One of the problems is that the Police themselves are just as guilty of judging by appearance as the general public. I have no opinion either way and won't have one unless they charge him, he goes to court and the events of that night are reported after conviction, if that's what happens.
Obviously the evidence is mounting up, but whether it's mounting up against this man in particular is another story.
However on the surface, I knew as soon as this man's photo and comments were released that they would arrest him. I could see what was happening in the media. No matter what solid evidence the police have, the media had already convicted the man, which is not right because the sheeple in the population see where the media point and mindlessly follow.
If he's done it then he knows he has. I suspect that the police are building a case against him and will have given suitable cause for an extension of interview time for the CPS to allow it. On the other hand, I guess if he originally just volunteered to be interviewed the extension could then well be the Police exercising their right to detain him.
These are the powers of the Police:
A police officer can stop and question you in the street or a park or other outside place if s/he suspects you of committing an offence or believes that you have witnessed a possible offence.
If you are stopped and questioned, you are expected to be co-operative. You must give your name and address to the officer if asked for it. If you don’t, this is an offence and you could be arrested.
If the police suspect you of committing an offence they may ask you for an explanation of your behaviour. You have the right to refuse to give an explanation.
Once you have given the police your name and address it is up to them to decide whether they want to ask more questions. If they don’t then you should be allowed to go. If they do want to ask you more questions and they suspect you of having committed a crime they can:-
ask you to attend voluntarily at the police station to help with enquiries; or
detain you for questioning for up to 24 hours; or
arrest you for allegedly committing an offence.
If the police suspect you of being a witness to a crime they can invite you to attend the police station to help with enquiries but you are not obliged to do so and cannot be detained at the police station.
If you have been questioned by the police, either as a suspect or a witness, the police should make clear before you are released or leave the police station what further action, if any, will be taken, for example, whether you have been charged and will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal or whether you have been eliminated from the enquiry.
It has now gone beyond the stage of mattering whether he did it or not. The english justice system is built on the fundamental premise that the accused get a fair trial. This is no longer possible therefore he cannot be tried.
The tragedy of this is not always that the innocent are subject to trial by media but also that the guilty may not be found not guilty (or will have grounds for appeals etc) due to the nature of the 'fair' trial system.
Now that is a travesty.
(I'm not for one minute suggesting that anyone is guilty here, just that the 'general' guilty may have their trials compromised).
Was discussing this with my mum this morning- we came to the conclusion that if there was a hideous murder on my street I should probably get rid of half the contents of my flat, as I seem to fit a few too many profiles...
Mind you, I don't really keep myself to myself.
However, if you think about it, how many times has there been a murder and once the suspect was caught, dozens of folk say "we never would've suspected Joe. He was always at the bowling green/delivering meals on wheels/ a devoted dad/local scout leader" and all that jazz? Hell, even John Wayne Gacy appeared outwardly normal to people, not saying you are anything like John Wayne Gacy!
One of the problems is that the Police themselves are just as guilty of judging by appearance as the general public. I have no opinion either way and won't have one unless they charge him, he goes to court and the events of that night are reported after conviction, if that's what happens.
Obviously the evidence is mounting up, but whether it's mounting up against this man in particular is another story.
However on the surface, I knew as soon as this man's photo and comments were released that they would arrest him. I could see what was happening in the media. No matter what solid evidence the police have, the media had already convicted the man, which is not right because the sheeple in the population see where the media point and mindlessly follow.
If he's done it then he knows he has. I suspect that the police are building a case against him and will have given suitable cause for an extension of interview time for the CPS to allow it. On the other hand, I guess if he originally just volunteered to be interviewed the extension could then well be the Police exercising their right to detain him.
These are the powers of the Police:
A police officer can stop and question you in the street or a park or other outside place if s/he suspects you of committing an offence or believes that you have witnessed a possible offence.
If you are stopped and questioned, you are expected to be co-operative. You must give your name and address to the officer if asked for it. If you don’t, this is an offence and you could be arrested.
If the police suspect you of committing an offence they may ask you for an explanation of your behaviour. You have the right to refuse to give an explanation.
