100 % there are people wanting it to be a player from another club. There are also people that have gone through hell and want justice.
There will be no winners here.
-
The Fighting Cock is a forum for fans of Tottenham Hotspur Football Club. Here you can discuss Spurs latest matches, our squad, tactics and any transfer news surrounding the club. Registration gives you access to all our forums (including 'Off Topic' discussion) and removes most of the adverts (you can remove them all via an account upgrade). You're here now, you might as well...
Latest Spurs videos from Sky Sports
There will be no winners here.
Have a day off ffs. How or where have I said I want somenones name dragged through the mud? All i've been saying, (if you care to read) is I don't want innocent peoples name dragged through the mud.
With all due respect..... Some opinions ARE wrong.
Advertised was merely a figure of speech....
The fact remains that the bigger picture is more complicated than your take requires it to be.
Or maybe I see it slightly different to you?and unless i've missed a briefing, I believe that is allowed.
This is a public forum where EVERYONE is entitled to discuss and give their views, does it have to be the same as your views? no, so allow people to have a point of view without shooting them down and say they are wrong.. Forums would be pretty boring if we all had to have the same opinion.
In effect; that is still what would happen.
I appologise if you found my wording inappropriate; but this can remain civil..... I've been reading fine thx. As welll meaning as it is; your take doesn't consider all factors.
.......what if the accused is innocent?????
If you were wrongly accused of these heanous crimes I cam assure you you wouldn't want to subject yourself and your family to trial by public opinion when you haven't so much as been charged.
Last edited:
Might be helpful for some struggling with what you can or cant say........the answer in my experience is usually don't say anything, but people don't seem to be able to do that nowadays.
News stories about arrests and legal issues are different from the other sorts of articles you will find on The Athletic. They are often incredibly short, for example, and conspicuously light on detail.
We understand this can be confusing. And we understand you might have questions.
But because of “legal reasons” — a frustratingly vague explanation, which we will attempt to explain in far more detail below — these news stories never include the opportunity to leave a comment. So often you get in touch with us or our writers on social media.
We can’t always reply to everyone, so we want to explain why we write these stories in the way that we do.
The reality of football is that it is very difficult for anything to remain confidential, particularly in the era of social media. But there are laws on what we can and cannot report. These laws can perhaps seem anachronistic. But it is essential that responsible publishers, including The Athletic, abide by them.
This is why we report these stories in the way that we do.
In the United Kingdom, arrested suspects have the right to privacy until the police see fit to charge them. That is because being charged is the point in the legal process when the courts have decided there is enough substance to the allegations to warrant linking someone to them.
Before that, the courts consider there is no “public interest” in knowing what someone is being investigated for or has been arrested over.
This is different to how the rules work in the United States, which has quite understandably confused some of our readers on both sides of the pond. We will come on to that in more detail later.
On rare occasions, it is legally OK to name someone before they are charged — for example, if they themselves have spoken out about the situation or if their arrest was highly public.
But otherwise, naming an individual before they are charged is legally and ethically irresponsible.
You do not have to spend long on social media to find people speculating over which individual may or may not have been arrested.
But anybody who names an individual in relation to a criminal investigation risks breaking the law.
Individuals who are being investigated or who have been arrested almost always have a right to privacy up until the moment they are charged with an offence — and this does not only apply to media organisations like The Athletic.
Social media users can also be sued for breaches of privacy, although identifying the person behind the profile is often far more difficult than holding a media company to account.
Other publications may handle stories differently than The Athletic for different reasons. The most common is because they are located in a different jurisdiction, so are bound by completely different laws.
That applies not just to those who have been arrested. It also applies to victims of sexual offences, for example, as well as children involved in court cases. In these instances, we do all we can to protect that right to anonymity.
But there are still some general, non-identifying details that we can responsibly reveal without identifying someone.
Unhelpfully, there is no list of what is and what is not allowed, which explains why rival news organisations covering the same story can end up with subtly different reports with different details.
That is why a 26-year-old Premier League footballer arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of sexual assault, to use a purely hypothetical example, might be described as a footballer in his “mid-20s” arrested in the Midlands.
