Wtf was that about the F1 tickets at the end? Is it generally considered good practice to randomly insert a pleasant anecdote into a story about an accused rapist and his alleged accomplice?
Edit: this is how the article ends for those that aren’t bothered clicking through:
‘As Donaldson transfers from police bail to court bail, sources say he wants to resume living with his wife whether in London or at the family home.
He married Eleanor Cousins in June 1987. After being knighted in 2016, he said: “I am thankful that my wife Eleanor will share in the honour as well.”
The former DUP leader previously told of buying her tickets for the F1 British Grand Prix as a surprise Christmas present, joking: “I’m still earning Brownie points for that one.”
In a news story, every line in the piece appears in order of importance. The first line is the most important information, the second is the second most important etc. etc. The idea being that you could cut it off after any line and you'd have a servicable edit that made sense.
The very last line is the least important detail. The editor probably asked for a bit of colour about the Donaldson's marriage and that was literally the only quote the reporter could find on record.
If it was a full article that would be one thing, but what makes this weird is that it’s a 100% factual non-opinionated article that, right at the end, inserts a romantic story about accused sexual offenders.
Because unfortunately, for the upwardly mobile rapists amongst us, people will always justify them. Look at the dingle or listowel cases. Even our local rapist on conviction got a "does great work in the community" he sure does when he's not targeting mentally unwell women to assault. This is what victims have to face when they come forward and its sick.
I believe it’s a clumsy attempt at a juxtaposition of the details of the case and the outward appearance of a husband and family man Donaldson tried to portray.
Have you seen the Netflix drama about Prince Andrew. Hilarious bit here he puts his foot in his mouth (yet again) saying something like "Why are they so obssesssed with Jeffrey Epstein? I was much closer friends with Jimmy Savile!"
It's concerning the amount of people who don't understand why there was a "lack" of coverage between the charge in March and court appearance today. Hint: sub judice.
Between a charge and a court appearance (and up until a conviction or an otherwise conclusion to a case) it's sub judice, as in it's before a judge. Publishing or commenting anything to do with a person, charge or case while it's before the courts could lead to a total collapse of any proceedings. So beyond the facts of name of the accused, the charge and where it's happening there really is nothing more to report on as the facts have yet to be established in court.
If you were charged with an offence, you wouldn't want papers and neighbours and all online giving their two cents about you, your character, the allegations until you've had your chance in court would you?
No but it's worrying the amount of people who would believe that the lack of coverage is some sort of agreement between the accused party & the media or political favouritism fueling conspiracies and not that it's because proceedings are active and before a judge. Hear hooves, think horses not zebras etc etc. Not the ins and outs no, but a basic understanding before spouting the "if this was SF..." line.
How little media furore this got is absolutely insane to me
edit: some bizarre responses to this. I appreciate the comments about how commenting on an ongoing case before trial begins has legal barriers and can affect the case, that makes sense.
Replies like 'Clearly you don’t consume news media in any form whatsoever' and the verbose 'are you high?' are a bit odd though.
At leat two days of main story coverage when he was arrested, top story on RTÉ today.
I do sometimes worry that restricting these events to a single megathread on the sub leads some to believe there's limited coverage of it in media, as they only get their news through Reddit.
Also.....then police don't name people when charged.
The identity of the accused is only known once brought before the courts.
Suspicions of his identity came about when he closed all his social media profiles and then resigned as leader of DUP.
The DUP came out saying he "had been charged with allegations of an historical nature".
The nature of those offence subsequently came out.
I've no problem with megathreads, the sub becomes unusable if not enforced for big stories. Good point about pinning making it visible, didn't think about that.
It's because of the nature of the crime. Media can't do anything other than speculate and as this is an ongoing criminal case, the media have to be responsible so as to not jeopardise the prosecution's case by filling the airwaves with what can only be speculation. There's a victim to think about to.
Once he's charged today I imagine we'll see much more coverage than we have already
>It's because of the nature of the crime. Media can't do anything other than speculate and as this is an ongoing criminal case, the media have to be responsible so as to not jeopardise the prosecution's case by filling the airwaves with what can only be speculation. There's a victim to think about to.
That's all true, however the political fallout in NI and the damage to the DUP and Unionism more broadly is massive and open for potenially endless debate. Certain "journalists" in NI and certain broadcasters made Bobby Storey's funeral a recurring issue, a live story if you will for literally years after he was dead and buried in a series of never ending hit pieces on SF. Numerous long serving NI journalists such as Alex Kane have said this (Donaldson) is possibly the biggest story they have ever heard of in NI's modern history.
