What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged?
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an example.
"Police investigate more people over Al Fayed abuse"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9gle4m1v3o
Is the police's involvement to investigate possible crimes by living accomplices?
Al-Fayed's victims could claim compensation from his estate but isn't this
a civil matter rather than a criminal one requiring the police?
<https://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/insights/abuse-and-redress-schemes/harrods-settling-over-250-claims-against-mohammed-al-fayed>
On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 14:21:10 +0000, Pamela wrote:
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged?
It requires a considerable suspension of disbelief to accommodate a suggestion that Al Fayed acted totally alone with absolutely no
assistance from anyone anywhere ever. Not even the police - who appear to have a considerable capacity for believing the unbelievable - don't seem
to accept that.
With that out of the way, and given these are very serious charges (even
if it's just women - and that's a biting comment on how society views
crimes against women) then the fact there are other people involved means there should be an investigation. Certainly of anyone still alive.
On 01/12/2024 16:19, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 14:21:10 +0000, Pamela wrote:
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged?
It requires a considerable suspension of disbelief to accommodate a
suggestion that Al Fayed acted totally alone with absolutely no
assistance from anyone anywhere ever. Not even the police - who appear
to have a considerable capacity for believing the unbelievable - don't
seem to accept that.
With that out of the way, and given these are very serious charges
(even if it's just women - and that's a biting comment on how society
views crimes against women) then the fact there are other people
involved means there should be an investigation. Certainly of anyone
still alive.
Can you tell me then what crime they may have committed and under which
law they may be charged?
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an example.
"Police investigate more people over Al Fayed abuse"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9gle4m1v3o
Is the police's involvement to investigate possible crimes by living accomplices?
Al-Fayed's victims could claim compensation from his estate but isn't this
a civil matter rather than a criminal one requiring the police?
<https://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/insights/abuse-and-redress-schemes/harrods-settling-over-250-claims-against-mohammed-al-fayed>
On 1 Dec 2024 at 14:21:10 GMT, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by dead >> people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an example.
"Police investigate more people over Al Fayed abuse"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9gle4m1v3o
Is the police's involvement to investigate possible crimes by living
accomplices?
They are, apparently.
Al-Fayed's victims could claim compensation from his estate but isn't this >> a civil matter rather than a criminal one requiring the police?
<https://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/insights/abuse-and-redress-schemes/harrods-settling-over-250-claims-against-mohammed-al-fayed>
The modern Way is to emphasise the duty of care of police to victims, and I do
think it is of value to victims for their complaints to be investigated even if the perpetrator is dead.
On 01/12/2024 14:21, Pamela wrote:
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an example.
"Police investigate more people over Al Fayed abuse"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9gle4m1v3o
Is the police's involvement to investigate possible crimes by living
accomplices?
Al-Fayed's victims could claim compensation from his estate but isn't
this a civil matter rather than a criminal one requiring the police?
<https://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/insights/abuse-and-redress-schemes/harrods-settling-over-250-claims-against-mohammed-al-fayed>
There is also the little matter that the gentleman isn't in the position
to defend himself.
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an example.
On 01/12/2024 04:17 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 Dec 2024 at 14:21:10 GMT, "Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com>
wrote:
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an
example.
"Police investigate more people over Al Fayed abuse"
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce9gle4m1v3o
Is the police's involvement to investigate possible crimes by living
accomplices?
They are, apparently.
If there are any accomplices, surely?
Al-Fayed's victims could claim compensation from his estate but isn't
this a civil matter rather than a criminal one requiring the police?
<https://www.jordanssolicitors.co.uk/insights/abuse-and-redress- schemes/harrods-settling-over-250-claims-against-mohammed-al-fayed>
The modern Way is to emphasise the duty of care of police to victims,
and I do think it is of value to victims for their complaints to be
investigated even if the perpetrator is dead.
What possible good does it do, especially taking into account the
alternative matters that could be investigated with the resources
involved?
Is there any evidence to suggest the crimes stopped with Al Fayed ?
