My local police force is keen to promote itself on social networking sites. This is a good thing, it gives the public the chance to engage with the police on a level and in a way that feels more comfortable with them.
As part of their postings, the force posts links to news stories. One story concerned the arrest of a woman on suspicion of child neglect. The child had been removed, and the woman released on bail pending further enquiries.
I became aware of it when a few friends shared the link. At first the comments were harmless enough ("how could someone do that to their child"). Some questioned why the woman had been bailed, and the misunderstandings over bail are a blog post in their own right, so won't be dealt with here.
As the thread developed, two different types of comment were being added to the story.
The first concerned the woman herself. They started along the lines of "I know her, this isn't the first time this has happened". These then developed into further allegations, going into explicit detail. Some comment makers named the woman in question.
The second type, following on from the first, were from potential vigilante types, who gave details of the type of "justice" that should be doled out in the circumstances.
All of this, as far as I could tell, was based on rumour and conjecture.
Social networking sites are brilliant places to gossip. Facebook is great for finding out that the popular kids at school are now fugly. Or that the school bullies are now fugly. It's like a virtual pub, or supermarket, or school playground, where groups gather to spend their time idly speculating about people they shouldn't give a hoot about. But whereas face to face gossip can remain insular, writing allegations on the internet can have far wider implications.
It's very easy to cross the line when criminal investigations are taking place. We've already seen the consequences of jurors using the internet to find out about defendants. We have no idea whether the woman in this incident is guilty of any wrongdoing or not. If she is guilty, who's to say she won't admit it, and be dealt with in the appropriate manner? If she says she's not guilty, rumour-mongering could potentially damage the chances of securing any conviction.
Further, it would be hoped that this woman, if she has been cruel to her child, will be dealt with by the courts. It may be that many have no confidence in the system following the Baby P incident, however, many cases like this escape the public attention. Why? Because they are being dealt with properly, and children are being saved from dangerous situations. It's sad that the success stories are not reported. There is no excuse for taking matters into your own hands. If there are failings in the system, challenge the system, not the perpetrators.
There is, of course, the other side to the story; that this woman has done nothing wrong. Or even worse, the Facebook gossipers have named and shamed the wrong person. Maybe there is another mother who shares the same name, who cannot understand why people are avoiding her, or are calling her names. Lives can, and have, been ruined through the making of false allegations, or by having the misfortune of sharing the same name as a criminal.
The link to this story was pulled within a few hours. Hopefully, not too much damage has been done, and the matter can be dealt with in the fairest and most appropriate way.
I would also ask my Facebook friends and Twitter followers to think before posting.
