is it illegal for police to tell press of a raid etc?
Discussion
Steffan said:
Regrettably I have heard similar suggestions from my contacts with some of this backing entourage. I just happen to know one or two. I have absolutely no idea whether this was just promoted by sour grapes and hot air or otherwise. Which is why i always afford the benefit of the doubt in such cases But it is consistent and has been an undercurrent for some considerable tiime. Not that that is in any way proof of any such acts or any real cause for concern in itself. He will attract that sort of venom because he has been so singularly successful and arguably the greatest British pop star for more than 50 years which is bound to cause jealousy.
I did wonder whether his absence was not a coincidence and whether he will return. Is he in fact effectively outside the extradition treaties in the Carribean? I rather doubt it personally and I would think few countries in the commonwealth are outside that agreement. Possibly Latin American states ? Remains to be seen.
According to Sky news he issued a statement from Portugal? You show me any pop icon from the last 50 years that didn't have "groupies" throwing themselves at them, did they ask them all for proof of age prior to having a bit of a fumble? I watched an interview with a heavy rock act and they said there was all kinds of shenanigans going on under and back stage, some of them mothers and daughters... was quaintly called "trappings of fame" back then but seem to be some kind of witch hunt going on now with age old allegations made with very little if any proof, sceptics might say that people are adapting the compo culture to get a payout? Anybody with a "Jim'll fix it badge" has a claim for compo now? I did wonder whether his absence was not a coincidence and whether he will return. Is he in fact effectively outside the extradition treaties in the Carribean? I rather doubt it personally and I would think few countries in the commonwealth are outside that agreement. Possibly Latin American states ? Remains to be seen.
The whole Barbados thing was badged as tax avoidance and non dom stuff. I can't see the lack of an extradition treaty being a stumbling block to getting him back when the case against him is made. It'll take years of course, but it'll still happen if the case remains in the public eye.
jaf01uk said:
According to Sky news he issued a statement from Portugal? You show me any pop icon from the last 50 years that didn't have "groupies" throwing themselves at them, did they ask them all for proof of age prior to having a bit of a fumble? I watched an interview with a heavy rock act and they said there was all kinds of shenanigans going on under and back stage, some of them mothers and daughters... was quaintly called "trappings of fame" back then but seem to be some kind of witch hunt going on now with age old allegations made with very little if any proof, sceptics might say that people are adapting the compo culture to get a payout? Anybody with a "Jim'll fix it badge" has a claim for compo now?
There is a world of difference there Police do tip the press off about raids, and this is done openly.
It is usually done for big operations or crime crack down initiatives. As a journalist, I have been on many such raids.
Examples I can remember include raids on scrap yards looking for hooky cables. Big raids on suspected burglars/drug dealers and the like.
Police do this for two main reasons.
It is good PR.
Also it manages press interest when the press know what it is. For example a big raid may involve a convoy of police vans, air support, dogs. All quite dramatic and it is likely someone seeing this will call the press, who have the potential to mess up the operation.
I know of a situation where a suspect has been lost because of press interest. Cops doing house to house calls. Someone tells a journo who goes knocking on doors asking locas what's happening. The journo knocks on the suspects door before the police do, and unwittingly tips him off giving him time to destroy the evidence/do a runner.
Therefore in a high profile raid, the police may see it as better to let the press know to avoid hacks swarming all over the place.
There is the old "cannot confirm, but will not answe no" way of dealing with the press. Say Jonny Crush is a 56 year old famous person who lives at a Mansion at 1 Celeb Street Fametown. That he lives there is no secret, it's on the electoral records, company director records, land registry.
There is a raid. The press call the cops.
"Is it true you raided Jonny Crush's house?" Their response would be "officers searched an address on Celeb Street". Was it a flat?" the cops say no, the questioning continues. "Was it a mansion?". The police confirm it was a large detatched property. It goes on to the point you ask, "if we broadcast the fact Jonny Crush was arrested would we be wrong?". The police response would be something like "We are not naming the man who is in custody, but we can confirm he is a 56 year old who lives at the address and enquiries continue"
Then you can report that conversation. "Mr Crush who is 56 is known to live in a mansion on Celeb Street. Police are not naming the man they have in cusody but they have confirmed that a 56 year old man was arrested during the operation at a large detatched house on Celeb Street and that enquires are ongoing.
