Following this week’s ruling in the Cliff Richard case, the press is crying “foul”, citing freedom of expression and the public interest.
This has been compounded by the decision to name two teenagers who have been convicted of planning a Columbine-style massacre and the application for anonymity by another teenager, convicted of encouraging someone in another country to commit an act of terrorism.
These are very different scenarios. On the one hand a well-known personality who was never arrested, let alone charged or tried, has had his life turned upside down by what was essentially a police fishing expedition. On the other, convicted criminals who are, nevertheless, teenagers who may simply grow up and build constructive futures once they have served their time.
Cliff ‘s name will be tainted for the rest of his life, as will the names of less well-known people whose lives have been ruined on the basis of no more than a malicious false accusation or a whispering campaign.
Only a couple of weeks ago, newspapers reported extensively on the arrest of a nurse for “murder” (The Times, which didn’t even know whether there have been a crime). The story quickly vanished disappeared from the headlines within a few days, but remains permanently on the record.
Some years ago, I knew someone who was arrested for a particularly nasty murder purely on the basis of police suspicion. In the pre-internet age he was able to prove his innocence and move on to lead a successful life.
There are undoubtedly cases where suspects should be named, either to protect the public or because there is a genuine public interest, but the press and the police have both demonstrated that they are not the best people to make this decision. There are also cases where the press has been wrongly silenced (Cyril Smith) and wrongly remained silent (Jimmy Saville).
Whilst there should be no rush, pace publicity hungry MPs, to enact a “Cliff’s Law”, there is a case for debate Yes, there should be freedom of the press, but there should also be freedom from lives being ruined by lazy and incompetent police and lazy, headline grabbing reporting. Naming someone in the online world is not the same as the same as a doing it in a few lines of print in a local newspaper.The balance has changed and should be redressed.
After Work 
There is a counter argument that the ~me too women would never have come forward had Harvey Weinstein not been so publicly named. Similarly 20 women have been brave enough to come forward and accuse Trump of either sexual abuse or an improper relationship. (Yes, they too may have been guilty of adultery, but they aren’t the president claiming to be whiter than white. The more who step forward, the more will step forward.
Sorry, Cliff Richard may well be for ever tarnished. Proven not guilty is not the same as being innocent. Saville, Harris, Bishop Ball, the minister from Orchard Baptist Church Bicester should have been named years ago, had they been named a lot of hurt would not have happened.
The (alleged) murdering nurse will have fallen out of the news until any enquiries have been completed and a case put to the CPS, which could take years. If nothing happens she’ll soon be forgotten. Without checking can you remember the name of the so called “Angel of Death” ? The one with the annoying smirk.
As for the “Columbine Pair” Good. A viscous, sadistic massacre in the planning. May it follow them around for a very long time.
Thanks for your comments.
I don’t mean that people who have been accused or who are under investigation should never be named – simply that what constitutes “public interest” and fair reporting should be reassessed.
The Cliff case is one of those difficult cases which create bad law. The BBC was told about the raid, but the suspected person wasn’t and wasn’t given the right to be present during the search or have a representative present. The raid could have been reported without the use of a helicopter and long range lenses.
Also, Cliff has not been proven not guilty – he was never tried, never charged, never even arrested. Obviously, if you or anyone else has information, they should pass it on to the authorities – otherwise it’s just innuendo.
The papers could perfectly well have reported the nurse’s arrest and the surrounding investigation, naming, for example, the hospital in the same measured tones reserved for court reporting. This would have served the public interest by, for example, prompting people to come forward. If “nothing happens”, will the nurse really be able to continue her career or will the story simply follow her around? I suspect the latter.