Video re photographs non-disclosure

[gringo]

Okay, so despite "your" Bird having no academic qualifications in photography, he a professional photographer?  The rota? It may not be random choice, but all you get is whoever is on duty a la the rota. I think I read you rather well. I'm not entirely certain that you're worth reading any slower, because it reads very much to me as if you're colouring this the way you want it to be seen.

One of MY extended shouts? Seriously? I wasn't the FIRST to start with the insults but like a lot of Bamber supporters, as soon as someone tries to debate an issue, you get hot under the collar, up come the hackles and the rant begins.

Do some research on SOCO before the role became civilianised. Likelihood is, that Bird was interested in photography and that's why he ended up in the role but that does NOT make him a specialist and I think you're silly to even suggest he was.

When I come into contact with 'reason' I'll let you know how I get on - that isn't you though because your temper rules your posts and you just end up repeating yourself through a series of childish put downs. Lookout's impressed - so you know there's something wrong somewhere!

   Anyone reading the thread can see that you have comprehension issues. I have pointed some of them out for you. Claiming that it doesn't refer to Bird as a specialist and then finding upon re-reading that it literally does is one of your more spectacular errors.
     You have both also failed to address the issue of Bird's alleged incompetence of taking crime scene photos. If he really was so incompetent that every time he photographed a "major incident" that hundreds of photos were unusable in the subsequent court proceedings then surely this would have been addressed. The lack of any action to address Bird's alleged amateurish approach and the fact that they carried on employing him in the role tends to blow a hole in your theory.
     How did Bird and his colleagues know what to photograph at these "major incidents"? Do you imagine that perhaps there will have been some training or do you think they were just told to guess? Bearing in mind that all pictures taken are evidence in court proceedings and you imagine some idiot who can't take pictures competently is sent as the crime scene photographer. You really haven't thought this one through.
     

[Caroline]

   Anyone reading the thread can see that you have comprehension issues. I have pointed some of them out for you. Claiming that it doesn't refer to Bird as a specialist and then finding upon re-reading that it literally does is one of your more spectacular errors.
     You have both also failed to address the issue of Bird's alleged incompetence of taking crime scene photos. If he really was so incompetent that every time he photographed a "major incident" that hundreds of photos were unusable in the subsequent court proceedings then surely this would have been addressed. The lack of any action to address Bird's alleged amateurish approach and the fact that they carried on employing him in the role tends to blow a hole in your theory.
     How did Bird and his colleagues know what to photograph at these "major incidents"? Do you imagine that perhaps there will have been some training or do you think they were just told to guess? Bearing in mind that all pictures taken are evidence in court proceedings and you imagine some idiot who can't take pictures competently is sent as the crime scene photographer. You really haven't thought this one through.
   

Leaving your usual earsteaming rant to one side - where did I say he was 'incompetent'?

They knew what to photograph because they were told by Cook and other officers - or did you think he was there on his own? Also, I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he wasn't a specialist and that back then they didn't do a specific course. You might not like that because it means you and the CT are over playing his status - but hey ho!

Now calm down, take a deep breath and mind your blood pressure. Sheeeesh!

[IndigoJ]

They weren't looking for one.

so they were only looking for specific items? they should have been searching with an open mind

[Caroline]

so they were only looking for specific items? they should have been searching with an open mind

Why would they when Bamber told them his sister had gone crazy with a gun and they find everyone dead and sister holding the gun? In hindsight we know about the silence, but they had no reason to believe one had been used.

[IndigoJ]

Why would they when Bamber told them his sister had gone crazy with a gun and they find everyone dead and sister holding the gun? In hindsight we know about the silence, but they had no reason to believe one had been used.

Do the police believe everything that is told to them? they should always keep an open mind and investigate it accordingly , they cocked up badly in this case unfortunately

[Jane]

Leaving your usual earsteaming rant to one side - where did I say he was 'incompetent'?

They knew what to photograph because they were told by Cook and other officers - or did you think he was there on his own? Also, I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he wasn't a specialist and that back then they didn't do a specific course. You might not like that because it means you and the CT are over playing his status - but hey ho!

Now calm down, take a deep breath and mind your blood pressure. Sheeeesh!

Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?