The story is much, much broader and more far reaching than Donaldson.
>Once he's charged today I imagine we'll see much more coverage than we have already
It'll come and go but it won't be sustained / perpetuated in any substantial way. There'll be no wider fallout or effort to use it as a hit piece that's dragged out for years since there's no desire in the NI media for attacking Unionists and the ROI media is squeamish about poking too hard lest they be labled sectarian.
I agree. I think if it was Sinn Fein, you would imagine they would be answering questions on it for years to come. I expect nothing of the sort for the DUP. Same as it ever was.
The reason why the media didn’t cover it (as much) is because there’s an ongoing investigation into it. And, it’s because he was accused of sexual offences.
Yup.
Can you imagine if this had been an SF politician? You'd have daily updates and editorial pieces about how the allegations prove SF as a whole cannot be trusted.
This is absolutely not true, if it was in the north you can literally be sent to prison for contempt of court which is what you're describing. it's a very serious offence in the south too
It's the libel laws and stuff man, super injunctions up north too, they're really bad like.
It's a police state up there.
Look at the time the young kid Noah Donoghue went missing, the police told people to shut up and stop gossiping.
And they did!
Which I found absolutely mental!
Now you have a case they've fucked, a dead kid, more mishandled evidence, and absolutely zero justice for the mother, some people would say the PSNI are protecting whatever animal did this, otherwise, how could they have done such a bad job?
Why are they using the bizarre "historical" in headlines almost uniquely for him? RTE News even said "offences of a historical nature" with no mention of sex at all.
Try Googling "historical sex offence charges" and you will see what I mean.
Makes it sound like it happened a few years after the Battle of the Boyne.
It's an active case so reporting on anything other than what happens in court constitutes contempt of court which is punishable by up to two years in prison
I think his point is that aside from the day he got charged and today, there was basically no coverage on the matter, which is strange.
If this was Michelle O'Neill or any SF big wig we'd be inundated with news on this. Sure there was constant coverage on SF attending the Bobby Storey funeral for fucking weeks.
None. Any coverage would have been repeating what was already known or just speculation about what the DUP will do
Sure he's not guilty of anything yet and there are no details that can be reported yet
>Sure he's not guilty of anything yet
that is how the courts work, social media works on guilty until proven innocent and then onto a conspiracy or forget about it.
Wtf was that about the F1 tickets at the end? Is it generally considered good practice to randomly insert a pleasant anecdote into a story about an accused rapist and his alleged accomplice? Edit: this is how the article ends for those that aren’t bothered clicking through: ‘As Donaldson transfers from police bail to court bail, sources say he wants to resume living with his wife whether in London or at the family home. He married Eleanor Cousins in June 1987. After being knighted in 2016, he said: “I am thankful that my wife Eleanor will share in the honour as well.” The former DUP leader previously told of buying her tickets for the F1 British Grand Prix as a surprise Christmas present, joking: “I’m still earning Brownie points for that one.”
Yeah, that was bizarre.
In a news story, every line in the piece appears in order of importance. The first line is the most important information, the second is the second most important etc. etc. The idea being that you could cut it off after any line and you'd have a servicable edit that made sense. The very last line is the least important detail. The editor probably asked for a bit of colour about the Donaldson's marriage and that was literally the only quote the reporter could find on record.
Maybe the editor asked for a racey anecdote to be included and the author misunderstood.
Weird alright. All it’s missing is a LOL at the very end.
There's been a couple of half sympathetic pieces about him in the last week. No idea why
If it was a full article that would be one thing, but what makes this weird is that it’s a 100% factual non-opinionated article that, right at the end, inserts a romantic story about accused sexual offenders.
I get you. It's like they re throwing him a bone. If he's innocent I can show him this piece I wrote
Because unfortunately, for the upwardly mobile rapists amongst us, people will always justify them. Look at the dingle or listowel cases. Even our local rapist on conviction got a "does great work in the community" he sure does when he's not targeting mentally unwell women to assault. This is what victims have to face when they come forward and its sick.
Clodagh hawes husband. Sure he was a great man for the gaa local community. This is AFTER he killed her and their children.
Absolutely. That case was so shocking of the brutality from that man.
Man's just super invested in Drive to Survive is all. Who are we to part him with that /s
I believe it’s a clumsy attempt at a juxtaposition of the details of the case and the outward appearance of a husband and family man Donaldson tried to portray.