If he was part of what could be classed "a conspiracy" then chasing down
any co-conspirators - especially if they could conceivably be still
engaged in criminal acts.
On Sun, 01 Dec 2024 14:21:10 +0000, Pamela wrote:
What is the practical purpose for the police to investigate crimes by
dead people when the wrongdoer can't be charged? Al-Fayed is an example.
Additionally, given the banquet some politicians and media outlets made
of Keir Starmers actions over Jimmy Savile, I can understand a desire to ensure this case doesn't go the same way.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever
launched until the conclusions are known.
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are
investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever
launched until the conclusions are known.
It would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the *police* never launch
an investigation to which they do not already know the conclusion.
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:34:12 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are
investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever
launched until the conclusions are known.
It would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the *police* never launch
an investigation to which they do not already know the conclusion.
I refer you to the second limb of my comment about *what* (or whom) is
being investigated.
I have no doubt police investigating non-police may begin with a blank
slate.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:12:12 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:34:12 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are
investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever
launched until the conclusions are known.
It would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the *police* never launch
an investigation to which they do not already know the conclusion.
I refer you to the second limb of my comment about *what* (or whom) is
being investigated.
I have no doubt police investigating non-police may begin with a blank
slate.
I think you are being unduly cynical. If there's one thing that most coppers hate more than anything else, it's a bent copper.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:12:12 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:34:12 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are
investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever
launched until the conclusions are known.
It would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the *police* never launch
an investigation to which they do not already know the conclusion.
I refer you to the second limb of my comment about *what* (or whom) is >>being investigated.
I have no doubt police investigating non-police may begin with a blank >>slate.
I think you are being unduly cynical. If there's one thing that most
coppers hate more than anything else, it's a bent copper.
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:12:12 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:34:12 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate.
That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are
investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever
launched until the conclusions are known.
It would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the *police* never
launch an investigation to which they do not already know the
conclusion.
I refer you to the second limb of my comment about *what* (or whom) is >>being investigated.
I have no doubt police investigating non-police may begin with a blank >>slate.
I think you are being unduly cynical. If there's one thing that most
coppers hate more than anything else, it's a bent copper.
On 2024-12-03, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:12:12 -0000 (UTC), Jethro_uk
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 16:34:12 +0000, Jon Ribbens wrote:
On 2024-12-02, Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Mon, 02 Dec 2024 12:41:10 +0000, Theo wrote:
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:That very much depends on who is investigating and what they are
[quoted text muted]
Plus you don't know what you're going to find until you investigate. >>>>>
investigating.
In fact a cynic might believe that no official investigation is ever >>>>> launched until the conclusions are known.
It would be beyond ridiculous to suggest that the *police* never launch >>>> an investigation to which they do not already know the conclusion.
I refer you to the second limb of my comment about *what* (or whom) is
being investigated.
I have no doubt police investigating non-police may begin with a blank
slate.
I think you are being unduly cynical. If there's one thing that most
coppers hate more than anything else, it's a bent copper.
Perhaps, if we're talking coppers who, say, take bribes from criminals
or something like that. But I suspect that coppers would not consider
other coppers to be bent who, say, manufacture evidence or lie on the
witness stand to protect other police or to help put away people who
the police "know to be guilty".
I always remmeber the de Menezes case where all of the police lied
about what happened (e.g. that they identified themselves as police
before opening fire). So they're all perjurers, they're all "bent".
But I doubt very much that they consider themselves criminals, or
even dishonest. And I doubt that other coppers would consider them
"bent".
On 2024-12-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2024 14:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I always remmeber the de Menezes case where all of the police lied
about what happened (e.g. that they identified themselves as police
before opening fire). So they're all perjurers, they're all "bent".
But I doubt very much that they consider themselves criminals, or
even dishonest. And I doubt that other coppers would consider them
"bent".
