Don't Get Too Close.... - Page 4

chav1 · 10-05-2005, 23:29

would it be illigal for newspapers to put his face on the front of every news paper so people could at least avoid him..?

or maybe a bell hung around his neck like they did with leppars lol

Gobsmacked · 10-05-2005, 23:36

Apparently it would be in breech of his human rights to identify him.

My response to that is somewhat akin to small spherical objects.

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobsmacked

They use the term "quite rightly" because to do so would have put the police officers and solicitor at risk. If you read carefully you would have seen that. Or perhaps you prefer to read a less challenging newspaper.

"They" ? who are "They" and if the police release serious offenders becuase it may put thier health at risk, then the police should be held to book. I'm sure mass murderers in the past have been a "health risk" to the police.. if it is the case that the police no longer interview suspects that are involed with serious crime because of risk, I will ask again where this information came from.. as you will know in criminal law .. not to interview all suspects involved with an offence is an offence in itself.

Driller · 10-05-2005, 23:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobsmacked

Apparently it would be in breech of his human rights to identify him.

My response to that is somewhat akin to small spherical objects.

frozen peas? whats that got to do with it?

Gobsmacked · 10-05-2005, 23:54

Have you never heard of charges being dropped Driller?

Driller · 11-05-2005, 00:17

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gobsmacked

Have you never heard of charges being dropped Driller?

Of course charges are dropped.. the qoute was that the police would not interview this person

chav1 · 11-05-2005, 01:01

this guy walking around with TB justifies the invention of the sniper rifle if you ask me

chav1 · 11-05-2005, 01:01

this guy walking around with TB justifies the invention of the sniper rifle if you ask me

double post ...?

starnge ...!

Gobsmacked · 11-05-2005, 07:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driller

the qoute was that the police would not interview this person

A fact which you seemed to find incomprehensible.

Anyone who has been the victim of crime will probably tell you that every case isn't followed through by any means and in this particular instance the health of the police force was considered more important.

Busman747 · 11-05-2005, 21:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Driller

"They" ? who are "They" and if the police release serious offenders becuase it may put thier health at risk, then the police should be held to book. I'm sure mass murderers in the past have been a "health risk" to the police.. if it is the case that the police no longer interview suspects that are involed with serious crime because of risk, I will ask again where this information came from.. as you will know in criminal law .. not to interview all suspects involved with an offence is an offence in itself.

So YOU would be quite happy to spend several hours in a 10 x 10 room with this guy spluttering all over you Driller........?

Perhaps you may want to write to the Chief Constable and tell him Oh, don't forget to mention it to your family and friends as you are putting THEIR lives in danger, not just your own.

pendy · 12-05-2005, 09:02

I suggest that Driller goes back to his obviously out of date Stones Justices Manual to check the criminal law - if s/he can show me where it says it is an offence for the police not to interview a suspect, I'll buy him/her a pint. Sadly, equally there is no law to stop this dangerously infectious loon from wandering the countryside. We're not talking the common cold here, we are talking about a particularly nasty disease that kills or can leave permanent damage. Let's just hope he dies of it before he infects too many more people.

But hey - what the h*** - let's just slag off the police at every possible opportunity.