I don’t know about William, but it’s often enough just to know a journalist or two to hear about things that go unreported. In the past couple of years there was an incident involving a family member of a very senior member of government (UK) that wasn’t reported because agreement was reached with the editors/proprieters of the various papers that it wasn’t (rightly, IMO) appropriate to do so, although one or two columnists alluded to it in roundabout fashion.
I don’t think anybody’s suggesting that the media avoid the fact entirely. But do a Google News search for ‘Ipswich’ and you’ll see the fun headline writers are having, relishing in the opportunity to attract readers’ attention with “Second prostitute body is linked to ‘Ipswich Ripper’” and “DRUG HELL OF RIPPER VICE GIRL” (not my all-caps).
And to suggest this media sensationalism is doing a public service in warning other prostitutes of the danger makes several erroneous assumptions - that they aren’t already aware that it’s a dangerous way to earn money, that anybody knows anything at all about the killer(s), and that they wouldn’t hear about it sooner than most of us anyway.
Hmmm Since prostitution is a crime shouldn’t it read alleged prostitutes?
If we take the angle that prostitution is a profession however it changes it. If they died in the line of their job then it is totally appropriate to mention it. And not mentioning it is a disservice, as it serves as a warning to others in the profession that they are being targeting.
Also prostitution is almost exclusive used to define a subset of females, as male prostitutes are usually called ‘male prostitutes’, so saying they were prostitutes is far more informative to the public then women. Leaving out prostitutes totally might cause unnecessary fear in other women not engaged in this profession.
It started as a missing-person case, not a criminal investigation into their activities, and at that stage the publicising of them being “known to have been working as prostitutes” was very pertinent.
Now they’re dead, any crimes they may have committed are irrelevant. And in any case, prostitution itself is not illegal.
If you think referring to them as “prostitutes” is disrespectful, perhaps you are the one who is prejudiced.
If it had read as “More tests are to be carried out on the bodie of two students murdered in Suffolk amid fears they may have been victims of a serial killer” would anyone have been upset?
They were prostitutes. They were women. They were human beings. Detective Superintendent Andy Henwood “urged prostitutes working in Ipswich to look out for one another and be aware of their personal safety”. Seems to me there’s a good reason to warn prostitutes that there might be someone targetting them.
What’s so bad about the article again?
Marc
OK, do you say the same about the description of them as “vice girls” in many of the reports?
I think one reason that they are being referred to as prostitutes is that there is a suspicion that the murders may be linked to similar deaths and disappearances that happened to prostitutes a few years ago, both in Ipswich and Norwich.
“Riverton High teacher found dead in woods”
…and what exactly was he doing in the woods? Hmmmm?
Sadly, a third body has been found.
The Beeb has been using the phrase “sex worker”. Don’t know if that’s better or worse than “prostitute”, but it’s certainly better than “vice girl”. That’s so Profumo.
Shit, Struan, I didn’t see that. How awful.
This article from The Sun is making my blood boil.
Like, serial killers should be more thoughtful in where they dump their victims’ bodies. Think of the children!
What’s it going to be - “The Ipswich Ripper”? “The Suffolk Strangler”? Fucking hell I hate The Sun.
They were 19 and 25 years old. At what point do they stop being “very young girls” and graduate to being adult women?
Ditto. In a headline, you rarely have room to name the person - and even if you could, not everybody would recognize the name.
It’s not wrong to say that they were prostitutes. But I understand that williambaskerville’s concern. I’d say it’s a matter of objectification. Let’s face it - you would probably respond differently to hearing that a woman has been murdered, as compared to hearing a prostitute has been murdered. The papers know that, and it’s more shocking and attention-grabbing to point out that this concerns prostitutes. The newspapers are including it because it’s relevant, but it’s also prurient. Especially in the Sun story.
I know in the USA, you can’t defame the dead - if it works the same way in Britain, the papers have no reason to say “alleged,” particularly when the police have probably confirmed it in some way.
You can’t defame the dead here either, and prostitution isn’t illegal (well it’s not straightforward but it’s not illegal per se).
No, you missed my point. You griped about someone reporting that the deceased were prostitutes. You also reported that the deceased were prostitutes.
Maybe you’re clueless. Maybe you’re not. At any rate, the police no doubt reported to the media pertinent facts that would help the public–even prostitutes are part of the public–be aware of someone possibly targeting prostitutes for death. I wonder that if the police and media had not reported that they were prostitutes and another young sex worker were killed, would you then gripe about the police and the media not reporting the pertinent facts?
Your OP was not only lame, it was stupid.
Well… how many Irish Cabinet Ministers have died of coronaries in the last 5 years?
None that I can think of.
In looking at notable Irish deaths in Wiki’s “2001,2002,2003,2004,2005 in Ireland” -
This is the only cabinet minister death noted where the deceased wasn’t over 70 or already battling cancer etc…
But this is a very poor comparison.
The cause of death here is a natural one, done with his consent, with no legally-liable ‘perpetrator’ that the police are looking for. This is not one of a series of crimes, where the police expect more. And it isn’t necessary to warn other Irish Cabinet Ministers with weak hearts to watch out for someone who may try to force them into such a situation.*
But that is true in the other situation: there is some serial killer out there doing this, he is continuing to do this, and there is a need to warn potential victims that they are at risk. So there was a valid reason to include this information in the story. With the Cabinet Minister, it is largely irrelevant – he is already dead of natural causes, in any case – so that info would only be for the titillation of the readers. (But I still think it should have been published. You say they censored this one, and should have done the same censoring on the serial murder story. I say there should have been no censoring on either story!)
- Unless, of course, there are gangs of angry Irish voters running around with extra-large dildos, lookoing for Cabinet Ministers to violate. If so, I can suggest some American politicians worthy of their attention!