rob237 89 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 It has always been the 'norm' in the media business that, immediately upon being found guilty, a defendants Christian name is instantly dropped from all narrative...and they are then 'downgraded' and identified solely by their surname. Wonder why, and how, this silly practice evolved? Perhaps an ancient echo back to Victorian times... Cheers Robt P. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
plantfit 7,638 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 Often wondered that myself Rob, it's like a young victim of crime being called for example "a 13 year old boy" but if the boot was on the other foot so to speak the alleged criminal would be refered to as " a 13 year old youth" so depending on whether you committed a crime or was the victim of a crime would determine whether you were a youth or a boy Rog Quote Link to post Share on other sites
littlebro 234 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 I imagine this is another Victorian legacy. As at school, boys were known/called by their surname only. I wonder if at court having been found guilty of a crime a "christian" name was inappropriate? In fact, using a christian name could be viewed as showing affection or being too familiar? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Owdtite 2 Posted October 20, 2010 Report Share Posted October 20, 2010 I dont think this happened in the case of the Yorkshire Ripper....As far as I now even to this day he is known as Peter Sutcliffe...Not just Sutcliffe ! But I know what you mean, how many times has a 19 year old been called a Man and then a Youth? I also believe that until they are proved guilty they call them Mr or Mrs or Ms and then that is dropped once they get found guilty!! Just my observations of course. Owdtite. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.