I do have sympathies i promise you. I was very lucky I didn't make the press, but an organisation I was involved in was very unprofessional in how they dealt with it, leading to loads of stupid rumours & gossip going round. I also had the policeman lie to me, make up cell records & lie to the judge - eg saying I applied for a job with children which was complete fantasy.

I changed solicitor shortly after that, & they advised me to concentrate on getting the best result in my case & forget about the rest of it. They agreed with me about the organisation, but sensibly pointed out what happened was done, nothing we could do could prevent it & all it would do is almost certainly result in some form of press or Internet coverage, completely negating the work they were doing to avoid it.

Same with the police thing. A newspaper might love all the things I could tell them. However when they ask me whether I pleaded guilty & what for, they wouldn't give a damn about how I was treated & most people would probably say that's the least i deserved & police should have given me a good beating too. If you don't commit a crime, you generally don't have anything to worry about, so I'm heading towards Ian's initial response here, as clearly with me too, i only learnt how the police work because I broke the law. Stay within the law & their policies don't affect you.

Its an interesting subject though. I saw the front pages of the red tops today & a comedian was mentioned in the same headline as Saville cops. Now some might argue his career ended years ago, but its definitely ended now, yet if you get past the headline, regardless of the fact he has denied everything, the charges are not offences against children, yet i bet anyone just reading the headline will have assumed that. The paper hasn't printed anything factually incorrect, but they've written it in such a way to make it as explosive a headline as possible.

If your an Internet offender, surely you must have read the stories in the papers about people being arrested for it? I did & it terrified me. But I didn't thing I was downloading anything illegal so like an idiot, carryied on looking at questionable sites convincing myself it would never be me. I know now I could easily have been me, & if I did it again I may not be so lucky to avoid press & family & friends may also be targeted. Another very good reason to learn my lesson first time

Yeah, I will say I agree with the point about the local press almost certainly being held to a lower standard of decency and accountability than the national press and though small they can in some ways do as much, if not more damage than a national paper and yes, that FC's family suffered is indefensible...

...but whaddyagunnado...As far as ex sex-offenders like us go, discretion is almost always the better part of valour. We just simply cannot and will not win.

We can't look at other groups who have been persecuted in the past and say 'but they stood up for themselves and look what they achieved'. Nobody is ever going to face-palm themselves and say 'What have we been thinking? Those poor ex sex-offenders, they're such victims of our prejudice.' Ain't gonna happen. We did something loathed by virtually all societies. We don't have any moral high ground to argue from.

Nope, keep our head down, get some distance from the places where we lived and people we used to be and do the best we can.

FC, you're wasting your time.

The Leveson inquiry was (amongst some other things) about innocent people subjected to unfair press intrusion.

You, like me and the rest of us on this site, weren't innocent.

The public don't give a rats ass about you and neither, if they're smart, will any politician.

If the things printed about you weren't true, you'd have a case for libel but I suspect what was written about you, like what was written about me, was probably factually correct or at least correct as far as common usage of the English language goes.

I'm not defending the actual press here (especially not the local press, who are generally below contempt) but if the press can't print a story about someone (i.e. me, you et bloody al on here), who have done something pretty bad in the eyes of society then how will they be able to print stories about things that are even more important.

Yeah, it's nasty having those stories printed. If it hadn't been for the SomewhereOrOther News I'd have probably had a lot less trouble in my life but hey, those are the consequences of what I did.

We were in the press (local or otherwise) because of what we did. We're not victims fella!

I have to agree with Ian FC (pass the smelling salts!). You must have been a bit of a name locally for the local press rats to be on your doorstep after only being interviewed. Normal plebs in the local rags are usually chip paper the next day.

Saying that, taking pics of your family is unjustified.

The point is valid - are the local press subject to the same controls and standards as the national press? Obviously you can sue if there is a blatant libel, but to local hacks see themselves as somehow different to the big hitters.

Obviously local news will become national news if interesting enough and you often see local reports get a column or two in the national press a couple of days later.