Once you have given the police your name and address it is up to them to decide whether they want to ask more questions. If they don’t then you should be allowed to go. If they do want to ask you more questions and they suspect you of having committed a crime they can:-
ask you to attend voluntarily at the police station to help with enquiries; or
detain you for questioning for up to 24 hours; or
arrest you for allegedly committing an offence.
If the police suspect you of being a witness to a crime they can invite you to attend the police station to help with enquiries but you are not obliged to do so and cannot be detained at the police station.
If you have been questioned by the police, either as a suspect or a witness, the police should make clear before you are released or leave the police station what further action, if any, will be taken, for example, whether you have been charged and will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal or whether you have been eliminated from the enquiry.
People should also note that if you are approached by a police officer then you have the right to ask them for their name and number. They MUST give this to you.
However, if you think about it, how many times has there been a murder and once the suspect was caught, dozens of folk say "we never would've suspected Joe. He was always at the bowling green/delivering meals on wheels/ a devoted dad/local scout leader" and all that jazz? Hell, even John Wayne Gacy appeared outwardly normal to people, not saying you are anything like John Wayne Gacy!
No way. Gacy was a CLOWN. Anyone should have guessed he was a wrong 'un. A CLOWN, FFS!!!
If you want mass readership, then you absolutely have to make the information available to all and that is no bad thing. There's a way of doing it and then there is just gross dumbing down--something I hate.
I can cope with the dumbing down, it's the insertion of opinion and gossip into pieces that I can't abide, I don't know about the scientific basis of it all, but surely when someone is in 'learning' mode, sneaking in a bit of gossip or baseless opinion must educate people wrongly and fairly convincingly.
I know it's all figures to the media, but I would like them to take responsibility for the 'subliminal' (I can't think of a better description) messages they put out. I really don't think you can expect every single consumer to wade through reports to seperate facts from fiction or irrelavance. Those who have no desire to do so do have a right to be informed properly. They could still have their tits on page 3 though!!
People should also note that if you are approached by a police officer then you have the right to ask them for their name and number. They MUST give this to you.
Yes, sorry, I did mean to put that in, thanks for the timely edit!
Reminds me of when that Raoul Moat stuff was going on and the Sun shown pictures of him as a baby. One of the pictures had him with his fists clenched and it had a comment underneath it, something to the effect of him destined to be bad etc (Can't remember sorry). It was madness.
I remember those ridiculous captions. Here they are:
Under a photo of Moat aged 5:
"Ginger top ... but at five his eyes already have intense
look."
Under a photo of a baby Moat:
..."Cute baby ... but two-month-old Moat clenches his
fists."
I remember those ridiculous captions. Here they are:
Under a photo of Moat aged 5:
"Ginger top ... but at five his eyes already have intense
look."
Under a photo of a baby Moat:
..."Cute baby ... but two-month-old Moat clenches his
fists."
Beyond belief...
It is utterly ridiculous. I'm always amazed that this kind of 'reporting' has any effect on its readership other than disgust for such piss-poor attempt at manipulation.
It is utterly ridiculous. I'm always amazed that this kind of 'reporting' has any effect on its readership other than disgust for such piss-poor attempt at manipulation.
I believe it's because many people actually want to believe in some sort of stereotype, possibly because it makes them feel safer being able to identify a monster among us rather than have the unnerving feeling that monsters actually live among us and look just like us.
How would you feel if your new year period was spent in a cell being questioned about a murder you hadn't committed and then you were released to find your house had been taken apart?
Not very happy at all, is the obvious answer.
What is your preferred method of murder investigation though? If this man is found to be guilty, will you not be glad that the police did their job thoroughly?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately the police (just like everyone else) do not possess it.
What is your preferred method of murder investigation though? If this man is found to be guilty, will you not be glad that the police did their job thoroughly?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately the police (just like everyone else) do not possess it.
The chance of him actually being guilty dosent seem to matter it seems. I dont think it should have been reported on until he was charged and then the facts only, and i wouldnt be happy either but like you say the police have to do their job somehow and as hobbitfeet pointed out in a post, sometimes the guilty are falling through this hole of media sensesationalism (is that a word?? )
I don't think I'm even going to bother responding to you when you have seen fit to judge me so harshly for no real reason at all.
