Quizzes & Puzzles41 mins ago
Sir Ian Blair again
Is an apology good enough?. What about the breaches of the data protection act!!. Does he not have to explain why he taped Lord Goldsmith and some IPCC officers. Will they close ranks and protect their own again?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Dom Tuk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
ned I think you overlook the routine collusion between media and police - the way famous arrestees always find their names in the papers, for instance. Likewise, how much publicity a case gets often depends on the number of press conferences held, the juiciness of leaks, the impassioned appeals for help from victims and loved ones etc. For instance, I see it has mysteriously leaked out in the last few days that Menezes had been investigated for rape. Now how did that morsel get into the papers, if not as part of a police smear operation?
jno - I said in my initial post there is so much that goes on we dont know about.I personally think people read far too deeply into media reports because they are only scraping the surface of the subterfuge which goes on.
Thats why it doesnt concern me that he taped a conversation -as nox said we have our conversations taped daily.
I have always had a gut instinct about the Menezes case - silly I know - but I felt there more to this than met the eye.I only have the same info at hand as the rest of the population.
Now I dont profess to have the knowledge of some on this site but it doesnt exempt me from proffering an opinion at grass roots level.Had he been a terrorist then the police would still have to have been held accountable.That is the reason I said they are damned if they do and damned if they dont.
I suspect there has been a leak but when I am backed into a corner then I come out fighting - its human nature.
jno - this entire posting wasnt directed at you - honest:)
jno I never said the "fuzz" were squeeky clean. I just happened to agree with Blair on that subject. I despise how the media treat certain murder cases as good sellers so they create a frenzy and hate campaigns. they couldnt care less about catching murderers as long as they get their circulation up.
The media decide on what murders make big news not the police. If all murders were covered the same way in the media with the same amount of coverage maybe there would be more convictions.
This question would be so easy to resolve. I regularly have to communicate with people who have less incentive than I do to keep an accurate record. As far as possible I communicate by e-mail so that I can keep the messages. If I had to use telephone conversations, I would record them. If I had to have a recorded message saying that the call was being recorded, then so be it.
DG, I can�t agree with you.
�Had he been a terrorist then the police would still have to have been held accountable�.
If the Police want to be held accountable, then they can�t just pick and choose. Either they were right, and we applaud them (have a promotion), or they made mistakes (many) and an innocent member of the public was killed. In which case they (like the rest of us) are subject to criticism, and hopefully a more robust procedure can be put in place to protect us ALL If the lessons are learned.
If they only want the cheers for the good work, and then lie about the things that go wrong, how can there reputation and credibility be maintained? More to the point how can they prevent similar tragedies if they don�t learn?
Twenty years ago we wouldn�t have been having this debate, nor would the press be orchestrating a campaign of pressure on Sir Ian Blair. Want to know why, simple, twenty years ago someone in �high office� who had made the mistakes (note use of plural) that Sir Ian has made would have been expected to (and would already have) �fallen on their sword�, and resigned.
The general public (quite rightly) had higher expectations of public servants and officials back then, however, in the society of today people are encouraged not to take responsibility for their action, blame others for the things that go wrong, never apologise (unless forced) and never, ever resign (if you can avoid it).
Sadly, this is how things are now, and we accept it, with a touch of bitter cynicism, but still, we accept it. Therefore, I guess we can�t complain, we have the officials and politicians we deserve, and they are free to treat the people of this country with the casual contempt that they do. After all no-one expects anything more, or do they?
No, it wouldn�t.
Read the question again. It�s not about the media (Although, as you already know, I accept and agree that there is much wanting in respect of the impartiality of certain sectors of it), it�s about Sir Ian Blair and the potential consequences of his latest �gaff�, for him and office he represents.
Read the question again. It�s not about the media (Although, as you already know, I accept and agree that there is much wanting in respect of the impartiality of certain sectors of it), it�s about Sir Ian Blair and the potential consequences of his latest �gaff�, for him and office he represents.
Stevie - funny how you mentioned the media first.I rest my case.You,me and the rest are being manipulated.Its a nanny state and we are being drip-fed 'news' because it suits at this particular time.Must be taking the heat out of another potential timebomb.
Dont like to harp back but - Danish Cartoons (one year later) and the subsequent furore.
Kilroy - Silk Comments made in his column a year previously -then suddenly it was convenient to introduce them to the masses as current news.
Why was it not convenient to deal with his previous 'gaffes' at the time.Why are the media substanciating the taping story with supposed past misdemeanours?Because the story wouldnt stand up on its own.
hi drisgirl - that's ok, I was only responding to ned's post. I believe it isn't just the media that decide which murders get publicity; it's routinely done in conjunction with the police - reporters and cops are in each other's pockets a lot more than is realised.
Personally, I have no problem with Blair (Ian) recording his own conversations - as opposed to other people's - happens all the time 'for training purposes' as I'm sure everyone's aware. And as I said, I think you should always record any conversation you hold with anyone in the government, just to cover your back.
DG, now that you've 'rested your case', am I to asume your happy for a senior police officer to damage the credibility and reputation of the police force? Happy to see him remain in his job, despite many well documented blunders? Happy that he is protected by political friends, who want him to be their trained boy? Happy that he is neither competant or trustworthy?
Are you really happy about that?
Yes, I read what is put out into the public domain by various press agencies, but I don't let the press tell me what to think. Nor should you. I have a view on what is right or wrong, ethical or unethical, and I'm capable of reaching it without tabloid intervention. Some may be easily manipulated as you say, but not all.
I'm not interested in what people think the press is doing (unfair witch hunt etc). By any standards (but especially in light of his position) the man should resign.
But no, lets stick up for him because the press is being mean!
I don't blame him for taping the conversation, I'd want my back covered if something like that was happening, especially these days when like has happend can and did go wrong.
If the other person would have known he was being taped of course they wouldn't have said what they said, but they were and they did.
Just like the fly on the wall spy documentaries that now come on, where officers and others in high places are caught in the act of what they shouldnt be doing, so be it that this too has come to light!