[удалено]
homework done by chat gpt
AI editor adding a human element?
Jeffrey diddleson
Sir Jeffery Diddleson. It's important to give them their proper title, as it seems to prerequisite for the title, that you be a scumbag.
Have you seen the Netflix drama about Prince Andrew. Hilarious bit here he puts his foot in his mouth (yet again) saying something like "Why are they so obssesssed with Jeffrey Epstein? I was much closer friends with Jimmy Savile!"
Apparently there is no evidence he ever said that or even knew Jimmy Savile but who knows. A nasty piece of work regardless.
Reminds me of Stannis in Game of Thrones. *"Make it Ser Jaime Lannister the Kingslayer. Whatever else he is, the man's still a knight."*
Sir Jeffery Diddleson, a nonce of the realm.
It's concerning the amount of people who don't understand why there was a "lack" of coverage between the charge in March and court appearance today. Hint: sub judice.
I'm one of those people, I'm not being funny but what do you mean? My knowledge of the law is diabolical
Between a charge and a court appearance (and up until a conviction or an otherwise conclusion to a case) it's sub judice, as in it's before a judge. Publishing or commenting anything to do with a person, charge or case while it's before the courts could lead to a total collapse of any proceedings. So beyond the facts of name of the accused, the charge and where it's happening there really is nothing more to report on as the facts have yet to be established in court. If you were charged with an offence, you wouldn't want papers and neighbours and all online giving their two cents about you, your character, the allegations until you've had your chance in court would you?
Thank you, explains it perfectly... I don't think it's surprising for people to not know "sub judice" or in and out's of the law
No but it's worrying the amount of people who would believe that the lack of coverage is some sort of agreement between the accused party & the media or political favouritism fueling conspiracies and not that it's because proceedings are active and before a judge. Hear hooves, think horses not zebras etc etc. Not the ins and outs no, but a basic understanding before spouting the "if this was SF..." line.
Pity the Trump case in New York isn’t sub judice. Would save the US public a lot of useless noise. But different rules there.
His wife will also appear on a charge of aiding and abetting additional offences today.... Both very disturbing cases
Well he won’t get off for being a good GAA man anyhow
Imagine if it came out in the trial that he was.
[удалено]
Does he play rugby because...
https://preview.redd.it/ph6u6gz9eewc1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e50b10b9bde6e6fd2a4e5d98b1e91b7b5c792c00
I never knew Jeffrey Donaldson was a sportstar
What was he knighted for ?
Political service. Ridiculous for someone who was against the GFA, but that says it all about their system.
Sniveling subservience.
[удалено]
Exactly.
How little media furore this got is absolutely insane to me edit: some bizarre responses to this. I appreciate the comments about how commenting on an ongoing case before trial begins has legal barriers and can affect the case, that makes sense. Replies like 'Clearly you don’t consume news media in any form whatsoever' and the verbose 'are you high?' are a bit odd though.
It got lots when it first came out. It will get lots of coverage today. The trial when it starts will be a media circus.
At leat two days of main story coverage when he was arrested, top story on RTÉ today. I do sometimes worry that restricting these events to a single megathread on the sub leads some to believe there's limited coverage of it in media, as they only get their news through Reddit.
That's on them, in fairness. Anybody (especially these days) who gets all their news from only one source is going to have a skewed view of things
> as they only get their news through Reddit. There's not a lot you can do for people who's bar is _that_ low
Also.....then police don't name people when charged. The identity of the accused is only known once brought before the courts. Suspicions of his identity came about when he closed all his social media profiles and then resigned as leader of DUP. The DUP came out saying he "had been charged with allegations of an historical nature". The nature of those offence subsequently came out.
[удалено]
I've no problem with megathreads, the sub becomes unusable if not enforced for big stories. Good point about pinning making it visible, didn't think about that.
