Jake Ormerod And The Devon Paedos: Facebook A Daily Mail Witch Hunt?
JAKE Ormerod and the Devon Paedos: Anorak has already brought you news of Jake Ormerod, the criminal idiot charged under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 of engaging or inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity.
The police talk of a paedophile gang. They say they have identified 20 victims of a “gang” working in Devon. The number of alleged victims is rising.
You may have seen the scary letter the local council sent to the parents of schoolchildren in the area.
No child has been snatched off the street. The alleged victims are all said to be known to the alleged paedos. Also, no child has been assaulted via their Facebook page.
But the Daily Mail yelled:
“HOW MANY MORE CHILD VICTIMS OF FACEBOOK SEX GANG?”
It added:
Police believe at least 20 pupils – and fear as many as 50 – have been ensnared on Facebook and other social networking sites over the past three years.
The Mail made Facebook the enabler. Were the children ensnared on Facebook? Can you be trapped on a website that can be unplugged?
The victims are thought to have been plied with drink and drugs before being abused or raped. Some were as young as 12.
On Facebook? Is there a “ply” button on Facebook?
Facebook may now sue the Mail. A spokeswoman for Facebook says:
“While the inaccurate headline was quickly changed online, the damage of being wrongly tied to this story on the front page is worthy of an apology – to both Daily Mail readers and Facebook – of equal prominence.”
And:
Facebook complained to the Daily Mail, and the newspaper changed the wording of the headline online pending a further investigation. The website – which is trying to adopt a tough stance against the Mail – also demanded an apology in print.
However, the Mail believes it has no reason to apologise and insiders said the newspaper had good reason to believe the mention of Facebook in the headline was appropriate. A spokesman for the Mail said: “We stand by our story.”
But the Mail was not unaided in its sensationalism. Detective Inspector Simon Snell told media:
“There appears to have been all manner of grooming taking place, which may have occurred on the internet. We are keeping an open mind with regards to Facebook, Bebo and other internet sites. We have interviewed around 20 children so far with regard to offences connected with child exploitation. We may deploy officers to interview further children.”
The Guardian says:
But Devon & Cornwall police, handling the investigation, this week indicated in private that in this case sites such as Facebook were not used as grooming tools, but for potential witnesses and victims to communicate with each other.
So. Why did the policeman mention Facebook? Why did he not stick to the facts? Why did he choose to speculate in public?
Mr Ormerod has been charged with crimes. He has not been tried. He must be presumed to be innocent. A reader writes in:
I have known jake for five years or more, he went out with my daughter and he was a very kind and considerate lad towards her. Such a sad life he has led and yet was never given any help in the early days to support and educate him he was left to fight the system alone from an early age to his teens.
I will stand by my word and i strongly feel this is a vendetta against jake by the devon and cornwall constabulary and whilst yes we do need to get sex pests of the street and infiltrate and stop any abuse there is no way in this world jake was part of any sex exploitation gang and it is shocking they are calling him a paeodophile(spelling not sure).
I empathise with the parents of those children who might possibly have been involved but god forgive this mans life has been ruined by what has been reported.
I have said this once and will say it again, girls be responsible for what you are doing. lets all remain calm and hope Jake is seen for the man he is and not a monster as he is being portrayed.
Should his name have been made public? The Mail introduces Ormerod to its reader thus:
Pictured surrounded by girls: Man, 19, charged following probe into internet predators grooming children for sex
Only, he isn’t. In five photos Ormerod is with one “girl“. In another photo he is with a young man and two “girls”.
A reader writes:
The Mail published pictures taken from Jakes FaceBook which were actually ( having seen them months ago) the normal sort of pictures that young people post of their friends and girlfrines. The Mail used emotive words such as ‘ grinning’ as if a smiling picture was somehow abnormal. They published many pictures of him with what we were intended to think were many girls…they were ALL pictures of his girlfriend whom he has always said he was in love with..with her face blanked out.
His mum says the “girl” is his lover. The lover is 23. Is that the age of a “girl”?
Why is it that when writing about something as sensitive and horrific s the alleged sexual abuse of children does the Mail see fit to depart from the facts?
Spotter: Karen
Posted: 23rd, February 2011 | In: Key Posts, Reviews Comments (7) | TrackBack | Permalink
