ROLF HARRIS

[lillethbanshee]

Dear God when will this abuse stop? :_|

[cherry*135]

Charges or no charges, I don't know why people think it is appropriate to make jokes about about child/sexual abuse.

[katydidthat]

I think that the British justice system and the media made it absolutely clear who the person was.  I googled "Australian entertainer 82" ... and there it was.  That's the shocking thing to me ... not "naming" but making it obvious who the person was.  I've read that he is suicidal ... none of this needed to happen.  

If he abused children, he should be named and charged.  If he abused adult women, he should be named and charged ... but this ridiculous pretense of not naming him, but identifying him is abhorrent. 

[izabsmiling]

Windrake, you acknowledge that the Media have restrictions and that they don't have unlimited  right to Free Speech ? That Censorship does in fact exist and is not always an insult to our Democracy ? 

[izabsmiling]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257

Twitter users: A guide to the law

By Brian Wheeler

BBC News Magazine

People who tweeted photos allegedly of child killer Jon Venables are being charged with contempt of court. It's the latest in a long line of cases that suggest that ordinary social media users need to have a grasp of media law.

Journalists from traditional media are used to going on courses and reading works like McNae's Essential Law for Journalists. Those regularly covering court may have another level of knowledge. But the final resort is always to the expert advice of a media lawyer.

Here are some of the categories of law on which social media users in England and Wales are coming unstuck.

Libel on Twitter

Case: Lord McAlpine falsely accused

Alleged offence: Libel

A tweet is potentially libellous if it damages someone's reputation 'in the estimate of right thinking members of society'”

Outcome: Cases against most tweeters dropped but action still being taken against Sally Bercow, wife of Commons speaker John Bercow

read more; http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20782257

[cherry*135]

 but this ridiculous pretense of not naming him, but identifying him is abhorrent. 

Why is it abhorrent? He hasn't been charged with anything yet. Bailed till May.

There are enough details released for people to work out who it is. It is not as if people are putting 2  + 2 together and coming up with an innocent wrong persons name.

Speaking generally, is it correct that persons on child sexual abuse charges in Australia are never named in the press to protect the child's identity? For instance, if a person was named and  it was reported they had abused their neighbours child, some of the general public could work out who that child is?

[izabsmiling]

from Kangaroo Court of Australia

'Google Julian Assange and see what you get. Assange has not been charged with anything and is only wanted for questioning. Not one main stream media organisation has failed to report that. Other people who have been interviewed by the British police for Operation Yewtree have been named by the media'.

[katydidthat]

Why is it abhorrent?

He is easily identifiable ... saying '82 year old Australian entertainer' is as good as saying the name itself.  As we've seen, the person has been identified and is the subject of all sorts of rumours now.  While withholding the name is supposedly to protect the identity of the person, it has actually resulted in the person being associated with all sorts of crimes.  

In my opinion, the police/courts in the UK should have been up front and honest about the alleged acts.  

[nevynreally]

from Kangaroo Court of Australia

'Google Julian Assange and see what you get. Assange has not been charged with anything and is only wanted for questioning. Not one main stream media organisation has failed to report that. Other people who have been interviewed by the British police for Operation Yewtree have been named by the media'.

Your analogies are pointless. Assange won't allow himself to be questioned. 

The unnamed person who's identity is now the subject of internet jokes did allow themselves to be questioned.

[freakiness]

I think that the British justice system and the media made it absolutely clear who the person was.  I googled "Australian entertainer 82" ... and there it was.  That's the shocking thing to me ... not "naming" but making it obvious who the person was.  I've read that he is suicidal ... none of this needed to happen.  

If he abused children, he should be named and charged.  If he abused adult women, he should be named and charged ... but this ridiculous pretense of not naming him, but identifying him is abhorrent. 

When the RH name was trending people looked in case he had died.... Ah, no not quite.

Polksaladallie, where did you find out the others are not children?

Just curious, as I thought the whole investigation was about underage people.

[freakiness]

Why is it abhorrent?

He is easily identifiable ... saying '82 year old Australian entertainer' is as good as saying the name itself.  As we've seen, the person has been identified and is the subject of all sorts of rumours now.  While withholding the name is supposedly to protect the identity of the person, it has actually resulted in the person being associated with all sorts of crimes.  

In my opinion, the police/courts in the UK should have been up front and honest about the alleged acts.  

He has been named in OS news links.

Yes, revealing the alleged facts would be preferable to the things people can imagine without a clue.