24 Hours in Police Custody: Ch4
Discussion
k me she's deluded.Me : "She's a total fruitloop"
Wife : "I think she's just a bit misunderstood"
(goes outside, checks on health of pet rabbit)
That said, she wasn't looking too shabby at all for mid-40s. I'll wager some bloke will have seen her on the show and is willing to take a chance on her. She is, after all, "very romantic"
Wife : "I think she's just a bit misunderstood"
(goes outside, checks on health of pet rabbit)
That said, she wasn't looking too shabby at all for mid-40s. I'll wager some bloke will have seen her on the show and is willing to take a chance on her. She is, after all, "very romantic"
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 7th October 12:25
for wouldn't want her knowing where I reside. 
Legacywr said:
WinstonWolf said:
You just know she'd be utterly amazing in the sack...
Yes, I'm 49 and would probably risk it
I'd smash her back doors in, the trouble is, she probably spend the rest of her life trying to smash mine in!Yes, I'm 49 and would probably risk it
Wasn't a fan of this weeks show. Last week I thought was excellent.
Just a few things stood out:
1) why was the blonde hotty not checked by a nurse or doctor for mental health problems? She might have been behind the scenes, but if she wasn't I'd say that is wrong.
2) the show demonstrated the rampant sexism in our criminal justice system. Women breaks into home steals all sorts of items, destroys property and by her own admission breaks into the home trying to get the man to have sex, and there is no remand and no actual punishment. The bloke sends tasty texts and emails, in the past (Not reported at the time not went to the doctor or hospital) committed low level assault and goes to prison.
I'm not defending the bloke, he's a scumbag and if it was my sister or mother I'd probably end up in prison myself. However if a bloke broke into the house of his ex wanting sex, stole her things and harassed her with calls and texts then the police would not be taking it so lightly. Even in the interview prep for both it showed how differently the police were taking it.
I don't blame the police for that. I blame the framework and directions they work under. However I don't like it. Supposedly we are all equal under the law, having a willy or not shouldn't change that.
Just a few things stood out:
1) why was the blonde hotty not checked by a nurse or doctor for mental health problems? She might have been behind the scenes, but if she wasn't I'd say that is wrong.
2) the show demonstrated the rampant sexism in our criminal justice system. Women breaks into home steals all sorts of items, destroys property and by her own admission breaks into the home trying to get the man to have sex, and there is no remand and no actual punishment. The bloke sends tasty texts and emails, in the past (Not reported at the time not went to the doctor or hospital) committed low level assault and goes to prison.
I'm not defending the bloke, he's a scumbag and if it was my sister or mother I'd probably end up in prison myself. However if a bloke broke into the house of his ex wanting sex, stole her things and harassed her with calls and texts then the police would not be taking it so lightly. Even in the interview prep for both it showed how differently the police were taking it.
I don't blame the police for that. I blame the framework and directions they work under. However I don't like it. Supposedly we are all equal under the law, having a willy or not shouldn't change that.
photosnob said:
1) why was the blonde hotty not checked by a nurse or doctor for mental health problems? She might have been behind the scenes, but if she wasn't I'd say that is wrong.
I would think that anyone in the aftermath of a difficult relationship breakup would fail mental health assessments. Love makes people do crazy stuff.photosnob said:
2) the show demonstrated the rampant sexism in our criminal justice system. Women breaks into home steals all sorts of items, destroys property and by her own admission breaks into the home trying to get the man to have sex, and there is no remand and no actual punishment. The bloke sends tasty texts and emails, in the past (Not reported at the time not went to the doctor or hospital) committed low level assault and goes to prison.
I don't think the cases were at all comparable. The bloke posed a real risk to the his girlfriend as he had threatened to stab, kill, maim, and beat her up.The woman, on the other hand, was a nuisance but there was nothing to suggest she was going to cause physical harm.
Hottie: compliant in interview, says her piece, then in the cold light of day realises she's been a bit of an idiot, settles out of court with ex-husband, agrees not to contact him and moves on with her life.
Feral scumbag: total no comment, considerably more aggravated threats over a much longer time, a record as long as his arm, unsurprisingly gets a 12 month stretch.
As a copper friend said to me the other day, "you can't polish a turd". I would say they go into these interview situations pretty much knowing what the outcome is going to be, it's only human nature to tailor their approach accordingly. Horses for courses, as you might say.
I also noticed that one of the PCs featured towards the end was filling his break with reading the excellent Wasting Police Time, well worth a read IMO.
Feral scumbag: total no comment, considerably more aggravated threats over a much longer time, a record as long as his arm, unsurprisingly gets a 12 month stretch.
