but the article is meaningless - refers to a website put up in the public
>interest, yet doesn't give an URL. fat lot of help that is to any member of
>the public who might want the info.
That's odd, almost not worth bothering in a sense.
and, what with detailed description of the content of the site, and a
>picture apparently taken directly from said site, it's pretty clear that the
>site in question is Martyn's (the URL has, I'm sure, bee aired in here
>several times), and thus has hardly been created by "angry members of the
>local community". Angry, maybe. Local, not exactly, not in Sheffield.
Not really. I only became aware of the article yesterday, and even then only found it on the site as the original article apeared last week. I have never denied being centrally involved with the site, however it isn't 'my site', and there are others involved who are indeed 'local' - or at least, a lot more local than I in a geographic sense - however, given the context within which
There's also an implication that the site has recently been created, which
>isn't exactly true either - it's been at its current domain since the
>beginning of April and was transferred pretty much unaltered from the
>previous location.
I think that's probably pretty much down to media fudge more than anything else.
I for one would like to see a bit more accuracy in the media.
You can say that for every single story covered in the media. 'Those in the know', or, those who have first hand experience of any circumstances which are eventually reported will always say that the report was not totally correct. This is the way it goes, I'm afraid. A fair, unbiased and correct press sadly I fear, wouldn't be popular amongst the people who consume it.
In one respect it is apparently accurate, not worth anyone going to Swansea
>tomorrow as the hearing was moved to H-west yesterday, which the paper
>seemed to know about.
Again, 'seemed to know about' tends to suggest covert mutterings in smokey pub bars - again, one simple telephone call is all it takes to extract information in the public domain. No secrets broken, no backhanders, no collusion, not in any way 'dodgy'.
and another point, about the question of bail, etc., - by publishing such
>things, the local paper will very likely create conditions where the guilty
>party is forced to move out of the area (since no-one will be keen to rent
>him property), which hardly helps. This, you could say, is an argument
>against granting bail, but it's also an argument for restraint on the part
>of the press and others.
Or you could say that it's in the direct interests of public safety to allow the press to make locals aware of a direct risk to the wellbeing of their community? Especially so when the offender concerned has pleaded guilty.
Now - there follows a huge question about this leading to vigilante action - which I do not agree with in the slightest.
I am personally quite happy though, that Luckwill is getting a little taste of his own medicine. I also have a few 'issues' to take up with the University of Wales at Lampeter. They do appear to be very 'accommodating' in other respects, so this should be swiftly resolved.