Originally posted by meridian
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
Reply to: Is it just me
Collapse
You are not logged in or you do not have permission to access this page. This could be due to one of several reasons:
- You are not logged in. If you are already registered, fill in the form below to log in, or follow the "Sign Up" link to register a new account.
- You may not have sufficient privileges to access this page. Are you trying to edit someone else's post, access administrative features or some other privileged system?
- If you are trying to post, the administrator may have disabled your account, or it may be awaiting activation.
Logging in...
Previously on "Is it just me"
Collapse
-
Well
Could they not have just sent 2 plods round then instead of 250 armed officers?
Leave a comment:
-
And the article doesn't mention it, but what became of the £30k or so in cash alledgedly found in the house?Originally posted by FungusOriginally Posted by Fungus
Very. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
No I was thinking about what dinner might be. But now you mention it, I read that they were petty criminals with a string of minor offences such as theft behind them. Not exactly sweet and innocent.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally Posted by Fungus
Very. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
No I was thinking about what dinner might be. But now you mention it, I read that they were petty criminals with a string of minor offences such as theft behind them. Not exactly sweet and innocent.Originally posted by John GaltIsn't it just possible that he isn't a 'victim' but is actally a criminal
Leave a comment:
-
If he's done nothing wrong, he has nothing to fear. Just ask David Kelly.Originally posted by John GaltIsn't it just possible that he isn't a 'victim' but is actally a criminal
Oh.
Leave a comment:
-
Mmmm, could be...
That suggests the police officer, who was wearing two pairs of gloves as part of a chemical biological radiological nuclear (CBRN) suit, fired the gun accidentally.Originally posted by white-anglo-reactionaryDon't armed police usually wear gloves?
I could be a forensic scientist, me.
Leave a comment:
-
Isn't it just possible that he isn't a 'victim' but is actally a criminalOriginally posted by FungusVery. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Leave a comment:
-
It doesn't take a forensic scientist to work out..
Don't armed police usually wear gloves?Originally posted by sunnysanThe forensic scientist who looked into the incident found no fingerprints on the trigger of the weapon
Leave a comment:
-
Very. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?Originally posted by zeitghostConvenient...?
Leave a comment:
-
Is it just me
Or should I be less irritated when expensive enquiries come up with absolutely ludicrous statements like this excerpt from the Forest Gate report
"The forensic scientist who looked into the incident found no fingerprints on the trigger of the weapon - but also concluded the only way for the weapon to have been fired was for the trigger to have been pulled."
FFS!!!
Full article hereTags: None
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers

Leave a comment: