A question for Jackie:

[lookout]

 Anything else you'd like to add ? 

[Caroline]

Anything else you'd like to add ? 

To what?

[lookout]

To what?

Irrelevancies ? Such as the gravestone,mentioned in a subject we weren't even discussing.

[guest2181]

Irrelevancies ? Such as the gravestone,mentioned in a subject we weren't even discussing.

Please forgive my poor attempt at humour. 

Although, giving an example of their behaviour did actually seem quite relevant to the question asked. 

[lookout]

Please forgive my poor attempt at humour. 

Although, giving an example of their behaviour did actually seem quite relevant to the question asked. 

I was referring more to those " legals " working in the background rather than the crew that are the CT.

[guest2181]

I was referring more to those " legals " working in the background rather than the crew that are the CT.

Fair enough.

[Roch]

But they told you about it?

No involvement with CT - but am aware that they are aware of the evidence in question.

It seems ironic that professionals can witness and record evidence, before concealing it, only for it to later be 'demolished' and fail to stand up to scrutiny. We live in a strange world.

[guest2181]

No involvement with CT - but am aware that they are aware of the evidence in question.

It seems ironic that professionals can witness and record evidence, before concealing it, only for it to later be 'demolished' and fail to stand up to scrutiny. We live in a strange world.

Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.

[Caroline]

Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.

This is also my general feeling.

[Roch]

Of course another more measured view could be that something is recorded, without attaching particular significance. When this 'something' is then offered up with a usually skewed interpretation, the lack of significance originally applied still remains.

Actually, it's not a more measured view at all. Not in respect to this particular evidence. Probably not even in respect of previous submissions either. Anyway, you and Caroline have got the wrong end of the stick. That is to say, you have it in reverse.

[guest2181]

Actually, it's not a more measured view at all. Not in respect to this particular evidence. Probably not even in respect of previous submissions either. Anyway, you and Caroline have got the wrong end of the stick. That is to say, you have it in reverse.

I disagree, we've had these sensational claims before, upon closer inspection each and every time they have been found wanting. That is the normal pattern. Why should anybody think it will be different this time?

I don't think we can simply rely on your interpretation, you are unable to even interpret the evidence which IS available correctly.

Anybody who disagrees with me clearly lacks judgement. 

[Roch]

I disagree, we've had these sensational claims before, upon closer inspection each and every time they have been found wanting. That is the normal pattern. Why should anybody think it will be different this time?

I don't think we can simply rely on your interpretation, you are unable to even interpret the evidence which IS available correctly.

Anybody who disagrees with me clearly lacks judgement. 

They are not sensational claims per se. The system is just not set up to expose corruption and wrongdoings in a case which has become political. The CCRC will simply accept what the police tell them. That is hardly a robust model to enable an accurate judgement regarding sensationalism.  If an arbiter nearly always favours one side over the other, then the arbiter is not serving any real quest to find the truth in these matters. 

[guest2181]

They are not sensational claims per se. The system is just not set up to expose corruption and wrongdoings in a case which has become political. The CCRC will simply accept what the police tell them. That is hardly a robust model to enable an accurate judgement regarding sensationalism.  If an arbiter nearly always favours one side over the other, then the arbiter is not serving any real quest to find the truth in these matters.

Aah okay, now it's the CCRC's fault, gotcha.

I think that's a pretty sensational claim myself. 

[Roch]

Aah okay, now it's the CCRC's fault, gotcha.

I think that's a pretty sensational claim myself. 

It's a pretty common claim actually.  Nothing sensational about the CCRC attracting criticism.  If CCRC is programmed to accept explanations from police = police can trust upon CCRC to accept their explanations.

Police can then issue generic statements referring 'Mr. Bamber to the CCRC' instead of bothering them etc.

What would happen if Trading Standards merely accepted the answers given by businesses, in respect of shoddy work or poor service?

What would happen if OFSTED received complaints and then just accepted the answers given by those administering failing schools?
 

[guest2181]

It's a pretty common claim actually.  Nothing sensational about the CCRC attracting criticism.  If CCRC is programmed to accept explanations from police = police can trust upon CCRC to accept their explanations.

Police can then issue generic statements referring 'Mr. Bamber to the CCRC' instead of bothering them etc.

What would happen if Trading Standards merely accepted the answers given by businesses, in respect of shoddy work or poor service?

What would happen if OFSTED received complaints and then just accepted the answers given by those administering failing schools?
 

I think it's only attracting your criticism because they haven't arrived at the conclusion you wanted.

The cases which the CCRC have dealt with which were overturned probably didn't attract the same criticism.

JB and his supporters seem to blame other people an awful lot.