All 2 entries tagged Daily Mail
View all 3 entries tagged Daily Mail on Warwick Blogs | View entries tagged Daily Mail at Technorati | There are no images tagged Daily Mail on this blog
July 27, 2006
Spot the difference. In February 1997, the Daily Mail declared that five men who were acquitted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence were in fact his killers. They challenged the men to sue them, and they never did.
Today, following a documentary which has raked over the case and uncovered alleged corruption in one of the investigating officers, the Mail has repeated its assertion and its challenge to the men to sue the newspaper.
There's a little more going on here than simply trying to cause a stir. If one of the five men were to sue the Mail, the civil case would almost certainly have to examine the evidence for the Mail's assertion, and would very probably find that the five men did indeed commit the crime. However being a civil case (and under the rules of double jeopardy, which the government has considered scrapping), the men would essentially be found guilty but would not face prosecution. At the moment this would seem to be a best worst option.
But there's a danger in the Mail's use of repetition. Their article notes that at least one of the men has young children and that his neighbours knew nothing of his past until this week's revelations. While it's arguable his neighbours should know who they're living next to, it's very regrettable that his child may face repercussions either at school or in the local community generally. Given the hatred felt towards the five men – probably rightly – it's unwise for their children's identity to be too widely known. Some will argue the men should have thought about that before committing the crime, and realising the effect it would have on their kids, but others will rightly add that their children did nothing wrong and deserve protection.
The Daily Mail is, I'm sure, 100% certain that 1) the men will not sue, and 2) if they did, they'd lose. In which case I wonder if today's headline is a little unnecessary. It will bring unwarranted attention to the men's children while offering practically no chance of a conviction being brought. It's a powerful way to bring the story to people's attention, but by now the court of public opinion knows the men are guilty anyway.
May 12, 2006
Vaya de nuevo a donde usted viene
Go back to where you come from
Usted no está cantando más, usted no está cantando más...
You're not singing any more, you're not singing any more
¿Es usted un gay?
Are you a gay?
Esto es una tienda local para la gente local
This is a local shop for local people
Su cerveza es mierda
Your beer is shit
¿Qué usted le significa no vende pescados y virutas?
What do you mean you don't sell fish and chips?
Sabía que debemos haber ido a Bognor.
I knew we should have gone to Bognor.
- These phrases may, or may not, have been made up by me.