Otherwise, our reporting could result not just in an invasion of the arrested player’s privacy, but also in potentially libellous speculation around all other 26-year-old Premier League footballers who frequent Birmingham — which would likely be a fairly small number.
There are a few different reasons. As a responsible publisher, we will always turn comments off on stories where what we can report is restricted, out of respect to the individuals involved.
We will also turn comments off on stories that involve a live legal trial.
That is because commenters may inadvertently identify people that they shouldn’t. Or they might comment about whether or not someone facing a trial is guilty or not, which would be a breach of the UK’s contempt laws, potentially jeopardising a trial through the publication of prejudicial information.
At its most serious, contempt can even lead to an entire trial collapsing.
But libel, privacy and contempt of court rules are all very different in the US to the UK. That often means stories that we publish in the UK that involve the UK legal system are subject to different legal rules.
The clearest example of that is coverage of arrests. In the US, arrests are a matter of public record. This means individuals can be identified from the moment they are arrested.
As explained in more detail above, this is not the case in the UK.
US laws naturally apply to UK citizens when in the country — and vice versa.
That is why news stories concerning matters of US law may seem to have far more detail than news stories published in the UK. It is nothing to do with a different set of editorial standards, instead an entirely different legal framework.
What we can and cannot report when a footballer is arrested
Luke BrownNews stories about arrests and legal issues are different from the other sorts of articles you will find on The Athletic. They are often incredibly short, for example, and conspicuously light on detail.
We understand this can be confusing. And we understand you might have questions.
But because of “legal reasons” — a frustratingly vague explanation, which we will attempt to explain in far more detail below — these news stories never include the opportunity to leave a comment. So often you get in touch with us or our writers on social media.
We can’t always reply to everyone, so we want to explain why we write these stories in the way that we do.
The reality of football is that it is very difficult for anything to remain confidential, particularly in the era of social media. But there are laws on what we can and cannot report. These laws can perhaps seem anachronistic. But it is essential that responsible publishers, including The Athletic, abide by them.
This is why we report these stories in the way that we do.
Why does The Athletic not name arrested players?
We never “decide” not to name an arrested person — we are not legally able to.In the United Kingdom, arrested suspects have the right to privacy until the police see fit to charge them. That is because being charged is the point in the legal process when the courts have decided there is enough substance to the allegations to warrant linking someone to them.
Before that, the courts consider there is no “public interest” in knowing what someone is being investigated for or has been arrested over.
This is different to how the rules work in the United States, which has quite understandably confused some of our readers on both sides of the pond. We will come on to that in more detail later.
So when do you name them?
When it is legally permissible for us to do so. That is usually when the individual has been charged.On rare occasions, it is legally OK to name someone before they are charged — for example, if they themselves have spoken out about the situation or if their arrest was highly public.
But otherwise, naming an individual before they are charged is legally and ethically irresponsible.
Why have I seen a name repeatedly mentioned on social media or in other publications?
Let’s start with social media.You do not have to spend long on social media to find people speculating over which individual may or may not have been arrested.
But anybody who names an individual in relation to a criminal investigation risks breaking the law.
Individuals who are being investigated or who have been arrested almost always have a right to privacy up until the moment they are charged with an offence — and this does not only apply to media organisations like The Athletic.
Social media users can also be sued for breaches of privacy, although identifying the person behind the profile is often far more difficult than holding a media company to account.
Other publications may handle stories differently than The Athletic for different reasons. The most common is because they are located in a different jurisdiction, so are bound by completely different laws.
Why do you provide some details but not others?
When we are not allowed to identify someone for legal reasons, we take great care not to do so.That applies not just to those who have been arrested. It also applies to victims of sexual offences, for example, as well as children involved in court cases. In these instances, we do all we can to protect that right to anonymity.
But there are still some general, non-identifying details that we can responsibly reveal without identifying someone.
Unhelpfully, there is no list of what is and what is not allowed, which explains why rival news organisations covering the same story can end up with subtly different reports with different details.
That is why a 26-year-old Premier League footballer arrested in Birmingham on suspicion of sexual assault, to use a purely hypothetical example, might be described as a footballer in his “mid-20s” arrested in the Midlands.
