surely in breach of human rights and before the end of the day half the town knows what you did even though it was none of their business and a total minor matter where a fixed penalty would be better. Yet if you rape a child or kill someone "The Identity is withheld" is often the case?

I was reading my local rag today and say some local people whom I know names plastered all over the paper for what are nothings yet they are treated like criminals and named and shamed before the public.

People should be named and shamed no matter what law they break. I hate the whole attitude in Ireland where people look for something to blame rather than take responsibility for their own actions, especially where drink driving is concerned. Don't commit any crime and you won't have to worry about appearing in the local paper.

Also Drunk and disorderly is not a minor matter, its a plague on this country.

For Forks Sake

Dudess wrote: »

I've always found this strange too: "Mr John Murphy, 32, of Firgrove Avenue was in custody on the night of 25th March 2009 for being drunk and disorderly" - wtf?! Why is that a matter of public interest?

Because it's an offence, he was brought to court and convicted. It doesn't matter how trivial the offence, be it murder, or having a piss against the side of a building, if you're convicted then it's a matter of public record.




Plus, some of the funniest stories committed to paper can be found in the court reports of regional newspapers.

Biggins

Dudess wrote: »

I've always found this strange too: "Mr John Murphy, 32, of Firgrove Avenue was in custody on the night of 25th March 2009 for being drunk and disorderly" - wtf?! Why is that a matter of public interest?

If I was a publican, I'd like to know who might be a right pain in the backside.
If they are bad enough to get arrested, they might be bad enough to bar them from entering a place that serves alcohol.
Thats just one reason I can think of. I suspect others can come up with other reasons.

MIRMIR82

I think people are entitled to know who they live beside - people who break the law ie. not paying tax, drunk and disorderly are well aware their names will be in the paper if they do it. Criminals should all be names and shamed regardless of the crime they commit.

Dudess

Turtyturd wrote: »

People should be named and shamed no matter what law they break.

Why?

I hate the whole attitude in Ireland where people look for something to blame rather than take responsibility for their own actions, especially where drink driving is concerned.

I don't see how there's a connection between not naming and shaming and the above.

It's just pure voyeurism IMO. Human beings are flawed and they make mistakes like getting too drunk. Equating someone getting stupidly drunk one night and giving the guards crap, to someone who knifes someone, is a joke frankly.

melekalikimaka

Stinicker wrote: »

Anyone here think that it is a complete and total joke that we have Court Correspondents in our local newspapers? I mean you can get arrested on a Saturday night for being Drunk and Disorderly or for failure to pay Motor Tax and get taken to court and then in the local rag the following week "Mr. X, 123 Street, Was fined €x etc."

I think this is surely in breach of human rights and before the end of the day half the town knows what you did even though it was none of their business and a total minor matter where a fixed penalty would be better. Yet if you rape a child or kill someone "The Identity is withheld" is often the case?

I was reading my local rag today and say some local people whom I know names plastered all over the paper for what are nothings yet they are treated like criminals and named and shamed before the public.

somebody was in the papers i'm guessing hehe

Crow71

Dudess wrote: »

I've always found this strange too: "Mr John Murphy, 32, of Firgrove Avenue was in custody on the night of 25th March 2009 for being drunk and disorderly" - wtf?! Why is that a matter of public interest?

Haha, that john murphy. What a crazy mofo

Super-Rush

What did you do op???

bazmaiden

Dudess wrote: »

I've always found this strange too: "Mr John Murphy, 32, of Firgrove Avenue was in custody on the night of 25th March 2009 for being drunk and disorderly" - wtf?! Why is that a matter of public interest?

Ye it does seem a little intrusive/harsh especially if it is a first offence, people make mistakes and good people try to make sure that they learn from those mistake and try not to let it happen again.

Biggins

At least we see once more that justice is being done. Not just to nameless faces but regular people who digress from the accepted norms' of our society.
By they being exposed as to what they have been found guilty of, it additionally acts as a further deterrent to others who might slip-up along the same lines.
Won't work every time but at least such proven exposure aids to the thinking of "crikey, I better not do this or that!"

Just a random thought and open to be wrong.

Dudess

There's some right smugness and high-horse mounting on this thread. If you're really "disgusted" by someone spending a night in a cell for being off their skull, well you're easily disgusted...

Biggins

Dudess wrote: »

There's some right smugness and high-horse mounting on this thread. If you're really "disgusted" by someone spending a night in a cell for being off their skull, well you're easily disgusted...

