Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Police Tricks 4
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
wjlmarsh |
JK2006 wrote:
Good point Hedda - I see the first McDonalds in London was in Woolwich November 1974 - opened, as it happens, by my old mate Ed Stewart!
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-...d-s-opened-1974.html
Always love Hedda's comments and ideas, always most insightful and full of information! When the so called "Trial" was in a state of non progress or regress or something!!! I had the same thought as Hedda and researched what MacDonald's had and the result was inclusive as I recall that it appeared Piccadilly was an early site in a change of strategy by MacDonald's but could not nail down the year.
But now in retrospect the bigger question is why did the police not check these stories (We know of course because they only wanted the stories without contradictory facts). The police in defense will say lack of resources and man power and so on..... But in this example. At most an hour's "work" at the maximum taking in finding someone to produce letter and send it that assuming HQ wanted an official letter with the request. Most likely not. Otherwise 5 - 10 minutes phone call to HQ and a request for an email confirming and maybe a photo showing I think maybe it was a Chinese restaurant noted? The historical sex trials that provided more information demonstrated how many facts could of been checked and nothing was done about by either side. As JK said he learnt from the first trial that one has to use one's our research and use others as well if possible. |
|
JK2006 |
Good point Hedda - I see the first McDonalds in London was in Woolwich November 1974 - opened, as it happens, by my old mate Ed Stewart!
www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/food/article-...d-s-opened-1974.html |
|
hedda |
there was a McDonalds in Picadilly in 1977?
There was a McDonald's in London / UK in 1977?
Wimby Burger maybe. |
|
Misa |
Very well put, Anonymous.
The sentiment expressed in your final paragraph reminds me of something from Richard Webster along the lines of, 'It is precisely because we believe we are rational, and believe we have have progressed beyond that medieval mindset, that we are so prone to such hideous behaviour.' He said it rather better than that, but I haven't managed to track down the right essay. |
|
Anonymous |
This is what gets me about this whole issue. Given the police and legal system are both now obviously run by idiots and lunatics we'll never know if Johnathan or if any of the other accused people actually did anything illegal. I am not here to defend Johnathan or attack him. Obviously that awful Oscar Wilde song is going to alienate people. But there is a principle of law here, you're not meant to get convicted just because you act guilty. How could any police officer or CPS official be stupid enough to believe that Claridges employed 14 year old waiters? Just like how could Rolf Harris have been convicted of an offense on the word of a man who said he had served with UK forces in Korea in the 1960s? A quick check on google tells you they had all left by the late 1950s. How can such important decisions about the protection of the innocent and the futures of the accused be made by a system run by people of so little intelligence? Who they hell are they employing as judges to preside over this rubbish?
On another thread we have the Canadian nun abuse nonsense-a 'survivor's group' who report multiple cases of nuns murdering children in an orphanage that were all 'covered up'. Yeah right, like post-war Canada had no proper police force or coroner's service.
It's strange how we think we are so advanced in the 21st century and so much 'progress' has been made when inside we are just the same ignorant medieval peasants that used to burn old women to death for being 'witches'. |
|
|
|
