New DCI

PeterMac wrote:I find it interesting that the "diss the dogs" campaigners always, erroneously as it happens, argue that there has to be extra 'forensic evidence", by which they clearly mean scientific evidence to corroborate the dogs' alerts,
BUT those same people never apply that test to the alleged commission of the original offence,
The unlawful entry to an apartment, the removal and or killing of a child, and the exit from that apartment with the said child, either alive or dead . . .
for which there is absolutely no evidence at all.  No witness, no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, marks, NOTHING.
Less, even by their standard of proof, than a dog's alert.

Why do they permit themselves such double standards ?

Doug D wrote:Sorry, still off-topic, but Aquila, I know which I'd choose!

PeterMac wrote:It makes one wonder whether it is deliberate policy.  I hope so.

"By the time Guinness was five months old, he was incredibly accurate . . ."

'I've had no allergy attacks in the two years since Nano was trained, and he's warned me each week.
'Once I went to a restaurant where, despite the owner insisting my food was completely nut-free, Nano seemed agitated.
'However, I chose to believe the owner over Nano, and had an allergic reaction. I have never doubted him since."

Doug D wrote:Sorry, still off-topic, but Aquila, I know which I'd choose!

ultimaThule wrote:

Her pride in her femininity, coupled with her meticulous attention to grooming, owed nothing to vanity; it was a manifestation of the innate respect she had for herself and for others.  

I see nothing more in DCI Wall's remark than her telling it how it is, aiyoyo, and it seems to me that those who have disparaged this hard-working high-achieving dectective merely on the basis of her appearance are one and the same as those who would be the first to protest should they be judged solely on the way they present themselves to the world.

aiyoyo wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:
Her pride in her femininity, coupled with her meticulous attention to grooming, owed nothing to vanity; it was a manifestation of the innate respect she had for herself and for others.  

I see nothing more in DCI Wall's remark than her telling it how it is, aiyoyo, and it seems to me that those who have disparaged this hard-working high-achieving dectective merely on the basis of her appearance are one and the same as those who would be the first to protest should they be judged solely on the way they present themselves to the world.

That self conceited statement of hers isn't just about a simple matter of taking pride in her appearance.  It went beyond that ultima thule -- that is her ego/vanity talking.  

I don't see it as telling it as it is, but telling it as she perceived it -- as in over-reading into people's reaction. That, to me, is self conceit.

Tony Bennett wrote:

j.rob wrote:

plebgate wrote:Well said aquila I agree with you about Elsa craig, PMR and woofer.   Here to attack Tony.   Great (NOT) especially at this time of year.

Well I am certainly not here to attack Tony, or anyone else for that matter. Why is it okay for Aquila to make personal attacks on other posters. But the minute someone pulls her up on it, she throws a hissy fit? Double standards here?

@ j.rob

I think you have badly misunderstood 'aquila'.

I have looked back through her last two dozen or so posts and the 'worst' one I can find is this (to Elsa Craig):

"Get over yourself. You're here to have a fight with Tony Bennett - even a lightweight like myself can see that.

If you have your own blog or whatever it is, you're not beyond knowing how to search for dogs on this forum.

Another feckin ego with an agenda".


It is certainly robust. And personally I would have left out the word 'feckin'.

Look back at who 'aquila' has been 'rude' to on the forum, and it is mostly those who have been disruptors of one kind or another. Like Elsa Craig, for example. 

Agreed, she can be critical. I was 'told off' by her only the other day on another thread. I responded politely and disagreed with what she said. She has strong opinions and IMO is often right - her 'take' on Cristobell being a classic example.

But OK, let's accept for a moment that she can be hard on other posters, including some newcomers.

How can that possibly be compared with the vitriolic words of 'Woofer' here earlier today?

Some people here, Woofer said - meaning 'aquila' and probbaly others - were...

'thuggish...'

'bullies...'

'taking CMOMM swiftly into the gutter...' and, perhaps most offensive of all

'making comments as bad as those of 'muratfan'...'