Someone sending a night in a cell wouldn't bother me in the slightest.
Sometimes its done by the Gardi for the safety of the actual person.
Its when they go and additionally start a fight, break street windows or worse, thats when people get more interested as to who did what I suspect.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Let he who has not sinned....

And just because you never got caught or arrested doesn´t mean you haven´t actually done anythign wrong.

Personally, I´ve never seen the point in putting an adress down. Is it implied that I should head over to Mr James Murphy´s house at 15 Acacia Avenue, Ranelagh and give him a piece of my mind for being hammered on O´Connell street last Saturday morning?

Dudess

Biggins, you can't just assume every one of those people in those court reports is a serial offender - obviously some are, but for others it's just a one-off and they won't do it again. This is one of the issues I have with it - it leads to unfair labelling and categorising.

"He was on the paper - he must be no good"...

Stinicker

super-rush wrote: »

What did you do op???

Nothing, I swear your honour! No Seriously I have never been to court in my life; was questioned by the Guards when I was younger for telling a guard to "go f*k himself" :rolleyes: but managed to get out of a tricky situation after some strings were pulled Trevor Sargent style! :eek:

However what really P'd me off was to see a mates name in the rag today and the sensationalism of the Journalist was a total disgrace.

I think it is none of the publics business what happens unless in serious crimes, minor crimes like petty taxation and that uniquely Irish invention "Drunkarndness" is none of the public business and these regional papers breed off court cases, land, wills etc. the morons will print it. This is not the norm outside Ireland and when I told some Italians this recently they were deeply disturbed about the whole idea of publishing such details.

My name is URL

Dudess wrote: »

I've always found this strange too: "Mr John Murphy, 32, of Firgrove Avenue was in custody on the night of 25th March 2009 for being drunk and disorderly" - wtf?! Why is that a matter of public interest?

It's more a matter of personal interest. How would you feel about being humiliated in your local newspaper?.. if it came to light that you were caught driving whilst over the limit. A fine or ban from driving probably wouldn't be as affective as the public's knowledge of what you've done

I know it'd be harder for me to deal with, at least

Biggins

Dudess wrote: »

Biggins, you can't just assume every one of those people in those court reports is a serial offender - obviously some are, but for others it's just a one-off and they won't do it again. This is one of the issues I have with it - it leads to unfair labelling and categorising.

"He was on the paper - he must be no good"...

Absolutely not and I agree with you.

For a local paper to report that Joe Bloggs was drunk last night and was arrested by the gardi is maybe a bit much.
When Joe Bloggs however is arrested for the 10th time however, then they give up their right to have their ID perhaps withheld.
Then at that point, they have become a public nuisance and maybe there is justification somewhat in telling the public that Mr Bloggs is a right pain and possible danger.

Otherwise, first offence! Sometimes we are a tad bit too quick to expose.

Mrmoe

I don't see anything wrong with it. If you were stupid enough to get arrested & convicted then you get everything coming your way. This works both ways too. If a person is found innocent it will help them clear their name. Why would a person who is not embarrassed by what they have done care whether they have their name in the paper or not? If they do care then there is a good chance that they will not commit the offence again.

bazmaiden

Mrmoe wrote: »

I don't see anything wrong with it. If you were stupid enough to get arrested & convicted then you get everything coming your way. This works both ways too. If a person is found innocent it will help them clear their name. Why would a person who is not embarrassed by what they have done care whether they have their name in the paper or not? If they do care then there is a good chance that they will not commit the offence again.

Ah come on people make mistakes, and may become irrational due to drink etc.
There is no need to publicise it. Are you trying to say that you have done anything embarrasing that you would like to keep to yourself on a night out

Super-Rush

Stinicker wrote: »

Nothing, I swear your honour! No Seriously I have never been to court in my life; was questioned by the Guards when I was younger for telling a guard to "go f*k himself" :rolleyes: but managed to get out of a tricky situation after some strings were pulled Trevor Sargent style! :eek:

However what really P'd me off was to see a mates name in the rag today and the sensationalism of the Journalist was a total disgrace.

I think it is none of the publics business what happens unless in serious crimes, minor crimes like petty taxation and that uniquely Irish invention "Drunkarndness" is none of the public business and these regional papers breed off court cases, land, wills etc. the morons will print it. This is not the norm outside Ireland and when I told some Italians this recently they were deeply disturbed about the whole idea of publishing such details.