The fact that you're also a trained journalist and the attitude with which you've replied to me makes it clear it would be pointless trying to debate with you on this issue, so I'm not going to.
See, this is silly. I am not judging you by a long shot. You really need to stop being so touchy and me being a trained journalist should be quite a good debate, seeing I am able to offer a view that is nothing like you think it is.
"People as your good self" is an expression which implies ordinary people, but you see fit to call people like "bastard scum" and expect no come back. My god.
I believe it's because many people actually want to believe in some sort of stereotype, possibly because it makes them feel safer being able to identify a monster among us rather than have the unnerving feeling that monsters actually live among us and look just like us.
Yes. Agreed. I suppose I always want to feel that we've moved on from that sort of lazy stereotyping. I could pick out scores of people on a daily basis for potential murderers and rapists if it were based soley on visual and/or personality quirks.
I believe it's because many people actually want to believe in some sort of stereotype, possibly because it makes them feel safer being able to identify a monster among us rather than have the unnerving feeling that monsters actually live among us and look just like us.
I think that's very true. One only has to look at DS to see the levels of outrage whenever someone suggests that a child-killer or whatever is a human being and as such we should try to understand what makes them do such awful things to know that. People seem terrified of acknowledging that these people are the same species they are, therefore we want scary stereotypes because they are Other than us.
What is your preferred method of murder investigation though? If this man is found to be guilty, will you not be glad that the police did their job thoroughly?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately the police (just like everyone else) do not possess it.
Eh?
The original post you replied to never said that the police shouldn't investigate murders. He simply said that Jeffries should be compensated if it is found he is innocent. You replied with a sarcastic "yes, the police shouldn't investigate murders" or something.
Do you not agree that IF jeffries is found to have nothing to do with this then he should recieve some serious compensation?
I can cope with the dumbing down, it's the insertion of opinion and gossip into pieces that I can't abide, I don't know about the scientific basis of it all, but surely when someone is in 'learning' mode, sneaking in a bit of gossip or baseless opinion must educate people wrongly and fairly convincingly.
I know it's all figures to the media, but I would like them to take responsibility for the 'subliminal' (I can't think of a better description) messages they put out. I really don't think you can expect every single consumer to wade through reports to seperate facts from fiction or irrelavance. Those who have no desire to do so do have a right to be informed properly. They could still have their tits on page 3 though!!
I agree with you (though not about the tits-- those I could do without but I appreciate I am not the targeted tit audience!)
It's really hard to write objectively and without personal bias. Even when I was writing Op-Ed stuff, I always included facts in my pieces. Reporting, when done correctly is fantastically hard and even harder when it's for broadcast. However, this does not mean that the journalist should cut corners or be sloppy when reporting a story.
I can't abide rumor or innuendo in a story. It sets my teeth on edge and makes a mockery of honest journalists-- of which there are many. I realise we are up there with used car salesman and repo men when it comes to professions, but there are people out there who truly believe in giving voice to the voiceless.
Funnily enough, people DO in fact believe what they read in the press and most people do not get their news from blogs. (I actually think that blogs for the most part, are pretty poor sources of info.)
Thanks for talking to a scumbag bastard by the way!
See, this is silly. I am not judging you by a long shot. You really need to stop being so touchy and me being a trained journalist should be quite a good debate, seeing I am able to offer a view that is nothing like you think it is.
"People as your good self" is an expression which implies ordinary people, but you see fit to call people like "bastard scum" and expect no come back. My god.
I don't think I'm touchy when it comes to you specifically - I've seen at least one other poster take issue with how condesending your posts can come across. If you don't actually mean to be condesending, then I'm willing to accept that and take your posts in better faith, but your posts seem pretty aggressive to me sometimes and it can feel quite intimidating being directly on the receiving end.
Clearly, you're very intelligent and I don't begrude you that at all, and I do find a lot of what you have to say interesting. I just sense a bit of an attitude, and it's off-putting.
PS - what would you call the sections of the media who have presumed this man is guilty with no evidence and are taking such delight in reporting what an odd loner he is?
