Ipswich Murders

[markj]

Njugle wrote: 'He went missing, the police are investigating.......and that's all that can be said without drifting into pointless speculation',

 

Can the same not be said about the 9/11 Conspiracy theories thread?

 

A plane flew into one of the twin towers, then another plane flew into the other twin tower, police are investigating..........and that's all that can be said without drifting into pointless speculation'...

[Njugle]

No. And to nip this in the bud, markj, if anybody at any time has any problem with the content or closure of any thread, they can contact a moderator by PM or email admin. Thank you.

[Heimdal]

I have to agree fully with this post on another forum

 

I am having severe reservations that these continual police interviews and accompanying expert analisys is turning this investigation into a reality show like Big Brother. I think the police should spend more time doing their job than gadding about in front of cameras and it is particularly embarrassing as it is glaring obvious they have no ideas at all at the present moment. And if they fail to find the man which must be only 50\50 in the near future then surely other weirdos knowing that over 400 police officers together with the creme diddley creme of police experts and the best technology at their disposal don't get a result then they too may be tempted to have a go.

 

The police should be saying nothing except to give advice and ask for public help when they have something to ask about.

[The Man]

Pretty unfoair, I'd say! The issuer has already bene discussed here that if polis dont say something, the papers will. Plus yioull have all these eejits coming out with "we have a right to know". Then therell be communit repsresentatives calling for reassurances for their constituenst, etc. In this day and age, polis have to provide summat, and ina way that wont harm their enquiry. Last thing you wnt is some journo doing hi/her own digging and alerting any suspect or worse putting thesmlevs in danger??!

Dont see that these polis are guilty of "gadding about in front of cameras" eithere!! Its not as if theyre mugging about behingd their gaffer holding ip sighns saying "Hi mum!" is it! 8O

Howe do YOU know how far on in the wnuiry they are? Have they told you? Gie them some peace to do what they have to do, egh?

[The Man]

Surely its only one cop youre seeing in front of all these cameras? Nota ll 400? I very much doubt if the gaffer is out doing enquiries with the rest of the m,so what diff if he is talking to media as long as the others are doing THEIR jobs? Unless i missed a press conference wghere all 400 polis were answering questions and doing interveiwsd with Sky, Beeb, ITN, etc?

[Njugle]

 

The police should be saying nothing except to give advice and ask for public help when they have something to ask about.

 

That perfectly sums up a post i endeavoured to make, but that was becoming too long.

 

I totally agree Heimdal. Our media and those who pander to it are forming a nation of emotional vultures. It's abhorrent and unhealthy.

[Ghostrider]

Surely its only one cop youre seeing in front of all these cameras? Nota ll 400? I very much doubt if the gaffer is out doing enquiries with the rest of the m,so what diff if he is talking to media as long as the others are doing THEIR jobs? Unless i missed a press conference wghere all 400 polis were answering questions and doing interveiwsd with Sky, Beeb, ITN, etc?

 

Ever heard of PR? When someone, a cop, or cops, in this case, is virtually omnipresent in the media generally talking a lot but saying next to nothing, as he's just waffling on repeating what he's said on previous occasions but using different phrasing. Folks immediately form an opinion that the cops haven't a clue how to solve the case, or how even to move forward in attempting to solve it, the endless flannel they're feeding the public is seen as a smokescreen, to hopefully con people in to thinking they're actually doing something and getting somewhere.

 

The media is useful to the cops, the same as it is to everyone else, but it has to be manipulated to best advantage by whoever wishes to use it. In this case, as has been pointed out, there is no need for cops giving press conferences and/or interviews unless they ajudge pervious advice given needs amending or they require public assistance in new a sphere of their enquiries. The cops would be doing themselves a big favour if they declined some media requests for interviews at this stage, simply stating that their investigations were continuing apace, and as there were no fresh developments to elaborate on their time would be more productively spent concentrating on those investigations than hanging around in front of cameras etc. If the media were to report that the Police had declined to be interviewed and why, folk would form the impression that they were taking the investigation seriously, and that their priorities were in order. Regardless of what the truth actually is, what the public is led to believe is the truth is equally important to the public goodwill and assistance the Police can expect to receive in moving this case ahead, and they will need it. Unfortunately, as things stand I have to agree with Hemidal, they very much convey the impression they know beggar all, and haven't a clue where to start looking for beggar all. That perception can only fuel a "well, if the cops aren't to stressed about finding who's behind all this, why should I pay attention" attitude among people, one of whom may just be unwittingly party to some small scrap of information that could be the one little piece that starts leading them down the right road.