Tbh i don't agree with the idea of someones name and address being printed in a local paper. It happened me years ago. I got dragged into a fight that had nothing to do with me and was arrested for being a danger to myself and others(stepping off the footpath). The story took the whole front page and had a full page inside.

Dudess

Mrmoe wrote: »

If you were stupid enough to get arrested & convicted then you get everything coming your way.

So not the actual crime, just the arrested and convicted bits?

Why would a person who is not embarrassed by what they have done care whether they have their name in the paper or not? If they do care then there is a good chance that they will not commit the offence again.

There's a good chance that they will not commit the offence again without it being published for gossip-mongers too though.

tipperaryboy

If a person commited an offence they should certainly be named and shamed.

Dudess

tipperaryboy wrote: »

If a person commited an offence they should certainly be named and shamed.

Wo... does it not depend on the offence? I got clamped - do I deserve to be named and shamed? And what actual purpose does it serve?

"Named and shamed" - wtf is this? A morally outraged convention?

Biggins

Dudess wrote: »

Wo... does it not depend on the offence? I got clamped - do I deserve to be named and shamed?

You shouldn't have parked in the middle of Croke park pitch then!

Only kidding.

For Forks Sake

Dudess wrote: »

Wo... does it not depend on the offence? I got clamped - do I deserve to be named and shamed? And what actual purpose does it serve?

"Named and shamed" - wtf is this? A morally outraged convention?

Clamping offences don't come before the courts, ergo no reporting of the offence

InTheTrees

And whats the alternative?

It would mean that we'd have to actually protect the privacy of petty criminals.

Some guy is convicted of drunken howling at the moon at 3am and that becomes a secret? It wouldnt be allowed to be reported by anyone? That would be creepy.

What if he did it every night?

Dudess

I know, but I'm just making the point that there are lots of things deemed an offence, however we don't actually have to be concerned about them all.

InTheTrees

h its actually more about our insatiable appetite for gossip rather than the pepers themselves.

We all want to know dirt on our neighbours, especially if they've been arrested...

Stinicker

tipperaryboy wrote: »

If a person commited an offence they should certainly be named and shamed.

Yes tipperary but what constitutes an offense worthy enough of being in the Public's opinion? As super-rush said he got named and shamed for something that was essentially a nothingism. I don't know the guy but will guess he's a sound enough person, now reading something stupid about a fight might lead me to picture him as a total scumbag when the opposite could very well be the fact.

The amount of stupid things you can be taken to court for is ridiculous and is a waste of taxpayers money and wasting Garda resources where they should be fighting real crime. I think that only more serious crimes should be publicised and half of these "Crimes" should be decriminalised or made into a penalty points type of situation where you pay a fine (Online/post office etc.) if you were caught breaking the rules, taking your name and going to court is total lunacy and creates an utter nightmare when trying to apply for Visas for abroad etc.

bazmaiden

InTheTrees wrote: »

And whats the alternative?

It would mean that we'd have to actually protect the privacy of petty criminals.

Some guy is convicted of drunken howling at the moon at 3am and that becomes a secret? It wouldnt be allowed to be reported by anyone? That would be creepy.

What if he did it every night?

But why does it HAVE to be reported and printed in a local paper is the question?

minidazzler

Stinicker wrote: »

Anyone here think that it is a complete and total joke that we have Court Correspondents in our local newspapers? I mean you can get arrested on a Saturday night for being Drunk and Disorderly or for failure to pay Motor Tax and get taken to court and then in the local rag the following week "Mr. X, 123 Street, Was fined €x etc."

I think this is surely in breach of human rights and before the end of the day half the town knows what you did even though it was none of their business and a total minor matter where a fixed penalty would be better. Yet if you rape a child or kill someone "The Identity is withheld" is often the case?

I was reading my local rag today and say some local people whom I know names plastered all over the paper for what are nothings yet they are treated like criminals and named and shamed before the public.

OK, first of all, do you think it is, or are you sure it is?

Secondly. Actually, it is perfectly within human rights. We all have a right to a fair and public trial. Sounds public to me.

Biggins

bazmaiden wrote: »

But why does it HAVE to be reported and printed in a local paper is the question?

To be fair for accuracy sake, it doesn't have to be, its usually down to the local reporter, then the editor who makes a judgement call if to include it or not.

