Marine convicted of Afghan murder named

BBC News - Marine convicted of Afghan murder named

I think this is a terrible thing to do! Regardless of whether he is a criminal or not, publicly naming service personnel puts not just them, but their families at risk from all the nutters out there.

:angry7:

 

Its the nutter who kept the footage thats putting their families at risk.

 

That's shocking. I know the Armed Forces need to be seen to be clean, but surely there's a line when it's a high-profile case of split opinions?

 

Maybe so. but does that really mean that the powers that be must compound the error.

 

All over Jan fm but ok he has been found guilty hence the naming but marine b and c were acquited but some pc twat wants to name them with the other 2 marines. Dont they have anominaty being innocent?

 

Sorry, why should being guilty as charged make it OK to positively identify a Serviceman who stuffed up doing his job. He's now been sentenced twice; once correctly by the judicial system and again by any passing fatwa. For Abdul the Dull, it could now be open season on Sgt A's family. I hope I'm wrong but I personally wouldn't want to take the risk. Still, it's not the bloody judge's neck, is it.

We ask blokes to do beastly things for us in some of the words mankiest shiteholes and, occasionally, one of them stuffs up. Military and Civil Law, quite rightly, deals with that. I do believe, though, that we still owe a duty not to place a Serviceman who, for whatever reason, has stuffed up in unecessary danger on completion of his sentence. If the wily oriental gentlemen are happy to saw off the head of a Bandsman who's probably never harmed anyone, how secure's a bloke who's publicly slotted one of their "brothers"?

To the High Court Judge who's closest call to danger's probably been fog on the M4, Well done; support your local Serviceman.

 

This is what is shit about the media, why the **** is it neccessary to release his name? To sell a few papers? Be the one that broke the news?

 

It wasn't the media. It was the courts decided his name could and in their opinion should be released. The media is there to report the news. Try going to a country where the press can't report the news and see how much you like that.
For what its worth I don't believe his name should have been released and I really don't think the names of marines B and C should be released. But its hardly the presses fault.

 

The press printed it to sell stories, end of. Perhaps to satisfy an ideal curiosity some people have, but none the less what good does telling people specifics do? Nothing. The case was covered and the media freely reported and rightly so. But releasing a name and putting people through further strife, torment and upset for no beneficial reason to people is crap. He will pay his dues in the manner devised by the justice system, no need for the populace to be aware of who he is imo. The courts allowed it but they choose if they print it, just my opinion. Most of the tabloids are rubbish.

 

I don't think you understand how the press works.

 

I think we know exactly how the press work, they bribe public officials, hire people to hack telephones, even of families in distress, and report the names of military personnel to allow their families to be persecuted.

 

Sandy go to China or North Korea and see how their press differs, you don't realise how lucky and fortunate you are to live in a free country with a free press. The courts ruled his name should be made public, the media didn't go to court and ask the judge. I can't see why the judge allowed his name to be made public, it doesn't exactly serve the public interest and will probably make his family nervous about Islamists retaliating against soldiers like those f**king scum in Woolwich. Islamists are that low they would most likely go after women and children.

 

IMO yes we are extremely fortunate to live in a country that has anything that even resembles a free media from a government perspective. To say uk tabloids on the whole are 'free' i think it a load of hooey though. As the poster above alluded to they have too many vested interests, too many people with agendas they wish to push that essentially govern them to remain free and impartial. A different type of loss of freedom not imposed by the government (thank god) but the media corps and publications themselves. Just my opinion anyway, not trying to convince anyone or prove i think i am right, just interesting to hear peoples varying ideas.

 

The issue of a free press is that it is subject to private ownership. Although the owners usually deny that they have any influence over editorial content, the Murdoch-owned mulch shows that up for the laughingly obvious double-speak we all know it to be. But it was ever thus - which is why newspapers have a political leaning and always have had.

The curse of private ownership then is not that the owner may influence the content (what is and more importantly, what is not reported) but that they need to sell to make profit. So we have had the gradual decline in selling papers to inform and have moved towards selling to entertain. It is all just to sell copy, and content is tailored to what is seen to be popular which means that they have lost focus on what they are really supposed to be there for. With the advent of digital content as well now, this double-whammy has meant the papers are seeing a rapid decline as they tail-spin towards oblivion. What is killing them is speed - but being first is not the game now for them. What they have and always should be is a repository of history. It will be a sad day when the last "newspaper" is printed, but they are the architects of their own destruction to a great extent and the writing has been writ large upon the wall for some time.

 

Jesus Christ. OK - we have a free press but that's not enough to excuse several posts about sucking our own dicks with excitement.

The media is fairly well famed for ****ing up most PR efforts of the Armed Forces and mis-reporting the rest (either due to ignorance or on purpose, depending on who owns the paper). An element of this is down to our own piss-poor media management (which, yes, I have witnessed first hand on several occasions).

But this thread is nothing to do with press freedom - it is to do with naming an individual who proved his bravery over a long period of time and made an error of judgement for which he is being punished. Naming him extends this punishment to his friends and family. It was done by a judge operating in a culture where he would have been severely criticised for not naming him regardless of his personal thoughts. This culture is certainly encouraged by the media as it helps them sell papers.

So yes we have a free press, but that does not means we should all sing hallelujah. There are many other markers of civilised society which are not so divisive.


Posted from the Navy Net mobile app (iOS)

 

Whilst I agree that this guy should have been prosecuted for his actions, I think that releasing his name is very much the wrong thing to do. Given the lengths that our judicial system go to protect the new identity of scum like John Venables, but they won't think twice about putting an innocent family in danger. Disgraceful decision IMO.

 

two teir system bud, two teir. We aint on the top one.

 

What Tiddlyoggy said! Disgusting decision.

 

So you've never given the publishers money by buying a newspaper then..? :?

 

News that officers were allegedly paid so much in bribes has caused shock and concern within Scotland Yard, where the directorate of professional standards is now investigating the matter. There have been calls for an external force to be brought in to investigate the scandal –Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, has said someone else should wash the Met's dirty linen in public.

The Guardian.

Not really the same as buying a newspaper is it? Your analogy sucks.