 

We know they have a hell of a job to do to get anywhere with this, in all liklihood it will take years to solve, if it is ever solved at all, those of us who remember the whole Sutcliffe saga first hand know this. The media is a 24 hour flash in the pan, once you hit the next day with them, yesterday's news is ancient history and chip wrapping, and the cops should be using them in that context. The only lip service the media will pay to yesterday's news, is to milk it for it's last drops, anyway they can, which almost never does any favours to "helping" anyone but themselves.

[Sherlock]

It is all too easy to stand on the outside, in possession of a tiny per centage of the facts and criticise, whether it be how the Police in chasre of this case are operating, or how full they keep the shelves in Somerfield. My own view on such matters is best phrased by my namesake in my "signature", appended below.

 

Incidentally, while not conclusive by any means, I see that - in between "pandering" to the media and (in some people's view) enjoying the limelight, the enquiry team have made an arrest this morning. Of course, English law is very different from Scots in this regard, however let's hope they have the right man and no more families need be shattered by the knock at the door.

[junior]

Fook me so the have, good effort.

 

A relevant quote from the BBC given the previous discussions:

 

"As legal proceedings are now active, Suffolk Police will not be issuing further comments or appeals at this stage."

[Sherlock]

As regards the media, I can assure you that each and every one of the major media groups (and subgroups. ie different radio & television stations, newspapers, etc) expect to have their questions answered by someone from the Police. The SIO (Senior Investigating Officer) - in this case, Det Ch Supt Gull - will be brought out for the more serious news conferences. I am sure that there will be several Media Liaison Officers (probably all civilians with significant media experience) beavering away in the background the rest of the time.

 

The media are a difficult group to deal with in that they have the ability to reach farther and wider than Police ever could. Ergo, we NEED to use them to our best purposes and that of any ongoing enquiry. Failure to do so results in a breakdown of a relationship which is, at best, tentative in the first place. However they will not just allow themselves to be used in this fashion. Not without a quid pro quo, or a great story (the two not being incompatible).

 

As previously stated by someone else, if no details are provided - NOT a lot, just enough to keep the "crusaders" in the media off the Police backs - then some in the media will begin to speculate. Speculation can be harmful, negative to an enquiry and sometimes downright irresponsible. However, to be realistic about this, their job is to sell stories, ours to catch persons responsible for crimes and deter others. Sadly, the twain only meet on a few occasions.

 

There is a hunger for news among the populace that has never been rivalled in history, and with the advent of the Internet, an ex-pat or interested party in Borneo can monitor a news story in Denver WHILE IT IS HAPPENING. I know that many of you are aware of this and am not seeking to be condescending or patronising, I am merely trying to illustrate my point. As someone else remarked earlier, the Press in this country have become more like their cousins in America over the last few years. News helicopters hover over crash sites or hostage sieges, 24 hour news channels desperately try to fill each and every one of the 86,400 seconds they are on daily with bigger and better news, more in-depth, further reaching items than their rivals.

 

Do you seriously believe that if the SIO in this - or any other major - enquiry said, "Sorry, we're getting on with our enquiry, which is progressing apace, so no further comments or interviews, please." they would say, "Oh, okay then. Fair do's. We'll all just head home. Thanks mate!"

 

Mainstream public perception is moulded by the media. I challenge anyone to disprove that. An enquiry can often be made or broken by the degree of reporting and assistance provided by the media. As can careers. If the public were to be allowed to perceive that the SIO in this case was a feckless clown or unsuitable to lead an enquiry such as this (which they have done in the past, through allusion, insinuation, etc), how long do you think he would remain in charge of it? Such is the power of "public" opinion.

 

Let's just watch, wait and see, shall we? If I am having a house built, I don't expect to visit the site and see the architect or estate agent who sold me the plot slinging bricks and framing windows. However I would expect the site foreman to give me an update on progress when he had the chance. The allegory may be too obtuse for some, however I hope not.

 

Lastly, I will direct you to Theodore Roosevelt and his view on critics (my favourite quote ever). It begins "It is not the critic that counts.." and is fairly lengthy, however if you "Google" it, you'll see what I mean.