Or it could just be a copper in a pub telling a journalist.
Or it could result from a call from a neighbour to a newsroom saying the police are raiding Jonny Crush's house.
Apols for spelling and grammar. Typing this in bed with man flu on my phone.
It is usually done for big operations or crime crack down initiatives. As a journalist, I have been on many such raids.
Examples I can remember include raids on scrap yards looking for hooky cables. Big raids on suspected burglars/drug dealers and the like.
Police do this for two main reasons.
It is good PR.
Also it manages press interest when the press know what it is. For example a big raid may involve a convoy of police vans, air support, dogs. All quite dramatic and it is likely someone seeing this will call the press, who have the potential to mess up the operation.
I know of a situation where a suspect has been lost because of press interest. Cops doing house to house calls. Someone tells a journo who goes knocking on doors asking locas what's happening. The journo knocks on the suspects door before the police do, and unwittingly tips him off giving him time to destroy the evidence/do a runner.
Therefore in a high profile raid, the police may see it as better to let the press know to avoid hacks swarming all over the place.
There is the old "cannot confirm, but will not answe no" way of dealing with the press. Say Jonny Crush is a 56 year old famous person who lives at a Mansion at 1 Celeb Street Fametown. That he lives there is no secret, it's on the electoral records, company director records, land registry.
There is a raid. The press call the cops.
"Is it true you raided Jonny Crush's house?" Their response would be "officers searched an address on Celeb Street". Was it a flat?" the cops say no, the questioning continues. "Was it a mansion?". The police confirm it was a large detatched property. It goes on to the point you ask, "if we broadcast the fact Jonny Crush was arrested would we be wrong?". The police response would be something like "We are not naming the man who is in custody, but we can confirm he is a 56 year old who lives at the address and enquiries continue"
Then you can report that conversation. "Mr Crush who is 56 is known to live in a mansion on Celeb Street. Police are not naming the man they have in cusody but they have confirmed that a 56 year old man was arrested during the operation at a large detatched house on Celeb Street and that enquires are ongoing.
Or it could just be a copper in a pub telling a journalist.
Or it could result from a call from a neighbour to a newsroom saying the police are raiding Jonny Crush's house.
Apols for spelling and grammar. Typing this in bed with man flu on my phone.
LoonR1 said:
A friend of mine who works in a senior role within a high profile force have me the names of four alleged kiddy fiddlers where they have all the evidence but are not allowed to pursue them due to orders from way up on high. Well they weren't allowed to until the Govt yielded to public pressure. The first name he gave me is Cliff, I'm watching the other three and their actions with interest currently around where they are living for example.
He was also on the Elm House list, which as time passes and more names come out is becoming increasingly validated.Edited by Martin4x4 on Saturday 16th August 11:39
Vipers said:
I still don't understand how people decide 30 or 40 years on to claim to have been assaulted, and prove it if it's true.
Corroboration is very powerful in a lot of the recent cases. Criminals tend to operate in a similar manner over and over again. When you have independent people, from different places and times, who don't know one another describing being approached / assaulted in the same way, it builds a strong case.As far as we know there's only one complainant so far, but then a large press fanfare will likely bring more (if there are more real ones) forward. If a few people, independent from one another, start describing similar specific behaviours, then Cliff may start worrying.
jaf01uk said:
was quaintly called "trappings of fame" back then but seem to be some kind of witch hunt going on now with age old allegations made with very little if any proof, sceptics might say that people are adapting the compo culture to get a payout? Anybody with a "Jim'll fix it badge" has a claim for compo now?
Yet quite a few of the cases have been proven beyond all reasonable doubt. I commented on the "compensation" motive in another topic. It doesn't fit over this oner perfectly, but you get the jist. Here's practically what people are saying (for most of these cases):
1) Several people have all decided at the same time to make allegations to the police about sexual offences about the same person - how do they all pick the same celebrity?
