Chemical attack in London...
- Thread starter Uther
- Start date
It does seem very presumptive of the police to state that “we can’t find him having searched for a week. So he must be dead as there’s no other possible explanation!”
Last edited:
I heard something on the news about the police saying they had footage of him "striding purposefully" down the road but then his demeanour changed when reached the bridge, he hung round it, crossed a couple of times, and kept going up to railings and back.
Maybe just don't have the footage of the spot he jumped and inferring it from the footage. Especially if they don't see him on cctv after that point.
Maybe just don't have the footage of the spot he jumped and inferring it from the footage. Especially if they don't see him on cctv after that point.
Soldato
Is this guy some top notch spy? He's making the MET look like (bigger) idiots.
Well, now I know how I'd plan a proper getaway out of a highly surveilled city. Just go to a bridge, pace and hang around a bit. Police will just assumed you jumped, with no further evidence.
Just buy a burner phone and get a mate to drive past slow, jump in the boot, head to the Winchester and wait for it to all blow over.
Just buy a burner phone and get a mate to drive past slow, jump in the boot, head to the Winchester and wait for it to all blow over.
Commissario
Most CCTV is never used "to prevent" a problem but help sort it out later, and very little CCTV is ever monitored by humans in anything like real time, it's there to provide information and evidence when needed, or things like traffic flow where you don't need to be able to make out different humans, or even cars clearly but just see if the traffic is moving.
For example the "ring of steel" that was the original London CCTV network didn't stop many terrorist attacks on it's own, it flagged up known suspicious vehicles (IIRC it used one of the earliest ANPR systems), and helped the police track down the terrorists after attacks...
So you don't need to have cameras completely covering "critical infrastructure"* where the public have unlimited access as it's pointless, you do have them for example at the entrance and exit because that is useful and practical (you can see who got on, and who didn't get off) and if they can cover parts of the actual span at times that's good.
It's a balance of cost, practicality and usefulness. There is little point fitting a dozen+ cameras** extra cameras on a bridge just to be able to make sure you've got no blind spots
The low emission charge cameras are there to solve an ongoing problem that is really cheap to run, it's entirely automated with barely any human involvement except in appeals and to replace the ones damaged by brain donors. Sure you can potentially check the footage later to track cars, but that's no different to most other cameras.
*I would argue the average bridge is important, but not critical, unlike say a nuclear power plant or the only bridge in and out of somewhere.
**You'd need to be putting them both sides of every lamppost, possibly two sets (high cameras have blind spots below them), or fitting new poles, and what level of redundancy is necessary, are you ok with losing footage in light fog, medium fog, or heavy fog? (or replace fog with rain or snow).
Commissario
Because throwing them in the river is unhygienic.
Slightly more seriously, you can't really predict when a body will turn up again when it's been in water, it might show up within hours, months or never be seen again, and actually getting a body into the water in a place where it won't immediate get caught up along the edge of a river/lake tends to mean using a bridge where the chances of being seen are high, or access to a boat and knowing the water.
I think i've said before a possible suicide (or accident) near me ended up turning up in an area the police had repeatedly searched weeks after they stopped searching for it, quite close to where he went in. At the time the poor guy went in the stream was running at a depth of about 3.5-4 meters rather than it's more normal winter level of ~1.5m or summer level of "if you pick the right spot your shoes don't get wet if you're careful with your footing*". I think the working theory is/was that he got caught near the bottom, probably in some tree roots or something, and the police search team couldn't feel him with their poles and it was way too fast and dangerous for divers, so they did the best they could and had to wait for the water level to drop and keep repeating the search.
*Summer average is something like 15-30cm, but could be low enough you can walk/jump from one high bit of the stream bed that is above water to another in places, as kids there was a stretch we would use as a short cut to the supermarket on the other side of the stream, there was always a makeshift bridge in the summer to allow you to use it if the water was under about 30cm at that time. And yes, looking back we were probably pretty stupid
Last edited:
It managed to catch me walking home in the early hours with a traffic cone on my head as a student in London 25 odd years ago.
Or if I’m getting a bit /tinfoilhat ….
Perhaps someone has already found and appended the suspect but would rather avoid the embarrassment of a public court case and the implications that might have for uk asylum/immigration policy when it comes to an election. Or the smuggling gangs(who more than likely are bribing a number of our politicians and civil servants) don’t want attention being drawn to their operations.
Consequently they’ve arranged for him to be “found drowned” a couple of weeks later just downstream from where he was seen standing next to a bridge on cctv footage……
Last edited:
Well if he went in the river I hope the scumbag didn't drown easy.
Soldato
If he went in the river I hope he was sodomised by an eel and choked on a load of Thames Water sewage.
(0800 600 600: how’s my performative outrage?)
(0800 600 600: how’s my performative outrage?)
Soldato
Operation Treadstone i tell you
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Oct 2010
- Posts
- 2,764
That's exactly where I went.Or if I’m getting a bit /tinfoilhat ….
Perhaps someone has already found and appended the suspect but would rather avoid the embarrassment of a public court case and the implications that might have for uk asylum/immigration policy when it comes to an election. Or the smuggling gangs(who more than likely are bribing a number of our politicians and civil servants) don’t want attention being drawn to their operations.
Consequently they’ve arranged for him to be “found drowned” a couple of weeks later just downstream from where he was seen standing next to a bridge on cctv footage……
Or if he had a submarine waiting under the bridge, which seems just as likely.
Abdul’s already swam across the English Channel to get here. A few miles down the Thames won’t pose any problem for him
Last edited:
Highly unlikely.
The Thames is a death trap. It is not like a "typical river", in fact it's one of the few places in the UK where the RNLI have permanently stationed crew for the lifeboat(s).
If he went into the Thames, then without assistance it is very unlikely he managed to swim "a couple of miles".
Going in off a bridge into the Thames, at night in January, fully clothed - I imagine his chances of survival are pretty close to zero.