Yewtree - No Further Action Against This Man

[hc4361]

So why isn't it headline, front page news?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2324373/Jimmy-Saviles-Radio-1-producer-faces-action-arrest-months-ago.html

[FredPuli43]

Because people are arrested on suspicion all the time and no charges result. If the Daily Mail didn't name people on arrest and put them on the front page, they wouldn't feel a need to advertise that the people had not been charged

[hc4361]

There was lots of nasty gossip in the press about this man from people 'in the know' that was given too much newspaper space.

[VHG]

I find it rather unfair that people like this get their name blasted all over the media when they are arrested. Yet the accuser stays anonymous.

And in the end no charges are to be brought against him.

In 2003 the actor Matthew Kelly was arrested while appearing at a theatre in Birmingham, and the poice actually went to the theatre to arrest him. A man had accused Kelly of molesting him when he was a young boy.

This was blasted all over the media, but no charges were ever brought.

Kelly was suspended from TV while this matter was being debated.

Surely the police should only "act" and arrest a person when they are planning to take the case to court, not based on a persons "claim".

I think the police are far too heavy handed in cases like this and care nothing for the persons reputation.

[LazyGun]

Not sure why you think it ought to make front page news. I have never heard of this man, was unaaware he had been arrested even in connection with Yewtree until you provided the link.

I am however unhappy about the Polices continued use of arrest then bail - happened in the investigation into phone hacking as well. Some people are tecnnically under arrest for months - At least one individual who worked as an Editor was under arrest/on bail for something like 18 months! - This just not seem fair or just.

And it is not so much the police that release personal details of those arrested is it? It is the media, desperate for storylines, who do that. And no, those bringing allegations of especially sexual/child abuse or rape or similar should have their anonimity protected, regardless...

[FredPuli43]

Agree, LG. A person is supposed to be arrested on reasonable suspicion at he time. Two problems are possible. One is that the suspicion was not reasonable in the first place. If some man was to claim that I'd assaulted him 20 or 30 years ago, I'd hope that the police would have enough sense to see that that was manifestly implausible and look into the complainant's background and character and then go looking for some supportive evidence, such as recent complaint to others at the time, before deciding that the suspicion was reasonable. The second problem is the delay. It should be possible to find evidence to support a charge or a decision not to charge within weeks. If not, the suspect should be told there is no charge. There is nothing to stop them being rearrested if such evidence turns up.

[mikey4444]

VHG...I agree with you over the unfairness of splashing someone's face all over the newspapers when they are arrested. The media can and often does ruin a person career and reputation, just to increase circulation.

But they can't very well leave the arresting until the matter is brought to court. It just wouldn't work. How would the police be able to assess whether a crime has been committed without interviewing the person accused of the crime ?

[andy-hughes]

Because this man is not a ceclebrity - and therefore of no interest to our celebrity-obsessed society.

It is as simple as that.

Many people will now say that he is innocent, but in fact that may not be so.

'Insufficient evidence' means that the police do not see a reasonable likelehood of a conviction at trial - but that does not mean that there is no evidence - hence the arrest - but that the evidnece may not be compelling enough to secure a conviction.

We get the media we deserve - if the populace was not hungry for the salacious details and scandals so it can hold up its collective hands in horror and disgust - the media would not print them because papers would not sell.

We should not blame the police, or the media, but ourselves as part of society - we cause this situation to arise time and time again.

[mushroom25]

here's another example -

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22537941

the celebrity is named straight away, whilst the "2 other men" will only be named when charges are laid.

[sir.prize]

Apparently it is more important to tell everyone that Rio Ferdinand has retired from interational football.

[jno]

I don't think his arrest was front page news, was it? He's not a big name - you may have heard gossip but he is unknown to me.

[mikey4444]

I have read the link again and what it actually says is that "Detectives confirm there was 'insufficient evidence' to prosecute him"

Insufficient means that there was some evidence but not enough, not that there wasn't any evidence at all. If other words, the DM is implying that a guilty person has slipped through the net.

[hc4361]

That is the standard police reply, though.
If they had sufficient evidence otherwise they would be charging the accuser with wasting police time at the very least.

The police cannot say if a person is innocent or guilty, that is for the court to decide.