Greenwood

comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 20 seconds ago
I'm not filling in any blanks. The police refer to one victim. We know that Harriet is the victim of the initial counts as they relate to the audio and images. Ergo she is also the victim of the additional counts. If there were additional victims then the police would have stated so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if both victims wanted the specialist support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a web you weave to prove your stupidity. There has been no mention from the police that their investigation involves multiple victims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should they mention who each alleged offence relates to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Details like that are usually disclosed to the press. We'd be aware of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily.

Anyway. The outcome of the investigation will be announced within days, and you can all get on with speculating as to why he hasn’t been charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, they are. The police have a duty to liaise with the media and disclose what information they are able to.

What's your source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they werent able to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?

That should be the end of the matter now that Musk has bought twitter and they aren't banning stuff like this anymore. Who are you to say what Greenwood can and can't do in the privacy of his home? Glad the world has seen sense now.

comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 20 seconds ago
I'm not filling in any blanks. The police refer to one victim. We know that Harriet is the victim of the initial counts as they relate to the audio and images. Ergo she is also the victim of the additional counts. If there were additional victims then the police would have stated so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if both victims wanted the specialist support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a web you weave to prove your stupidity. There has been no mention from the police that their investigation involves multiple victims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should they mention who each alleged offence relates to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Details like that are usually disclosed to the press. We'd be aware of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily.

Anyway. The outcome of the investigation will be announced within days, and you can all get on with speculating as to why he hasn’t been charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, they are. The police have a duty to liaise with the media and disclose what information they are able to.

What's your source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they werent able to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they were, because they did. They reported on the additional counts. If they couldn't mention an additional victim then they wouldn't have mentioned the additional counts until that changed. Which is what happened with Mendy. The press were aware of additional charges involving an additional victim, but were unable to report on that until the case went back to court and the charges were brought.

comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 20 seconds ago
I'm not filling in any blanks. The police refer to one victim. We know that Harriet is the victim of the initial counts as they relate to the audio and images. Ergo she is also the victim of the additional counts. If there were additional victims then the police would have stated so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if both victims wanted the specialist support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a web you weave to prove your stupidity. There has been no mention from the police that their investigation involves multiple victims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should they mention who each alleged offence relates to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Details like that are usually disclosed to the press. We'd be aware of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily.

Anyway. The outcome of the investigation will be announced within days, and you can all get on with speculating as to why he hasn’t been charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, they are. The police have a duty to liaise with the media and disclose what information they are able to.

What's your source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they werent able to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they were, because they did. They reported on the additional counts. If they couldn't mention an additional victim then they wouldn't have mentioned the additional counts until that changed. Which is what happened with Mendy. The press were aware of additional charges involving an additional victim, but were unable to report on that until the case went back to court and the charges were brought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could havve mentioned the additional offences but not who they related to.

Im saying they may have done that. How can you say categorically they havent?

comment by Don (U22703)
posted 26 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 53 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 12 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 hours, 51 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 8 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 5 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 43 seconds ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 20 seconds ago
I'm not filling in any blanks. The police refer to one victim. We know that Harriet is the victim of the initial counts as they relate to the audio and images. Ergo she is also the victim of the additional counts. If there were additional victims then the police would have stated so.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Only if both victims wanted the specialist support.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What a web you weave to prove your stupidity. There has been no mention from the police that their investigation involves multiple victims.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should what?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should they mention who each alleged offence relates to?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Details like that are usually disclosed to the press. We'd be aware of it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Not necessarily.

Anyway. The outcome of the investigation will be announced within days, and you can all get on with speculating as to why he hasn’t been charged.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well yes, they are. The police have a duty to liaise with the media and disclose what information they are able to.

What's your source?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Maybe they werent able to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, they were, because they did. They reported on the additional counts. If they couldn't mention an additional victim then they wouldn't have mentioned the additional counts until that changed. Which is what happened with Mendy. The press were aware of additional charges involving an additional victim, but were unable to report on that until the case went back to court and the charges were brought.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They could havve mentioned the additional offences but not who they related to.

Im saying they may have done that. How can you say categorically they havent?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

They specifically said the victim. Not victims.

You are going to great lengths to make out like there might be multiple victims. There is zero evidence of that.

Either way, whether there is a second victim or not, they are getting support for the counts that Mason has been charged with. Not for having their phone hacked, which you have previously suggested might be the case.

comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Either way, whether there is a second victim or not, they are getting support for the counts that Mason has been charged with. Not for having their phone hacked, which you have previously suggested might be the case.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, there have been no charges.

Strange man.

comment by Don (U22703)
posted 1 hour, 16 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Either way, whether there is a second victim or not, they are getting support for the counts that Mason has been charged with. Not for having their phone hacked, which you have previously suggested might be the case.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, there have been no charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Arrested under suspicion of. Point stands

comment by Don (U22703)
posted 7 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by Elvis: King of Cult (U7425)
posted 1 hour, 11 minutes ago
Either way, whether there is a second victim or not, they are getting support for the counts that Mason has been charged with. Not for having their phone hacked, which you have previously suggested might be the case.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Again, there have been no charges.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why?