Sussex Police have confirmed they are liaising with the CPS to look into whether social media users are committing a criminal offence. On Tuesday a Sussex police spokesman said: 'We are aware that the girl has been named on a number of social media sites.'
He added: 'We will be talking to colleagues from the Crown Prosecution Service about to establish whether there are any social media offences and if so what action should be taken.'Yes, it's the Forrest case. Which is already raising serious questions about the competence of the authorities and the motives of some deeply unpleasant people in fakecharities.
The case highlights the problematic nature of people breaking laws designed to protect the identity of victims of crime by identifying them on social media.With one special little wrinkle This is, after all, no thugball player gettin' jiggy wit it with some teenager with stars in her eyes and a lassaiz-faire approach to moral standards accompanied by most of his team.
The identity of the girl was widely reported on at the time of her abduction.And now, despite her name being on everyone's lips, her picture being in every paper and more hourly updates on the case than there's yet been for some ailing South African ex-terrorist, everyone must profess that, verily, they know her not.
The law seems intent on proving it's an ass, doesn't it?
As the Magistrate pointed out on his blog, there's no way to avoid this paradox in abduction cases.
What the law should do it get over itself and accept that a name coming in to the public domain is the lesser of the evils.
There was a strange old lace and lavendar smell over there, though, as if merely refusing to allow a name to be printed in the dead tree press would somehow make people forget a name. They don't appear to understand search engines at all, despite sitting in front of one.
Part of the problem, I fear, is that if the authorities do the logical thing in this case (i.e. nothing), they'll be criticised anyway. Damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
I suspect involving the CPS is simply a resource-wasting Arse-Protection exercise.
There was a strange old lace and lavendar smell over there.....Bystander to a tee, pompous cock!
Re the ex-Terrorist though, just how will the handwringing lefty twats mark his passing? We've already named all the buildings and streets and erected plaques and statues - just what can 'WE' do? How vexing.
I'm guessing the point of the law is to suppress repetition, allowing her to fade from public consciousness. If so, these should just be scare-tactics. Something to help her out of the bear pit without actually having to prosecute people for failing to forget.
Of course, that's social engineering, which legislation will always be terrible at.
It would appear Apple carries-on regardless.
Those who use iTunes on either Apple or Windows gear have to agree:-
" ..... that you will not use these products for any purposes prohibited by United States law, including, without limitation, the development, design, manufacture or production of nuclear, missiles, or chemical or biological weapons.
Just how Apple will sanction someone who, to calm their nerves, listens to "Love is all around" whilst brewing up a batch of Anthrax, is not disclosed.
But, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
"What the law should do it get over itself and accept that a name coming in to the public domain is the lesser of the evils. "
I think that's the best option. On Twitter, JohnB has suggested the name be withheld during the search, but that's impractical.
"I suspect involving the CPS is simply a resource-wasting Arse-Protection exercise."
"...just how will the handwringing lefty twats mark his passing? We've already named all the buildings and streets and erected plaques and statues - just what can 'WE' do?"
Get Goodyear ort Firestone to name a tyre after him?
"I'm guessing the point of the law is to suppress repetition, allowing her to fade from public consciousness."
Sensible, in the days of print media. Pointless, in the internet age.
"But, YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED."
Post a Comment