Reply to: Craig Colclough's dad

[minestrone]

Rc lost this argument when he failed to understand he was making comments on a subject he knew little about. As Kipling said there are too many people who are "making mock of uniforms that guard you while you sleep."

The police are not perfect but to openly castigate them without evidence is entirely inappropriate.

And for what it is worth I do disapprove of the manner in which this subject and the user's name are openly discussed on this forum. The guy seemed pretty decent to me, obviously he has went down a wrong avenue in his life and made/done some terrible things but to openly discuss his name is wrong IMO.

[oracleslave]

Why has RichardCranium got such a problem with anyone who dares to disagree with him?

I've seen no evidence of that.

Why is he so quick to brand such people 'Troll'?

What is an acceptable amount of time to come to a conclusion with regards to an individual. In your case it took me 1 post.

I have at least as much right to state my opinions on here as he has to state his (probably more, actually). I've been using this forum since 2000 (yep, 9 years baby!),

The first part of that statement is true. The second just makes me grateful that I have read very little of your 9 years of BS.

which I would imagine is probably before the jumped up little twerp got his first contract.

Perhaps this is part of your problem, because if you bothered to read anybody else's opinions in the last 9 years you would know how far off the mark that statement is.

[minestrone]

That wasn't the start

<plonk>

On the first page you said...

"I am so pleased the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police have seen it worthwhile to invest the necessary time."

But you have no knowledge to base the assumption that the CPS are involved.

If you are just going to make stuff up and state it as fact then do expect to be taken to task over it.

[EternalOptimist]

What was that ? thought I heard a noise


sounded like 'plonk'

[RichardCranium]

Can we go back to the start and ask are the CPS involved?

That wasn't the start, that was a distraction you raised 7 posts as a way of deflecting the point toward my credibility as a 4th hand reporter of the incident because that gives you more fun than actually thinking about the real issues involved.

You stated that as fact so can you provide the evidence to back up that statement? Are the CPS involved? Once we get that answer we can start debating the culprit, so again can you state where the CPS were involved?

I was expecting you to provide that...

Aha! Some first hand expert knowledge. That's useful. How does it work then? At what stage would they get involved in this instance?

... but you provided such a suspiciously poor answer (containing less information than mine had) that you came across as not knowing the answer. As Monty Python highlighted, just saying "No it isn't" is not a valid argument.


Minestrone, it has taken me a while to realise it, but you are just a worthless troll and I have been wasting my time on you.

<plonk>

[OwlHoot]

Can we go back to the start and ask are the CPS involved? You stated that as fact so can you provide the evidence to back up that statement?

Are the CPS involved?

Once we get that answer we can start debating the culprit, so again can you state where the CPS were involved?

er, what was the question again?

[minestrone]

Twice, actually.

As process documentation goes, it's certainly concise. But it excluded what we were talking about: before and/or after arrest? And the instances where they go the other way up the one-way-street and the CPS tells the Police they do not think it is worth progressing.

They said they had arrested him. I should hope their notoriously comprehensive record-keeping and arrest procedures would mean a degree of confidence could be placed in that statement. So that would mean the Police are indeed involved.

Can we go back to the start and ask are the CPS involved? You stated that as fact so can you provide the evidence to back up that statement?

Are the CPS involved?

Once we get that answer we can start debating the culprit, so again can you state where the CPS were involved?

[Zippy]

Does this thread now go under the category of "When flippant comments go bad"?

I'm fear that is so.

[RichardCranium]

Yes it is, one asks why you say that after launching into an attack on the police and CPS?

I said it before as well.

[RichardCranium]

Now you ask,

Twice, actually.

the police would present evidence to the CPS and then the CPS would take it from there, it is a one way street, police -> cps -> court.

As process documentation goes, it's certainly concise. But it excluded what we were talking about: before and/or after arrest? And the instances where they go the other way up the one-way-street and the CPS tells the Police they do not think it is worth progressing.

I would not take the paper's statement that the police are involved in any great detail. The paper would have phoned the cops and then they got a short yadda yadda. The 'spokesman' will probably be lifting a drunk right now.

They said they had arrested him. I should hope their notoriously comprehensive record-keeping and arrest procedures would mean a degree of confidence could be placed in that statement. So that would mean the Police are indeed involved.

[minestrone]

I think this whole matter is a non-issue and does not warrant either the media witch hunt or the consequential investigation.

It certainly comes under "When General goes anal".

Yes it is, one asks why you say that after launching into an attack on the police and CPS?

[minestrone]

Now you ask, the police would present evidence to the CPS and then the CPS would take it from there, it is a one way street, police -> cps -> court.

I would not take the paper's statement that the police are involved in any great detail. The paper would have phoned the cops and then they got a short yadda yadda. The 'spokesman' will probably be lifting a drunk right now.

[RichardCranium]

Does this thread now go under the category of "When flippant comments go bad"?

I think this whole matter is a non-issue and does not warrant either the media witch hunt or the consequential investigation.

It certainly comes under "When General goes anal".

[RichardCranium]

If the law has been broken and a complaint has been made what else are they supposed to do? We wouldn't really want the police making value judgements about what, or worse who, they should and should not be investigating would we?

Fairy nuffski.

It was the Daily Mail running a witch hunt that got up my nose. There are so many things wrong with the world that the media could apply themselves to, yet don't. Instead they publish reams of tulipe about 'celebrities', press releases as 'news', and undergraduates' research papers as 'science'.

[RichardCranium]

So what you thought of as fact is now something you are asking me on.
"you'd think so, wouldn't you"
"I would have thought"
"I got the impression"
Hardly the... "I am so pleased the Crown Prosecution Service and the Police have seen it worthwhile to invest the necessary time and resources into hunting down this sick criminal"

You are using a source, which you discount, as evidence. If you want to enter into the arena of debate on this then get something better in your hand.

I tried:

Aha! Some first hand expert knowledge. That's useful.

How does it work then? At what stage would they get involved in this instance?