'suspicious' man outside Derby County's training ground

[McRainy]

1 minute ago, BathRam72 said:

Police will not release information that might be of insignificance due to it potentially damaging any legal claim that might be coming.

Would seem counterproductive for the club to release it then, in that case. 

Either it's sensitive information pertinent to an ongoing inquiry, so no one releases it, or it isn't, so everyone releases it. 

Under what circumstances would the police keep it secret, but tell the club, who then mention it publicly?

[Pub Breath]

Yep, would appear that Lampard spoke about pliers, not the police.  Doesn't make it automatically untrue but certainly doesn't make it fact either. 

[Pub Breath]

9 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

If it is crucial evidence in an impeding case, then information might not be forthcoming until after any investigation.

Police will not release information that might be of insignificance due to it potentially damaging any legal claim that might be coming.

Derby would be informed as it could influence what they actually do about it.

Having a pair of pliers on your possession is not a crime unless they are used or intended for use in a crime. (The latter would be very difficult to prove).

 

Eh?  Do you know something we don't?  There is no case.  There is no investigation (apart from the FA's).  The Police moved the bloke on and that was that.  The bloke was on public land and there hasn't been single claim of anything illegal having taken place.  I'm very confused.....

[BathRam72]

2 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Would seem counterproductive for the club to release it then, in that case. 

Either it's sensitive information pertinent to an ongoing inquiry, so no one releases it, or it isn't, so everyone releases it. 

Under what circumstances would the police keep it secret, but tell the club, who then mention it publicly?

I am not saying there are any circumstances where this would happen.

We will never know the full picture.

Maybe Lampard accidentally mentioned it, or he did it deliberately as he was incensed to gain support on the spy gate thing .

Maybe the police didn't think it was of interest but Derby did.

I was merely stating the reasons why this might not have been made public

Who knows???

[McRainy]

Frank also mentioned that the man was on his hands and knees.

The police statement just says that a man was found at the perimeter fence. 

Most odd. 

[BathRam72]

2 minutes ago, Pub Breath said:

Eh?  Do you know something we don't?  There is no case.  There is no investigation (apart from the FA's).  The Police moved the bloke on and that was that.  The bloke was on public land and there hasn't been single claim of anything illegal having taken place.  I'm very confused.....

At the time, before any of this became public. There was a man acting suspiciously and was reported to the authorities.

ERGO the Police were just doing their job and responding to the incident.

So at the very time they approach and maybe arrest someone, it is a criminal investigation. If they subsequently decide there is no point pursuing this then the pliers become inconsequential.

I at no point said there was an investigation, Once again you jumped to conclusions.

Please re-read my post and you will see I merely pointed out WHY the pliers might not have come to the public domain.

Then highlight where I said there WAS an investigation

 

[BathRam72]

1 minute ago, Lambchop said:

Frank also mentioned that the man was on his hands and knees.

The police statement just says that a man was found at the perimeter fence. 

Most odd. 

Then in my limited intelligence it would suggest that who ever reported the so called crime indeed report that someone was hiding on their knees in the bushes, hence the Police being called.

When the Police turned up, it is my thinking that he knew he had been rumbled so was on his feet walking away.

Being on your feet at a perimeter fence is not a crime, I am sure the police were purely acting on the back of a call.

If you saw someone on their knees in your perimeter bush in your garden, would you report it?

Would you then expect the Police to at least apprehend the potential perpetrator and question his motive? Or would you be happy for them to say 'Hey when we found him he was walking down the road so we let it go?' Just asking

[McRainy]

2 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

If you saw someone on their knees in your perimeter bush in your garden, would you report it?

No, I'd keep it to myself, and hope the neighbours weren't watching. 

?

[Pub Breath]

12 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

At the time, before any of this became public. There was a man acting suspiciously and was reported to the authorities.

ERGO the Police were just doing their job and responding to the incident.

So at the very time they approach and maybe arrest someone, it is a criminal investigation. If they subsequently decide there is no point pursuing this then the pliers become inconsequential.

I at no point said there was an investigation, Once again you jumped to conclusions.

Please re-read my post and you will see I merely pointed out WHY the pliers might not have come to the public domain.

Then highlight where I said there WAS an investigation

 

I'm not sure I said you did.  I questioned whether there was something you knew that we didn't.  It's patently bloody obvious that there will be no investigation.  If there was a criminal act involved, he'd have been arrested.  They had no reason to arrest him so sent him on his way.  I'm unclear about what you think is going to happen now, that is going to lead to this bloke being arrested?  They're suddenly going to find a big hole in a wire fence that they missed for the last 4 or 5 days?

