Qualcomm Snapdragon 835 benchmarks: Antutu, Geekbench 4, GFXBench and PCMark results
ITV was banned from a press briefing by Avon & Somerset police because they did not like the way a murder enquiry was being reported.
About time the press was reined in or a dangerous precedent of an attempt to muzzle unfavourable reporting?
Should it had been left to the Press Complaints Commission, or are they press controlled anyway?
That's just imho of course :)
morddwyd - your link goes to FT "members only" site.
That's a really constructive contribution to "lively and thought-provoking debate with other forum members." lol
Sorry, missed your point about the link.
Works for me but there are plenty of others.
I have followed this story closely and either the police know much more than they are revealing and are making a hash of trying to conceal this or they don't know much and are stumbling about in the dark.
Will go with Legolas on this.
They either know more than they are revealing or they are making a right hash of it.
Maybe the reporters are asking why.
You're certainly sitting on the fence on that one.
Considering the first link requires registration, and the second link wouldn't open or couldn't be found, then I can only assume this is all about the 'Jo' murder.
Reading reports over the past few days, it is becoming another one of those 'we have lost the plot' scenarios that we are often hearing more about. Whether that is the polices fault or the press to blame in wrong information gathering, then we have yet to find out.
What I find most offensive, if the front page press reports of a person 'found guilty' before the full facts are known. The other thing that always becomes apparent in these type of cases, is how the press get an 'exclusive' from a neighbour or someone else creeping out of the woodwork.
I don't know how true it is, but there was indications that a true forensic report would not be possible, due to the freezing of the body. That is total rubbish, and who ever prints that type of comment should obtain facts before printing such statements, because it only leads to further confusion and concerns regarding an investigation.
"front page press reports of a person 'found guilty' before the full facts are known."
If Chris Jefferies isn't charged he'll certainly be looking for some hefty recompense. The reports from the first days gave us all the impression that he was guilty beyond all doubt and the charge would only be a formality.
But whether he is found guilty or not at some time, there is certainly a good argument for anonymity for all suspects (not just males accused of rape) unless there is an exceptional reason that would make the difference to solving a case, in which case a judge would have to make a ruling on the name being released.
If it was regarding the piece I saw the other evening I can only agree with the Police. It was a ridiculous piece of lazy Journalism, with a 'forensics expert' sifting through the 'evidence' and pointing out errors. One part to camera had the expert pointing to rubbish being left on the verge and asking why this hadn't been checked for DNA? This was a full 2 weeks after the discovery and I should imagine the police had already searched this and the litter had been subsequently left as the road was particularly busy, even while filming.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.