This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2013/may/08/jimmy-savile-police

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Arrests - is it possible to publish names without mud sticking? Arrests - is it possible to publish names without mud sticking?
(5 months later)
My column in today's London Evening Standard concerns the difficulty of drawing a line between privacy and the right to know when reporting arrests.My column in today's London Evening Standard concerns the difficulty of drawing a line between privacy and the right to know when reporting arrests.
It was inspired by the revelation that there had been a 12-day gap between Jimmy Tarbuck being arrested by North Yorkshire police and that fact being reported.It was inspired by the revelation that there had been a 12-day gap between Jimmy Tarbuck being arrested by North Yorkshire police and that fact being reported.
Of all the people arrested in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, Tarbuck is arguably the most famous, especially among TV watchers from the late 1960s to the early 1990s.Of all the people arrested in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal, Tarbuck is arguably the most famous, especially among TV watchers from the late 1960s to the early 1990s.
So his arrest was guaranteed to generate big headlines, as indeed it did. But how was that news received by the public?So his arrest was guaranteed to generate big headlines, as indeed it did. But how was that news received by the public?
In the Standard, I asked a series of questions about possible reactions. Did people understand that "arrest" means nothing more than the fact that police have formally questioned Tarbuck about an allegation? Or did they assume it implied guilt?In the Standard, I asked a series of questions about possible reactions. Did people understand that "arrest" means nothing more than the fact that police have formally questioned Tarbuck about an allegation? Or did they assume it implied guilt?
Did the public realise that arrest need not lead to a charge - that it is, in essence, nothing more than suspicion that a person has committed an offence? Many people who are arrested, as once happened to me in the early 1970s, are entirely innocent of the crime about which they are questioned.Did the public realise that arrest need not lead to a charge - that it is, in essence, nothing more than suspicion that a person has committed an offence? Many people who are arrested, as once happened to me in the early 1970s, are entirely innocent of the crime about which they are questioned.
We may guess at the likely answers, but cannot be sure. Whatever the case, such questions have assumed greater relevance since the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) let it be known that it favoured confidentiality for people at the moment of their arrest.We may guess at the likely answers, but cannot be sure. Whatever the case, such questions have assumed greater relevance since the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) let it be known that it favoured confidentiality for people at the moment of their arrest.
In Tarbuck's case, it would appear that the North Yorkshire force did just that. The comic was arrested on 26 April and placed on police bail. No name was given. But there was plenty of tweeting about his identity before the Daily Mail's report 12 days later.In Tarbuck's case, it would appear that the North Yorkshire force did just that. The comic was arrested on 26 April and placed on police bail. No name was given. But there was plenty of tweeting about his identity before the Daily Mail's report 12 days later.
(Indeed, in a comparable case, there were tweets about the entertainer Rolf Harris having been arrested on 28 March - including one by the deputy news editor of the Daily Star Sunday, Tom Savage - which was retweeted by more than 400 users. Harris's arrest was not reported by papers until 19 April).(Indeed, in a comparable case, there were tweets about the entertainer Rolf Harris having been arrested on 28 March - including one by the deputy news editor of the Daily Star Sunday, Tom Savage - which was retweeted by more than 400 users. Harris's arrest was not reported by papers until 19 April).
ACPO's wishes are impossible to achieveACPO's wishes are impossible to achieve
This problem of the police trying to maintain official anonymity was further illustrated following the weekend arrest of the deputy speaker, Nigel Evans MP. In announcing an arrest, the Lancashire constabulary's public statement did not reveal his name. It didn't stop almost every newspaper doing so within hours.This problem of the police trying to maintain official anonymity was further illustrated following the weekend arrest of the deputy speaker, Nigel Evans MP. In announcing an arrest, the Lancashire constabulary's public statement did not reveal his name. It didn't stop almost every newspaper doing so within hours.
The combination of newspaper editors' commitment to publish and be damned and the difficulty of controlling what appears on social media make ACPO's wishes virtually impossible to achieve.The combination of newspaper editors' commitment to publish and be damned and the difficulty of controlling what appears on social media make ACPO's wishes virtually impossible to achieve.
That doesn't negate the virtue of ACPO's argument. In company with at least three senior judges and various lawyers acting on behalf of arrested suspects, it is adamant that anonymity for suspects should be respected.That doesn't negate the virtue of ACPO's argument. In company with at least three senior judges and various lawyers acting on behalf of arrested suspects, it is adamant that anonymity for suspects should be respected.
To that end, it has advised every police force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to withhold the identities of people following their arrest.To that end, it has advised every police force in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to withhold the identities of people following their arrest.
