Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Lizzie Zoom]

What has been equally badly handled by possibly the police & definitely the press in the race to pin this crime on culprit(s), is that the police & press should not be naming names while person(s) of interest are helping the police with their enquiries until they have been charged. We still have, in the UK, trial by jury not by public opinion.

It was nothing to do with them and it is against police procedures to do that as it can prejudice any prosecution.  It was the media, with no doubt the help of their neighbours and the person who suggested their names to the police.  That is life now in this social media age!

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to.

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to.

How do you know that ?

[Doctor Gollum]

In the Sun's own words, "identified by local residents"

[78bex]

I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN 

[Lizzie Zoom]

Cobblers. The Police liased with the BBC over Cliff Richard, enabling them to broadcast live from a helicopter, while the police raided his home.
They weren't worried about prejudicing his prosecution. They didn't even bother speaking to him before they raided his home. The first he knew about it was when someone called him in Portugal and told him what they were watching on TV.

The police had a report that someone (thought they) saw a drone near Gatwick. They then turned it into a farce which wouldn't be out of place in a carry on film, and now they are admitting that the drone(s) might not have actually existed at all.
Whoever was in charge of the operation should be signing on the dole in January but I very much doubt they will be.

No it is not!

In this instance (Gatwick) that we are discussing here the police died not liaise with the media and give them the name and address of the people being interviewed.

What happened in the Cliff Richard's case was very wrong and found to be so as someone in the police did make grave errors of judgement and procedures in giving to the media what they did.  But that was then, this is now with Gatwick drones. The police received 67 reports of the drone activity from members of the public, Gatwick staff and police officers themselves.  The thought that the dones may not have existed was due to a DCI being interviewed and stressing all lines of enquiry were being followed, taking everything into account, including the possibility the drones were not seen; that is the ABC of policing.  You do not accept anything until fully investigated and proved or disproved.  But the DCI really should not have implied what he did to the media as we know what that can lead to.

How do you know that ?

The police have disclosed that to us as ICIA's.  Cannot say anymore 

[Lizzie Zoom]

I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN 

Phone calls were made direct to the police

[Doctor Gollum]

Rest assured, if this had been a hoax, it would have been done and dusted in about  ninety minutes... (it takes and hour to reopen the runway to arrivals).

Certainly they wouldn't have allowed the airport to be shut down for as long as they did without a very real threat to aircraft.

[Lizzie Zoom]

Rest assured, if this had been a hoax, it would have been done and dusted in about  ninety minutes... (it takes and hour to reopen the runway to arrivals).

Certainly they wouldn't have allowed the airport to be shut down for as long as they did without a very real threat to aircraft.

Exactly

This went to a Gold Command situation whereby it was not done lightly by some low ranking officer, but taken to the highest level within Sussex Police.  Questions are rightly being asked though as to why COBRA was not activated within the first few hours of this incident starting.  That is one for the politicians!

[Doctor Gollum]

I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN 

You have that totally arse backwards...

A significant event has happened locally.

Say an apparently normal couple, let's call them Mr +. Mrs 78 Bex, from over the road get dragged from their house by armed police and there's five or six police cars clogging your road up for the day as they search the place.

One of your neighbours, an avid Sun reader, who possibly likes a flutter, thinks to himself, I can make a couple of quid here and get Christmas paid for and although Mr and Mrs Bex78 are nice enough, he's always leaving his wheeliebin in the way of my drive...

Said neighbours would have identified you to the Sun before you got to Havant nick... 

[Lizzie Zoom]

I just wonder how plod gotta hold of the couple identified by the SUN 

You have that totally arse backwards...

A significant event has happened locally.

Say an apparently normal couple, let's call them Mr +. Mrs 78 Bex, from over the road get dragged from their house by armed police and there's five or six police cars clogging your road up for the day as they search the place.

One of your neighbours, an avid Sun reader, who possibly likes a flutter, thinks to himself, I can make a couple of quid here and get Christmas paid for and although Mr and Mrs Bex78 are nice enough, he's always leaving his wheeliebin in the way of my drive...

Said neighbours would have identified you to the Sun before you got to Havant nick... 

Yes, and with money on offer.............................Crimestoppers is offering a £50K reward to anyone who correctly identifies the culprits and results in a successful prosecution. How much are the media offering I wonder??  Too tempting for some......!!

[Doctor Gollum]

The ironic with that scenario, is that Mr +Mrs 78bex could have been arrested for something completely unrelated like helping to ship 400kgs of cannabis to a Lincolnshire drug ring...

[Rods2]

It is my understanding that the press code forbids people being named in these circumstances. There is currently a private member's bill going through Parliament that, if passed, will forbid people of interest or helping with enquiries being named unless permission is given by a Crown or higher judge. Such reckless behaviour by the press (several outlets named them) fortunately have had no nasty repercussions, so far, from the public taking the law into their own hands.

I hope the couple involved make a complaint on this to the Press Complaints Commission & it results in more than an apology, on page 15, in the small print.

As for the police, like all large organisations they will have issues at times on security, officers following the rules or rogue officers having their own agendas. So I will reserve judgement on this, beyond my "possibly", until any internal investigation has been made public.

[Sir Tigger KC]

So they eventually used multi million pound military equipment to deal with the drone at Gatwick and apparently the police were reluctant to get the army involved because it would make them look bad, which is why this saga dragged on for so long! 

The police should have done this in the first place!