scoots Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 Para Handy, cops have nothing to do with court results or who's let off with lesser charges, so far as I know. This is a common mistake made by folk with the blame game. Dunno about your other points either. Seems to me you can't blame cops here now for "problems" caused by others in the past. I believe in taking folk as I find them... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 [***Mod edit - post removed. Please see T&C's***] All of it, WOW!!!!!!!!!!! That could have wider implications. Removing a post and then referring to T&Cs, should be accompanied by a PM, was it the fact that I was looking at buying Loch End house, an incident outside an un-named take away or a shop that sells wine.The incident was reported in the paper so was in the public domain, the property was advertised in the press, the shop that sells booze is still there. The take away is not. Sorry if ALL of the post broke the T&Cs, I think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JGHR Posted December 7, 2011 Report Share Posted December 7, 2011 [***Mod edit - post removed. Please see T&C's***] All of it, WOW!!!!!!!!!!! That could have wider implications. Removing a post and then referring to T&Cs, should be accompanied by a PM, was it the fact that I was looking at buying Loch End house, an incident outside an un-named take away or a shop that sells wine.The incident was reported in the paper so was in the public domain, the property was advertised in the press, the shop that sells booze is still there. The take away is not. Sorry if ALL of the post broke the T&Cs, I think. I didn't see the offending post. Perhaps, if most of your writing is anything to go by, the moderator found it incomprehensible. Rather than spend time trying to decipher exactly which parts of your jumbled syntax broke the terms and conditions, he or she simply deleted the whole thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadger Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 no doubt the worst and most derogatory story spread by the worst liar will be the one everybody latches onto , folk are good at that , glad to see one or two holding onto the older n more wise ways of "haddn aff til we see" and cctv probably wont show admissable evidence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dratsy Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 no doubt the worst and most derogatory story spread by the worst liar will be the one everybody latches onto , folk are good at that , glad to see one or two holding onto the older n more wise ways of "haddn aff til we see" and cctv probably wont show admissable evidence the only time cctv is not admissable is when there are no signs up saying you are being filmed, complete bollox if you ask me but thats the law Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daegerty Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 CCTV has always been a senseless big brother invasion of privacy, get rid of it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadger Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 no doubt the worst and most derogatory story spread by the worst liar will be the one everybody latches onto , folk are good at that , glad to see one or two holding onto the older n more wise ways of "haddn aff til we see" and cctv probably wont show admissable evidence the only time cctv is not admissable is when there are no signs up saying you are being filmed, complete bollox if you ask me but thats the law poor weather , unclear images, expensive lawyers etc etc , even if there was a knife it might not show up in the pictures , its bound to take all kinds of twists n turns before any kinda conclusion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoots Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 If there's a network of cameras covering an area and a crime is committed within that area, seems highly likely to me they wouldn't just look at image from one camera & write it off as crap or unusable without checking them all. You know like in a route taken to & from? You see it used in major crime docs on telly all the time. Circumstantial, yeah, but it's another piece of evidence all the same. Enough circumstantial & you have a case. Or - as in at least one case I know of South - it can clear a suspect. Handy for all sides, that. Especially when it's a serious crime. I remember a lad I know getting nicked outside a club after a fight (South) while three others legged it or were sent on their way. a quick check of CCTV showed he was the VICTIM and had done nowt, but it also id'd his attackers & they were nicked on the CCTV alone (he was that drunk he couldn't remember who had scarred him for life). If that was me, I'd be damn grateful for the cameras. What's the old Judge Dredd line? "Only the guilty have anything to fear"? Hmmmm? Daegerty, tell that to victims of crime... like the riots this year? Most convictions came from CCTV footage and, of course, the subject of my next post... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoots Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 And if you're complaining about CCTV, what about mobile phones? Seems to me you can't spit or blow your nose without some eejit videoing you & putting it on YouTube!! What about those invasions of privacy? Every person with a camera phone is a walking CCTV these days. I blame Harry Hill meself!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoots Posted December 8, 2011 Report Share Posted December 8, 2011 SP, I KNEW joining Anonymous would come in handy! Hacking the mods to edit you was a doddle! (kiiiiiiiddiiiiiiiing!! ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 The person rumoured to have been stabbed had actually received his injuries due to a fall http://www.shetnews.co.uk/news/2939-injuries-were-result-of-a-fall.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Nice to see once again the press in Shetland reporting on rumours rather than facts. As this case has proven once again. Both the Shetland news and Shetland Times, did report the man had been "stabbed" but then this was changed to injured following the police press people not confirming he had been stabbed. Beggars belief really, modern times i suppose, if we start a big enough rumour then the press take that as fact until proven otherwise. Makes some people look rather foolish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shetlandpeat Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 It was the cover up that made it worse. Editing the original news release without an apology or an explanation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 It was the cover up that made it worse. Editing the original news release without an apology or an explanation. Exactly - Saves them having to admit they were not accurate and got it wrong. Red faces all round, however this isnt the first and will no doubt be the last. It just so happens this is a good example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vadger Posted December 22, 2011 Report Share Posted December 22, 2011 Depends a lot on the bias of the reporter and if theres sensationalist tripe read out in court it will be in the paper as an actual happening. Folks are just as well to er on the side of caution til all becomes a bit clearer in all cases Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.