King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Randall wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]JK2006 wrote:[/b]
[quote]was it possible that these were two decent officers who refused to say that the Emperor was wearing new clothes?[/quote]

There might be something in that. However, I also agree with MWTW that anyone who chooses to work in such a unit is a fucking scumbag with very dubious motives. When King Randall the Magnificent is in charge, this lot will be among the first up against the wall.

[b]HOWEVER[/b]

It's important that everyone gets a fair trial, whether or not anyone thinks the defendant is a scumbag or not. So lets look at the misdeeds that were reported.

[i]...they forged documents to convince bosses to take no further action against suspects.[/i]

What documents? How do we know they were forgeries? Could they have been mere early drafts? Did supervising officers indeed see these documents? How did they not discern they were forgeries?

[i]Pollard destroyed evidence...[/i]

What evidence? How was it destroyed? Should it have been destroyed? How was the existence of the evidence documented? Was its destruction documented properly? Was the appropriate permission for evidence destruction sought and obtained? Could it have plausibly been wrongly destroyed by accident? Was it, in fact, not technically evidence at all in a legal sense?

[i]Patterson cancelled an appointment to gather evidence from social services records so she could get a manicure and have a Chinese meal with Pollard.[/i]

Sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc to me. Perhaps there are very good reason why the appointment was rescheduled and the manicure and meal simply filled the time slot, rather than being the reason for the cancellation. And in any case, that really doesn't amount to misconduct, even taking a very harsh view.

Bravo, Randall, very good questions, you're all clamouring to reply. Yes, just the sort of questions a journalist from a national newspaper should be thinking to ask. A free press is a crucial check on state power. When the press becomes a mouthpiece for the state, regurgitating anything served to it in a police or CPS press release, the state's actions go unexamined. The news media is asleep at the wheel. Another reason why it's not safe to live in Britain.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Patterson and Pollard the Essex Cops
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
Randall	JK2006 wrote: was it possible that these were two decent officers who refused to say that the Emperor was wearing new clothes? There might be something in that. However, I also agree with MWTW that anyone who chooses to work in such a unit is a fucking scumbag with very dubious motives. When King Randall the Magnificent is in charge, this lot will be among the first up against the wall. HOWEVER It's important that everyone gets a fair trial, whether or not anyone thinks the defendant is a scumbag or not. So lets look at the misdeeds that were reported. ...they forged documents to convince bosses to take no further action against suspects. What documents? How do we know they were forgeries? Could they have been mere early drafts? Did supervising officers indeed see these documents? How did they not discern they were forgeries? Pollard destroyed evidence... What evidence? How was it destroyed? Should it have been destroyed? How was the existence of the evidence documented? Was its destruction documented properly? Was the appropriate permission for evidence destruction sought and obtained? Could it have plausibly been wrongly destroyed by accident? Was it, in fact, not technically evidence at all in a legal sense? Patterson cancelled an appointment to gather evidence from social services records so she could get a manicure and have a Chinese meal with Pollard. Sounds like post hoc ergo propter hoc to me. Perhaps there are very good reason why the appointment was rescheduled and the manicure and meal simply filled the time slot, rather than being the reason for the cancellation. And in any case, that really doesn't amount to misconduct, even taking a very harsh view. Bravo, Randall, very good questions, you're all clamouring to reply. Yes, just the sort of questions a journalist from a national newspaper should be thinking to ask. A free press is a crucial check on state power. When the press becomes a mouthpiece for the state, regurgitating anything served to it in a police or CPS press release, the state's actions go unexamined. The news media is asleep at the wheel. Another reason why it's not safe to live in Britain.
wjlmarsh	JK2006 wrote: I'm not aware whether they did or didn't and I started this by saying that I really don't know any answers, only that there seem to be many unanswered questions from the media coverage. Certainly Dixon of Dock Green, when confronted by someone he knew was a serial complainer or had knowledge regarding the alleged perpetrators, might have decided not to waste police time by investigating obvious fantasies. The problem being that, if one of the hundred turned away by Dixon turned out to be a potential victim of a serial killer, the media would be all over the police and, as a result, these days, the most absurd claims have to be investigated at length (enabling genuine criminals to avoid detection). This is one of the problems of having society run by tabloids, whose only concern is "a good story". Ramifications. JK I felt similar to you regarding the reports from the very first time that the media made a meal out of nothing ( Or missed what the real story evidence was, which I think is unlikely) Something stinks about the conviction of these two and looks more like the police force covering up lack of results on a wrong emphasis in the first place, that is pushing for convictions "on word only" basis. But the case as reported seems a nonsense, and as reported seems something that should never of ended up in court. But if for real then the facts to support the court case and convictions should be clearer so "we" the public do not end up accusing the media, policee, politicians and justice system personnel wrongly. If the couple didn't follow up on a rape kit from when a rape happened I could understand and feel that the couple deserved conviction for failing real known victims. ( Not saying that others are not are victims just "word only" means a person could be a real victim and reporting could help identify a rapist with a known pattern on the other hand it could be similar to a false insurance claim a false accusations thus the reporter is the criminal and honest police should make the the public and the person reporting aware of the problem of lapsed time reporting or no circumstances where evidence can be collected.
JK2006	I'm not aware whether they did or didn't and I started this by saying that I really don't know any answers, only that there seem to be many unanswered questions from the media coverage. Certainly Dixon of Dock Green, when confronted by someone he knew was a serial complainer or had knowledge regarding the alleged perpetrators, might have decided not to waste police time by investigating obvious fantasies. The problem being that, if one of the hundred turned away by Dixon turned out to be a potential victim of a serial killer, the media would be all over the police and, as a result, these days, the most absurd claims have to be investigated at length (enabling genuine criminals to avoid detection). This is one of the problems of having society run by tabloids, whose only concern is "a good story". Ramifications.
honey!oh sugar sugar.	JK2006 wrote: I'm sorry I simply cannot accept that after a seven week trial, the main evidence against them seems to have been having affairs and going for a Chinese meal. Were the falsely accused ever asked to give evidence (which I suspect they would not have wanted to do)? Was the possibility that these two quickly spotted false accusers not examined? Was the media pushed approach that there ARE no false accusers believed by Judge and Jury? So many questions. It stinks. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7015357...igations-jailed.html But Mr king, if they thought the accusations were false, they should have been investigating the accuser, not doing nothing.
JK2006	I'm sorry I simply cannot accept that after a seven week trial, the main evidence against them seems to have been having affairs and going for a Chinese meal. Were the falsely accused ever asked to give evidence (which I suspect they would not have wanted to do)? Was the possibility that these two quickly spotted false accusers not examined? Was the media pushed approach that there ARE no false accusers believed by Judge and Jury? So many questions. It stinks. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7015357...igations-jailed.html