how about a spot of BBC ignorance, of the ‘why are we forced to pay for this tosh?‘ variety?
In Genette police file for charges our sharp-minded, ever astute BBC journos report:
Prosecutors are to consider whether to charge a man with the abduction and murder of a Devon schoolgirl in 1978.
Genette Tate, 13, vanished while cycling on her newspaper round in Aylesbeare, where she lived.
Devon and Cornwall Police, who have reinvestigated the case, will send a file to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) early next year.
It will ask the CPS to consider whether charges can be brought against Robert Black, 57, for the murder of Genette.
Britain’s longest missing person inquiry began in August 1978 when Genette’s bicycle and papers were discovered lying in Within Lane at Aylesbeare.
No trace of Genette has ever been found, but detectives discovered that Mr Black was in the area at the time she went missing.
All well and good, and then they conclude with:
Police have held three lengthy interviews with Mr Black in Yorkshire where he lives.
It’s certainly true to say that Robert Black lives in Yorkshire, but stopping the story there make one wonder if having an interest in current affairs, reading newspapers and even just watching the news is still required for BBC journalists and sub-editors these days, for you see, with a little more effort, as little even as typing “Robert Black” into Google and clicking ‘I’m Feeling Lucky!’, even the most otherwise ignorant of BBC journalists should have been able to track down Black’s current address (and hence the rest of the story):
5 Love Lane
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF2 9AG
…to be precise, where he has been resident, courtesy of Her Majesty, since his conviction in 1994 for the murders of three other young girls, Susan Maxwell, 11, Sarah Harper, 10 and Caroline Hogg, 5.
Next they’ll be trying to tell us that Gibraltar is an island!
N.B.: The BBC’s story is timestamped 18:04BST yesterday, and was featured on the front page of News Online until 02:05BST this morning, before being relegated to the West/South West corner of the England page, whilst drivel like Women ‘can’t cook to save their lives’, says celebrity chef, which has been front page ‘news’ since 10.35BST yesterday, remains.
Update: Just in case anyone thinks that publishing the above address is encouraging mob-rule, please do click on the Her Majesty link before complaining! Black is in more danger from his nearest and dearest, with whom he lives, than he is from anyone else. Nor is the matter sub-judice. Even if it were, it is inconceivable that Black’s existing record would go unmentioned in court if there is a trial. His 1994 murder trial depended on the admission of his 1990 abduction conviction as ‘similar fact evidence’.
Update 2 (3pm): The Beeboids have now sneaked back while no one was looking and stealth edited the final paragraph to read:
Police have held three lengthy interviews in Yorkshire with Mr Black.
Nice to know you’re out there paying attention, but would it have been too much to do the decent thing and mention the murder of the young girls for whom Black is currently incarcerated, as you’ve done before?
File this under ‘Not Biased, Just Moronic’:
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/129262.php
DumbJon,
Tragedy
When the feeling’s gone and you can’t go on
It’s tragedy.
🙂
I would suspect the reason the BBC didn’t say he was in prison is that, since the previous criminal record of a defendent isn’t admissable, the BBC were trying not to prejudice potential jurors in the, probably unlikely, event of it coming to trial.
While it does distort the story I sympathise with their quandry here.
Hi Neil, I guess you didn’t click on either the link about ‘similar fact evidence’ or the link showing how many times the BBC have made the connection between Black, Genette Tate and his previous record before then…
Moreover, even if you’re correct, why would they then stealth edit their article after it appeared here if their first (glaikit) version was the result of careful consideration of a legal quandary?
Don’t you know anything about the contempt of court laws? Go away and find out the basics before you criticise journalists for keeping within the law of the land by not revealing this person is a convict.
‘Pisst off’, posting rudely from a BBC IP address (surprise, surprise), suggests that mentioning that Black is a convicted child killer in prison for abducting and murdering little girls is somehow in contempt of court, and that we non-journohacks ought not to dare criticising oh-so-superior professional scribblers who know what’s best when it comes to withholding basic, widely known facts.
Well dear, since you obviously haven’t read carefully what I’ve written or the comments above, there is NO court case yet (there may NOT be one). There is NO court to be in contempt of. Black has NOT even been charged with anything yet.
Even supposing Black is charged and a trial proceeds at some point in the future, it will be months before it commences and a jury is selected – mentioning Black’s convictions nearer to an as yet unknown court case AFTER he has been charged might be in contempt, but it very much depends on what is written or said – there is no absolute blanket ban on media reporting – especially of basic, basic facts such as the fact that Black is a convicted child-killer, as is fairly widely known throughout the population generally anyway.
A pissy little Views Online story like yours, before any charges, months before any potential court case, is NOT going to sway any future jury in any way – and would not be held to have done so. Black’s previous convictions will form part of any such case – the prosecution will claim it is ‘similar fact evidence’, the defence will claim it is the police trying to frame ‘a much maligned man’ because of his existing record.
Lastly, even if it is in contempt of court to mention Black’s current legal situation (i.e. banged up in Wakefield Prison for the murder of three little girls and the attempted abduction of another) in connection with the unsolved murder of Genette Tate, how come the BBC themselves have done it SO MANY times before? (click on the blue text dear, that’s right).
P.S. As I have already said, even if what you said were true, it still does not explain, nor have you attempted to justify, your very twee “…interviews with Mr Black in Yorkshire where he lives” line from your original story that was stealth-edited away after the story was mentioned here.
‘Pisst off’, posting rudely from a BBC IP address (surprise, surprise)
What a pathetic person you are, Pisst off. We are forced to pay for your feather-bedded employment, we should not have to suffer your insults, made under the cloak of anonymity & at our expense. Get back to your work.