Watching the news yesterday my attention was caught by a story about whether prisoners should be given the right to vote. The European Court of Human Rights has recently passed a judgement requiring that some prisoners be given this right, this is at odds with current British law and against the coalition Government’s stated policy.
As would be expected the news item had opinions from both sides of the debate including one John Hurst a former Prisoner. Reasonable you would think, to have the opinion of a former prisoner on this issue, to give perspective from the prisoners side. More importantly he had also taken the government to the Human Rights court over this issue, so was well versed on the prisoners stance.
So why was he repeatedly introduced as “former prison John Hurst, who killed his landlady with an axe“.
What is the relevance of his crime to the news item. It is not as if some special dispensation is being asked for, or granted to murderers, nor is the case specifically about John Hurst. Irrespective of the rightness or wrongness of the issue, it certainly seems at odds with their obligation to give a balanced opinion on news items.
Judge for yourself if it seems relevant