Stokes Family Abused

[Spennymackem1981]

I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

fuck off....i thought stories were about Public Interest..why doesn anyone need to know that stoke's half brother and sister were murdered years ago

 

[The Voice Of Reason]

Can I ask that anyone posting a link to that newspaper article be banned?

Banned a bit severe but I am happy to take it down if any body lets me know

 

[jjarra_mackem]

Its just horrid. If i was famous wouldnt want someone going asking my mam about her aunt being murdered when she was a bairn.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

It’s not newsworthy at all

It happened 31 years ago

 

[Chappers]

TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

Something that happened before stokes was even born is newsworthy.

So, lets say I became famous in the next year and the media find out about my half brother who died in 1968 before I was born and my dad and his then wifes behaviour, you think it's fair game to shove that all over the newspaper front page when it has no bearing at all on anything I did? Regardless of what this behaviour was.

 

[safccfas]

TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

I’m sorry but can you please point out where this is in the publics interest ? It happened 31 years ago not last week. It’s disgusting in all aspects. It’s not newsworthy and quite frankly any attempt to defend it is quite twatish

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

toliet paper rag, disgusting

How is it newsworthy ?

It is by current standards. That's what I'm saying at the end of my post - maybe we need to re-think those standards, but if we do then that means a massive redrawing of how WE ALL behave- not just the Sun. And that tragedies don't get coverage in the way they do now. Murders, car accidents, natural disasters, whatever.

I mean, I take it you know what happened. How? You must have Googled it or something. That impulse is what makes it news. If you don't know, fairplay. But what we're saying is that none of us have that right - which means we should all ignore stuff. Fine, but I don't think people are being honest with themselves. It's f***ing easy to jump on the Sun - but they are just a fish that swims in the river of our prurient behaviour.

 

[Deleted member 26]

I’m sorry but can you please point out where this is in the publics interest ? It happened 31 years ago not last week. It’s disgusting in all aspects. It’s not newsworthy and quite frankly any attempt to defend it is quite twatish

100% this ^^

 

[mikemanc]

TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

How is something that happened 30 years ago newsworthy or in the public interest on the other side of the world now?

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

I’m sorry but can you please point out where this is in the publics interest ? It happened 31 years ago not last week. It’s disgusting in all aspects. It’s not newsworthy and quite frankly any attempt to defend it is quite twatish

I didn't say it was in the public interest and I'm not defending it. Read it more critically please. I said its news by current standards and if people are outraged by this then that's fair enough, but we need to be more honest with ourselves about society's boundaries and the public's right to know stuff.

I mentioned people would see it as public interest if it was a politician - but they are as human as Stokes. Take David Cameron's kid, for example.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

It is by current standards. That's what I'm saying at the end of my post - maybe we need to re-think those standards, but if we do then that means a massive redrawing of how WE ALL behave- not just the Sun. And that tragedies don't get coverage in the way they do now. Murders, car accidents, natural disasters, whatever.

I mean, I take it you know what happened. How? You must have Googled it or something. That impulse is what makes it news. If you don't know, fairplay. But what we're saying is that none of us have that right - which means we should all ignore stuff. Fine, but I don't think people are being honest with themselves. It's f***ing easy to jump on the Sun - but they are just a fish that swims in the river of our prurient behaviour.

You’re trying to be too clever

It’s not news at all

 

[Deleted member 26]

It is by current standards. That's what I'm saying at the end of my post - maybe we need to re-think those standards, but if we do then that means a massive redrawing of how WE ALL behave- not just the Sun. And that tragedies don't get coverage in the way they do now. Murders, car accidents, natural disasters, whatever.

I mean, I take it you know what happened. How? You must have Googled it or something. That impulse is what makes it news. If you don't know, fairplay. But what we're saying is that none of us have that right - which means we should all ignore stuff. Fine, but I don't think people are being honest with themselves. It's f***ing easy to jump on the Sun - but they are just a fish that swims in the river of our prurient behaviour.

