Should we remove old stories from the web when requested? Episode 2
I know the original posting re. this issue created interest and some debate, so I've decided to share the latest episode.
The daughter of a convicted paedophile wrote to me asking for the internet reports on the case, relating to his job at Birmingham children's homes, to be erased.
I can only imagine the pain that the criminal behaviour of the father has caused this woman and her family.
These sorts of pressure to erase conviction reports will continue. I feel it is crucial to maintain the stance of NOT removing any such cases.
My reply to the lady concerned today:
March 18 2009
Dear Ms *******,
Thank you for you letter re. articles on our website concerning your father.
While I sympathise that his conviction has brought shame on your family, I'm afraid I am not in a position to remove his details from our websites.
Criminal convictions in Britain are quite rightly published so that there is a public record of the offences committed.
In this case, your father was convicted and jailed for eight years for indecency offences involving boys, a most serious offence.
His crimes were in Birmingham and would have affected many people and families in the circulation area of this newspaper.
I strongly feel this should not only have been recorded but also that articles relating to these incidents should remain online.
Yours sincerely
Steve Dyson
Editor,
Birmingham Mail
Older/Newer
« Someone in power, somewhere, MUST do something about LDV | Mike Whitby leading from the front on LDV »
6 Comments
Leave a comment
Profile
Steve Dyson - Blog from the Editor on recent issues and events.
Well, I'd say quite right Mr Dyson. How can a convicted paedophile have the report of his offences erased from your website? He did the horrendous crime which will scar those children for life, so there should be a permenant public record of what he has done.
While I do sympathise with members of his family who suffer as a result of his sick actions, they cannot expect everyone to forget what he has done.
By the way, any updates on the first episode? Has the subject of the previous story responded to your refusal?
Michael - Thanks for your comment and question. For you info, I am very much in touch with the subject of the previous episode. His reponse (with a few details asterixed to protect id) follows: "Thank you for your email. I do understand and appreciate your position. I am obviously disappointed, as your story still has a negative effect on my ability to move on from this dreadful affair, but I thank you for your offer of a follow up story. The **** have informed me that, by the time they have found time to **************, it will be ******* - a full **** years after the original incident. I will contact you when they decide upon the outcome and discuss further about an update and follow up story. Since being forced out of ********, I have returned to ****** and begun to pick up work. I am hoping my story will have a happy ending and be an uplifting as well as cautionary tale for your readers. Again, thank you for your contact. As Brummies, the Mail has always had an important place in our family home and we have appreciated your show of respect for my concerns. Best wishes and I will be in touch."
Actually, I think I would be more interested to see your correspondence with Birmingham City Council Press Office - developing into quite a battle. How would this go... Dear S**** You are wrong and a ****
I'm surprised you haven't already put this up on your blog. You are not normally such a shrinking violet. Or do you obviously prefer the back door - using your cronies with the stirrer website approach. Perhaps you are worried you have your facts wrong?!!!
Yeah I was wondering about that too. Why isn't the original Paul Dale story about the Municipal Bank online? I think you're right to defend him to the council press office, especially in light of their decision to send a notice to their entire mailing list telling everyone it was inaccurate. You should stick to your guns and put it online. You know Paul's right.
'Hacked off': As an editor, robust conversations, letters and emails with organisations only wanting to read their version of the news take place all the time. In this case, I’m still trying to understand the council’s stance. If it ends up that the Mail was wrong we will, of course, say so. Such exchanges should initially be private as far as I’m concerned, but as the council copied in a group email address for multiple media organisations I ‘replied to all’ to keep them in the loop. This was picked up by thestirrer.com and, as you obviously know, the emails can be read there. No point repeating it.
'Fourth Estate': Is the original not online? I can only think that it wasn't uploaded because it was a change story on a later edition (the mass upload is from 1st edition). I'll check that out, ta.
Often in paedophile cases convictions lead to more victims coming forward after seeing the report, so in the interests of justice is shouldn't be taken down too.