I was sat in my dressing gown this morning watching BBC breakfast. I mention this not to put you off your cornflakes. This is what happens when you work shifts. I cannot provide a link to the program as it is not available on iplayer for some reason.
I shouldn't have watched it, as all it did was raise my blood pressure. Quite rightly, the shooting of the two police officers in Manchester yesterday was the headline news. Inevitably there was mention of whether or not the police generally should be armed. The majority of police officers do not want to be armed, including me. There was also mention of bringing back the death penalty. This isn't going to happen either and nor do I support that. What I do want is for killers such as this to spend the rest of their lives in jail. There are police killers walking free in our society now.
What infuriated me was the line of questioning and the accusatory manner in which comments were made. What the presenters were trying to do was apportion blame. To suggest that the police were partly to blame for the gunning down of two of their officers. Why was this man on police bail? Why had he been released? Why hadn't he been charged and remanded? Why hadn't he been arrested before? Is it normal for two officers to be sent to an area like this? What did the police know about the address? Bill Turnbull even asked Sir Hugh Orde whether two female officers should have been crewed together.
This idea that offenders are not responsible for their actions, or at least not wholly responsible is now endemic in our liberal infested society. The BBC are one of the main proponents of this disgusting attitude.
PS Still looking for someone who might like to take up this blog. Less than 2 weeks to go.
Terrible story- poor, poor women.
ReplyDeleteI did wonder myself about 'police bail'... does this mean police agreed to the bail? or that during bail he has to regularly check in with the police?
And who ultimately was responsible for agreeing to the bail?
Either way I would expect this murderer to die in prison. And would it be too much to ask that his cell NOT have a TV- out of respect to the people he slayed?
Jess
ps if you have no successor can you not continue running it in retirement? Its one of the better blogs out there.
Jess, to arrest someone you need reasonable suspicion that they have committed an offence. Generally, the more serious the offence, the less suspicion you need to make the arrest.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of arrest is to secure evidence (such as forensic evidence) this can be blood on clothing, hair samples, DNA sample Etc. Another reason to arrest is to interview a suspect to get their account. They may have a reasonable explanation or alibi, for example.
Most suspects who have been through the system will not answer any questions in case they say something that might suggest or prove their guilt.
If there is no forensic evidence then the arrest has not taken the investigation forward any further.
At this point in the investigation a decision has to be made whether to charge the suspect and put them before the court. The Crown Prosecution Service would examine the evidence to satisfy themselves whether or not there was sufficient evidence. If there is insufficient evidence to charge then you have two choices; release the subject without charge or release the suspect on police bail. If the investigation is ongoing then it would be quite normal to release on police bail while further inquiries are made. This would enable you to question aagain and consider charging the suspect when they answered their bail.
In reality, in a case as serious as this, if further evidence came to light that might enable you to charge the suspect you would go and arrest them again rather than wait for them to answer bail.
The police can impose conditions on bail. These conditions could include banning someone from an area or banning them from contacting witnesses, for example. I don't know if the suspect in this case had any conditions attached to their bail. I think it unlikely that bail conditions would have altered the course of events.
I share the majority of your sentiments in these matters, lex. Zero tolerance on 'Ellie Bloggs' saw the deletion of my comment following WPC Jaded's branding of it as idiocy, yesterday. I reconstruct the idiocy as a result of its relevance here:
ReplyDelete"When I first hear news of any fatality I feel immediate sympathy for victims and for their families. This shooting and grenade attack invoked the additional reactions of shock and horror. Whilst such incidents are mercifully rare, they nevertheless demand a disciplined, procedural response from police.
However over on the Inspector Gadget blog, a septic tank brims with anonymous police comments calling for 'accidental' forking of the suspect's other eye, torture and slow lynching with piano wire.
It is highly insensitive for police officers to make immediate use of the deaths of colleagues, particularly in the
furtherance of a police crusade for the routine arming of police. 'Wait until all the evidence is in' is
the customary reaction from police, particularly when they themselves are involved in, or stand accused of violent behaviour towards citizens.
Angry reactions are understandable but police, more than anyone else, must exercise control and implement rational procedures in a cool and professional manner. It is only through observation of disciplined restraint that our judicial system can optimise whatever prospects there may be for convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent."
There is no honest motive nor any moral justification in the operation of police blogs which permit unconditional approval of police actions to the exclusion of all other polite and contrary opinions. My goodness, I see that it is almost time for Jaded to parade the 'Walk A Mile In My Shoes' placard.
Comments disabled on MSM so the police cannot be that much loved. I had a go at joining Dale Cregan for OBE but it has gone alas. Bail? Ha! You are quick enough to remand political prisoners in custody. Finally I volunteer to take over your blog. As for Ellie, time of the month? She is deleting willy nilly!
ReplyDeleteThanks for the explanation Lex.
ReplyDeleteYes, I doubt any restrictions would have made any difference to this apparently calculated act of cold blooded murder.
Jess
So that's how long you have sunk is it MTG? You get deleted on one blog so you simply cut and paste your drivel onto another?
ReplyDeleteWhy are you such an expert on policing? Come on i'm dying to know.
The reason why we come on here and IG to vent our fury is because we can't do it in public,even to the scum we deal with as they all have rights.If you think we really are going to poke his other eye out then you are sadder than I imagine.
Please don't break the habit of a lifetime and answer any of my points.Just give a patronising answer which is barely understandable and don't forget to criticise my spelling.Works every time.
Jaded
I actually thought Cregan's eye was injured in custody - that is a mug shit after all. Sussex dispose of all their "tricky" ones;))
ReplyDeleteThere are people who have killed Police out there ....
ReplyDeleteBut there are also police out there who have killed members of the public (Ian Tomlinson,murdered at the London G20)
Nothing happens to them because they are above the law.
POLICE GET AWAY WITH MURDER
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484
fuck them
Just watched Ian Thomlinson Getting murdered again.From behind .
ReplyDeleteYOU FUCKING SCUM
Gav, did you miss the bit where the police officer stood trial and a jury of your peers (well not quite your peers, thankfully) found him NOT guilty.
ReplyDelete