3 ms·

> Doing the searches quicker and being innocent or not doesn't help avoid either of the below [...] It could definitely have avoided the second. I think ther

by Closi 5y ago

> Doing the searches quicker and being innocent or not doesn't help avoid either of the below [...] It could definitely have avoided the second. I think there is a moral duty to carry out investigations in a way that protects the lives, reputations and livelihoods of the innocent, and this example has fallen short of that in my opinion (although a reasonable person could disagree).

kingosticks 5y ago
It sounds you think the UK police are able to perform a sufficienty thorough search in a matter of hours. That sounds ideal and of course theoretically feasible but maybe not realistic. For anything longer than hours they are always going to (and IMO should) remove a suspected person from a position that directly involves children.
- Closi 5y ago
  > For anything longer than hours they are always going to (and IMO should) remove a suspected person from a position that directly involves children. This is the bit I disagree with personally, as I think it conflicts with 'innocent until proven guilty' when a person can be removed from their position and have their reputation destroyed by the police without sufficient evidence to convict (remember - no charge was ever made from the police). It's pretty feasible to do an initial scan of a few devices within a few hours - and if you don't find enough evidence after a few hours of looking then IMO you don't have enough evidence to ruin someone's life (go get more evidence first in that case!). The 'blast zone' of this investigation was ultimately two innocent people's reputations ruined in an attempt to find one guilty person (who wasn't found). (Again, reasonable people will disagree on how far an investigation should be able to go prior to charge - my own view is clearly more on the 'protect the innocent, even if it means investigation is harder and a few baddies escape justice' side than some others might be!)

by Closi 5y ago

kingosticks 5y ago

It sounds you think the UK police are able to perform a sufficienty thorough search in a matter of hours. That sounds ideal and of course theoretically feasible but maybe not realistic. For anything longer than hours they are always going to (and IMO should) remove a suspected person from a position that directly involves children.

Closi 5y ago
> For anything longer than hours they are always going to (and IMO should) remove a suspected person from a position that directly involves children. This is the bit I disagree with personally, as I think it conflicts with 'innocent until proven guilty' when a person can be removed from their position and have their reputation destroyed by the police without sufficient evidence to convict (remember - no charge was ever made from the police). It's pretty feasible to do an initial scan of a few devices within a few hours - and if you don't find enough evidence after a few hours of looking then IMO you don't have enough evidence to ruin someone's life (go get more evidence first in that case!). The 'blast zone' of this investigation was ultimately two innocent people's reputations ruined in an attempt to find one guilty person (who wasn't found). (Again, reasonable people will disagree on how far an investigation should be able to go prior to charge - my own view is clearly more on the 'protect the innocent, even if it means investigation is harder and a few baddies escape justice' side than some others might be!)