Police corruption

[Stephanie]

It's annoying they never hold there hands up and say they got it wrong they just talk around it until it goes away.

I take it you also have a selective memory Notsure and if you find it annoying that they never hold there hands up, why don't do you speak up, as opposed to being selective in who you attempt to chastise and target.

[Stephanie]

Would the public, generally, believe this is acceptable, or should it fall within the laws governing fairness and the right to a fair trial? Is it a well kept secret between police and the media for that very reason?

What do you perceive as right and a fair trial?

Did you report the alleged assault/abuse of you by Billy Middleton to the police, back in 2010, and do you think with hindsight had the Sheriff known of Middleton's behavior towards you (women), he could have been retried for the murder of his daughter, attempted murder of 2 others and of sexual assault?

Did you attempt to smear my name in order to keep this secret for that very reason?

Hadn't you just gone into partnership with Middleton around this time and formed the WAP org charity?

Did you find yourself caught between a rock and a hard place?

What were your reasons?

What do you perceive fairness to mean?

You see I think it's hypocritical to cast aspertions of others, including the police and media, when it appears you have no morals or scruples of your own.

You see, as a member of the public I do not find this behavior acceptable and again call into question your motives and agenda.

[Stephanie]

We know media coverage has had impacts on some cases but there's not enough research on how much impact or on how many cases -the existence of "front-runners," for example, is not widely known about, but what would be the point of them if they did not (or at least were not believed to) have any impact on public perceptions and opinions?

If police investigators are encouraging and actively engaging in  the use of this type of media, they must be doing so for a reason. Since their goal is to obtain a conviction, by deduction, the use of "front-runners" is intended to garner public support for their chosen line. What we can't now for certain is how successful this approach is.

Would the public, generally, believe this is acceptable, or should it fall within the laws governing fairness and the right to a fair trial? Is it a well kept secret between police and the media for that very reason?

Chapter 13 of page 214 of your book No Smoke

Sandra Lean concludes:

"Somewhere in the hype and hyteria, not just media reporters, but also ordinary members of the public appear to have forgotten that their "subject matter" consists of real human beings, with real feelings, and real rights. The media machine has become so out of control that even the most basic of these rights are being eroded, and our justice system is rapidly becoming one of trial by media.

What I find really interesting about it is the length of time the loyalty of such an arrangement continues, often for years, and even in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary - while other publications, over time, may start to shift their positions, the front/fore runners remain immoveable in their approach - presumably to ensure they get chosen for the next big story?

Now this is interesting Sandra.

And this is what I have witnessed in relation to alleged miscarriages of justice cases.

I find it hypocritical and disingenuous that you aren't practicing what you preach about others.

[sandra L]

We know media coverage has had impacts on some cases but there's not enough research on how much impact or on how many cases -the existence of "front-runners," for example, is not widely known about, but what would be the point of them if they did not (or at least were not believed to) have any impact on public perceptions and opinions?

If police investigators are encouraging and actively engaging in  the use of this type of media, they must be doing so for a reason. Since their goal is to obtain a conviction, by deduction, the use of "front-runners" is intended to garner public support for their chosen line. What we can't now for certain is how successful this approach is.

Would the public, generally, believe this is acceptable, or should it fall within the laws governing fairness and the right to a fair trial? Is it a well kept secret between police and the media for that very reason?

Our police personnel are paid (and trained) to carry out particular tasks, within specific rules and regulations, as public servants. Since they work for us, all of us, they should work within the rules and regulations stipulated. Passing confidential information to the media, could, in turn, make it impossible to afford someone the right to a fair trial, and therefore let truly guilty individuals off the hook - it works both ways.

This thread is entitled police corruption - passing confidential information to the media in order to influence pubic opinion about individuals to try to secure convictions is a corruption of police duties - their job is supposed to be to properly investigate cases, not decide who they think is responsible then go all out, by whatever means, to secure a conviction against that person.

When they do that, we're back to the days of witch-hunts - point the finger, get some muck swilling around - nobody's going to have much empathy for someone who's already painted blacker than black before one scrap of evidence is before a jury.

[Stephanie]

Our police personnel are paid (and trained) to carry out particular tasks, within specific rules and regulations, as public servants. Since they work for us, all of us, they should work within the rules and regulations stipulated. Passing confidential information to the media, could, in turn, make it impossible to afford someone the right to a fair trial, and therefore let truly guilty individuals off the hook - it works both ways.

This thread is entitled police corruption - passing confidential information to the media in order to influence pubic opinion about individuals to try to secure convictions is a corruption of police duties - their job is supposed to be to properly investigate cases, not decide who they think is responsible then go all out, by whatever means, to secure a conviction against that person.

When they do that, we're back to the days of witch-hunts - point the finger, get some muck swilling around - nobody's going to have much empathy for someone who's already painted blacker than black before one scrap of evidence is before a jury.

Corruption is also the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased.

I've stated numerous times in previous posts, I find your opinions on police corruption to be bias and indeed hypocritical. It is clear you are dishonest when you post and you can be seen to have conflicting ideas when ever the mood suits your personal agenda at that given moment.

[Stephanie]

Police and indeed journalists are not immune to psychopathy and personality disorders. Of those police officers found guilty of corruption, how many of them were found to have a personality disorder/psychopathy? What are the statistics on this; if any?