As a copper friend said to me the other day, "you can't polish a turd". I would say they go into these interview situations pretty much knowing what the outcome is going to be, it's only human nature to tailor their approach accordingly. Horses for courses, as you might say.
I also noticed that one of the PCs featured towards the end was filling his break with reading the excellent Wasting Police Time, well worth a read IMO.
Edited by PurpleTurtle on Tuesday 7th October 14:41
It's not a test that will get in her into trouble. It's to see if she can be interviewed, and to possibly (Unlikely) get help for her via a referral after if she has mental health problems. I don't think her behaviour seemed altogether there.
I'm not saying they are directly comparable. I'm saying if a man had done what she was doing he would be charged and probably remanded. The breaking into the house for sex took it to the next level.
The bloke was scum. But he sent texts and made threatening calls. He put her in fear. Completely wrong. She clearly but the bloke in fear, and also took valuable possessions the lens I saw would have been from 600-3500. And kept breaking into his home.
I defy anyone who has worked in the criminal justice system to tell me that a man would be treated the same if he was acting like that, remembering that was the third time she had been arrested for harassment.
Im not a fan or having separate sets of rules for different people. If someone does x they should be treated the same no matter if hey are gay, straight, black, white, Asian, male or female. And I don't think we have that at the moment.
If a black person called me a white piece of whatever the chances of that being charged as racially aggravated are slim. If I was to say the same thing but with black it's almost a certainty. I'm not a racist so wouldn't do that. And I also do understand there are both historic reasons, and also issues about minorities.
However I don't like the police having political mandates. I don't like the disparity of justice. And I'm going to get slaughtered for writing this 😄.
I'm not saying they are directly comparable. I'm saying if a man had done what she was doing he would be charged and probably remanded. The breaking into the house for sex took it to the next level.
The bloke was scum. But he sent texts and made threatening calls. He put her in fear. Completely wrong. She clearly but the bloke in fear, and also took valuable possessions the lens I saw would have been from 600-3500. And kept breaking into his home.
I defy anyone who has worked in the criminal justice system to tell me that a man would be treated the same if he was acting like that, remembering that was the third time she had been arrested for harassment.
Im not a fan or having separate sets of rules for different people. If someone does x they should be treated the same no matter if hey are gay, straight, black, white, Asian, male or female. And I don't think we have that at the moment.
If a black person called me a white piece of whatever the chances of that being charged as racially aggravated are slim. If I was to say the same thing but with black it's almost a certainty. I'm not a racist so wouldn't do that. And I also do understand there are both historic reasons, and also issues about minorities.
However I don't like the police having political mandates. I don't like the disparity of justice. And I'm going to get slaughtered for writing this 😄.
I was a bit late to the party on this - only just watched the first episode.
Having never been involved in any such process (thank goodness) and having all of my prior knowledge from The Bill and A Touch of Cloth, I had some questions which I'm sure someone could easily answer...
First off, why did the solicitor always have his laptop out? I would imagine he would be given a copy of the interview, so no need to record it.... and he had a word (or equivalent) document open, but was never seen typing (I know we only saw very limited sections of the interviews) - what would he have to make notes on if he was going to receive a copy of the interview (or was otherwise recording it for his own copy)?
Secondly, he interrupted the interview by asking his client if he wanted a discussion with him, and lead him to answer yes... fine. How often could he theoretically do that? Whilst his client was giving constant "no comment", so wasn't in any danger of giving out anything he shouldn't have (unless he cracked, which is what it looked like he thought was about to happen), could he in theory have suggested a break every 5 minutes for example, and would his client have been entitled to this?
Finally - the client changed his story and suggested that he had given the mystery phone to his brother in law months back, and which point the police were delighted and suggested (away from the interview) that this is what they would hammer him on. I can't believe that this was a suggestion from the client, as he'd followed the "say nowt" advice up until that point... SO why would the solicitor suggest changing the story? I suppose having typed this the solicitor probably strongly advised him to continue to say nowt... but then finally capitulated in helping his client prepare his written statement when it was clear he was wanting to change his story?
Thanks
Having never been involved in any such process (thank goodness) and having all of my prior knowledge from The Bill and A Touch of Cloth, I had some questions which I'm sure someone could easily answer...
First off, why did the solicitor always have his laptop out? I would imagine he would be given a copy of the interview, so no need to record it.... and he had a word (or equivalent) document open, but was never seen typing (I know we only saw very limited sections of the interviews) - what would he have to make notes on if he was going to receive a copy of the interview (or was otherwise recording it for his own copy)?
