I am of the view we could just dump name suppression all together with exception of youth offenders or victims of crime. People are the auditors and scrutinize the information, and in some cases that can lead to charges being dropped when someone finds out of an arrest but knows it is not possible as they were at the pub together.

Name suppression does allow the police to hold people and information from the public and when someone actually is innocent they could end up being held for no good reason. People do understand the concept of innocent until proven guilty and they will scrutinize everything. 

Edited December 23, 20187 yr by Matthew Kane

Amazing!  Now the police are thinking there were no drones at all as one "sighting" turns out to be lights on top of a construction crane.  We need a movie....

https://www.foxnews.com/world/police-unequivocally-affirm-london-airport-drone-sightings

Edited December 25, 20187 yr by Jim Young
Edited to add link where police are now saying there were drones and they were wrong thinking otherwise.

22 hours ago, Jim Young said:

Amazing!  Now the police are thinking there were no drones at all as one "sighting" turns out to be lights on top of a construction crane.  We need a movie....

This morning I read an article that apparently UFOs are to blame, conspiracy theories are going nuts about this event.

Regards 

Simbol 

If aliens are to blame, I wish the police plenty of luck with any attempted arrests

Edited December 25, 20187 yr by Christopher Low

When you look at the number of inaccuracies posted in just this little topic by

those supposedly "in the know" it should hardly be a surprise that some reports about the drones

might not be strictly accurate.

The police officer did not say there might be no drones, it was said that witnesses can be

unreliable and even here, this proves to be the case.

Accurate reporting is rare, especially when the inaccuracy is a better story.

It is a human trait to fill in the gaps when there is only partial knowledge and anyone with any

experience and skill in witness statement taking will be very well aware of what to look out for.

It is also a human trait in some to want to be be involved in something of public interest and the fact that they

know nothing of the event does not necessarily deter those from having "knowledge" and opinion.

You need only to look at the "facts" posted in these forums without owning or trying the software and

based either on a desire to look informed when it is not the case or just to see their name in lights.

I would think that the unfortunate couple who were guests of the police for a couple of days were named

by either someone who had a grudge or by a similarly ill informed busybody who doesn't know the difference

between a drone and a remote controlled helicopter.

In the glare of the attendant publicity the police had no choice but to act as they did.

The world was a better place when news didn't travel quite so fast and every Tom, Dick and Harry couldn't

comment in real time on what is happening, based only on their own often warped and damaging opinion and

sometimes motivated by stupidity or malice. (This refers to none of the posts in this topic.)

Edited December 25, 20187 yr by nolonger

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out or say.  The fact is that the couple were arrested and that was reported.  The fact they were not found guilty came after an investigation which is the proper thing to do in any investigation.  There were drones seen.  A police investigation has not found the culprits or the reason for the drones to be in the area.  There were a lot of very upset people at Gatwick on the day of the "attack".  There was a lot of chaos and sometimes inaccurate reporting can occur when there is chaos.  An investigation is currently on-going and it is hoped the individual(s) who were responsible will be brought to justice some day soon and methods developed to make sure this does not happen not only at Gatwick but at all airports in the world.  Meanwhile, some are reporting inaccurate information and that occurs no matter what.  The key is, like in 9/11, the culprits will be identified and appropriate action taken to avoid this ever happening again in the future.

You might be referring to the "reporter" from Der Speigel who never really reported anything accurate and used the Internet and Google to prepare sensational stories for the magazine.  It is good these individuals are quickly identified and brought to justice.  This guy will eventually pay dearly for his lies and deceit.  Back in my day, newspapers like the Wash Post would post huge headlines on the front page that a political figure was found guilty of this or that.  They knew headlines on the front page in huge letters would be the only thing most citizens would read.  If you go to page 36 and get more details about the story, you will see the information is unproven and still being investigated.  Still most citizens would believe the person was guilty as sin as the WaPo put it on their front page in huge letters.  Inaccurate reporting?  No.  Because the WaPo later indicated the information was unproven and still under investigation (not their fault no one read the whole story).  I think it is truly sick people who lavish in the world of deception and making people think it is real no matter what side of the political fence you sit on.  I know they are teaching this trickery and deception techniques in colleges and universities and I think that is wrong but nothing I can do about it so I will continue to read the huge headlines and believe what I want.

It was an an answer to the Fox news report and the questions raised by it.

7 hours ago, Jim Young said:

I'm not sure what you are trying to point out or say.  The fact is that the couple were arrested and that was reported.  The fact they were not found guilty came after an investigation which is the proper thing to do in any investigation.  There were drones seen.  A police investigation has not found the culprits or the reason for the drones to be in the area.  There were a lot of very upset people at Gatwick on the day of the "attack".  There was a lot of chaos and sometimes inaccurate reporting can occur when there is chaos.  An investigation is currently on-going and it is hoped the individual(s) who were responsible will be brought to justice some day soon and methods developed to make sure this does not happen not only at Gatwick but at all airports in the world.  Meanwhile, some are reporting inaccurate information and that occurs no matter what.  The key is, like in 9/11, the culprits will be identified and appropriate action taken to avoid this ever happening again in the future.

You might be referring to the "reporter" from Der Speigel who never really reported anything accurate and used the Internet and Google to prepare sensational stories for the magazine.  It is good these individuals are quickly identified and brought to justice.  This guy will eventually pay dearly for his lies and deceit.  Back in my day, newspapers like the Wash Post would post huge headlines on the front page that a political figure was found guilty of this or that.  They knew headlines on the front page in huge letters would be the only thing most citizens would read.  If you go to page 36 and get more details about the story, you will see the information is unproven and still being investigated.  Still most citizens would believe the person was guilty as sin as the WaPo put it on their front page in huge letters.  Inaccurate reporting?  No.  Because the WaPo later indicated the information was unproven and still under investigation (not their fault no one read the whole story).  I think it is truly sick people who lavish in the world of deception and making people think it is real no matter what side of the political fence you sit on.  I know they are teaching this trickery and deception techniques in colleges and universities and I think that is wrong but nothing I can do about it so I will continue to read the huge headlines and believe what I want.

Agreed, I don't blame the police they are just acting on information from the public, they have procedures to follow. UK and EU is a media circus and the rest is the outcome of that. I am originally from Canada and like the US authorities don't have name suppression and they do release names of arrested individuals, and have lengthy press releases, press conferences, take questions etc. Not saying it is much better just it makes it easier to decipher information when authorities have a rapid release of information made public that you can go directly to instead of media reports based on erroneous information due to a lack of real information.

I remember a time when Canada was like the UK until a serial killer back in the 90's (Bernardo) got name suppression and the US Media ignored the court order, it became a circus due to his name suppression. Reality is you cannot maintain any suppression in the modern age of media, therefore rules have changed and the rapid release of information for the most part works better to avoid hysteria and speculation through the media.

Edited December 26, 20187 yr by Matthew Kane