I didnt know until i read it on the BBC website, i really don't think its a story that should be published. It serves no public interest and has no bearing on Stokes or cricket.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

I’m sorry but can you please point out where this is in the publics interest ? It happened 31 years ago not last week. It’s disgusting in all aspects. It’s not newsworthy and quite frankly any attempt to defend it is quite twatish

I was speculating that if it was a politician then everybody would say it was public interest, I did not say it was public interest.

 

[hudson88]

TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

How is something from 31 year ago newsworthy? Why do people need to know about this?

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

You’re trying to be too clever

It’s not news at all

I'm not at all. I'm trying to channel peoples' outage about this to reflect on their behaviour - and I'm serious. How does everyone know what happened, eh? If you know, you're supporting the way we currently think about news. If you don't know then good for you.

 

[brandon]

TIn hat firmly on, but I think this is more complicated than people are making out.

I'm not going to defend the way the Sun goes about journalism. The tone of their reporting is always sensationalist and unacceptable - and I know a bit about how they operate. They will, as Stokes implied, have gone about hounding his mother and family for comment. That is, as he says, the absolute lowest of the low.

Where I think this is more complicated is that this is definitely news. I am afraid to say I have looked at the non-Sun reporting of it (most of which has been taken down) and it is absolutely newsworthy - and could almost certainly have been found out by anyone in New Zealand with Google alone i.e. absolutely no need to hound his family. It is actually such a huge story its remarkable it hasn't come out before.

Stokes's line is that his family have a right to privacy. They certainly have a right to not be bothered. But where is the line on stories like this? If it were a politician or a celebrity that nobody has particular affinity to on here then everybody would deem the reporting of the mere facts (i.e. not the houding) as fair game if not outright public interest. And what about non celebrities who do not, as Stokes does, have the privileged position of lawyers and fame to stop life events like this being reported? What are the limits of the public's right to know stuff? I think this genuinely gets to the messy middle point of these type of conversations, where it's not clear either way.

I honestly don't know. If he has a right to this kind of privacy then we need to rethink the way society operates and we all behave. Maybe we should, but we are all guilty of intruding on stuff like this - even the way we go on about Sunderland players.

Fuck off man. Cretin.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

I didnt know until i read it on the BBC website, i really don't think its a story that should be published. It serves no public interest and has no bearing on Stokes or cricket.

Ok, so why did you click on it? If you just stumbled on it - fair enough. But the whole architecture that supports this is validated by your clicking on it - on the BBC or otherwise, makes no difference. Especially if you saw Stokes's statement first.

 

[brandon]

I was speculating that if it was a politician then everybody would say it was public interest, I did not say it was public interest.

No, it isn’t.

The actions of a politician 31 years ago may be of interest if it could be linked to policy or voting intention or if it borders criminality.

This has absolutely no value whatsoever to anyone and all it does is to serve to completely unnecessarily hurt the Stokes family.

Vile vile story from a vile vile rag.

 

[Mainze]

I suspect this lass from NZ pictured and quoted in the story may be the source of it being re-released into the media. No doubt she got a few quid from it.

 

[Comeback_Kenwyne]

Something that happened before stokes was even born is newsworthy.

So, lets say I became famous in the next year and the media find out about my half brother who died in 1968 before I was born and my dad and his then wifes behaviour, you think it's fair game to shove that all over the newspaper front page when it has no bearing at all on anything I did? Regardless of what this behaviour was.

I'm not defending it. I'm saying we are all more guilty of supporting this than we realise - and if Stokes has a right to this level of privacy (especially when the facts about this are already in the public domain) then that should affect everyone, not just people famous, including politicians.

People love to scream OUTRAGE about stuff like this - but literally everyone seems to know what has happened. Imo there is contradictory behaviour there. People should have read Stokes statement and just shut their eyes/ears.