AddThis SmartLayers

Editor warns readers over naming of puppy torture youths

ChunkyA weekly editor has publicly warned readers not to name four youths who tortured a puppy after his staff were accused of “cowardice” for not doing so.

Leo Whitlock, of Thanet Extra, published an editorial telling readers they could face prosecution for naming the youths, who have been sentenced for their attack on the dog.

The quartet were all aged 15 or 16 at the time of the offence.

After reporting on the sentencing, trainee reporter James Rose and news editor Julia Collins received emails from angry readers accusing them of “cowardice” for not naming the youths.

In response, Leo penned the editorial which appeared in Extra and on parent company the KM Group’s KentOnline website.

The newspaper also had to take stories about the attack down from its Facebook page because people were posting the names and pictures of the defendants.

Wrote Leo: “Readers have struggled to understand how four youths, three aged 16 and one aged 15, could be so vicious, so cruel and so savage.

“They have struggled to understand the leniency with which they were treated by the courts. And they have struggled to understand why we have not named and shamed them.

“Put simply, the law does not allow us to and if we did we would be prosecuted.

“That will not change no matter how many readers email our reporter to accuse him of cowardice and take to social media to do the same.”

The Extra reported how chihuahua cross Chunky was stolen, set on fire and dumped at a rubbish tip with a broken neck and leg in one of the most disturbing cases of abuse an RSPCA inspector has ever seen.

Chunky, pictured above left after making a full recovery from the attack, has since been returned to his owner.

Three of the teenagers pleaded guilty in October to cruelly ill-treating the animal in a way which they knew would cause him to suffer unnecessarily, and were all disqualified from keeping all animals for five years, given a referral order for 12 months and ordered to pay costs.

One of the youths was made to pay £1,000 and the other two £500.

A fourth youth pleaded guilty to the same offences under the Animal Welfare Act, at a trial at Folkestone Youth Court last week.

He was also disqualified from keeping animals for five years and given a referral order for twelve months, plus his father was made to pay costs of £5,800.

In his editorial, Leo added: “The fact is those readers that are sharing the names and pictures of the teenagers involved on the internet are at risk of prosecution themselves.

“And by posting messages about what they would like to do them, you could find yourself facing a fine or worse. One man has already been given a fixed penalty notice for threatening behaviour.

“In that instance it might be you appearing in the newspaper or on our website.

“Sometimes it feels there is one rule for established media and another for the wild west that is the internet. There isn’t. Be warned.”

Leo told HTFP: “We are big enough and ugly enough to take whatever criticism comes our way but James was getting quite a bit of stick very unfairly.

“There is no reason why our readers would understand the law relating to youth courts so I thought it might be helpful to explain – and save James the job replying to lots of emails.”

18 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • December 2, 2015 at 8:07 am
    Permalink

    Some people can be shockingly ignorant so good on Leo for mounting such a robust defence – but why was the reporter given a byline for a court report?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(8)
  • December 2, 2015 at 9:17 am
    Permalink

    More and more reporters do, thankfully my paper still implements a “court reporter” byline across the board for court/inquests

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)
  • December 2, 2015 at 9:32 am
    Permalink

    Well done Leo. The regional press needs to do more to educate the public, especially when they have a big story on their patch and because someone has been charged cannot satisfy readers’ needs for the full story. I wish I had a fiver for every time I have had to explain what is meant by ‘ we cannot name this person for legal reasons’.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(5)
  • December 2, 2015 at 9:54 am
    Permalink

    Good luck with that Leo. I once tried to explain to people on Facebok why they should stop identifying the child victim in a sex abuse case. They were angry that the case had been brought and the defendant named in the paper. It wasn’t my story or my paper but that didn’t stop the idiots from turning on me. People go feral on social media, even the intelligent folk.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • December 2, 2015 at 11:38 am
    Permalink

    The public’s knowledge of newspaper law is at best minimal. On quite a few occasions I’ve known defendants to call in the office or ring up to demand to know “who gave us the right to publish their court case without their permission”. Several times the conversation as ended with me replying “so sue away, if you want”.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(6)
  • December 2, 2015 at 12:33 pm
    Permalink

    Perhaps it’s time we ditched the “cannot be named for legal reasons” clause in court reports and ran a simple sentence stating: “It is against the law to name the victim/accused”.
    Or better still, disable comments when posting court cases on websites.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • December 2, 2015 at 3:25 pm
    Permalink