Yes. Agreed. I suppose I always want to feel that we've moved on from that sort of lazy stereotyping. I could pick out scores of people on a daily basis for potential murderers and rapists if it were based soley on visual and/or personality quirks.
I think that's very true. One only has to look at DS to see the levels of outrage whenever someone suggests that a child-killer or whatever is a human being and as such we should try to understand what makes them do such awful things to know that. People seem terrified of acknowledging that these people are the same species they are, therefore we want scary stereotypes because they are Other than us.
It's a form of desensitization similar to the process used by the military to train their troops to kill another human being. We were taught that they were the 'enemy' or they were referred to by scathing names. We were discouraged to think of them as actual people from another country, because once you view the enemy as a fellow human being it's nature (for most people at least) to hesitate at taking a life.
The same applies to murderers and other such criminals. We don't want to acknowledge that human beings are capable of such hideous acts, let alone live among us undetected and with impunity. Yet they do. We want to think that we could look at a person and immediately know that they are dangerous. Except that you can't.
The viilfication of Jefferies in the media is the beginning of the witchhunt and the they want us out in force waving pitchforks and torches. We are no more advanced now than we were in the days of the Witchfinder General.
Unfortunately this human world has a way of creating inhuman monsters
Jefferies might be guilty, he might not, but until we are shown the indisputable evidence, the man should be allowed to be innocent until proven guilty.
The original post you replied to never said that the police shouldn't investigate murders. He simply said that Jeffries should be compensated if it is found he is innocent. You replied with a sarcastic "yes, the police shouldn't investigate murders" or something.
Do you not agree that IF jeffries is found to have nothing to do with this then he should recieve some serious compensation?
Compensated by who? The police or the press?
Presumably he'll be free to press charges against either if he feels he's been unfairly treated.
I don't think I'm touchy when it comes to you specifically - I've seen at least one other poster take issue with how condesending your posts can come across. If you don't actually mean to be condesending, then I'm willing to accept that and take your posts in better faith, but your posts seem pretty aggressive to me sometimes and it can feel quite intimidating being directly on the receiving end.
Clearly, you're very intelligent and I don't begrude you that at all, and I do find a lot of what you have to say interesting. I just sense a bit of an attitude, and it's off-putting.
PS - what would you call the sections of the media who have presumed this man is guilty with no evidence and are taking such delight in reporting what an odd loner he is?
I would say they are a disgrace to the profession-- something I have made clear in my previous posts.
You can't report a story without the facts. If the man is a loner with some eccentric habits, well you report that-- if it is germane to the story. What you don't do is insinuate that the person is somehow flawed, bad or wrong because of this. My brother in law is agoraphobic, so he almost never leaves the house and when he does, he is never alone. I'd hate for something to happen near where his parents live and he was somehow implicated because he is a loner.
As for my posts-- I was in no way trying to be condecending to you or anyone else. I can't help how you take them and I am not going to change how I write. I write as I was taught and I think I write with enough clarity to get my points across.
I am not nor have I ever been an aggressive person. My posts are not aggressive, but if someone is clearly being an idiot, then I clearly pick them up on it. I don't think you are an idiot, by the way but if you think I am aggressive, so be it.
Comments
Obviously the evidence is mounting up, but whether it's mounting up against this man in particular is another story.
However on the surface, I knew as soon as this man's photo and comments were released that they would arrest him. I could see what was happening in the media. No matter what solid evidence the police have, the media had already convicted the man, which is not right because the sheeple in the population see where the media point and mindlessly follow.
If he's done it then he knows he has. I suspect that the police are building a case against him and will have given suitable cause for an extension of interview time for the CPS to allow it. On the other hand, I guess if he originally just volunteered to be interviewed the extension could then well be the Police exercising their right to detain him.
These are the powers of the Police:
A police officer can stop and question you in the street or a park or other outside place if s/he suspects you of committing an offence or believes that you have witnessed a possible offence.
If you are stopped and questioned, you are expected to be co-operative. You must give your name and address to the officer if asked for it. If you don’t, this is an offence and you could be arrested.
If the police suspect you of committing an offence they may ask you for an explanation of your behaviour. You have the right to refuse to give an explanation.
