Droning on.

[Workingman]

Suff, you might have got the wrong end of the stick. The couple felt 'violated' not because they were arrested based on 'information' from the public, but because they had their names, address and pictures splashed all over the papers in a media trial. Innocent until proved guilty, and all that.

In today's society it would not have taken much for some nutter(s) to 'go after them' in some sort of revenge for the disruption caused; and the papers gave them all the information needed to get to the couple.

[Suff]

OK I'll go with that.

It is no business of the press or the media until it progresses to charges. Arrest is not enough. But, in the 24/7/366 media of today they insist on knowing then break their necks trying to get it to us first.

The only thing I'll hassle the police about is releasing the names. There was no need. Beyond that someone had to be investigated and without arresting them it is extremely difficult to get further.

[Workingman]

Apparently their names were initially released on social media and from there the mediafest began.

Once that had happened I cannot see what the police could have done.

[Suff]

So we're talking about someone who was there or someone who overheard then?

In that case the party they were "violated" by was the one who put it on social media. The press, of course, didn't help.

I get the point about hotheads taking the law into their own hands and the press making it easy. The problem, today, is that people are assumed guilty the moment they are arrested. It makes good news doesn't it..