Suzy lamplugh

[RamNut]

Quote

Former Crimewatch presenter Nick Ross has asked whether police should be investigating historical crimes such as the Suzy Lamplugh case when the prime suspect 'is already in prison'.

Mr Ross has questioned 'the value' of historical investigations and asked whether 'we are using our police to focus on the most important things'.

He said the case, which remains one of the UK's most notorious cold cases, sparked a fevered and 'ghoulish' fascination largely in part because the victim was 'female, pretty and middle class.'

But the journalist has now raised questions about the role of police in investigating crimes and the priority given to such cases. 

He adds: 'Calls on the police service are expanding hugely as more of us report intimate offences such as sex crime, unacceptable behaviour like racism, or political priorities such as modern slavery.

'Which begs the question: are we using our police to focus on the most important things?

'No one is suggesting that a case like Suzy Lamplugh's shouldn't be investigated. But if we want kidnapping and homicide to have a high priority, what are we prepared to concede is low priority?'

This is wrong on so many levels.

Inferring that because the suspect is in prison, the case shouldn't be pursued. What happened to the presumption of innocence.

inferring that the case has a higher profile than it should because the victim was 'female, pretty and middle class'. What does the profile of the victim have to do with the obligation to investigate? Did the jill dando murder have too much priority?  Should the police continue to investigate the attack on Josie Russell, her mother Lin and sister Megan, when they are middle class and one person is serving a prison sentance, (whilst maintaining a claim of innocence), and the other suspect Levi Bellfield is also in prison?

Inferring that police are at fault for pursuing inappropriate priorities when resources are stretched. Surely the issue should be to address adequate funding and resources rather than criticise police for pursuing a murder investigation?

'No one is suggesting that a case like Suzy Lamplugh's shouldn't be investigated" really? So exactly what is he implying then?

 

 

[sage]

2 hours ago, RamNut said:

This is wrong on so many levels.

Inferring that because the suspect is in prison, the case shouldn't be pursued. What happened to the presumption of innocence.

inferring that the case has a higher profile than it should because the victim was 'female, pretty and middle class'. What does the profile of the victim have to do with the obligation to investigate? Did the jill dando murder have too much priority?  Should the police continue to investigate the attack on Josie Russell, her mother Lin and sister Megan, when they are middle class and one person is serving a prison sentance, (whilst maintaining a claim of innocence), and the other suspect Levi Bellfield is also in prison?

Inferring that police are at fault for pursuing inappropriate priorities when resources are stretched. Surely the issue should be to address adequate funding and resources rather than criticise police for pursuing a murder investigation?

'No one is suggesting that a case like Suzy Lamplugh's shouldn't be investigated" really? So exactly what is he implying then?

 

 

He is suggesting that often the amount of work looking into an old case is disproportionate at a time when the police can't cope with current crime.

Also he is suggesting, quite rightly that the print media get obsessed with certain crimes (Lamplaugh McCann Nickell) which puts pressure on the police to allocate additional resources.

 

[RamNut]

5 hours ago, sage said:

He is suggesting that often the amount of work looking into an old case is disproportionate at a time when the police can't cope with current crime.

Also he is suggesting, quite rightly that the print media get obsessed with certain crimes (Lamplaugh McCann Nickell) which puts pressure on the police to allocate additional resources.

 

Which is wrong. Media obsession did not spark the fresh investigation into the Lamplugh case anyway.

media "obsession" might actually help to correct the incompetent investigation of the rachel nickell and jill dando cases. In the shirley banks / suzy lamplugh case, shirley banks's husband wanted the individual investigating officers to face charges for cover up of incompetences. 

Why is money more important than justice?

[Stive Pesley]

On 07/11/2018 at 03:20, sage said:

Also he is suggesting, quite rightly that the print media get obsessed with certain crimes (Lamplaugh McCann Nickell) which puts pressure on the police to allocate additional resources.

First bit yes - but does that really put pressure on the police to do more? Maybe it does I don't know - but the point is that it shouldn't.

The media obsess about the cases that sell the most papers/garner the most clicks/attract the most viewers. Nothing new there, but I always assumed that there were dozens of miscarriages of justice/unsolved crimes every single day - and they are all being dealt with the same. We just don't hear about them if there is not enough broad appeal to the media to consider investing time in covering them

[AndyinLiverpool]

On 07/11/2018 at 01:00, RamNut said:

This is wrong on so many levels.

Inferring that because the suspect is in prison, the case shouldn't be pursued. What happened to the presumption of innocence.

inferring that the case has a higher profile than it should because the victim was 'female, pretty and middle class'. What does the profile of the victim have to do with the obligation to investigate? Did the jill dando murder have too much priority?  Should the police continue to investigate the attack on Josie Russell, her mother Lin and sister Megan, when they are middle class and one person is serving a prison sentance, (whilst maintaining a claim of innocence), and the other suspect Levi Bellfield is also in prison?

Inferring that police are at fault for pursuing inappropriate priorities when resources are stretched. Surely the issue should be to address adequate funding and resources rather than criticise police for pursuing a murder investigation?

'No one is suggesting that a case like Suzy Lamplugh's shouldn't be investigated" really? So exactly what is he implying then?

 

 

Police should probably stop wasting their time investigating people burn models of Grenfell Tower or acting as security blanket for the hopelessly offended. Then they'd have more time for this sort of thing.

[McRainy]

5 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Police should probably stop wasting their time acting as security blanket for the hopelessly offended.