2) Each of these independent person from different times has managed to come up with the same MO. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
3) The are motivated by money and not genuine victims.
4) They are all willing to pervert to course of justice and go through a hard process and the most high-profile of Crown court cases to secure money.
5) They get their lies past the best police interviewers and investigators in this crime area.
6) They get their lies through the CPS.
7) At no point through the process do they "crack" or get challenged because anyone involved in the investigation suspects so.
8) The expert defence counsel aren't able to obtain the necessary 'reasonable doubt' from a liar/s.
9) They manage to convince a jury enough to convict.
agtlaw said:
Obviously done in the hope that other "victims" will make themselves known when the search and allegations are broadcast live on the BBC. Is the BBC now some sort of poacher turned gamekeeper?
Not in this case. That aspect would be taken care of anyway. The media attention would have been of the same scale even if there were a greater delay between the warrant being executed and the press finding out about the investigation. wildcat45 said:
Police do tip the press off about raids, and this is done openly.
It is usually done for big operations or crime crack down initiatives. As a journalist, I have been on many such raids.
Examples I can remember include raids on scrap yards looking for hooky cables. Big raids on suspected burglars/drug dealers and the like.
Police do this for two main reasons.
It is good PR.
Also it manages press interest when the press know what it is. For example a big raid may involve a convoy of police vans, air support, dogs. All quite dramatic and it is likely someone seeing this will call the press, who have the potential to mess up the operation.
I know of a situation where a suspect has been lost because of press interest. Cops doing house to house calls. Someone tells a journo who goes knocking on doors asking locas what's happening. The journo knocks on the suspects door before the police do, and unwittingly tips him off giving him time to destroy the evidence/do a runner.
Therefore in a high profile raid, the police may see it as better to let the press know to avoid hacks swarming all over the place.
There is the old "cannot confirm, but will not answe no" way of dealing with the press. Say Jonny Crush is a 56 year old famous person who lives at a Mansion at 1 Celeb Street Fametown. That he lives there is no secret, it's on the electoral records, company director records, land registry.
There is a raid. The press call the cops.
"Is it true you raided Jonny Crush's house?" Their response would be "officers searched an address on Celeb Street". Was it a flat?" the cops say no, the questioning continues. "Was it a mansion?". The police confirm it was a large detatched property. It goes on to the point you ask, "if we broadcast the fact Jonny Crush was arrested would we be wrong?". The police response would be something like "We are not naming the man who is in custody, but we can confirm he is a 56 year old who lives at the address and enquiries continue"
Then you can report that conversation. "Mr Crush who is 56 is known to live in a mansion on Celeb Street. Police are not naming the man they have in cusody but they have confirmed that a 56 year old man was arrested during the operation at a large detatched house on Celeb Street and that enquires are ongoing.
Or it could just be a copper in a pub telling a journalist.
Or it could result from a call from a neighbour to a newsroom saying the police are raiding Jonny Crush's house.
My lad is a journo on ITN and started out on a local paper, as many do. He went on a number of early morning planed operations with the police and got to know some of the local lads quite well. All the advantages mention above will have been considered by the police.It is usually done for big operations or crime crack down initiatives. As a journalist, I have been on many such raids.
Examples I can remember include raids on scrap yards looking for hooky cables. Big raids on suspected burglars/drug dealers and the like.
Police do this for two main reasons.
It is good PR.
Also it manages press interest when the press know what it is. For example a big raid may involve a convoy of police vans, air support, dogs. All quite dramatic and it is likely someone seeing this will call the press, who have the potential to mess up the operation.
I know of a situation where a suspect has been lost because of press interest. Cops doing house to house calls. Someone tells a journo who goes knocking on doors asking locas what's happening. The journo knocks on the suspects door before the police do, and unwittingly tips him off giving him time to destroy the evidence/do a runner.
Therefore in a high profile raid, the police may see it as better to let the press know to avoid hacks swarming all over the place.
There is the old "cannot confirm, but will not answe no" way of dealing with the press. Say Jonny Crush is a 56 year old famous person who lives at a Mansion at 1 Celeb Street Fametown. That he lives there is no secret, it's on the electoral records, company director records, land registry.
