uh? 
Theres 298 comments before yours, that’s a heck of a lot of opinions, a bit more specificity on which opinion ‘that opinion’ is would be helpful 
I just assumed it was in respect of the post by @billybutcher immediately preceding it. The system doesn’t indicate if the next poster hits 
but Admin can change that if it’s problematical… you just need to ask @james to change the setting or put a request in Forum Support 
1 Like
That makes it even more confusing 
1 Like
totally agree…
James did ask some time ago if people were content with the setting and IIRC there was no adverse comment about it - probably no-one understood what it meant in practice 
Always hard to understand random madness!
But I guess the suggestion is that because the policing of a football crowd in Paris received negative publicity in the UK, nobody in France should criticise UK police…
The Police, Met or whoever, gather evidence, put it to the CPS and they decide if there will be a prosecution. I’m not sure why it is a humiliation if the CPS decide not to pursue a case.
1 Like
Not entirely correct as outlined in this from the CPS where it says
So, perhaps it is humiliating for the police in that if the evidence they present is insufficient to meet the tests as outlined, it can be clearly argued that they haven’t done their job entirely well.
One would expect the SIO to be on the ball and take responsibility for deciding whether, evidentially, there is a prima facia case to answer before submitting it to the CPS.
1 Like
The test is applied before charge, but there is a continuing duty to review (you can probably find that on the CPS website). Once it’s at court, the case is in the CPS’s hands and their sole responsibility to continue it or otherwise.
So it isn’t a humiliation for the police (unless you’re the Guardian ). If anyone was humiliated, it was the CPS, for not discontinuing sooner - or for saying the discontinuance was because of the evidential stage of the test, when I imagine everyone else would think a prosecution wasn’t in the Public Interest.
None of the above suggests the Met isn’t fairly rotten at the moment.
1 Like
It’s rotten to the core.
I’ve just watched the two series of Manhunt - true life tales of a determined detective (DCI Colin Sutton) finally getting his man - well worth a watch. In both series, there were real life fundamental flaws in the culture of the Met which allowed the criminals to continue their murderous activities which, if solved earlier, would have probably saved a number of victims lives. The cases concern the Millie Dowler murder (the reluctance of Surrey Police to engage with the Met) and the so called Night Stalker.
But who is at fault here? The institution of the Police or the Government with lack of proper funding and reducing Police numbers (whilst suggesting otherwise)? Throwing fast-track justice at the Police and the CPS in an attempt to massage/disguise the true figures?
Matters haven’t changed much during the period from when DCI Sutton was in post. The Sarah Everard debacle attests to that. In a rush to get (replace) the boots on the ground cut by the Tories, corners are being cut leading to a poorer quality of Officer being sworn in and given warrants.
It needs a massive shake up… let’s hope the new Commissioner will be allowed to get on with the job and turn out to be like Robert Mark and John Stevens… he has the potential if not the funding to carry it off.
I think you guys have misunderstood the ‘embarrassment’ angle. The women have been saying all along - for months - that the arrests were unlawful, and the police have been saying all along they weren’t. It has now been confirmed that the women were right. Let me repeat that: some women protesters - ordinary members of the public - knew more about the law than the police ! I call that pretty embarrassing.
The article says:
The high court ruled that Scotland Yard had misinterpreted Covid laws when it tried to block the event and also failed to consider the human rights of freedom of speech and assembly… “The police had simply not understood the importance in English law of people’s basic right to freedom of speech and assembly.”
The police had not understood English law. Embarrassing, or what?
4 Likes
He’s also chosen a very good interim deputy in Dame Lynne Owens
Policing recruitment is in a mess at the moment. The current uplift will not cover those lost to cut backs. The degree/ diploma recruitment has been a disaster and several forces have gone back to IPLDP A big issue is that services that don’t get the number of recruits they are told they have to will be fined so of course they will be tempted to take people to get the numbers up
This hasn’t even got to the good part yet…
Well, how can you expect the police to be experts in the law? Most of the time when you arrest someone you have “reasonable grounds”. That suggests room for debate, or the law to be tested. There are often cases where the police would like them to be put before a jury for those twelve to decide. I understand, of course, that the CPS has to scrutinise to pass certain requirements before possible charges are brought. Covid regulations were completely untested.
Expert - maybe not; but if they arrest you, they have to be able to tell you what law they thought you broke.
Only suspected of breaking. That’s a key distinction.
1 Like
Fair point, comment amended.
The point, however, is that the police are supposed to be sufficiently conversant with the law of the land to identify which bit of it you might have transgressed - which means quite a lot of actual knowledge about actual law.
2 Likes
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story @graham - Perhaps Levi Bellfield was the ‘Night Stalker’ in your reality but in everybody else’s he was Delroy Grant. I assume DCI “Techguru” could have solved these complex cases overnight and am sure that the “It’s rotten to the core” badge you award the Met is from your many years of experience policing crime in London. The Cops and ex Cops l know are equally ashamed of what went on with the Sarah Everard protest but to suggest it was all a Tory plot to recruit sub-standard officers is a stretch IMHO.
1 Like
Police training covers in depth the laws that they are most likely to use then a more superficial training on the less common ones, However there is always someone available who can advise on things that your average officer may not be that au fait with