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?
The post I replied to (post 8) referred to 'the hassle the police have put him through.' It was to that particular point that I addressed my answer.
If the police are to refrain from ever affording anyone a degree of 'hassle' then I fear we will end up with a lawless state. What were they meant to do - send him an e.mail asking if he had anything to do with the murder?
Re. your last point. No, I do not think he should receive monetary compensation from the police - the press are another matter, But if he is innocent then he should receive a full and frank apology.
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.
Thanks for responding. The biggest problem with the internet is lack of tone and facial expressions so it can be far too easy to feel you're being attacked even if you aren't. I'll try a bit less of the knee-jerk reaction, as difficult as it can sometimes be during lively discussion.
From the media outlets that will have basically destroyed his character - yes. From the police doing what they're meant to - no.
Are you for real? You don't think that someone who spends 4 and a half days in a cell over the new year period for something that has nothing to do with them should get any compensation????
As I understand it, don't people currently get £250 compensation for every hour they are unfairly locked up?
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 doubt they would have searched the properly without a warrant and to get one they do have to prove that there is a good reason for doing the search, so no, I don't think the police have done anything wrong.
Of course it depends on the manner in which they conducted the search. If they tore everything apart beyond repair, ruined personal things like photographs etc or if anything was missing then I imagine he would be able to sue the Police for compensation probably through a civil action. Of course he'd only be able to do that if it was proved that he wasn't guilty.
The post I replied to (post 8) referred to 'the hassle the police have put him through.' It was to that particular point that I addressed my answer.
If the police are to refrain from ever affording anyone a degree of 'hassle' then I fear we will end up with a lawless state. What were they meant to do - send him an e.mail asking if he had anything to do with the murder?
Re. your last point. No, I do not think he should receive monetary compensation from the police - the press are another matter, But if he is innocent then he should receive a full and frank apology.
Do you think someone wrongfully imprisoned should get compensation?
DO you think he should be compensated for his house being ripped to pieces?
Are you for real? You don't think that someone who spends 4 and a half days in a cell over the new year period for something that has nothing to do with them should get any compensation????
As I understand it, don't people currently get £250 compensation for every hour they are unfairly locked up?
I thought compensation was only payable if the 'locking up' was due to poor or insufficient reasoning and/or evidence ?
Are you for real? You don't think that someone who spends 4 and a half days in a cell over the new year period for something that has nothing to do with them should get any compensation????
As I understand it, don't people currently get £250 compensation for every hour they are unfairly locked up?
Not if there's good reason no. It's a dangerous precedent to set, policing costs would be extortionate.......
I thought compensation was only payable if the 'locking up' was due to poor or insufficient reasoning and/or evidence ?
....which is highly unlikely to be the case considering the extensions granted.
He's been arrested, not charged. As a society we also don't compensate people who have been found innocent in court for the time they spent been questioned.
Do you think someone wrongfully imprisoned should get compensation?
DO you think he should be compensated for his house being ripped to pieces?
Yes and yes....of course they should. I just doubt they would be allowed compensation for the time spent questioning them while the Police sort out who did what.
Yes and yes....of course they should. I just doubt they would be allowed compensation for the time spent questioning them while the Police sort out who did what.
Come off it, we aren't talking about a quick interview at the station. Mr Jeffries will be spending 4 days there.
Think about it another way. Imagine Mr Jeffries hadn't retired and it wasn't a bank holiday. Would you not want him compensated for loss of earnings if he lost money as a result of not being able to go to work?
It's all an "i'm alright jack" attitude. If the people on this thread spent 4 days of the festive season locked up and under arrest for a crime they didn't commit then they would be up in arms about it.
Maybe so, but in that case I get the feeling the landlord will comfortably qualify.
I wouldn't have thought so- I'd say inconsistencies in a statement would constitute reasonable grounds.