There is a raid. The press call the cops.
"Is it true you raided Jonny Crush's house?" Their response would be "officers searched an address on Celeb Street". Was it a flat?" the cops say no, the questioning continues. "Was it a mansion?". The police confirm it was a large detatched property. It goes on to the point you ask, "if we broadcast the fact Jonny Crush was arrested would we be wrong?". The police response would be something like "We are not naming the man who is in custody, but we can confirm he is a 56 year old who lives at the address and enquiries continue"
Then you can report that conversation. "Mr Crush who is 56 is known to live in a mansion on Celeb Street. Police are not naming the man they have in cusody but they have confirmed that a 56 year old man was arrested during the operation at a large detatched house on Celeb Street and that enquires are ongoing.
Or it could just be a copper in a pub telling a journalist.
Or it could result from a call from a neighbour to a newsroom saying the police are raiding Jonny Crush's house.
wildcat45 said:
Apols for spelling and grammar. Typing this in bed with man flu on my phone.
And you're a journo.
LoonR1 said:
There's a good chance I'm finally going to live up to my name as a it of a loon here and a wibblist one at that.
A friend of mine who works in a senior role within a high profile force have me the names of four alleged kiddy fiddlers where they have all the evidence but are not allowed to pursue them due to orders from way up on high. Well they weren't allowed to until the Govt yielded to public pressure. The first name he gave me is Cliff, I'm watching the other three and their actions with interest currently around where they are living for example.
In the age of Wikileaks and Snowden and Tor and god knows what other means of leaking info to the point where nobody is likely to be able to trace it back to you, if your friend feels sufficiently confident that they have enough evidence but are being told to turn a blind eye, why doesn't he/she do something about it then?A friend of mine who works in a senior role within a high profile force have me the names of four alleged kiddy fiddlers where they have all the evidence but are not allowed to pursue them due to orders from way up on high. Well they weren't allowed to until the Govt yielded to public pressure. The first name he gave me is Cliff, I'm watching the other three and their actions with interest currently around where they are living for example.
La Liga said:
...2) Each of these independent person from different times has managed to come up with the same MO. This is either from coincidence or conspiracy.
Are they coming up with the same MO? Or is the case that there are some similarities?The threshold for admission nowadays is so low that the probative value of any similarities is, arguably, outweighed by the prejudice of having a handful of independent allegations of the same type of offence being considered at the same trial.
Edited by Zeeky on Saturday 16th August 20:44
Oakey said:
If it's an issue of libel how do all these random blogs, etc get away with naming these people and making accusations? In particular all the blogs about Elm Guest House, you'd expect them to have been threatened with legal action by now.
Trying to suppress blah websites is like cutting the heads off a hydra, or, more prosaically, stamping on ants running about near a big nest. The sites may be run by people with no resources who are not worth suing, and there's a good argument for avoiding giving people making allegations the oxygen of publicity. There's also a general rule against prior restraint in libel law (ie it is rare to obtain an injunction before a full trial). All that's before you throw in jurisdictional issues arising from site hosting. b
hstewie said:
hstewie said: In the age of Wikileaks and Snowden and Tor and god knows what other means of leaking info to the point where nobody is likely to be able to trace it back to you, if your friend feels sufficiently confident that they have enough evidence but are being told to turn a blind eye, why doesn't he/she do something about it then?
Oh yeah. Totally anonymous. Vipers said:
I still don't understand how people decide 30 or 40 years on to claim to have been assaulted, and prove it if it's true.
Some individuals like the attention, others just want the money.For money off the tax payer, go here:
https://www.gov.uk/criminal-injuries-compensation-...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4003/Rape-...
Apparently Max Clifford's victims are going to collect most of his fortune according to reports!
Tony 1234 said:
duckwhistle said:
google,'Elm lodge scandal' for an interesting read.
Christ a lot of "Monday club" members on the list plus Cliff 
It gets even more interesting. Guess who the prospective Parliamentary candidate and solicitor to Richmond Council was in 1982.
So, with those positions in mind, how much did he know about what was going on in Barnes? Is he more Teflon ® coated than Tony B?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff