Of all the (very impressive) media coverage to date, this feels like the real tipping point - cutting right into The Establishment’s awareness in a way that’s increasingly hard to ignore. And when will something be done about ‘... original officers who offered for sale introductions to King’s victims’? I can’t believe things like this happen. Surely anyone who did something like this needs to be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time? Is such a crime, repeatedly reported in the media, allowed to go inivedyigated? I can’t believe it!

Ah the problem is (and as you may guess I have information that must legally remain secret) - perhaps some of the cops willing to provide media with confidential details may now be in very senior police positions.

Titanicboy wrote:
And when will something be done about ‘... original officers who offered for sale introductions to King’s victims’? I can’t believe things like this happen. Surely anyone who did something like this needs to be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time?
If the only evidence is a draft letter on a computer maybe there's no proof he actually sent it anywhere. And if he did send it, the recipient(s) may have no incentive to reveal that. Would the media rat on one of their own, especially after his Savile documentary that they gave him awards for and that led to so many lucrative stories? Would the police have any incentive either if it reveals their own failings? I suspect this is all going to be water off a duck's back for him.

The word 'propensity' Mark Williams Thomas shows a propensity in all he does his interest in the sexual gory sick seems to fill his days and obviously gets a kick out of it.
Propensity to back stab people use them for his gain as he has done with many and know his investigator series shows he has shat on them also.
A propensity to make money from selling stories.
What I am getting at is the JK accuser names that an email on his computer suggest that very thing his propensity to do just that.

Also propensity is used in courts by the prosecution to prove someone has the tendency to commit the crime they are accused of seems a bit karma to me.

I dont have or want an account with The times so if someone could cut and paste I would be very grateful.

I've never had a Times account.

As - like you - I don't want one.

But that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) reading their articles.


Via their link.

Barney wrote:
I've never had a Times account.

As - like you - I don't want one.

But that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) reading their articles.


Via their link.

You only get so many "free goes" before you have to sign in to see it.
I have had all my goes.

I've 'signed in' - but have no account, pay nothing, yet read all articles.


An alter ego is essential on the internet, as is a bit of 'smart'....

Barney wrote:
I've 'signed in' - but have no account, pay nothing, yet read all articles.


An alter ego is essential on the internet, as is a bit of 'smart'....

Is there any need for that,Spee?

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Barney wrote:
I've never had a Times account.

As - like you - I don't want one.

But that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) reading their articles.


Via their link.

You only get so many "free goes" before you have to sign in to see it.
I have had all my goes.


It won't even give me one free go, and it's my first trying.
But me and cyber technology never seem to get on.

PaulB wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Barney wrote:
I've never had a Times account.

As - like you - I don't want one.

But that doesn't stop me (or anyone else) reading their articles.


Via their link.

You only get so many "free goes" before you have to sign in to see it.
I have had all my goes.


It won't even give me one free go, and it's my first trying.
But me and cyber technology never seem to get on.

Nor me. I dont suppose the ancient laptop covered in cat hair helps either.

Mr King has kindly pasted the whole thing on another thread.

In just about every miscarriage of justice, the police officers involved have simply "got away with it", with comments like "unlikely to get a fair trial".

The best case for this was the Stefan Kiszko one. West Yorkshire Police (the same officers who mucked up the Yorkshire Ripper case btw) knew that Kizsko was not guilty of killing Leslie Moleseed and hid this evidence. When found and when Kizsko was finally released and free, the police involved who had carried out this perversion of justice - from Wiki:

In 1994 the surviving senior officer in charge of the original investigation, Detective Superintendent Dick Holland, and the retired forensic scientist who had worked on the case, Ronald Outteridge, were formally charged with "doing acts tending to pervert the course of justice" by allegedly suppressing evidence in Kiszko's favour, namely the results of scientific tests on semen taken from the victim's body and from the accused.[15] On May Day 1995 the case was challenged by defence barristers, arguing that the case was an abuse of process and that charges should be stayed as the passage of time had made a fair trial impossible. The presiding magistrate agreed and as the case was never presented before a jury, the law regards the accused as presumed innocent.[18]

Summary? The Police can do what they like, knowing full well they will get away with it if ever caught out.