There is no case and will be no case.  It's a huge storm in a teacup.

[BathRam72]

2 minutes ago, Pub Breath said:

I'm not sure I said you did.  I questioned whether there was something you knew that we didn't.  It's patently bloody obvious that there will be no investigation.  If there was a criminal act involved, he'd have been arrested.  They had no reason to arrest him so sent him on his way.  I'm confused what you think is going to happen now, that is going to lead to this bloke being arrested?  They're suddenly going to find a big hole in a wire fence that they missed for the last 4 or 5 days?

There is no case and will be no case.  It's a huge storm in a teacup.

First of all you have jumped to conclusions again.

Tell me where i said he had or will be arrested?

My original post was to Lambchop who asked why where the mention of pliers had come into all this? and why did Lampard mention it but the Police didn't.

All I did was to point out why this might have happened.

Secondly if you think it is a storm in a teacup, WHY are you still here?

 

[McRainy]

12 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

Then in my limited intelligence it would suggest that who ever reported the so called crime indeed report that someone was hiding on their knees in the bushes, hence the Police being called.

That still doesn't explain how that information got from the person calling the police, via the police to the club, and hence to the outside world.

In that case, either the person raising the alarm made public what they had seen, or we are still left with the situation of the club releasing information which the police have seen fit to withhold. 

[Pub Breath]

2 minutes ago, BathRam72 said:

First of all you have jumped to conclusions again.

Tell me where i said he had or will be arrested?

My original post was to Lambchop who asked why where the mention of pliers had come into all this? and why did Lampard mention it but the Police didn't.

All I did was to point out why this might have happened.

Secondly if you think it is a storm in a teacup, WHY are you still here?

 

I'm still not sure I understand.  No arrests made.  No reports of criminality.  No talk of any investigation.  Yet you think they were withholding information because of a potential investigation.    Explain please because i'm confused?  What on earth is it that you think they would have been investigating?

Me thinking that this is a storm in a teacup and me being here are not two things that are unable to co-exist.

 

[Pub Breath]

4 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

That still doesn't explain how that information got from the person calling the police, via the police to the club, and hence to the outside world.

In that case, either the person raising the alarm made public what they had seen, or we are still left with the situation of the club releasing information which the police have seen fit to withhold. 

Or there has been some artistic embellishment to the story?

[McRainy]

1 minute ago, Pub Breath said:

Or there has been some artistic embellishment to the story?

Well that's the implication, isn't it, and the most likely explanation... which would turn the tables, dirty tricks wise, to Lampard using the incident to try to unsettle Bielsa before the match...

[Day]

Just now, Lambchop said:

Well that's the implication, isn't it, and the most likely explanation... which would turn the tables, dirty tricks wise, to Lampard using the incident to try to unsettle Bielsa before the match...

Words fail me.

[McRainy]

1 minute ago, David said:

Words fail me.

As said previously, the most interesting thing about this incident is the way the two managers have handled it, and the general perception thereof.

Despite Frank being the aggrieved party, he has somehow managed to emerge as the one with the most egg on his face. 

Does it not intrigue you to understand how that has happened?

[StringerBell]

 

6 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Well that's the implication, isn't it, and the most likely explanation... which would turn the tables, dirty tricks wise, to Lampard using the incident to try to unsettle Bielsa before the match...

Or the police don't release their reports to the public and when they do tell the public something on Twitter they tell you what they can be arsed to tell you.

[uttoxram75]

2 minutes ago, David said:

Words fail me.

And me, lets check the facts in case I've read it all wrong,

 

Leeds send a spy to our training session the day before we play them.

The guy is spoken to by the police at the scene who issue a statement that he is employed by Leeds United and let him go.

Leeds United admit that they had sent a spy

Leeds United owner officially apologises to Derby County's owner

Its Frank Lampard fault.

 

Have I missed owt?

[Pub Breath]

6 minutes ago, Lambchop said:

Well that's the implication, isn't it, and the most likely explanation... which would turn the tables, dirty tricks wise, to Lampard using the incident to try to unsettle Bielsa before the match...

Well, if that were the case, i'd be more inclined to say fighting fire with fire.  Punch and counter punch.  Obviously outright fibbing shouldn't be encouraged but a little clever exaggeration in the eye of a storm (in a teacup) was probably fair game i'd say.

[McRainy]

1 minute ago, StringerBell said:

 

Or the police don't release their reports to the public and when they do tell the public something on Twitter they tell you what they can be arsed to tell you.

Could be that, but they have been repeatedly asked to confirm the info about the pliers and have declined to do so.