[Jane]

Do the police believe everything that is told to them? they should always keep an open mind and investigate it accordingly , they cocked up badly in this case unfortunately

Ha! There we go again!! "They SHOULD....." How does that change anything? What were they going to do? Call Jeremy a liar? Tell him to wait while they verified his story?

[Caroline]

Do the police believe everything that is told to them? they should always keep an open mind and investigate it accordingly , they cocked up badly in this case unfortunately

But don't you believe him?

[Caroline]

Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?

I don't think I did Jane 

[Jane]

I don't think I did Jane 

Ooops! Big Gaff. Thought I was answering our Mexican friend. Soz Caroline

[gringo]

Leaving your usual earsteaming rant to one side - where did I say he was 'incompetent'?

They knew what to photograph because they were told by Cook and other officers - or did you think he was there on his own? Also, I didn't say he was an idiot, I said he wasn't a specialist and that back then they didn't do a specific course. You might not like that because it means you and the CT are over playing his status - but hey ho!

Now calm down, take a deep breath and mind your blood pressure. Sheeeesh!

    You stated that he was no professional after deriding his status and suggested that this led to the huge number of unusable photographs. Are you claiming that this is a description of competence? Your own words about him are a description of incompetence or do you dispute this?
      I can assure you that refuting your arguments is not a difficult task and the time between posts has been spent dog walking, car maintenance and cooking. Thinking up replies to your half baked arguments takes seconds. Whilst you didn't refer to him as an idiot, this is how you portray him. Some lowly officer given a role that he couldn't perform to any reasonable level of competence.
      The claims that you are making re training are just made up by you. You have no idea of what training or courses took place for crime scene photography in the 1980's and your wikipedia post demonstrates that.
      You are also obviously projecting with your claims of my "getting hot under the collar" and starting with the insults. I have yet to have a post of mine removed by any moderator for any reason ever in over 6 years of posting, albeit occasionally. You have had an untold number removed, quite a number of which were directed at me for any number of reasons. You know what they say about people in glass houses.
     

[gringo]

Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?

    What are you even attempting to say/ask here?

     He was employed as a photographer and made his living as a photographer therefore he was a professional photographer. He took crime scene photographs and compiled the albums for court. I am sure we can all agree that this is a specialist role.
     

[Caroline]

    You stated that he was no professional after deriding his status and suggested that this led to the huge number of unusable photographs. Are you claiming that this is a description of competence? Your own words about him are a description of incompetence or do you dispute this?
      I can assure you that refuting your arguments is not a difficult task and the time between posts has been spent dog walking, car maintenance and cooking. Thinking up replies to your half baked arguments takes seconds. Whilst you didn't refer to him as an idiot, this is how you portray him. Some lowly officer given a role that he couldn't perform to any reasonable level of competence.
      The claims that you are making re training are just made up by you. You have no idea of what training or courses took place for crime scene photography in the 1980's and your wikipedia post demonstrates that.
      You are also obviously projecting with your claims of my "getting hot under the collar" and starting with the insults. I have yet to have a post of mine removed by any moderator for any reason ever in over 6 years of posting, albeit occasionally. You have had an untold number removed, quite a number of which were directed at me for any number of reasons. You know what they say about people in glass houses.
   

Gringo, it's easy for you to go away and do some research on what type of training police SOCO's received - and you were the FIRST to throw insults whether you have had posts removed or not.

This is goading .....
http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.msg444042.html#msg444042

This is rude ......

http://jeremybamberforum.co.uk/index.php/topic,9559.msg444079.html#msg444079

I at least have provided a source to support my argument - you have provided nothing other than your usual rude, supercilious responses. Clearly you're too good for Wikipedia - nevertheless, that doesn't mean the information is wrong and if you bother do some research, you will find it most certainly IS'NT!

Think you dog might need another walk before you answer!     

[Caroline]

    What are you even attempting to say/ask here?

     He was employed as a photographer and made his living as a photographer therefore he was a professional photographer. He took crime scene photographs and compiled the albums for court. I am sure we can all agree that this is a specialist role.
     

He was employed as a police officer and worked in the SOCO division - he was NOT a photographer!

[IndigoJ]

Hang on. You've just "said he wasn't a specialist" but didn't you also call him a "professional photographer"?

I don't know but I wouldnt have thought in those days that a police officer who also took photos would be required to be a professional photographer , of course now it has been merged into SOCO , I always wanted to be a SOCO but once I found out the rate of pay I quickly decided otherwise!