Shalmaneser

Comment Threads

• paws4thot commented on A Bad Dream
  In another case, police went to the wrong house looking for a child who had threatened to harm itself, after obtaining incorrect information about the internet address being used. That's a direct assumption that the child in question must have sent the specific message in question from a specific street address which need not have been the case. Everything else you say is correct (at least for values of correct referring to establishing that X regularly communicates with Y rather than establishing the locations they are at when they do so)....
• Brett Dunbar commented on A Bad Dream
  It was an assumption that it was likely to have been sent from that location, presumably home, which was worth pursuing under the circumstances. It wasn't effective in the event but that doesn't mean it was inappropriate as it was a highly likely location and an emergency situation. They had information that a minor was intending to hurt themselves, an emergency situation, and a probable location so they pursued it. It isn't really any different from any other emergency, you act on the information you have....
• paws4thot commented on A Bad Dream
  I'm way too used to people sending and receiving e-mails and web posts on smartphones to make that assumption any more. And since the subject of age has been raised in this general context of social media, I'm 51 on Monday....
• Brett Dunbar commented on A Bad Dream
  That's a mistake, it holds enough to a worthwhile assumption. Especially in an emergency like this. Sometimes ending up at the wrong address is fairly normal for any emergency service. Email addresses often are associated with a specific physical address. While the email account is accessible remotely home is still the most likely single location. If you are accessing the internet through your broadband account (ADSL, Cable, FTTC &c.) you have to be at a specific location....
• Greg. Tingey commented on Lies, damned lies, and popular beliefs
  Update This article re-visits the Kelly affair from another viewpoint. Interesting. However, please remember Charlie's strictures ( @ 73 )about what biases the writer may have - in this case, Andrew Gilligan..........