Lol

 

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

Police should probably stop wasting their time investigating people burn models of Grenfell Tower

Are we allowed to discuss that? @GboroRam

FWIW I don't think anyone on here would try and defend those morons, but keeping the topic to law and order, I'm not really sure there is a law in place to accurately charge them for what they did in the privacy of their own garden.

At best, prosecution would be of the guy who distributed it - as it could reasonably be deemed offensive material.

 

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Are we allowed to discuss that?

 

 

Lets see how it goes. All I'll say folks, is, play nice.

[McRainy]

47 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

All I'll say folks, is, play nice.

Since you deleted the homelessness thread I'm at a complete loss to know what you even mean by that.

No one was being unpleasant to anyone in that thread, and I've no idea why you pulled it. 

The rules are unclear, and therefore meaningless, when it just comes down to your arbitrary opinion about whether you approve of someone's opinion or not. 

It's counterproductive, because it makes contributing to serious discussions pointless. 

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 hours ago, Lambchop said:

Lol

 

Who are the police protecting there? And what could they be doing instead?

 

There are, what, about 50 police officers there? That's 25 pairs they could put on the beat instead of surrendering the streets.

Who decided that a march of a score or so former football hooligans required that much protection?

It's difficult to have an awful lot of sympathy when the police go on about resources and then use their resources so.

[Coneheadjohn]

3 hours ago, Lambchop said:

Lol

 

To be fair I bet they’re all reyt hard.

[BathRam72]

I remember a Christmas lights switch on in my local town a few years ago.

There were two police officers stood close by and an elderly lady walked up to them and said "YOU DO EXIST THEN?".

To which one replied "Only on special occasions" - Never a truer said in jest 

[Coneheadjohn]

I don’t understand how anyone gets away with doing their own patio.

Surely you’d only do it yourself if you were burying something underneath it?

 

[Stive Pesley]

58 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

No one was being unpleasant to anyone in that thread, and I've no idea why you pulled it.

I just assume that if a thread gets pulled it's because someone flouted the guidelines at the top of the forum. You don't always see the last comment that caused the pull.

This thread is not political, it's about policing and law/order but has potential to go that way if people choose to

So my assumption is that "play nice" means keep it non-political, and if you can't then don't post in it.

1 hour ago, Lambchop said:

it just comes down to your arbitrary opinion about whether you approve of someone's opinion or not. 

I think that's unfair - the rules are pretty clear to me. It's not an affront to you personally if you get a post deleted - or a matter of  approval/disapproval of your opinion. It's much more blunt than that - no politics/sex/religion. Full Stop. They're the rules and personally I'm used to it now and it's quite nice to not have all the threads descend into argument. And I say that as one of the (often) guilty ones

And I don't post this to cause an argument. I'd just like to leave the thread up as it's interesting

[Stive Pesley]

8 minutes ago, coneheadjohn said:

I don’t understand how anyone gets away with doing their own patio.

Surely you’d only do it yourself if you were burying something underneath it?

 

Laying your own patio is harder than it looks (is it @Norman that does patios or did I imagine that?)

Imagine the chances of being a murderer and being good at laying patios?

I wonder if any murderers actually trained as slab layers specifically in order to cover up their victims?

[AndyinLiverpool]

2 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Laying your own patio is harder than it looks (is it @Norman that does patios or did I imagine that?)

Imagine the chances of being a murderer and being good at laying patios?

I wonder if any murderers actually trained as slab layers specifically in order to cover up their victims?

Perhaps those who lay patios are more naturally inclined to murder?

'I've got a new patio to lay. It would be a shame to waste it.' 

That sort of thing.

[McRainy]

3 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

It's much more blunt than that - no politics/sex/religion. Full Stop.

It isn't clear at all, there's no boundaried definition of what is or isn't deemed 'political', so it all becomes very arbitrary. 

There are discussions in the football section about McClean, and the financial implications of the Super League, which have been allowed, for example, but a discussion on how to help the homeless isn't. 

You just have to say what you think, until it disappears, and then you realise you've been wasting your time. 

[McRainy]

1 hour ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

what could they be doing instead?

Protecting the royal family?

The satire was directed at your notion of who it is that gets offended, but never mind; it's off limits anyway. 

[David]

1 hour ago, Lambchop said:

It isn't clear at all, there's no boundaried definition of what is or isn't deemed 'political', so it all becomes very arbitrary. 

There are discussions in the football section about McClean, and the financial implications of the Super League, which have been allowed, for example, but a discussion on how to help the homeless isn't. 

You just have to say what you think, until it disappears, and then you realise you've been wasting your time. 

The homeless topic has been cleaned up and reopened.

This is a football forum so football politics for example safe standing, alcohol in the stands, Super League we are fine with being discussed.

Party politics with Tories that, Labour this, May, Corbyn, Trump, Brexit, austerity, government spending, cuts etc. we ask not to be discussed publicly on the forum and kept to private group chats which you can moderate yourselves.

If at any point you are unsure contact a moderator, we don’t bite, always one about and we have a Whatsapp group chat so won’t take long to get an answer. Posts like this can easily be missed. 

[Norman]

3 hours ago, StivePesley said:

Laying your own patio is harder than it looks (is it @Norman that does patios or did I imagine that?)

Imagine the chances of being a murderer and being good at laying patios?

I wonder if any murderers actually trained as slab layers specifically in order to cover up their victims?

Yes, extensions, driveways and patios.

All of which need hardcore or have footings, so just pm if you need someone burying.

Cash in hand.