Murder In The Car Park

[Poppy]

Three part drama documentary on More4  - Started last night , 1st episode should be available on catch up.

https://www.channel4.com/programmes/murder-in-the-car-park

There is a local connection - a certain pub manager who was a police sergeant  was involved.

[Minigem]

 

He probably peed off somebody for selling the infamous over priced Norfolk Broads beer. 

[CambridgeCabby]

Always a most sociable chap he was too 

[Broads01]

I caught up with the first episode this evening. It was absolutely fascinating. The "certain pub manager" featured strongly and I didn't believe a word he said.

[CambridgeCabby]

I watched all three episodes , found it riveting .

one question did occur to me , why the hell would the individual whom I can’t name due to NBN t&c’s agree to take part in this documentary he certainly came out of it looking a very dishonest , deceptive man with a smug obnoxious character whose face is now know to thousands of previously unknowing people plus the most recent conviction involving indecent images which wasn’t know by all is also “out there” .

its a shame England doesn’t have the same system as Scotland whereby an individual can be found not proven instead of simply guilty or not guilty .

id hand the case over to New Tricks , they always got the right result 

[Turnoar]

The case seems to have more twists than a twisty turny thing... only today I read an article about Vian’s nephew who says his mum told him Vian did do it... whilst said nephew was training up to be a detective. Hmmm, whodunnit indeed?  More to the point who seems to care except for the poor family of the victim, I hope they get answers but I don’t hold out much hope after so much time and missed opportunities have seemingly passed. RIP Mr Morgan, if that’s possible after a low life has left an axe in your head and taken your expensive timepiece but left the money to perhaps suggest it was about something other than money. Maybe the next televising will stir someone’s conscience and properly put this gruesome matter to rest.

[VetChugger]

2 hours ago, CambridgeCabby said:

why the hell would the individual whom I can’t name due to NBN t&c’s agree to take part in this documentary

I suspect your description "smug obnoxious character" tells all you need to know.

 

[MauriceMynah]

Who needs courts when we have forums eh?

I speak as I find, and I found the fellow friendly helpful and generally very pleasant. I drank many times there, even after having heard the Newspaper stories... sorry, "facts" brought to my attention in the other place.

Just to give a little balance, I give this example of this man's attitude and behaviour that took place before I had knowledge of the alleged history.

I was on Nyx with Rufus. It was out of season when we went up the dyke (no dyke names as per ToS) we walked to his pub, but it was closed owing to the time of year. He was painting the window frames outside. After informing us that he was closed, he went inside and phoned up two or three pubs to find out if they were open. He recommended that we went to the Maltsters as they were open. We did and we got ratted!

He didn't have to do that for us, it was just a friendly act, and one that caused me to use his pub when "that side of the bridge".

Generally speaking I found his beer good, his staff professional and his pub genial.

I am not going out of my way to support the fellow, but I do dislike "trial by forum" when it occurs.

.

  

[Poppy]

I dislike anywhere if I find that I need to wipe my feet on leaving !

[JennyMorgan]

It has long surprised me that the unmentionable gentleman was able to get a booze licence. I know that when I gained my boozing and gaming licences that my 'character' went under scrutiny. 

Before I knew of his past I did visit the pub, enjoyed chatting with him & his staff, thought the food very good, hated the profusion of 'don't do' notices that abounded and thought that the place was absolutely filthy and that it was best avoided during the rainy season unless you liked drips in your beer.

Like others, on discovering his past, I took to sailing on past, regretting the money that I had spent there.

[Poppy]

27 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

It has long surprised me that the unmentionable gentleman was able to get a booze licence. I know that when I gained my boozing and gaming licences that my 'character' went under scrutiny. 

 

He didn't, probably because he couldn't. 

He was the manager. It was not his name over the door

[webntweb]

Never ate/drank there often enough to notice a problem with the guy. Only cleanliness issue I had was when a rather large spider dropped onto my head during a meal . . . at least it didn't drop onto my food.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Poppy said:

He didn't, probably because he couldn't. 

He was the manager. It was not his name over the door

Perhaps it was his missus or his daughter so yes, you are right, he probably couldn't, we shall have to guess why!. I note that he posts on some of Sue Hines's Broads related websites under his name. 

[Poppy]

1 minute ago, JennyMorgan said:

Perhaps it was his missus or his daughter so yes, you are right, he probably couldn't, we shall have to guess why!. I note that he posts on some of Sue Hines's Broads related websites under his name. 

It was a relative who was the Licencee. I believe she also owned a pub in Caister.

[JennyMorgan]

More details for those morbidly interested in the detail!

https://thebristolcable.org/2019/05/part-2-the-troubled-cop-bent-on-solving-the-uks-longest-running-murder-case-and-a-key-player-in-the-phone-hacking-scandal/

[floydraser]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

More details for those morbidly interested in the detail!

As a Broads foreigner, fascinated more than interested. I think we need symbol for "elbow nudge and talking from the side of the mouth".   Well I guess that's close!

[JennyMorgan]

4 minutes ago, floydraser said:

As a Broads foreigner, fascinated more than interested. I think we need symbol for "elbow nudge and talking from the side of the mouth".   Well I guess that's close!

Mustn't forget the double wink and the 'no wot I mean, Jon'!

[Paul]

Regarding the issues raised in the Channel 4 program like most I do not know the truth of that and will not judge, either by forum, newspaper or any other medium, but the other matter referred to by Cambridge Cabby is nothing to do with trial by forum, it was bought before a court of law and he pleaded guilty. 