I get what you're saying, and it must be awful if you're innocent and that happens to you, but if the police are only allowed to arrest someone and bring them in for questioning once they're 100% sure it's the right guy, then what's the point of the questioning? And I wouldn't suggest removing questioning would be a particularly sensible option.
Come off it, we aren't talking about a quick interview at the station. Mr Jeffries will be spending 4 days there.
Think about it another way. Imagine Mr Jeffries hadn't retired and it wasn't a bank holiday. Would you not want him compensated for loss of earnings if he lost money as a result of not being able to go to work?
It's all an "i'm alright jack" attitude. If the people on this thread spent 4 days of the festive season locked up and under arrest for a crime they didn't commit then they would be up in arms about it.[/QUOTE]
Well of course they would, they'd be furious. It goes without saying that anyone would. But unless I've missed it?) you still haven't suggested an alternative method of policing.
Maybe so, but in that case I get the feeling the landlord will comfortably qualify.
I don't see how you can say that. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? Actually, maybe you're not. I admit to not being up to date on this case.
From what I can see, so far all that's come out is that the police are doing their job, and some elements of the press are behaving like complete and utter dickwads.
Maybe the press has a case to answer for. I don't see that the police do though. Unless there is information yet to come out. Or information I've missed.
I wouldn't have thought so- I'd say inconsistencies in a statement would constitute reasonable grounds.
There were no inconsistencies. If you think there were please quote them
I get what you're saying, and it must be awful if you're innocent and that happens to you, but if the police are only allowed to arrest someone and bring them in for questioning once they're 100% sure it's the right guy, then what's the point of the questioning? And I wouldn't suggest removing questioning would be a particularly sensible option.
This is a complete strawman. Where have I suggested this in any of my posts?
I am simply saying that IF he turns out to be innocent then he should be handsomely compensated for the 4 days of his life that they have taken.
Why would attribute statements to me that I have not made?
I haven't seen any "character assassination" of the landlord. Just a description of his appearance and behaviour. How people interpret that is a matter for their own consciences.
I don't see how you can say that. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? Actually, maybe you're not. I admit to not being up to date on this case.
From what I can see, so far all that's come out is that the police are doing their job, and some elements of the press are behaving like complete and utter dickwads.
Maybe the press has a case to answer for. I don't see that the police do though. Unless there is information yet to come out. Or information I've missed.
That's what I'm getting. Of course, the dibble could be beating the crap out of him as we speak, in which case they WOULD be liable for the same dickwad status as much of the media, but there's nothing to suggest that's the case.
I hate DS sometimes. I find myself defending the cops FAR too often on here, and that's just not me.
This is a complete strawman. Where have I suggested this in any of my posts?
I am simply saying that IF he turns out to be innocent then he should be handsomely compensated for the 4 days of his life that they have taken.
Why would attribute statements to me that I have not made?
I didn't attribute anything to you- I was merely following your logic to its conclusion. If the police have to pay compensation for every time they take someone in for questioning who is the wrong guy, then it makes a nonsense of the whole procedure.
I don't see how you can say that. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? Actually, maybe you're not. I admit to not being up to date on this case.
From what I can see, so far all that's come out is that the police are doing their job, and some elements of the press are behaving like complete and utter dickwads.
Maybe the press has a case to answer for. I don't see that the police do though. Unless there is information yet to come out. Or information I've missed.
Well all I have seen from the press and their "journalistic research" (lol) is that Mr Jeffries had blue hair and liked some death poems and is a bachelor. They have been unable to produce a single iota of evidence that suggests he did it. They can't even think of a motive. They did try the "he's gay" gambit but then they realised that that gives him even less of a motive.
I remember a similar thing with Robert Murat. The bright sparks in the tabloids managed to unearth all sorts of things about him, including that he liked bouncy castles. But they never once managed to produce a shred of evidence.
Now, of course, the police may have good evidence but I doubt it. I reckon he would be charged by now and they wouldn't be bothering the neighbour.
