SPAM This thread is for random spam!!

[Scouse]

Yes folks...computer says no in action.

That's a function of policemen being idiots, lawyers probably doing their jobs and checking the evidence, and then people who were previously murder suspects being released quickly.

It's not a function of "computers" being wrong. It's an issue with humans being idiots.

 

[Job]

My exs husband did the same..moved from London to by us and just loved the countryside, bought a pushbike and cycled the canals..found him floating in the water 3 months after moving up.

 

[Job]

That's a function of policemen being idiots, lawyers probably doing their jobs and checking the evidence, and then people who were previously murder suspects being released quickly.

It's not a function of "computers" being wrong. It's an issue with humans being idiots.

Nope..its the auto assumption that the time stamp is correct..which is all part of the slow creep of people not questioning technology, if it had no stamp and the CCTV owner had said the time, there would be a big question mark over it...official looking time stamp...taken as gospel.

 

[Scouse]

So your own answer:

Nope..its the auto assumption that the time stamp is correct..which is all part of the slow creep of people not questioning technology, if it had no stamp and the CCTV owner had said the time, there would be a big question mark over it...official looking time stamp...taken as gospel.

A) shows it's a human error (auto assumption) and B) is wrong - because it wasn't taken as gospel - it was questioned and the people were released.

Why do you have a problem with suspects being arrested? You arrest people upon suspicion - and then let them go free if your suspicions are unfounded. The alternative is to suspect someone of murder, not bother arresting them because it's only a suspicion, but then what if you find out that your evidence is good and they've fucked off?

No problem here unless you're a fucking wang-job tin-foil idiot.

 

[Job]

They released them after her body was found...if her body hadnt been found how much damage would have be done to their reputations and mental health before someone questioned the software based info.

 

[Job]

And even more concerning.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/forensic-labs-data-manipulation-criminal-convictions-doubt-randox-testing-services-investigation-a8066966.html

 

[fettoken]

Oh shit.

 

[Moriath]

They released them after her body was found...if her body hadnt been found how much damage would have be done to their reputations and mental health before someone questioned the software based info.

They were released on bail before the body was found.

 

[Lakih]

And they weren't some random folks off the street, they were the best friend of the deceased, his father, and grandmother. All who had spent time with her close to her disappearance.

 

[DaGaffer]

And they weren't some random folks off the street, they were the best friend of the deceased, his father, and grandmother. All who had spent time with her close to her disappearance.

So? That's not evidence is it?

 

[Moriath]

So? That's not evidence is it?

No but its a reason to question them. Also we dont know what other inconsistancies the police had that gave them cause for concern.

 

[Raven]

Reason to question, not reason to arrest on murder charges.

And certainly not also leak to the press.

 

[Scouse]

They released them after her body was found...if her body hadnt been found how much damage would have be done to their reputations and mental health before someone questioned the software based info.

It doesn't matter - that's the price you pay for having a police service that arrests suspects.

Two direct questions. Please answer just these, with none of your usual waffle:

A) Should murder suspects not be immediately arrested in case they turn out to be actual murderers who may try to flee justice?

B) If not - how should it be handled instead?

 

[Scouse]

Reason to question, not reason to arrest on murder charges.

And certainly not also leak to the press.

Completely agree with the press leaking. But the arrest, not so much - you get questioned under arrest. If they're murder suspects then get them in immediately otherwise they might flee.

 

[Job]

It doesn't matter - that's the price you pay for having a police service that arrests suspects.

Two direct questions. Please answer just these, with none of your usual waffle:

A) Should murder suspects not be immediately arrested in case they turn out to be actual murderers who may try to flee justice?

B) If not - how should it be handled instead?

My point was there perfectly sound alibis were ignored and a veil of suspicion was cast on them because software was incorrect....and no one questioned it at the time.
As I said the slow march towards assuming the computer is infallable.