    I always used to disable comments on the website for court cases. The problem comes when the story is shared on Facebook. Then you have no control.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • December 2, 2015 at 4:32 pm
    Permalink

    desker. I see your point but any reader seeing “court reporter” or “staff reporter” asks themselves “Don’t they know the name of their own reporters?”. I have seen these bylines dozens of times “staff reporter” when it is re-written agency copy. Bit cheeky!
    Since court reports are a gift ( no investigation needed just decent note taking and good concentration) the idea of no byline is best.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • December 2, 2015 at 6:01 pm
    Permalink

    Why is no byline best? There is not a single story I would not put my name to. Shouldn’t all reporters want their name on a decent story? We are fully accountable to our readers. What kind of message are we sending out if we don’t have the balls to put our name on our copy?
    I also disagree strongly with the assertion that court reports are a “gift”. Isn’t that insulting to court reporters? There’s a lot more to court reporting than good shorthand and concentration. I’m lucky enough to have worked with some very good operators during my career. In my experience, court specialists are often the workhorses. Good ones will be able to switch from ‘news’ to ‘features’ in a flicker and have backgrounders in the bag, ready to go when the verdict comes in. They’ll be well known to the clerks and ushers, as well as the lawyers. They’ll know how to keep certain judges on side, how to appease stroppy ones, how to get that juicy CCTV footage and victim photos (that we should get, but we all know are not forthcoming from courts) etc.
    If your paper is relying on agency court copy (rewriting court copy – sounds dodgy – trust the writer or spike it) to fill pages, you’re in trouble.
    Just my view.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • December 2, 2015 at 6:56 pm
    Permalink

    He got a byline because it was not court reporting – in fact, it was nowt but a turned around RSPCA press release, which had precious little ‘work’ in it. All James Rose did was cut and paste, and for that I reckon he deserves a byline. Good to know the KM are really giving their trainees solid experience at hunting down stories!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • December 2, 2015 at 7:36 pm
    Permalink

    Did the paper make any moves at the time to court officials in order to try and have any of the perpetrators named? Given the quite henious circumstances?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • December 2, 2015 at 8:42 pm
    Permalink

    It can only get worse because people think they have the right to say what they want. It needs a new law or whatever to make it quite clear to joe public that you cannot say what you like on a social website such as Facebook. It also needs someone in authority to have the guts to prosecute someone outside of journalism who transgresses the line.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 3, 2015 at 10:00 am
    Permalink

    @hackette: the reason for a “court reporter” or “staff reporter” is JP’s wonderful page template’s which require a byline to be entered.

    Something that has just this last month become a “required field” in our web uploads also

    @Kevin, the reason for not putting a name is not our of not standing behind a story it is due to the nature of the world we live in, especially in small local towns.

    In my first job, with an unusual surname like mine, it was easy for people to find me on social media and even though my accounts were private, my parents and siblings were not, after the third time of someone threatening to rape/kill/beat my young sister (yes all reported to the police) I came to be less precious about bylines

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • December 3, 2015 at 10:01 am
    Permalink

    Kevin – It’s standard practice not to put bylines on court reports. Please tell me I don’t have to explain why.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(1)
  • December 3, 2015 at 1:38 pm
    Permalink

    When I started out as a reporter 50 years ago, bylines were a rarity.
    Only features and comment pieces qualified for this grudgingly bestowed ‘honour’.
    Our soccer writer was known as Flag Kick. The rugby man was The Scout. I wrote a cricket column by Umpire and a youth column by Junior. The daily gossip column was by Hamtune and its weekly equivalent by the pseudonymous John Crispin.
    Like all journalists, I was always proud of my bylines when they eventually came into fashion, but I’ve never really understood their purpose.
    I suppose they personalise a piece and improve the look of a page, but do readers really care that Joe Soap reported from the magistrates’ court or that Deidre Dope wrote the women’s page? Doubt it.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 5, 2015 at 10:41 pm
    Permalink

    @desker And I don’t have an unusual surname? If you’re not prepared to put your name to your copy, you shouldn’t be in the industry. We front people up on behalf of readers. We don’t hide behind anonymity. What the hell is happening to our trade?

    @Slate Grey Standard practice? It certainly isn’t up here in Hull!

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 8, 2015 at 6:32 pm
    Permalink

    Bit late to the show here but never mind.

    We had a press release from our local police force a year or so back in which they named the defendant in a YOUTH court case. And I know for a fact the S45 had not been lifted because I had been sat in that very same case! Funnily enough the story very quickly disappeared from the force website after I alerted the press office.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)
  • December 8, 2015 at 6:33 pm
    Permalink

    That should of course have been S49 not S45. Apologies.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(0)