Well all I have seen from the press and their "journalistic research" (lol) is that Mr Jeffries had blue hair and liked some death poems and is a bachelor. They have been unable to produce a single iota of evidence that suggests he did it. They can't even think of a motive. They did try the "he's gay" gambit but then they realised that that gives him even less of a motive.
I remember a similar thing with Robert Murat. The bright sparks in the tabloids managed to unearth all sorts of things about him, including that he liked bouncy castles. But they never once managed to produce a shred of evidence.
Now, of course, the police may have good evidence but I doubt it. I reckon he would be charged by now and they wouldn't be bothering the neighbour.
I completely agree as regards the press. I'm assuming the cops had a bit more than that to go on- if they didn't, then I'll agree with you about them too, but it's too early to judge on that one.
There I am simply saying that IF he turns out to be innocent then he should be handsomely compensated for the 4 days of his life that they have taken.
I would rather that police funding be used in criminal investigation and prevention, not compensation. The police have a job to do, and if this is what needs to be done to convict him, or eliminate him from their enquiries, then they should be allowed to do it.
His basic human rights to food, shelter and the suchlike will be being provided.
I could be wrong there- I thought that was what had happened but haven't been following overly closely.
Well if you haven't followed it closely then perhaps you should refrain from stating as a fact that he made contradictory statements.
didn't attribute anything to you- I was merely following your logic to its conclusion. If the police have to pay compensation for every time they take someone in for questioning who is the wrong guy, then it makes a nonsense of the whole procedure.
Most people who are taken in for questioning aren't there that long. And many of them turn out to be guilty anyway.
I am suggesting that all innocent people who are arrested and held for days get compensated for those days.
I would rather that police funding be used in criminal investigation and prevention, not compensation. The police have a job to do, and if this is what needs to be done to convict him, or eliminate him from their enquiries, then they should be allowed to do it.
His basic human rights to food, shelter and the suchlike will be being provided.
I would rather that police funding be used in criminal investigation and prevention, not compensation. The police have a job to do, and if this is what needs to be done to convict him, or eliminate him from their enquiries, then they should be allowed to do it.
His basic human rights to food, shelter and the suchlike will be being provided.
Next christmas, someone in your street gets murdered on christmas eve. The police suspect you and arrest you that night and you spend tle whole of christmas in a cell. Then they let you out the day after boxing day. You would be completely happy with this?
Comments
The post I replied to (post 8) referred to 'the hassle the police have put him through.' It was to that particular point that I addressed my answer.
If the police are to refrain from ever affording anyone a degree of 'hassle' then I fear we will end up with a lawless state. What were they meant to do - send him an e.mail asking if he had anything to do with the murder?
Re. your last point. No, I do not think he should receive monetary compensation from the police - the press are another matter, But if he is innocent then he should receive a full and frank apology.
Thanks for responding. The biggest problem with the internet is lack of tone and facial expressions so it can be far too easy to feel you're being attacked even if you aren't. I'll try a bit less of the knee-jerk reaction, as difficult as it can sometimes be during lively discussion.
Are you for real? You don't think that someone who spends 4 and a half days in a cell over the new year period for something that has nothing to do with them should get any compensation????
As I understand it, don't people currently get £250 compensation for every hour they are unfairly locked up?
I doubt they would have searched the properly without a warrant and to get one they do have to prove that there is a good reason for doing the search, so no, I don't think the police have done anything wrong.
Of course it depends on the manner in which they conducted the search. If they tore everything apart beyond repair, ruined personal things like photographs etc or if anything was missing then I imagine he would be able to sue the Police for compensation probably through a civil action. Of course he'd only be able to do that if it was proved that he wasn't guilty.
Do you think someone wrongfully imprisoned should get compensation?
DO you think he should be compensated for his house being ripped to pieces?
I thought compensation was only payable if the 'locking up' was due to poor or insufficient reasoning and/or evidence ?
Not if there's good reason no. It's a dangerous precedent to set, policing costs would be extortionate.......
