theageofthetra
On Moderation
- Joined
- 27 May 2012
- Messages
- 3,504
Where are the cctv grabs of this?
Sky now reporting that BTP have said the 51 year old male victim was travelling with his 14 year old son.
How unspeakably horrific.
Where are the cctv grabs of this?
My Thoughts go to the immediate staff who attended. Had to deal with 1st hand a fatality over 40 years ago and images have never left me
Where are the cctv grabs of this?
Unlikely unless they need to issue an appeal to locate/ID the suspect. The right to privacy applies to criminals too...I'm sure images will be published by the police soon.
Unlikely unless they need to issue an appeal to locate/ID the suspect. The right to privacy applies to criminals too...
Unlikely unless they need to issue an appeal to locate/ID the suspect. The right to privacy applies to criminals too...
Nothing clever about it - it's the law.The police will release images once they have them and if they consider they need to.
I assume you think your "privacy" comment was clever. You're very wrong.
Nothing clever about it - it's the law.
Unless there's a valid policing reason to publish the photo pre-charge (e.g. if they still haven't caught them and determine that publishing the photo will aid that) then they are not allowed to release the photo and, even if they do, the press can't publish it.
It may seem stupid, but it's the law. The alleged criminal has a right to privacy unless/until they're charged.
They shouldn't be, and there are going to be some telling offs I think as it was against the law naming them, especially as they were released without charge.Criminals do have some rights, but those arrested are a public document.
Nothing clever about it - it's the law.
Unless there's a valid policing reason to publish the photo pre-charge (e.g. if they still haven't caught the alleged perpetrator and determine that publishing the photo will aid that) then they are not allowed to release the photo and, even if they do, the press can't publish it.
It may seem stupid, but it's the law. The alleged criminal has a right to privacy unless/until they're charged.
Not any more I'm afraid, the Cliff Richard ruling settled that, especially in the case of serious offences. This is (mostly) the same reason the name of the person arrested at Man Victoria on NYE hasn't been released - the threshold is now when a formal charge is made, authorised by the CPS.Which is why, even when the police were questioning them, everyone knew the names and photos of those who (it turned out) didn’t fly drones over Gatwick airport.
Criminals do have some rights, but those arrested are a public document.
Indeed. I certainly wouldn't want to be the lawyer representing anyone who identified them.They shouldn't be, and there are going to be some telling offs I think as it was against the law naming them, especially as they were released without charge.
Not any more I'm afraid, the Cliff Richard ruling settled that, especially in the case of serious offences. This is (mostly) the same reason the name of the person arrested at Man Victoria on NYE hasn't been released - the threshold is now when a formal charge is made, authorised by the CPS.
Whether that's right is another question, but it is how it is.
In those cases, police were trying to identify an unknown subject (hence the efit) or showing the photo of someone they were making a public appeal to catch. In both cases, a legitimate policing purpose, and so legal.Has this always been the case? How did crime watch get away with broadcasting all those 'e-fits'?
Only the following evening. We all knew the ID well before then. If he's charged, we'll name him. Unless/until then, it would be a breach of his privacy. If he is dearrested without charge, yet continues to be detained under the MHA, then that is complicated indeed and I'll be asking a lawyer.I thought the man Vic man was eventually detained under the mental health act, so a different ball game I'd imagine.
They shouldn't be, and there are going to be some telling offs I think as it was against the law naming them, especially as they were released without charge.
I am actually thinking it must be worse to have a stabbing and a person die as a passenger, especially as the driver was first on scene to help and he was still alive then, than a person hit for the driver, but I'm not really sure.
I hope that all involved get the emotional support they need over the coming weeks and months and I'm the longer term.
Especially as, I'm guessing, there may still have been a shred of hope when the driver was the first on the scene!I'd imagine so - particularly someone who was 'living' whilst being treated until passing away shortly afterwards.
I don't know. I have no problem with whatever gets put on RTT's website from an attribution point of view, as I don't use it for that purpose.Why not ? This appears to be a reasonable statement at face value, what wording would you prefer ?
The BTP press release also states that is was a multiple stabbing .
The incident, compounded by his son presumably closely witnessing the event is traumatic and quite frankly terrifying.
Clandon and Horsely are both rural villages and the fact that the assailant hasn't been caught will be leading to a traumatic evening and night for locals.
No doubt more details will come out as to what triggered this but it's not good.
Prayers and thoughts to all involved.
Nothing clever about it - it's the law.
Unless there's a valid policing reason to publish the photo pre-charge (e.g. if they still haven't caught the alleged perpetrator and determine that publishing the photo will aid that) then they are not allowed to release the photo and, even if they do, the press can't publish it.
It may seem stupid, but it's the law. The alleged criminal has a right to privacy unless/until they're charged.
I can only imagine the suspect is hiding out in the woods and fields ... there's not much else there unless he got a lift!
South Western Railway will have to have an urgent safety brief with all train guards and drivers regarding this incident and involve paramedics and police to give advice to the guards and drivers as to what to do if a murder takes place on a train they are working. Conflict awareness training will not cut it. The guards and drivers are not paramedics and have not even been given first aid training. What must a guard do if they happen upon a violent brawl/attempted murder/murder involving weapons whilst carrying out their obligatory safety check of the train? Obviously they must not put themselves in danger but how can they help the victim if the assailant is still on the train? The guard was very lucky in this incident today if reports of this being a "random frenzied attack" are true, they could have even been the victim themselves. My prayers go to the victim, his son, his family and the train crew who had to deal with this terrible incident.
You need an army on these trains....