RayM

If somebody is a repeat offender, it's unlikely that they'll find the reportage of their transgressions all that embarrassing, so it can't act as much of a deterrent. Their families, on the other hand, might find it extremely humiliating.

Unless the crime itself is serious enough to be of public interest, I don't really see any need to report it. I really don't need to know which of my neighbours have been caught pissing in public areas, swearing at Gardai or driving without tax this week.

Schadenfreude sells papers, I suppose. I mean, why else would anyone buy their local rag?

The Pontiac

InTheTrees wrote: »

And whats the alternative?

It would mean that we'd have to actually protect the privacy of petty criminals.

Some guy is convicted of drunken howling at the moon at 3am and that becomes a secret? It wouldnt be allowed to be reported by anyone? That would be creepy.

What if he did it every night?

If the newspapers showed a bit of common sense sometimes it would really help. Or some laws could be introduced e.g. if someone is caught with a small amount of a class B (or a class A even) drug and it's their first offence it can't be legally printed in a newspaper. And first time drunk and disorderly charges, minor public offences etc. etc....

Mrmoe

bazmaiden wrote: »

Ah come on people make mistakes, and may become irrational due to drink etc.
There is no need to publicise it. Are you trying to say that you have done anything embarrasing that you would like to keep to yourself on a night out

Nothing that I have been arrested or could be arrested for. There is a difference between embarrasing and embarrassing & illegal.

I think if people were embarrassed a lot more then we would have a lot less people clogging up the accident and emergency departments and other essential services for the people who require them the most.

Dudess wrote: »

So not the actual crime, just the arrested and convicted bits?

There's a good chance that they will not commit the offence again without it being published for gossip-mongers too though.

Yes the crime/offence too.

There could be a greater chance of them not doing it in the first place if they realised that their name was going to be in the paper. Prevention is better than a cure.

Stinicker

<Ollie> wrote: »

If the newspapers showed a bit of common sense sometimes it would really help. Or some laws could be introduced e.g. if someone is caught with a small amount of a class B (or a class A even) drug and it's their first offence it can't be legally printed in a newspaper. And first time drunk and disorderly charges, minor public offences etc. etc....

Kids are stupid and the entire social standing of the person and their family could be destroyed by say a teenager being caught with a joint and then having it plastered all over the papers. Immediately Nosey Irish Catholic Biddy types would declare "He's a total druggie, have nothing to do with him or his ilk" even though such a thing may not have been his but a friends etc. By the way I am completely against drugs but the users are not the problem but the suppliers.

There is no consistency and the Court Journo's will publish anything and the more they can blacken a person the more they will. My mother* and Aunt first thing they do with the paper is proceed to divulge the Courts sections even if it said "World War Three on the front page".


I think it is from an era where we were moralising and loved to look down our noses at other people, and immediately judging them. It sickens me and long after the actual trial there is trial by media and the person has their character totally dragged through the gutter. It stinks of Catholic Ireland and the high horse brigade to me tbh.

*Total Moralising Catholic biddy type, bless her!

tony1kenobi

I'm with the OP.I hate local papers.I go about my business at the weekend nailing college chicks then Wednesday morning I have to listen to 'er indoors insisting it's my picture in the "out and about" section with bit titty teens hanging off me.What harm am I doing anyone?Of course I look nothing like me when I'm coked off my nosher so I just say "that ain't me!"....still.....local papers can kiss my bell end.

StupidLikeAFox

The conviction and publication in the paper are not connected. One of the base concepts about law is that it has to be public, justice has to be done and has to be seen to be done. Thats why anybody at all is allowed go into a court and watch the proceedings.

So journalists go in and they reports on them, they arent reporting lies or slander as it is deemed to be public knowledge and the society as a whole has a right to know about justice being done.

Theres no way around it, you cant bar reporters from reporting whats deemed to be knowledge in the public domain (in theory) already

And witholding the names of the people in sensitive cases is done for a reason, they are SENSITIVE cases.

OP its tough that your mate was convicted and it was published in the paper, but thats life. He made the mistake and now he has to live with it. Would you feel the same way if someone was in the court on the day and told half the town in person?

kowloon

There was a good one in the shooting forum where firearms owners appearing in court to appeal licencing decisions (no crime involved, all above board) were having their names and addresses listed in the papers. Not clever. May aswell put a 'GUN HERE' sign outside your house.