Secondly, he interrupted the interview by asking his client if he wanted a discussion with him, and lead him to answer yes... fine. How often could he theoretically do that? Whilst his client was giving constant "no comment", so wasn't in any danger of giving out anything he shouldn't have (unless he cracked, which is what it looked like he thought was about to happen), could he in theory have suggested a break every 5 minutes for example, and would his client have been entitled to this?
Finally - the client changed his story and suggested that he had given the mystery phone to his brother in law months back, and which point the police were delighted and suggested (away from the interview) that this is what they would hammer him on. I can't believe that this was a suggestion from the client, as he'd followed the "say nowt" advice up until that point... SO why would the solicitor suggest changing the story? I suppose having typed this the solicitor probably strongly advised him to continue to say nowt... but then finally capitulated in helping his client prepare his written statement when it was clear he was wanting to change his story?
Thanks
Nyphur said:
I was a bit late to the party on this - only just watched the first episode.
Having never been involved in any such process (thank goodness) and having all of my prior knowledge from The Bill and A Touch of Cloth, I had some questions which I'm sure someone could easily answer...
First off, why did the solicitor always have his laptop out? I would imagine he would be given a copy of the interview, so no need to record it.... and he had a word (or equivalent) document open, but was never seen typing (I know we only saw very limited sections of the interviews) - what would he have to make notes on if he was going to receive a copy of the interview (or was otherwise recording it for his own copy)?
Secondly, he interrupted the interview by asking his client if he wanted a discussion with him, and lead him to answer yes... fine. How often could he theoretically do that? Whilst his client was giving constant "no comment", so wasn't in any danger of giving out anything he shouldn't have (unless he cracked, which is what it looked like he thought was about to happen), could he in theory have suggested a break every 5 minutes for example, and would his client have been entitled to this?
Finally - the client changed his story and suggested that he had given the mystery phone to his brother in law months back, and which point the police were delighted and suggested (away from the interview) that this is what they would hammer him on. I can't believe that this was a suggestion from the client, as he'd followed the "say nowt" advice up until that point... SO why would the solicitor suggest changing the story? I suppose having typed this the solicitor probably strongly advised him to continue to say nowt... but then finally capitulated in helping his client prepare his written statement when it was clear he was wanting to change his story?
Thanks
Laptop was to take notes. I've never had a solicitor use a laptop, but they always had a notepad to scribble stuff down. The tape is long and boring, and you don't get a transcript til court. He wants his own notes to summarise the evidence. Having never been involved in any such process (thank goodness) and having all of my prior knowledge from The Bill and A Touch of Cloth, I had some questions which I'm sure someone could easily answer...
First off, why did the solicitor always have his laptop out? I would imagine he would be given a copy of the interview, so no need to record it.... and he had a word (or equivalent) document open, but was never seen typing (I know we only saw very limited sections of the interviews) - what would he have to make notes on if he was going to receive a copy of the interview (or was otherwise recording it for his own copy)?
Secondly, he interrupted the interview by asking his client if he wanted a discussion with him, and lead him to answer yes... fine. How often could he theoretically do that? Whilst his client was giving constant "no comment", so wasn't in any danger of giving out anything he shouldn't have (unless he cracked, which is what it looked like he thought was about to happen), could he in theory have suggested a break every 5 minutes for example, and would his client have been entitled to this?
Finally - the client changed his story and suggested that he had given the mystery phone to his brother in law months back, and which point the police were delighted and suggested (away from the interview) that this is what they would hammer him on. I can't believe that this was a suggestion from the client, as he'd followed the "say nowt" advice up until that point... SO why would the solicitor suggest changing the story? I suppose having typed this the solicitor probably strongly advised him to continue to say nowt... but then finally capitulated in helping his client prepare his written statement when it was clear he was wanting to change his story?
Thanks
The solicitor can't stop the interview save in certain circumstances. But the person being interviewed can. There is nothing wrong with the solicitor checking if his client is okay. And yes you can stop as many times as you want. Stopping every question would be annoying but there is not a thing the police could do to stop it.
More interestingly I've been tempted once when I was returning from bail to be reinterviewed to just sit in a consultation room and let the custody clock run out... I'd be interested for one of the police officers to tell me what they would do in that situation. In my case this was after inspectors extension. I didn't do it, but I can't see how they could do a thing.
I'm not sure what your last question is. The solicitor shouldn't help you lie. But you can talk through your story with them and then they can point out weaknesses. If you admit to them you are lying they cannot present that in court. The solicitor would not say "Say this" but he might say "What is a reasonable explanation for this". It's all academic. The police don't know what the solicitor is saying unless someone tells them.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff