The local rags will print and publish anything the social justice warriors (SJWs) can share on social media and 'name and shame' offenders. Journalistic integrity goes out of the window if it means they get a big number of clicks on their story (they're funded by advertisers who want to see big numbers). One story I saw get a huge reaction - viewing indecent images story suspended sentence - was because of the picture of the offender outside of court with his hands in his tracksuit bottoms. So you don't even need to be a celebrity. (The irony here is that there's been a backlash about celebrities not being able to handle being in the public eye with their mental health and here we have non-celebrities forced to deal with it, especially in their local area, with no help at all). The crux of this whole issue is having a free press being controlled by financial incentives
, it's a race to the bottom.
In cases like one in the original post, if the offender was originally in the press, the paper is within its rights to republish everything about the original case. Then that creates the problem of the SJWs sharing the story on another level and complaining about the sentencing/justice system/lenient judges etc or even if they just missed it first time around. Sex offence stories are white-hot regardless of how interesting the story is/isn't.
I share the worries as I was planning on taking my case back to court after 5 years but now this has put yet another spanner in the works and I've got enough of those as it is. I'm not bothered about my history being checked, I'm bothered about being 'unspent', because of the SHPO rather than the sentence, and being forced to disclose for years to come because I just want to get on with my life. Thanks to JASB for raising this though, it's very useful to know as I was hoping my case would be dealt with behind closed doors.
Fighting or Accepting - its difficult to know which is right and when.