Seen the Irish Daily Star today?

Dionysus · 04-02-2010 09:41PM

The Ger Colleran guy who edits this particularly noxious rag is truly worthy of the position. I heard him ranting about democracy and freedom of the press on Matt Cooper's show on Today FM when that lady who was having an affair with Éamonn Lillis was brought out the back entrance of the Central Criminal Court, thus depriving Colleran and his ilk of photos.

A reprehensible, classless little man if ever there were one with all the venom, self-righteousness and sanctimony of somebody who is hiding something. You/Me/We could be his next target.

A brief Google and the "debate" in question was a topic of conversation here:

http://www.politics.ie/media/122632-ger-colleran-v-gerald-kean-today-fm.html

It is long past the time that these tabloids were forced to learn that with rights come responsibilities. This is basic. For a good number of years now they have been wilfully profiting from abnegating their responsibilities and hiding behind rhetoric about something they call the "free press".

Sadly, for all its faults The Irish Times remains the only quality newspaper in Ireland today.

Dionysus · 04-02-2010 09:59PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Papers are also quite legally entitled to print the names and addresses of people accused of crimes. 'Trial by press' is for some reason allowed in this country.

Names should be withheld until after a conviction. And even then, there are times when names should be withheld permanently to protect the identity of victims.
As for addresses, I don't see how publishing the address benefits anyone. It can only possibly lead to vigilante attacks or innocent family members/residents being harmed.

+ 1000. It is sheer madness for this society to claim that a person is innocent until proven guilty when it allows names to be published based on a mere accusation in court/ charges being pressed.

It is particularly so concerning sexual abuse; the stain on your character in people's minds will never go away no matter how innocent you are, as happened when a guy named Paul Anderson falsely accused an innocent priest (yes, they do exist), who was widely named before the trial, of sexual abuse. Anderson was imprisoned for a mere 4 years in 2008 for this, but all most people will remember is the name of the priest. That's wrong.

pickarooney · 05-02-2010 11:55AM

Branson Hissing Crap wrote: »

Ha, he won't get that much in jail, 4 or 5 years, 2 suspended and gets out after 18 months for good behaviour...

How do they figure this good behaviour thing?

"Well, in 18 months behind bars in a high security prison he hasn't had sex with one child. He's clearly reformed"

caseyann · 05-02-2010 12:37PM

When will they stop treating these people like criminals and start treating them as inhuman evil scum.:mad: Bring death penalty to them all :mad:

As for the address of his previous home god help the poor woman and her family.

Liam Byrne · 05-02-2010 12:46PM

Re the OP's question / thread title : No. I don't read ridiculous gossip rags.

But unfortunately some people do.

You're dead right about the former address, and she may well have a case, because while the newspapers are entitled to print the name and address of the accused, it's not his address if he's moved.

I've said it before; I'd love to see a law whereby any correction/retraction/clarification would have to be given the same prominence as the original story. Certain people buy these rags because of the front-page gossip-based headline, and if they make sales based on that and are wrong, then they should have to print "We fvcked up!" with the same size article and headline and photo as the original story.

As has been pointed out, sh1t sticks, even if it's only gossip that's later disproven, and the least we could do is ensure that the "correction" (even though in most cases it's not, because someone made a decision that it was worth the risk running the story as-was, in order to make sales) isn't hidden away among the classifieds in tiny print.

Maybe you could get some newspaper to print a huge story about some pedophile or murderer that lived or worked in a building at the address that the Star is currently at - leaving out the fact that they lived/worked there back in 1834 ?

Randolph · 05-02-2010 01:02PM

I'm not familiar with the case or the article - but I think I need to jump to the defense of whatever journalists were involved here.

This article was a report of a court appearance - and the address was read out in court. If its mentioned in court, it's public knowledge and the paper has a right to print it. If this is the address he has given to the court then there is nothing the paper can do - they can't print any other address, and can't really stray from anything that wasn't said in the hearing.

I'm only guessing this is the case - but having worked as a journalist before, I'm guessing this is what happened here.

Also, to people who say addresses shouldn't be printed - blame the libel laws of the country, not the Journalists. As the law stands - if the paper didn't print an address, anybody with the same name as the accussed would have grounds for suing the newspaper. So the papers are forced to print the addresses (which are public knowledge anyway, being read out in court)

Now, the Star has done horrible stuff before - but in this case, I don't see really what they could have done differently.

NothingMan · 05-02-2010 01:06PM

2 guys in work but the Star everyday and I remember a few years back coming in and having a flick through and on page 5ish there was a full page picture of a girl I knew with a headline and story saying "Irish girls body found after rape and murder etc... in Germany".

The poor girl in the pic had died a year before after excessive alcohol and a bump on the head on my road. She just happened to be a name sake of the other girl who was raped and murdered in germany.

It must have been horrible for the family to see that picture and caption when they have already lost a daughter. From all evidence more research goes into an AH post than some stories in the Star. Extremely irresponsible and dangerous "Journalism".

Randolph · 05-02-2010 01:07PM

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Papers are also quite legally entitled to print the names and addresses of people accused of crimes. 'Trial by press' is for some reason allowed in this country.

Names should be withheld until after a conviction. And even then, there are times when names should be withheld permanently to protect the identity of victims.
As for addresses, I don't see how publishing the address benefits anyone. It can only possibly lead to vigilante attacks or innocent family members/residents being harmed.

Again, this is a matter for the laws, not the papers. It is the duty of the papers to report what is said in a courtroom. Names and addresses are read out publicly - and thus the public is entitled to know what they are under Irish law (and most developed democracies).

cock robin · 05-02-2010 11:31PM

In tribal Africa people like this were handed over to the skinning men. They were skinned alive. Other forms of punishment included both arms and legs being dipped into boiling oil. I wish we could punish cnuts like this without the bleeding hearts getting involved. It would certainly deter any other pervs.

FannyMcGee · 05-02-2010 11:43PM

The Star is sh*te - it doesn't even have Page 3 burds, ffs.

Mike 1972 · 05-02-2010 11:54PM

Randolph wrote: »

Names and addresses are read out publicly - and thus the public is entitled to know what they are under Irish law (and most developed democracies).

Judges can order names and addresses of those guilty of rape not to be released/published if it is deemed necessary to protect the victim

Yet a name/address of a person cleared of the same crime is allowed to be printed.

How the hell does that make any sense ?

There should be a general presumption against addresses (be they of defendants, plaintiffs, witnesses ot jurors) been given out in open court unless it can be shown that there is a real need for doing so.

dylano_k · 06-02-2010 01:01AM

Two priest's were taking a piss in the urinals one day and the one priest looks down and see's a nicotine patch on the other guy's dick. He says Im not really a rocket scientist or anything, but, isnt that supposed to be on your arm? And the other priest goes Nah, it's working fine. Im down to two butts a day!

Seen the Irish Daily Star today?

Comments