Both ACPO and the Crown Prosecution Service do draw the line at maintaining anonymity once people are charged with a crime. To do so is regarded as being against the public interest because it could lead to justice being administered in secret.Both ACPO and the Crown Prosecution Service do draw the line at maintaining anonymity once people are charged with a crime. To do so is regarded as being against the public interest because it could lead to justice being administered in secret.
But the same argument could be levelled at the point of arrest. Journalists view arrests in much the same light as charges because it is a formal act by the police, which grants them special powers (search and seizure for example). Editors therefore believe it important for the public to know about arrests. Why?But the same argument could be levelled at the point of arrest. Journalists view arrests in much the same light as charges because it is a formal act by the police, which grants them special powers (search and seizure for example). Editors therefore believe it important for the public to know about arrests. Why?
First, it is seen as part of holding the police to account for their actions. Second, publicity can prove helpful, sometimes on behalf of the arrested person, sometimes on behalf of the police (by encouraging witnesses, either for or against, to come forward). Third, it prevents the exercise of "secret justice", which is untenable in a democratic society.First, it is seen as part of holding the police to account for their actions. Second, publicity can prove helpful, sometimes on behalf of the arrested person, sometimes on behalf of the police (by encouraging witnesses, either for or against, to come forward). Third, it prevents the exercise of "secret justice", which is untenable in a democratic society.
Though I find these media arguments compelling, I am also sympathetic to the people who are arrested because of the potential for reputational harm, especially when the charges involve the alleged sexual abuse of minors. All of us, despite ourselves, are prey to a "no smoke without fire" response.Though I find these media arguments compelling, I am also sympathetic to the people who are arrested because of the potential for reputational harm, especially when the charges involve the alleged sexual abuse of minors. All of us, despite ourselves, are prey to a "no smoke without fire" response.
Though the lines of the argument are clear enough, the solution is altogether more opaque because the balancing of rights is extremely difficult to achieve. On one hand, the individuals should have a right to maintain their good reputation; on the other, society has a right to know what the police are doing in their name.Though the lines of the argument are clear enough, the solution is altogether more opaque because the balancing of rights is extremely difficult to achieve. On one hand, the individuals should have a right to maintain their good reputation; on the other, society has a right to know what the police are doing in their name.
Littlejohn stands up for arrested peopleLittlejohn stands up for arrested people
As I mentioned yesterday, this dilemma was explored by Richard Littlejohn in Tuesday's Daily Mail in a notably even-handed column.As I mentioned yesterday, this dilemma was explored by Richard Littlejohn in Tuesday's Daily Mail in a notably even-handed column.
As a staunch defender of press freedom, he might have been expected to come down heavily on the side of editors demanding the right to publish and be damned. That's one of his consistent themes.As a staunch defender of press freedom, he might have been expected to come down heavily on the side of editors demanding the right to publish and be damned. That's one of his consistent themes.
Instead, he sees the specific problem of identifying people at the moment of arrest from the point of view of the arrested person, who could potentially suffer from false allegations or from botched and/or heavy-handed police investigations. Too often, he notes, mud sticks to innocents.Instead, he sees the specific problem of identifying people at the moment of arrest from the point of view of the arrested person, who could potentially suffer from false allegations or from botched and/or heavy-handed police investigations. Too often, he notes, mud sticks to innocents.
He accepts that the publicity surrounding the arrest of BBC presenter Stuart Hall led to many more victims coming forward, which led to Hall subsequently admitting 13 offences of indecent assault.He accepts that the publicity surrounding the arrest of BBC presenter Stuart Hall led to many more victims coming forward, which led to Hall subsequently admitting 13 offences of indecent assault.
I favoured this argument in a piece I wrote about Hall, Why keeping suspects' identities secret is against the public interest. But I accept that Littlejohn makes a good counter point when he contends that just because these tactics worked with Hall it doesn't mean they are justified in every case.I favoured this argument in a piece I wrote about Hall, Why keeping suspects' identities secret is against the public interest. But I accept that Littlejohn makes a good counter point when he contends that just because these tactics worked with Hall it doesn't mean they are justified in every case.
And an eminent Irish journalist wrote to me after my Hall posting: "I don't believe that naming an arrested person who has not been charged can be justified except perhaps in really extreme circumstances, which I find it hard to envisage."And an eminent Irish journalist wrote to me after my Hall posting: "I don't believe that naming an arrested person who has not been charged can be justified except perhaps in really extreme circumstances, which I find it hard to envisage."
These arguments, despite my leaning towards disclosure, are further proof that this debate is very finely balanced. As my Standard piece concluded: "Does the public interest really outweigh damage, often irreparable damage, to a person's reputation?"These arguments, despite my leaning towards disclosure, are further proof that this debate is very finely balanced. As my Standard piece concluded: "Does the public interest really outweigh damage, often irreparable damage, to a person's reputation?"
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.