I will forgive most things, we very few of us can claim a blameless past be it by thought, or word or deed but somethings I do not forget and for that reason I would not visit the establishment in question, much as we loved mooring in the unnamed dyke nearby. On those occasions it was a tinny or two and an evening spent enjoying the sights and sounds of the marshes. 

[JennyMorgan]

On 21/06/2020 at 22:30, CambridgeCabby said:

id hand the case over to New Tricks , they always got the right result 

I don't know if Dennis Waterman is still living in Beccles but if I bump into him I'll ask him to step in. His daughter Hannah was at a  Beccles school with one of my lot, thirty plus years ago. Dennis inevitably opened scores of fetes and the like, he was certainly no celebrity hermit.

[CambridgeCabby]

19 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

I don't know if Dennis Waterman is still living in Beccles but if I bump into him I'll ask him to step in. His daughter Hannah was at a  Beccles school with one of my lot, thirty plus years ago. Dennis inevitably opened scores of fetes and the like, he was certainly no celebrity hermit.

Did he insist on “writing the theme tune and singing the theme tune”

[Broads01]

13 hours ago, MauriceMynah said:

am not going out of my way to support the fellow, but I do dislike "trial by forum" when it occurs.

That's fair comment. In this case however, it's not so much trial by forum as trial by a very well made TV programme. 

[MotorBoater]

I am a bit puzzled by much of this and would appreciate a little help with how the forum guidance notes are usually interpreted, for future reference.

Members are expressing opinions (Which may be the nub of the matter) whilst turning this way and that to avoid mentioning names, locations etc. in fact everything except occupation, apparently to avoid breaching forum TOS.

I get that the first entry under Section 4 of the member guidance says:

"Confidential information

    Forums members must not post confidential or other information that may infringe upon the privacy, proprietary or personal rights of others. This includes, but is not restricted to, personal telephone numbers, email and postal addresses. The NBN does not subscribe to 'naming and shaming'.  i.e. pictures or descriptions of accidents where either the boats or people are recognisable."

However since the individual referred to here was publicly named in the Norwich Evening News in 2010, along with the name of the pub, the village location and details of charges brought against him (At that time), the fact that he was discharged following legal argument, and other details of the overall case (Again, at that time), not to mention the TV docudrama, I don't see the point of the acrobatics performed on this thread.

I can see that statements of opinion linked to the info may cause an issue but I have to say that there has already been enough said on this thread to entice me to research the program on the case, about which I knew absolutely nothing, and to discover the identity of the individual no-one will name, confirmed in a location I had already suspected, rubber-stamped by the Norwich Evening News - complete with photo.

This newspaper story predates the issue that saw the individual prosecuted on the other matter that resulted in jail time but since it was a successful prosecution that should also be a matter of public record. I am not sure where he stands on any issues with the disclosure and barring service as yet, not well I suspect.

I'm not out to act as some kind of devil's advocate, I just want to avoid (If I can) putting my foot in it at any time in the future, over anything else.

[MauriceMynah]

7 hours ago, Broads01 said:

That's fair comment. In this case however, it's not so much trial by forum as trial by a very well made TV programme. 

Sadly I have been unable to watch the TV program though hope to some time in the future, and I accept that it may be very well made. However in todays parlance it is a "Docudrama". How much is drama and how much is factual documentary?

On 21/06/2020 at 22:30, CambridgeCabby said:

why the hell would the individual whom I can’t name due to NBN t&c’s agree to take part in this documentary he certainly came out of it looking a very dishonest , deceptive man with a smug obnoxious character

 This is rather what I mean. Given that this would not have been the "individual's" intention, careful editing and well couched questions can easily achieve this. Well made does not mean without an agenda .

I have great faith in the judicial system in this country. I support it to the hilt.

The man was found guilty of an offence and was punished. That is the end of that matter, or at least should be.

For the vast majority of offences in this country, innocence is presumed until proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt is submitted. This is as it should be, and neither you nor I should override that. (That was a generic "you" by the way)

Perhaps I was too quick off the mark with my "trial by forum" comment. but it still stands.

[JennyMorgan]

8 hours ago, MotorBoater said:

Members are expressing opinions (Which may be the nub of the matter) whilst turning this way and that to avoid mentioning names, locations etc. in fact everything except occupation, apparently to avoid breaching forum TOS.

I have a sneaking suspicion that there is a degree of humour (micky taking) in the twisting and turning!

By the way, occupation was mentioned: 

There is a local connection - a certain pub manager who was a police sergeant  was involved.

I suppose there could have been some mention of being in the shadow of an iconic white mill!

[Regulo]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

I have great faith in the judicial system in this country. I support it to the hilt

Having sat on several juries, I can completely agree with that statement. One of those occasions left me pondering how, without the full facts, perception of an individual can get completely skewed. Without going into too much detail, the case involved a police detective accused of being in cahoots with a drug dealer, to the point of actually delivering drugs for him. The case originally presented seemed completely open and shut - the guy was guilty. However, over the course of the next few weeks, it became clear that this chap was, not to put too fine a point on it, being fitted up. For what reason, we never found out, but evidence had been planted, the traffic camera evidence was being mis-represented, to put the man where he couldn't have been etc, etc. The jury unanimously found him not guilty. Good job for him he had a good legal team, otherwise he'd be in jail, probably for a long time.

Now, if you'd only read the reports in the paper, you might have come to the conclusion that the guy had got off just because he was in the police, whereas, in fact, it was the police trying to stitch up one of their own! 

This, of course, has no bearing on the present discussion here, but I, for one, won't believe every conviction is correct, any more than I believe every acquittal is correct.