General discussion about the latest news (not search related)

[misty]

What is a "Misconduct in Office Complaint?"

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

Probably this section.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/#a010


But it would be acceptable to CMoMM admin for a group of ex-coppers to get together & "solve " the case. Cough.

[Eleanor]

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/

Probably this section.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/misconduct_in_public_office/#a010


But it would be acceptable to CMoMM admin for a group of ex-coppers to get together & "solve " the case. Cough.

Thanks, Misty.

But what on earth makes Havern's Honchos think they have right to do this?  And to whom?

However, it might be amusing to see them get The Sex and Travel Option again.

[misty]

Thanks, Misty.

But what on earth makes Havern's Honchos think they have right to do this?  And to whom?

However, it might be amusing to see them get The Sex and Travel Option again.

IMO they are just sick that their 10 years of "research" may be proved worthless as current investigators just really, really aren't investigating the parents.
Reading the Resident article I get the sense a new Crowdfunding appeal may be imminent......

[Eleanor]

IMO they are just sick that their 10 years of "research" may be proved worthless as current investigators just really, really aren't investigating the parents.
Reading the Resident article I get the sense a new Crowdfunding appeal may be imminent......

They are all plain Barking, if you ask me.

[G-Unit]

They are all plain Barking, if you ask me.

They have had lots of labels applied to them but they have continued to work away analysing evidence, collecting new evidence via F.O.I's etc., and posting their findings for people to read. I don't agree with all their conclusions but they have gathered a lot of information and links which are a useful resource for others.

[Eleanor]

They have had lots of labels applied to them but they have continued to work away analysing evidence, collecting new evidence via F.O.I's etc., and posting their findings for people to read. I don't agree with all their conclusions but they have gathered a lot of information and links which are a useful resource for others.

And they Ban anyone who doesn't agree with them or criticises their "Findings.".  Hardly well balanced, is it.

[Mr Gray]

They have had lots of labels applied to them but they have continued to work away analysing evidence, collecting new evidence via F.O.I's etc., and posting their findings for people to read. I don't agree with all their conclusions but they have gathered a lot of information and links which are a useful resource for others.

They have on the whole completely misunderstood the evidence
They are convinced Maddie blood was recovered from the boot as a fact
Convinced the dog alerts prove the past presence of a cadaver
Eleanor's description of them as barking is bang on

[Mr Gray]

And they Ban anyone who doesn't agree with them or criticises their "Findings.".  Hardly well balanced, is it.

Any post vwhich points out a fault in their reasoning is removed and therefore gives the impression that everyone agrees with them
Anyone who thinks they offer any insight needs to examine their evidence a little more critically

[G-Unit]

Any post vwhich points out a fault in their reasoning is removed and therefore gives the impression that everyone agrees with them
Anyone who thinks they offer any insight needs to examine their evidence a little more critically

I imagine that would depend on how such posts were phrased. Some people seem to have an unerring ability to offend, don't they?

[Brietta]

They have had lots of labels applied to them but they have continued to work away analysing evidence, collecting new evidence via F.O.I's etc., and posting their findings for people to read. I don't agree with all their conclusions but they have gathered a lot of information and links which are a useful resource for others.

What have they achieved by their analysis of 'evidence'?  You seem to believe their conclusions have some merit.  What exactly would that be?
They have provided many links ... but to what end exactly   £5%4%

[Alice Purjorick]

What have they achieved by their analysis of 'evidence'?  You seem to believe their conclusions have some merit.  What exactly would that be?
They have provided many links ... but to what end exactly  £5%4%

Pretty much the same end as any civilian who is providing allegedly researched "pukkah gen " which will resolve the case for the investigating authorities.
"Aqui, Pedro, outro arquivo de nutter para o gabinete de classificação cinza redondo"
"Here Pete, another nutter file for the round grey filing cabinet"

[Alice Purjorick]

Thanks, Misty.

But what on earth makes Havern's Honchos think they have right to do this?  And to whom?

However, it might be amusing to see them get The Sex and Travel Option again.

What makes them think they can?
Misconduct in public office should be considered only where:
There is no suitable statutory offence for a piece of serious misconduct (such as a serious breach of or neglect of a public duty that is not in itself a criminal offence); 
There was serious misconduct or a deliberate failure to perform a duty owed to the public, with serious potential or actual consequences for the public;
The facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate

It will be worth hanging around to watch which mechanism is used, who they go for and the reaction of the CPS and courts.

[G-Unit]

What makes them think they can?
Misconduct in public office should be considered only where:
There is no suitable statutory offence for a piece of serious misconduct (such as a serious breach of or neglect of a public duty that is not in itself a criminal offence); 
There was serious misconduct or a deliberate failure to perform a duty owed to the public, with serious potential or actual consequences for the public;
The facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate

It will be worth hanging around to watch which mechanism is used, who they go for and the reaction of the CPS and courts.

Could it be allegedly deciding which offence has been committed before you start investigating a case?

[Mr Gray]

I imagine that would depend on how such posts were phrased. Some people seem to have an unerring ability to offend, don't they?

You imagine.... Don't you know
Do you really believe what you are posting
Looks like not one person has managed to phrase a dissenting post correctly as every one has been removed
The forum you support bans any sort of free speech and lies about the evidence.

[Eleanor]

What makes them think they can?
Misconduct in public office should be considered only where:
There is no suitable statutory offence for a piece of serious misconduct (such as a serious breach of or neglect of a public duty that is not in itself a criminal offence); 
There was serious misconduct or a deliberate failure to perform a duty owed to the public, with serious potential or actual consequences for the public;
The facts are so serious that the court's sentencing powers would otherwise be inadequate

It will be worth hanging around to watch which mechanism is used, who they go for and the reaction of the CPS and courts.

So pie in the sky then.  But I agree that it will be worth hanging around to see what happens.