Once you have given the police your name and address it is up to them to decide whether they want to ask more questions. If they don’t then you should be allowed to go. If they do want to ask you more questions and they suspect you of having committed a crime they can:-
- ask you to attend voluntarily at the police station to help with enquiries; or
- detain you for questioning for up to 24 hours; or
- arrest you for allegedly committing an offence.
If the police suspect you of being a witness to a crime they can invite you to attend the police station to help with enquiries but you are not obliged to do so and cannot be detained at the police station.If you have been questioned by the police, either as a suspect or a witness, the police should make clear before you are released or leave the police station what further action, if any, will be taken, for example, whether you have been charged and will be reported to the Procurator Fiscal or whether you have been eliminated from the enquiry.
The tragedy of this is not always that the innocent are subject to trial by media but also that the guilty may not be found not guilty (or will have grounds for appeals etc) due to the nature of the 'fair' trial system.
Now that is a travesty.
(I'm not for one minute suggesting that anyone is guilty here, just that the 'general' guilty may have their trials compromised).
However, if you think about it, how many times has there been a murder and once the suspect was caught, dozens of folk say "we never would've suspected Joe. He was always at the bowling green/delivering meals on wheels/ a devoted dad/local scout leader" and all that jazz? Hell, even John Wayne Gacy appeared outwardly normal to people, not saying you are anything like John Wayne Gacy!
People should also note that if you are approached by a police officer then you have the right to ask them for their name and number. They MUST give this to you.
No way. Gacy was a CLOWN. Anyone should have guessed he was a wrong 'un. A CLOWN, FFS!!!
You just reminded me of one of my favourite ever Onion stories.
if that guy is innocent i bet the scum that is the media wont even think about apologising for ruining this guy life!
I can cope with the dumbing down, it's the insertion of opinion and gossip into pieces that I can't abide, I don't know about the scientific basis of it all, but surely when someone is in 'learning' mode, sneaking in a bit of gossip or baseless opinion must educate people wrongly and fairly convincingly.
I know it's all figures to the media, but I would like them to take responsibility for the 'subliminal' (I can't think of a better description) messages they put out. I really don't think you can expect every single consumer to wade through reports to seperate facts from fiction or irrelavance. Those who have no desire to do so do have a right to be informed properly. They could still have their tits on page 3 though!!
Yes, sorry, I did mean to put that in, thanks for the timely edit!
I remember those ridiculous captions. Here they are:
Under a photo of Moat aged 5:
"Ginger top ... but at five his eyes already have intense
look."
Under a photo of a baby Moat:
..."Cute baby ... but two-month-old Moat clenches his
fists."
Beyond belief...
It is utterly ridiculous. I'm always amazed that this kind of 'reporting' has any effect on its readership other than disgust for such piss-poor attempt at manipulation.
I believe it's because many people actually want to believe in some sort of stereotype, possibly because it makes them feel safer being able to identify a monster among us rather than have the unnerving feeling that monsters actually live among us and look just like us.
Not very happy at all, is the obvious answer.
What is your preferred method of murder investigation though? If this man is found to be guilty, will you not be glad that the police did their job thoroughly?
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately the police (just like everyone else) do not possess it.
They were actually shown on Charlie Brooker's Screenwipe this past week: http://www.bbc.co.uk/i/wyn2z/?t=36m20s
The media are quite unbelievable sometimes. For all the wrong reasons.
Haha really?!! Thats ludicrous.
The chance of him actually being guilty dosent seem to matter it seems. I dont think it should have been reported on until he was charged and then the facts only, and i wouldnt be happy either but like you say the police have to do their job somehow and as hobbitfeet pointed out in a post, sometimes the guilty are falling through this hole of media sensesationalism (is that a word??
See, this is silly. I am not judging you by a long shot. You really need to stop being so touchy and me being a trained journalist should be quite a good debate, seeing I am able to offer a view that is nothing like you think it is.
"People as your good self" is an expression which implies ordinary people, but you see fit to call people like "bastard scum" and expect no come back. My god.
Yes. Agreed. I suppose I always want to feel that we've moved on from that sort of lazy stereotyping. I could pick out scores of people on a daily basis for potential murderers and rapists if it were based soley on visual and/or personality quirks.