How can anyone who has been a member of this forum as long as 'Woofer' possibly compare aquila's forthright opinions with those of Ian West/'muratfan', who has for years made up and circulated the vilest possible allegations against numerous Mccann-sceptics?     

Please give aquila the credit for having, in the past, rumbled some of our most disruptive posters very early on.

And no, you are mistaken, there really are no 'double standards' here.

ultimaThule wrote:I can easily imagine the impact on a jury when non-gender specific 'DCI Wall' is called to the stand as, in the visual sense at least, she confounds generally held expectations of 'a police officer',

Tony Bennett wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:
Her pride in her femininity, coupled with her meticulous attention to grooming, owed nothing to vanity; it was a manifestation of the innate respect she had for herself and for others.  

I see nothing more in DCI Wall's remark than her telling it how it is, aiyoyo, and it seems to me that those who have disparaged this hard-working high-achieving dectective merely on the basis of her appearance are one and the same as those who would be the first to protest should they be judged solely on the way they present themselves to the world.

That self conceited statement of hers isn't just about a simple matter of taking pride in her appearance.  It went beyond that ultima thule -- that is her ego/vanity talking.  

I don't see it as telling it as it is, but telling it as she perceived it -- as in over-reading into people's reaction. That, to me, is self conceit.

@ ultimaThule

Who on this thread or elsewhere has criticised DCI Wall either for being attractive or for being smart and well-groomed?

Not me.

Nor anyone else so far as I can see.

aiyoyo has IMO ably highighted the inherent vanity in her comments about how she thinks the jury members perceived her - and may be how she wanted the jury members to perceive her. And that's not her only 'just look at me' comment in that Vogue article.

Let's be clear - there are two main criticisms of Wall:

1. The element of personal vanity in the Vogue article, and

2. Taking over as the Investigating Officer from Redwood knowing she inherits a remit which only permits her to carry on Redwood's futile hunt for an abductor.

I have no issue with a woman looking attractive or a bloke looking handsome. But if that's accompanied by an element of vanity and self-promotion, then to me she has lost sight of her role as a police detective.

Why did she appear in Vogue?  Why did she volunteer to accept an investigation remit which may will restrict her ability to get to the truth?

She did not have to do either...

Joss wrote:It seems to me what DCI Wall is doing is making a fashion statement, that is why she was in Vogue magazine i would imagine? Maybe her true calling is as a fashionista? Her job right now first and foremost is an officer of the law, so who cares if she paints her nails or what she wears as long as she looks presentable and acts professionally in the workplace and does the job she is meant to do and does what she gets paid for? Maybe she could do some modelling in her spare time for Vogue magazine.

Rose Quartz wrote:So, this 'remit' thing. 

If the police are investigating something according to their 'remit', surely this doesn't mean that if real evidence pointing to people, methods, times and places being involved in said crime, AND WHICH MAY LEAD TO CONVICTIONS they just go, oh well, we've found the perpetrator(s) but it doesn't fit the remit so we'll just ignore all that and keep looking for an 'abductor'?

This is what I am reading from many previous posts mentioning remits, and it's doing my head in so had to just ask.

Even though they have an initial remit, to work to, surely this can't stop them getting a result based on investigations and evidence? Or lead on to the opening of another case to prosecute the crime? 

If that is not the case, my brain might just pop.

PeterMac wrote:I find it interesting that the "diss the dogs" campaigners always, erroneously as it happens, argue that there has to be extra 'forensic evidence", by which they clearly mean scientific evidence to corroborate the dogs' alerts,
BUT those same people never apply that test to the alleged commission of the original offence,
The unlawful entry to an apartment, the removal and or killing of a child, and the exit from that apartment with the said child, either alive or dead . . .
for which there is absolutely no evidence at all.  No witness, no scientific evidence, no fingerprints, marks, NOTHING.
Less, even by their standard of proof, than a dog's alert.

Why do they permit themselves such double standards ?