But where were the assurances that Leveson was addressing local news problems alongside Hugh 'gobbler' Grant's concerns?

FC, no doubt it seems the local press relished the 'scandal' of a local 'do-gooder' falling from grace. Like I said, pursuing your family was not warranted, and would not I feel come under the tag of 'consequences'. They (the press) had the choice as to whether to take that approach or not.

But at the end of the day, we are where we are and as I believe you’ve mentioned previously FC, you’re a repeat offender, fair game to all. I’m surprised you got all this ‘interviewing other people’ stuff for downloading; I got the daily papers and even then they didn’t interview . . . must have been quite high profile in your case then? Or is there something you’re not telling us?

So, what are you saying; that they got the membership thing wrong, but the rest was right? They’re entitled to get other people’s opinions about you as well. What are you expecting, a letter of apology from the media, or a knock on the door from Brookes and Coulson to tell you they’re sorry? Libel? You got found guilty, didn’t you?

“The press never asked me for my viewpoint . . . Even though there were factual lies in their articles I did not dare complain to them . . .”, but yet you’ve spent years complaining to everyone else and by your own admission, messing the authorities about, petitioning, appealing . . . ? Nope, you can’t win, best not to commit crime in the first place then? Now if you hadn’t done anything, yes, then you would be entitled to complain.

I agree that it’s often a trial by the public, but I assume, like your posts, that your submission to the inquiry was an endless complaining about your own case and how hard done by you have been? This was an inquiry into the media, not your individual tale of woe. What’s the point of all this? You had your 15 minutes of fame, you put forward your arguments . . . it’s over and done with and hopefully a lesson learned?

---

With all due respect
Regards

Marmite

Emerging from the basement into the light of day. Wise words from the Fox; (picks himself up off the floor) . The inquiry was a waste of time and Cameron has already stated he’s ‘going to have a word’ with the media about it. All these inquiries do is take the pressure off the heat of the moment and by the time they’ve finished, no one can remember what all the fuss was about in the first place. Who now remembers the News of the World?, it’s old news and I suspect that the majority of the public, if asked, would now think Rebbeca Brookes was a horse! That’s what you’re now flogging, a dead one.

---

With all due respect
Regards

Marmite

“Nope, keep our head down, get some distance from the places where we lived and people we used to be and do the best we can . . .”

“If it was me I would never, ever mention it again and would of changed my name, moved country and started fresh.”

Yep!

---

With all due respect
Regards

Marmite

Newspapers sell news. They don’t give it away for free and so if you’re going to buy one it had better be good. It had better make you go, ‘oooh’ instead of comments about Mrs Jones’s cat being stuck up a tree – again; that’s twice this week now.

What you are seeing is supply and demand and that never ceases. It also applies to newspapers. People want to hear about the Kardishians; people want to watch the inane mental ramblings in reality shows. What’s true or false hardly matters any more and the problem with going down that path in an already dumned down society, is that it’s an endless quest to elaborate on what has gone before. It then gets to the point where papers have to draw in the public to pay for this sort of thing, tap their phones and interrogate people, all in the quest for more and better.

News doesn’t sell, but give me access to Tony Blair’s wardrobe today and tomorrow I’ll be a millionaire, because I’ll be able to tell you what colour underpants he wears. Or rather, I’ll sell this ‘news’ to the papers and you will go out and buy them. Who knows, that might even lead on to my own reality show . . . soon you’ll be able to say, ‘I knew him, he said hello to me once” and in turn you might became famous. Yes, a bit frivolous I know, but isn’t that the way it works now?

‘Local man arrested for downloading porn’? Borrrring! How about, ‘Local man arrested for downloading porn. Neighbour says she saw him performing satanic rites in his back garden and the local greengrocer commented that he sometimes used to come and buy apples in here from my wife! (Wow, she had a lucky escape). That’s better - that’s what sells papers.

---

With all due respect
Regards

Marmite

Post Edited (forever changes) : 02/01/2013 15:13:06 GMT

not really - but sometimes I get deluded into thinking I live in a fair, open and democratic society and need reminding that's not the case