I think that's very true. One only has to look at DS to see the levels of outrage whenever someone suggests that a child-killer or whatever is a human being and as such we should try to understand what makes them do such awful things to know that. People seem terrified of acknowledging that these people are the same species they are, therefore we want scary stereotypes because they are Other than us.
Eh?
The original post you replied to never said that the police shouldn't investigate murders. He simply said that Jeffries should be compensated if it is found he is innocent. You replied with a sarcastic "yes, the police shouldn't investigate murders" or something.
Do you not agree that IF jeffries is found to have nothing to do with this then he should recieve some serious compensation?
I agree with you (though not about the tits-- those I could do without but I appreciate I am not the targeted tit audience!)
It's really hard to write objectively and without personal bias. Even when I was writing Op-Ed stuff, I always included facts in my pieces. Reporting, when done correctly is fantastically hard and even harder when it's for broadcast. However, this does not mean that the journalist should cut corners or be sloppy when reporting a story.
I can't abide rumor or innuendo in a story. It sets my teeth on edge and makes a mockery of honest journalists-- of which there are many. I realise we are up there with used car salesman and repo men when it comes to professions, but there are people out there who truly believe in giving voice to the voiceless.
Funnily enough, people DO in fact believe what they read in the press and most people do not get their news from blogs. (I actually think that blogs for the most part, are pretty poor sources of info.)
Thanks for talking to a scumbag bastard by the way!
I don't think I'm touchy when it comes to you specifically - I've seen at least one other poster take issue with how condesending your posts can come across. If you don't actually mean to be condesending, then I'm willing to accept that and take your posts in better faith, but your posts seem pretty aggressive to me sometimes and it can feel quite intimidating being directly on the receiving end.
Clearly, you're very intelligent and I don't begrude you that at all, and I do find a lot of what you have to say interesting. I just sense a bit of an attitude, and it's off-putting.
PS - what would you call the sections of the media who have presumed this man is guilty with no evidence and are taking such delight in reporting what an odd loner he is?
From the media outlets that will have basically destroyed his character - yes. From the police doing what they're meant to - no.
Ack - you're small fry - the OH isn't even a journalist and has overtaken SB standards by a long shot and I still occasionally talk to him
I think we all could, if we were so disposed.
It's a form of desensitization similar to the process used by the military to train their troops to kill another human being. We were taught that they were the 'enemy' or they were referred to by scathing names. We were discouraged to think of them as actual people from another country, because once you view the enemy as a fellow human being it's nature (for most people at least) to hesitate at taking a life.
The same applies to murderers and other such criminals. We don't want to acknowledge that human beings are capable of such hideous acts, let alone live among us undetected and with impunity. Yet they do. We want to think that we could look at a person and immediately know that they are dangerous. Except that you can't.
The viilfication of Jefferies in the media is the beginning of the witchhunt and the they want us out in force waving pitchforks and torches. We are no more advanced now than we were in the days of the Witchfinder General.
Unfortunately this human world has a way of creating inhuman monsters
Jefferies might be guilty, he might not, but until we are shown the indisputable evidence, the man should be allowed to be innocent until proven guilty.
Compensated by who? The police or the press?
Presumably he'll be free to press charges against either if he feels he's been unfairly treated.
Have the police done anything wrong thus far?
I would say they are a disgrace to the profession-- something I have made clear in my previous posts.
You can't report a story without the facts. If the man is a loner with some eccentric habits, well you report that-- if it is germane to the story. What you don't do is insinuate that the person is somehow flawed, bad or wrong because of this. My brother in law is agoraphobic, so he almost never leaves the house and when he does, he is never alone. I'd hate for something to happen near where his parents live and he was somehow implicated because he is a loner.
As for my posts-- I was in no way trying to be condecending to you or anyone else. I can't help how you take them and I am not going to change how I write. I write as I was taught and I think I write with enough clarity to get my points across.
I am not nor have I ever been an aggressive person. My posts are not aggressive, but if someone is clearly being an idiot, then I clearly pick them up on it. I don't think you are an idiot, by the way but if you think I am aggressive, so be it.