I don't think they did lie about identifying themselves as police
officers. Your recollection might be faulty. However, shouting Armed
Police and immediately firing the shots that killed him, which is
probably what happened, shows that the warning was redundant in those
circumstances.
It doesn't matter whether shouting a warning was a sensible thing to do
or not, the point is that *afterwards*, when they were not confronting
in the heat of the moment a suspected deadly terrorist but an official inquest with a great deal of advance notice, they lied about what
happened.
I appear to be correctly remembering reports such as the following:
The couple's account, and those of other passengers, contradicted
evidence given by firearms officers who told the hearing that they
shouted "armed police" at De Menezes before opening fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/31/menezes
And it was just an example. My actual point is that what police consider
to be a "bent copper" and what actually is a "bent copper" are not
remotely the same thing - in some respects they are opposites. A police officer who is overly honest will probably be hated by his colleagues.
On 03/12/2024 14:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I always remmeber the de Menezes case where all of the police lied
about what happened (e.g. that they identified themselves as police
before opening fire). So they're all perjurers, they're all "bent".
But I doubt very much that they consider themselves criminals, or
even dishonest. And I doubt that other coppers would consider them
"bent".
I don't think they did lie about identifying themselves as police
officers. Your recollection might be faulty. However, shouting Armed
Police and immediately firing the shots that killed him, which is
probably what happened, shows that the warning was redundant in those circumstances.
On 2024-12-03, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 03/12/2024 14:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I always remmeber the de Menezes case where all of the police lied
about what happened (e.g. that they identified themselves as police
before opening fire). So they're all perjurers, they're all "bent".
But I doubt very much that they consider themselves criminals, or
even dishonest. And I doubt that other coppers would consider them
"bent".
I don't think they did lie about identifying themselves as police
officers. Your recollection might be faulty. However, shouting Armed
Police and immediately firing the shots that killed him, which is
probably what happened, shows that the warning was redundant in those
circumstances.
It doesn't matter whether shouting a warning was a sensible thing to do
or not, the point is that *afterwards*, when they were not confronting
in the heat of the moment a suspected deadly terrorist but an official inquest with a great deal of advance notice, they lied about what
happened.
I appear to be correctly remembering reports such as the following:
The couple's account, and those of other passengers, contradicted
evidence given by firearms officers who told the hearing that they
shouted "armed police" at De Menezes before opening fire.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/oct/31/menezes
And it was just an example. My actual point is that what police consider
to be a "bent copper" and what actually is a "bent copper" are not
remotely the same thing - in some respects they are opposites. A police officer who is overly honest will probably be hated by his colleagues.
On 03/12/2024 14:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't think they did lie about identifying themselves as police
officers. Your recollection might be faulty. However, shouting Armed
Police and immediately firing the shots that killed him, which is
probably what happened, shows that the warning was redundant in those circumstances.
On Tue, 03 Dec 2024 21:02:24 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 03/12/2024 14:10, Jon Ribbens wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I don't think they did lie about identifying themselves as police
officers. Your recollection might be faulty. However, shouting Armed
Police and immediately firing the shots that killed him, which is
probably what happened, shows that the warning was redundant in those
circumstances.
He was doomed the moment he left the house. Nothing he did would have
kept his head on his shoulders.
On 04/12/2024 11:03, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
He was totally blameless and could not have saved himself by any action
on his part.
On Wed, 04 Dec 2024 12:11:38 +0000, The Todal wrote:
On 04/12/2024 11:03, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
He was totally blameless and could not have saved himself by any action
on his part.
I think is still the horror of the event. Mercifully it would have been almost instantaneous and he would never have realised it was happening
(which adds to the pathos).
At least Stephen Waldorf* lived - no thanks to the police. I wonder how tempted they were to put a final bullet in his head when they realised,
in order to avoid any embarrassing contradictions to their fairy story ?
*Showing my age.
It was a bit odd to see Waldorf being played by Siegfried Farnon.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 498 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 01:51:23 |
| Calls: | 9,821 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 13,757 |
| Messages: | 6,190,248 |