 

[Gwadien]

My point was there perfectly sound alibis were ignored and a veil of suspicion was cast on them because software was incorrect....and no one questioned it at the time.
As I said the slow march towards assuming the computer is infallable.

Their*

 

[Job]

I amaze myself at getting that wrong so many times...but just fuckit...there should be only one spelling for it in general use, because...why the fuk.

 

[Scouse]

waffle....

Please Job - answer the questions, as asked, very clearly:

A) Should murder suspects not be immediately arrested in case they turn out to be actual murderers who may try to flee justice?

B) If not - how should it be handled instead?

 

[DaGaffer]

Completely agree with the press leaking. But the arrest, not so much - you get questioned under arrest. If they're murder suspects then get them in immediately otherwise they might flee.

The police are supposed to have grounds for arrest; "knowing someone" isn't grounds.

 

[CorNokZ]

Please Job - answer the questions, as asked, very clearly:

A) Should murder suspects not be immediately arrested in case they turn out to be actual murderers who may try to flee justice?

B) If not - how should it be handled instead?

A) Of course they should. However, they should not immediately be named in the press.

 

[Gwadien]

@fettoken why the facepalm?

I get using shortened versions of words or whatever, but there's no excuse for the misuse their/there/they're when you're over the age of 8.

 

[Scouse]

The police are supposed to have grounds for arrest; "knowing someone" isn't grounds.

Not read the story tbh. Yawn, someone else dead, plod arrests people (and may or may not have followed any sort of procedure - but knowing plod, probably not).

But the principle is sound - if you're the last person to see someone alive you're automatically a suspect in a murder case, n'est-ce pa?

You're arrested under suspicion of something, you're formally questioned, then may be set free after that.


Edit:

However, they should not immediately be named in the press.

Already said that. But Job's complaining about something else entirely - so it'd be nice to see how we should behave in murder cases. Hence the direct and explicit questions....

 

[fettoken]

@fettoken why the facepalm?

I get using shortened versions of words or whatever, but there's no excuse for the misuse their/there/they're when you're over the age of 8.

Guess I've just accepted Job's way of writing with no questions asked.

 

[DaGaffer]

Not read the story tbh. Yawn, someone else dead, plod arrests people (and may or may not have followed any sort of procedure - but knowing plod, probably not).

But the principle is sound - if you're the last person to see someone alive you're automatically a suspect in a murder case, n'est-ce pa?

You're arrested under suspicion of something, you're formally questioned, then may be set free after that.


Edit:

Already said that. But Job's complaining about something else entirely - so it'd be nice to see how we should behave in murder cases. Hence the direct and explicit questions....

You can question people without arresting them. You have to read them their rights, but they're not under arrest.

 

[Moriath]

Completely agree with the press leaking. But the arrest, not so much - you get questioned under arrest. If they're murder suspects then get them in immediately otherwise they might flee.

Which is what i said at the beginning. The names should have been protected but you need to question people under caution or the stuff they say might not be admissable in court.

I think names on rape charges and in fact all charges should be with held until they are found guilty. Been lots of cases where peoples lives have been ruined when they have ultimately been found innocent.

Trial by media and all that.

 

[Moriath]

You can question people without arresting them. You have to read them their rights, but they're not under arrest.

But you cant force them to remain for the questioning etc unless they are arrested.

 

[Moriath]

That one armed weather girl is pretty cute.

BBC London weather girl has one arm (and is super hot)

 

[Tom]

It's good that broadcasters are putting a more diverse range of people in front of the camera. However, she'd be much cooler if she had a laser pointer on her elbow.

 

[Scouse]

I wonder why she doesn't cover her stump tho? I mean, doesn't it get cold? The point of having ends of sleeves is so your hands can do shit.

Tho I guess skin is still more grippily tactile. And would chafe less than cotton when stumping her co-presenter in the ass.





Edit:
/coat

 

[fettoken]

Coat's heavy, weighing on Scouse's shoulder.. moms spaghetti.