Otherwise, our reporting could result not just in an invasion of the arrested player’s privacy, but also in potentially libellous speculation around all other 26-year-old Premier League footballers who frequent Birmingham — which would likely be a fairly small number.
Why do you turn comments off?
This is one of the most commonly asked questions on social media when we publish a story that does not offer our subscribers the opportunity to comment.There are a few different reasons. As a responsible publisher, we will always turn comments off on stories where what we can report is restricted, out of respect to the individuals involved.
We will also turn comments off on stories that involve a live legal trial.
That is because commenters may inadvertently identify people that they shouldn’t. Or they might comment about whether or not someone facing a trial is guilty or not, which would be a breach of the UK’s contempt laws, potentially jeopardising a trial through the publication of prejudicial information.
At its most serious, contempt can even lead to an entire trial collapsing.
Why is your US coverage often so different from your reporting on UK football?
This is a very good question. At The Athletic, we are fortunate to have a truly international audience, with our readership often split evenly between the UK and the US.But libel, privacy and contempt of court rules are all very different in the US to the UK. That often means stories that we publish in the UK that involve the UK legal system are subject to different legal rules.
The clearest example of that is coverage of arrests. In the US, arrests are a matter of public record. This means individuals can be identified from the moment they are arrested.
As explained in more detail above, this is not the case in the UK.
US laws naturally apply to UK citizens when in the country — and vice versa.
That is why news stories concerning matters of US law may seem to have far more detail than news stories published in the UK. It is nothing to do with a different set of editorial standards, instead an entirely different legal framework.
Not everything is a matter of subjective opinion mate...... Sometimes black is black; grass is green and facts is facts.
Regardless no-one's denied you your say..... So perhaps ease up with that narrative.
How do you know they're innocent though?
And this is the very problem with your logic, if you're putting out a public statement backing the accused and they later are charged you're effectively backing a criminal.
And what about the victim in this case, again if the club backed their player then the fingers would be pointed at the victim practically claiming that she's lying.
Well there you go then...... Perhaps that's where we're at then..... Kinda been the point all along.
.......Just maybe the accused's first port of call has been to seek legal council rather than pander to the baying public?
Not really. It was more like a Baby's puzzle you just had to piece all the different stories together which led to one name of the alleged suspect. The fact is the papers have sensationalised the story and tried to one up each other on how much info they could give without breaking the law of interrupting the judicial process.
Not related to this topic is that Miranda Lambert?3
You don't need to KNOW who's innocent, if they are innocent they are innocent. As there have been many names dragged through the mud then all bar one of those name is innocent.
Again, that was my point, the club would not back the player if they knew he was guilty, that is the point.
No not in this case it's not. You THINK it should be be kept quiet and I THINK those of accused people should protect themselves or loved ones from unwarranted rumours., like Ben Davies did.
None of that is fact, that is all opinion.
So perhaps ease up on the I know everything stance.
Hold up...are you talking about Ben Davies specifically or another player who'd fit the description that plays for us or the Woolwich player?
I've already said, numerous people are being wrongfully dragged into it, it's irrelevant who they play for.
And once again, that is why i'd rather see the arrested person named to protect the others.
Okay that's fine but really the club's shouldn't have to cover up the media's fuck up but I get you point.
On the other hand releasing the person's name who's been arrested on a rape charge - you have hit to be kidding me, what if it's a false accusation...mud sticks.
Sorry boss but you're off the mark here...... I've not said those things (in such a context) and you've said more than just that and those other asoects are the things I've been responding to all along.
What Davies does is his own perogative (ive never said any different)...... And it has no direct bearing on what either a) the acaccused does or b) the name of the accused being released by other means.
I've not claimed to know everything...... In fact I've not claimed to have any kind of solution to the dillema at all......
Regrettably, given the guidelines surrounding police statements and the freedoms (and restraints) of tabloid media there is no ideal scenario here.
The fundamental (righteous) intent behind the law is that the identity of all parties should remain protected until such time that any actual charges are pressed.......
Do you not concurr with that intent?
Last edited: