Ann Widdecombe

DanH said:
Save it mate 😘

Your dissident right utopia is never happening. Everyone else is far more normal than you.
Click to expand...

We are leading in the polls....even with the current Burnham bounce, which with the way the economy is going isn't going to last long.

You talk like you're in a parallel universe.

Your boys and girls are going to flop harder than Windows Vista.
 
Spiderman said:
Ah, you see you have been taken in by the statements that is was a right wing terror plot ( of which there was absolutely no evidence).You appear to be saying, just because nothing has been found, they may still be guilty, quite a conspiracy theory. I very much doubt you would say the same if it was foreigners being arrested or a left wing “plot”, although, of course, either of those scenarios would not have been reported in the same way and Mahmood wouldn’t have made such an statement
What worked? What was going to happen? It would appear nothing but the statement by Mahmood was wrong and total speculation ( or deflection).
Click to expand...
No evidence that has reached the public domain perhaps but not that the police didn’t have intelligence that something was cooking. We all know that knowing something and proving it in a Court of Law are two completely different things. When lives are at risk the police act on intelligence. They don’t wait and prosecute after an event, they stop it happening.
 
DanH said:
But he obviously hasn’t, has he? So everything put on social media, including here is potentially prejudicial that could get you held in contempt of court.

It’s why so little has been put in the public demain.
Click to expand...
Such an example, being Palace 99 stating " he is clearly mental ".?
 
Stirlingsays said:
True.

It isn't the laws themselves, it's the type and quality of people interpreting them.

In the memoirs of Stalin’s former secretary, Boris Bazhanov, he claimed Stalin said in 1923:
'I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how;but what is extraordinarily important is who will count the votes, and how.'
Click to expand...
Great quote, equally valid today
 
A UK chat site can face severe legal action and be forced to shut down if its members post material that constitutes contempt of court. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, publishing online material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active legal proceedings is a strict liability offence.

per Google AI

The key words here are " substantial risk " and " serious prejudice "
 
HKOwen said:
A UK chat site can face severe legal action and be forced to shut down if its members post material that constitutes contempt of court. Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981, publishing online material that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to active legal proceedings is a strict liability offence.

per Google AI

The key words here are " substantial risk " and " serious prejudice "
Click to expand...

This is why the police are so careful to put anything into the public demain when someone has been charged.

Any one of us could be put on a jury that could be prejudiced by something they read on the internet. It’s not that difficult to understand is it?
 
Last edited:
DanH said:
This is why the police are so careful to put anything into the public demain when someone has been charged.

Anyone one of us could be put on a jury that could be prejudiced by something they read on the internet. It’s not that difficult to understand is it?
Click to expand...

Really....Tell that to Henry Nowak's family.

From ChatGPT.....as you seem to disbelieve anything Grok says.

Several recent UK cases show police being criticised for poor, premature, or careless communication with the media after someone was charged. These incidents usually involve releasing misleading information, failing to correct false narratives, or allowing media coverage to distort public understanding of a case. Below are the clearest examples grounded in recent reporting.

High‑profile examples of UK police mishandling media after charges​

1.​

Police were widely criticised for how they communicated after the killer, Vickrum Digwa, was charged.

  • Officers initially accepted and repeated Digwa’s false claim that he was the victim of a racist attack.
  • This narrative shaped early media coverage, even though Nowak was the actual stabbing victim.
  • Bodycam footage later contradicted the police’s early statements, causing national backlash and protests.
  • The Independent Office for Police Conduct said public confidence was harmed partly because of how the case was presented publicly.
This is a textbook example of police failing to control or correct a misleading media narrative after a suspect was charged.


2.​

Although MI5 is not police, the case involved law‑enforcement communications officers and shows similar issues.

  • An MI5 communications officer confirmed to a BBC journalist that a violent neo‑Nazi was an informant.
  • Later, during court proceedings, MI5 publicly claimed it could “neither confirm nor deny” the relationship.
  • The watchdog found MI5 had misled the public and the courts, creating confusion and fuelling inaccurate media reporting.
This demonstrates how inconsistent messaging to the media can undermine investigations and public trust.

3.​

Again involving police and MI5, but directly relevant to media handling:

  • The Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5 unlawfully accessed a journalist’s phone data.
  • The tribunal found the surveillance was partly aimed at identifying his sources, undermining press freedom.
  • The ruling stated this had serious consequences for public trust in police–media relations.
This shows police mishandling media indirectly by interfering with journalists rather than communicating responsibly.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
No evidence that has reached the public domain perhaps but not that the police didn’t have intelligence that something was cooking. We all know that knowing something and proving it in a Court of Law are two completely different things. When lives are at risk the police act on intelligence. They don’t wait and prosecute after an event, they stop it happening.
Click to expand...
Released without charge may be a clue. I would hazard a guess we hear nothing more about this “plot”. If they had any evidence of a plot, charges will be made, ,let’s wait
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Nobody with any common sense would have the slightest problem with any of those statements. Only those who seek to find prejudice where none exists do. The police have a job to do. They did it. The vast majority of us are very grateful for that. I want the police to take action every time their intelligence suggests a credible threat exists. Whatever the source.
Click to expand...

So take what you wrote here and apply it to the grooming gangs.

I don't recall you saying this kind of thing about that.
 
we have more than 5 consecutive postings on this thread that are irrelevant to the OP.....from our resident distraction-Troll. Deliberate mis-direction. Deserves a Yellow Card even more than Hughes at Selhurst.

Will you report him to Mods or shall i ?


Ann Widdecombe
 
Stirlingsays said:
Really....Tell that to Henry Nowak's family.

From ChatGPT.....as you seem to disbelieve anything Grok says.

Several recent UK cases show police being criticised for poor, premature, or careless communication with the media after someone was charged. These incidents usually involve releasing misleading information, failing to correct false narratives, or allowing media coverage to distort public understanding of a case. Below are the clearest examples grounded in recent reporting.

High‑profile examples of UK police mishandling media after charges​

1.​

Police were widely criticised for how they communicated after the killer, Vickrum Digwa, was charged.

  • Officers initially accepted and repeated Digwa’s false claim that he was the victim of a racist attack.
  • This narrative shaped early media coverage, even though Nowak was the actual stabbing victim.
  • Bodycam footage later contradicted the police’s early statements, causing national backlash and protests.
  • The Independent Office for Police Conduct said public confidence was harmed partly because of how the case was presented publicly.
This is a textbook example of police failing to control or correct a misleading media narrative after a suspect was charged.


2.​

Although MI5 is not police, the case involved law‑enforcement communications officers and shows similar issues.

  • An MI5 communications officer confirmed to a BBC journalist that a violent neo‑Nazi was an informant.
  • Later, during court proceedings, MI5 publicly claimed it could “neither confirm nor deny” the relationship.
  • The watchdog found MI5 had misled the public and the courts, creating confusion and fuelling inaccurate media reporting.
This demonstrates how inconsistent messaging to the media can undermine investigations and public trust.

3.​

Again involving police and MI5, but directly relevant to media handling:

  • The Police Service of Northern Ireland and MI5 unlawfully accessed a journalist’s phone data.
  • The tribunal found the surveillance was partly aimed at identifying his sources, undermining press freedom.
  • The ruling stated this had serious consequences for public trust in police–media relations.
This shows police mishandling media indirectly by interfering with journalists rather than communicating responsibly.
Click to expand...

Outsourcing your thinking to a robot again.

If you use AI you have to also post the underlying sources it’s trawled its response from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top