Jo Yeates Murder: 500 Sex Offenders Live Nearby.

[eyethenkyew]

The attached Daily Mail link claims that some 500 registered sex offenders are shown as living within a few miles of the home of murder victim Jo Yeates in Bristol.

Is this really helpful in any way regarding the search for Jo's killer? No suggestion that Jo was sexually assaulted has been intimated by the Police (so far?).

It won't help identify these people, something presently denied under existing legislation.
So, what's the point in this revelation? Won't it just create a greater climate of fear for other women living in the Bristol area?

Is this irresponsible, scaremongering journalism, or public spirited reporting?

http://www.dailymail....s-lived-miles-Jo.html

[MarkRae]

> The attached Daily Mail link

Your question has already answered itself...


> Is this really helpful

No, of course it isn't, but who cares about that, right..? The British people are stupid enough to buy this garbage every day...


> It won't help identify these people

As above...


> So, what's the point in this revelation?

There is none, other than to persuade the gullible to part with their cash...


> Won't it just create a greater climate of fear for other women living in the Bristol > area?

Yes, of course it will. But why would the editor of the Daily Mail be bothered about that...?


> Is this irresponsible, scaremongering journalism, or public spirited reporting?

Gosh, I can't work it out! What do you think...?

[mike11111]

Interesting comment, but it sells newspapers, which is the be all and end all of journalism.

[MarkRae]

> You're only making yourself look stupid.

Do not attempt to have a battle of wits with me - you're completely unarmed...

[eyethenkyew]

MarkRae,

You instigated this, not I. Up until now I have never reported anyone on AB but believe me my friend you are flying very close to the wind in that respect.

I have no idea why your comments are so hostile, unhelpful and rude, but I ask you for the final time to temper your personal remarks. Please say nothing if you have no constructive debate. Thank you.

[MarkRae]

> Up until now I have never reported anyone on AB but believe me my friend you are
> flying very close to the wind in that respect.

Go for it! Give it your best shot.

And I'm not your friend...

[Mamyalynne]

eyethenkyew I have looked at your posts and you seem to be very antagonistic, I have no clue why but on an open forum, even you must see that you get and you take.

Will check back tomorrow as bed calls now.

Mamya

[standian]

Eyethenkyew you asked a question you got a response Its known As DEBATE! Doh!!!

[eyethenkyew]

mamyalynne + standian,

Thank you, I've taken your comments on board. Would either of you care to make a constructive observation about the content of the thread itself? That, after all, was my original reason for submitting it.

[standian]

Not with you You need to calm down!

[eyethenkyew]

Thank you standian. Forgive me, however, if I note that you are the one using the capital letters and exclamation marks, not I?

[mike11111]

i do hope that this is not going to be handbags at dawn (pace AP).

[eyethenkyew]

mike11111,

It certainly won't be for me, I'm about to hit the hay. But thank you for the one sensible comment you made earlier.

Nite.

[standian]

I can see Clifton from my window Let me tell you people here are mightily fed up with the mileage not to mention the increased sales the gutter press have enjoyed out of this very distressing crime The Daily Mail in their desperation to find a new angle are stooping to new lows The story shown here .........well not a story at all Most likely dreamt up by a lazy DM hack enjoying a liquid lunch! All very sordid and distasteful IMO !

[Sqad]

Mark...I agree with Mike.

Most of the public are morbid ........Daily Mail sells more newspapers than any other (I think).Sqad helps old lady across a road....no story........Sqad beats up old lady at crossing....big story.........old lady beats up sqad...HEADLINES.

But of course tou are quite correct, it doesnt help, at best it informs and at worse it cause deep concern.................a perfect diet for the populace.

[woofgang]

ooo sqad are you going to give an exclusive story? "My life as an old lady beater and the woman who used her handbag to make me see the error of my ways"

[ummmm]

MarkRae
> You're only making yourself look stupid.

Do not attempt to have a battle of wits with me - you're completely unarmed...

Pmsl...this is the first thread I came into. You're completely unarmed...haha...this coming from a man who seems to disappear to lick his wounds everytime he gets dissed on AB.

What's in your arsenal Mark? A super duper spell checker?

[sara3]

gosh, there is some high-horsery at 3am ;o)

[Huderon]

OK, so first the DM are constantly looking for new angles to keep the story going, and the more sensational it is the better from the point of view of their sales. I agree with MarkRae on this, but I'll put it differently.

So what are they actually saying ? There are 310 people on the sex offenders register in Bristol and another 214 within 15 miles of Bristol. That doesn't actually tell you how many people who have been convicted of sex related crimes there are in the area, just how many people are on the register.

Since the register includes people who have never been convicted of any offence but are thought to be at risk of committing an offence the total may well be accurate, but is also misleading.

The DM is also totally accurate in saying that those convicted are subject to arrangements //for released sex and violent offenders//. However the placement of that statement in the report implies that ALL the people on the register included in the DM total are sex or violent offenders. I know it doesn't actually say that, but it certainly implies it given the overall tone of the piece.

So no, that piece of "journalism" is not helpful or public spirited. It's a piece which deliberately misleads while being totally accurate in order to scare readers, create a degree of outrage in those inclined that way, and raise their readership totals.

Cynical ? Moi ????

[ummmm]

That's not cynical....it's true.

And at least you managed to put it across without sounding condescending...unlike Mark.