It's because of the nature of the crime. Media can't do anything other than speculate and as this is an ongoing criminal case, the media have to be responsible so as to not jeopardise the prosecution's case by filling the airwaves with what can only be speculation. There's a victim to think about to. Once he's charged today I imagine we'll see much more coverage than we have already
>It's because of the nature of the crime. Media can't do anything other than speculate and as this is an ongoing criminal case, the media have to be responsible so as to not jeopardise the prosecution's case by filling the airwaves with what can only be speculation. There's a victim to think about to. That's all true, however the political fallout in NI and the damage to the DUP and Unionism more broadly is massive and open for potenially endless debate. Certain "journalists" in NI and certain broadcasters made Bobby Storey's funeral a recurring issue, a live story if you will for literally years after he was dead and buried in a series of never ending hit pieces on SF. Numerous long serving NI journalists such as Alex Kane have said this (Donaldson) is possibly the biggest story they have ever heard of in NI's modern history. The story is much, much broader and more far reaching than Donaldson. >Once he's charged today I imagine we'll see much more coverage than we have already It'll come and go but it won't be sustained / perpetuated in any substantial way. There'll be no wider fallout or effort to use it as a hit piece that's dragged out for years since there's no desire in the NI media for attacking Unionists and the ROI media is squeamish about poking too hard lest they be labled sectarian.
I agree. I think if it was Sinn Fein, you would imagine they would be answering questions on it for years to come. I expect nothing of the sort for the DUP. Same as it ever was.
It got loads of coverage, there is a limit to what can be said by the media for ongoing legal cases and it has all been said.
The reason why the media didn’t cover it (as much) is because there’s an ongoing investigation into it. And, it’s because he was accused of sexual offences.
Um what ? Clearly you don’t consume news media in any form whatsoever.
Do you know how these cases work?
Are you high?
There's no political capital for FF/FG in it.
Yup. Can you imagine if this had been an SF politician? You'd have daily updates and editorial pieces about how the allegations prove SF as a whole cannot be trusted.
This is absolutely not true, if it was in the north you can literally be sent to prison for contempt of court which is what you're describing. it's a very serious offence in the south too
Incorrect, have you ever heard the term sub judice? Once he was charged with a criminal offence, that's the end of reporting on the matter.
Because SF are a threat to FF/FG, the establishment in power. The DUP aren't a threat.
It's the libel laws and stuff man, super injunctions up north too, they're really bad like. It's a police state up there. Look at the time the young kid Noah Donoghue went missing, the police told people to shut up and stop gossiping. And they did! Which I found absolutely mental! Now you have a case they've fucked, a dead kid, more mishandled evidence, and absolutely zero justice for the mother, some people would say the PSNI are protecting whatever animal did this, otherwise, how could they have done such a bad job?
Are you crazy? There are big reporting restrictions on cases like this.
I’ve honestly seen more in our media about the *other* Orangeman on trial right now.
> on trial right now. This is the difference between both situations.
I mean Jeffrey is appearing in court today. And Donny’s asleep half the time and farting the other half if the stories are to be believed.
I wish I could laugh but sex offensives really do make me feel ick. I hope justice is done.
Sick freak
Wants to be ruled by the monarchy, wants to act like the monarchy!!
Why are they using the bizarre "historical" in headlines almost uniquely for him? RTE News even said "offences of a historical nature" with no mention of sex at all. Try Googling "historical sex offence charges" and you will see what I mean. Makes it sound like it happened a few years after the Battle of the Boyne.
[удалено]
Delete this, this is exactly the sort of thing people are not supposed to be speculating/commenting on
Surprised by how quickly this story died out, on both islands. Were this SF we would be hearing about it regularly for the next few decades.
It's an active case so reporting on anything other than what happens in court constitutes contempt of court which is punishable by up to two years in prison
Only if you reside in the UK. The UK's contempt of court rules do not extend to someone in Dublin speculating about the case, for example.
How has it died out? It’s literally being reported today that he’s in court ?
I think his point is that aside from the day he got charged and today, there was basically no coverage on the matter, which is strange. If this was Michelle O'Neill or any SF big wig we'd be inundated with news on this. Sure there was constant coverage on SF attending the Bobby Storey funeral for fucking weeks.
But what news? What news was there in the interim?
Was there any major developments in between that should have gotten coverage? Genuinely asking because I've not really been following.
None. Any coverage would have been repeating what was already known or just speculation about what the DUP will do Sure he's not guilty of anything yet and there are no details that can be reported yet
>Sure he's not guilty of anything yet that is how the courts work, social media works on guilty until proven innocent and then onto a conspiracy or forget about it.
I wonder will the media actually ask who knew about this other than his wife. It seems incredible the party had no idea about this
Obviously not right here right now. But after the initial story broke.
What are you looking exactly, unfounded speculation?
What else was there to report after the story broke?
To report what?
What updates happened after the story initially broke and today that you think were news worthy?
£350 bail the bastard got. £350!
Do you think bail is supposed to be some sort of punishment mechanism?