....which is highly unlikely to be the case considering the extensions granted.
He's been arrested, not charged. As a society we also don't compensate people who have been found innocent in court for the time they spent been questioned.
Yes and yes....of course they should. I just doubt they would be allowed compensation for the time spent questioning them while the Police sort out who did what.
Come off it, we aren't talking about a quick interview at the station. Mr Jeffries will be spending 4 days there.
Think about it another way. Imagine Mr Jeffries hadn't retired and it wasn't a bank holiday. Would you not want him compensated for loss of earnings if he lost money as a result of not being able to go to work?
It's all an "i'm alright jack" attitude. If the people on this thread spent 4 days of the festive season locked up and under arrest for a crime they didn't commit then they would be up in arms about it.
Maybe so, but in that case I get the feeling the landlord will comfortably qualify.
I wouldn't have thought so- I'd say inconsistencies in a statement would constitute reasonable grounds.
I get what you're saying, and it must be awful if you're innocent and that happens to you, but if the police are only allowed to arrest someone and bring them in for questioning once they're 100% sure it's the right guy, then what's the point of the questioning? And I wouldn't suggest removing questioning would be a particularly sensible option.
I don't see how you can say that. Aren't you jumping the gun a bit? Actually, maybe you're not. I admit to not being up to date on this case.
From what I can see, so far all that's come out is that the police are doing their job, and some elements of the press are behaving like complete and utter dickwads.
Maybe the press has a case to answer for. I don't see that the police do though. Unless there is information yet to come out. Or information I've missed.
There were no inconsistencies. If you think there were please quote them
This is a complete strawman. Where have I suggested this in any of my posts?
I am simply saying that IF he turns out to be innocent then he should be handsomely compensated for the 4 days of his life that they have taken.
Why would attribute statements to me that I have not made?
That's what I'm getting. Of course, the dibble could be beating the crap out of him as we speak, in which case they WOULD be liable for the same dickwad status as much of the media, but there's nothing to suggest that's the case.
I hate DS sometimes. I find myself defending the cops FAR too often on here, and that's just not me.
I could be wrong there- I thought that was what had happened but haven't been following overly closely.
I didn't attribute anything to you- I was merely following your logic to its conclusion. If the police have to pay compensation for every time they take someone in for questioning who is the wrong guy, then it makes a nonsense of the whole procedure.
Well all I have seen from the press and their "journalistic research" (lol) is that Mr Jeffries had blue hair and liked some death poems and is a bachelor. They have been unable to produce a single iota of evidence that suggests he did it. They can't even think of a motive. They did try the "he's gay" gambit but then they realised that that gives him even less of a motive.
I remember a similar thing with Robert Murat. The bright sparks in the tabloids managed to unearth all sorts of things about him, including that he liked bouncy castles. But they never once managed to produce a shred of evidence.
Now, of course, the police may have good evidence but I doubt it. I reckon he would be charged by now and they wouldn't be bothering the neighbour.
I completely agree as regards the press. I'm assuming the cops had a bit more than that to go on- if they didn't, then I'll agree with you about them too, but it's too early to judge on that one.
I would rather that police funding be used in criminal investigation and prevention, not compensation. The police have a job to do, and if this is what needs to be done to convict him, or eliminate him from their enquiries, then they should be allowed to do it.
His basic human rights to food, shelter and the suchlike will be being provided.
Well if you haven't followed it closely then perhaps you should refrain from stating as a fact that he made contradictory statements.
Most people who are taken in for questioning aren't there that long. And many of them turn out to be guilty anyway.
I am suggesting that all innocent people who are arrested and held for days get compensated for those days.
Maybe even a new l'Oreal colour. Who knows.
Next christmas, someone in your street gets murdered on christmas eve. The police suspect you and arrest you that night and you spend tle whole of christmas in a cell. Then they let you out the day after boxing day. You would be completely happy with this?
There is not enough money to do that. As I said, I would rather the policing budget was used for actual policing.