|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 19, 2024 8:51:11 GMT
Hang on she asked the police for the name of the person who accused her and expected them to give her the name If she was accused of a crime she's entitled to know that. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 19, 2024 8:54:10 GMT
The Journalist in question should and probably does know that when plod comes knocking on your door talking shite like hate crime or suchlike all she needs to do is ask if she is being arrested . If not tell them 'not today tank you ' and shut the door . Exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 19, 2024 9:05:34 GMT
"...A source insisted police were polite and merely trying to arrange a proper interview, where Pearson could have a lawyer present and answer questions, in keeping with laws governing police interviews." But there's the problem: This is allegedly a "Non-crime incident". So in what way would this be a "Proper" interview? If it's not an allegation of crime, it's not a "Proper" interview and probably not even a PACE compliant one. ...IMO the right way to do it, they were not there to arrest her nor question her, and quite rightly did not name the person who reported the alleged crime to her that would have been done at the Police Station when interviewed, a person who reports a crime to Police is quite rightly classed as a " Victim"... And again we seem to be conflating two different things: Is this an allegation of crime or not? If it's a "Non-crime incident" then there's no victim (remember "No victim, no crime"? Well, the reverse also applies). And if it is an allegation of crime, then the accused is entitled to know the nature of the allegation and who their accuser is. To interview someone over something that's not a crime (but could become one if they inadvertantly incriminate themselves) is perilously close to entrapment. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 19, 2024 9:08:31 GMT
It all seems to stem from McPherson where some recommendations were Definition of racist incident 12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." 13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment. 14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies. One suspects that Mcpherson was briefed as regards what to find and what to recommend as the evidence for many of his conclusions seem singularly lacking in his report, most especially his 'institutional racism' finding. Perhaps it is just me but I alwysy thought a police investigation was to determine in part if a crime had been committed and to find out who the perpetrator was. If in the first instance no crime has been committed then the incident should be left well alone. If it is recorded as a non-crime hate incident that just opens the door for gathering of material on individuals where no crime has been committed but incidents are recorded Totally agree. But yes, this is not new - it's been a thing for 30 odd years. |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Nov 19, 2024 9:13:25 GMT
Hang on she asked the police for the name of the person who accused her and expected them to give her the name If she was accused of a crime she's entitled to know that. Is she i thought crime can be reported anomalous |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 19, 2024 9:43:42 GMT
Handyman I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to say that Essex Police refused to investigate. I think it’s worth remembering that it had firstly been marked as potentially a Non Crime Hate Incident and as a potential breach of the Malicious Communications Act by the Sussex Police, so perhaps they were the first who couldn’t make up their minds. So it was one or other, or neither before it was passed on to Essex. The Essex force made two ‘assessments’ of the case before they finally came to their decision to open an investigation. Did they ‘change’ their mind, or just take a good while making up their mind ? Handyman Will she do that ? ….indications are that she will. To quote what she said to GB News on the 13th November: ‘The Free Speech Union, which is a brilliant organisation, is helping me, they are giving me a solicitor so that if I have to go into the Police Station to have a voluntary interview I will go in and maybe then we will find out what I am accused of’
The media stated that probably after Essex Police Spokesperson responded to a media request for a statement about this nonsense, if I was the Journalist I certainly would take up the offer by Essex Police to come in for an Interview to find out what this is all about |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 19, 2024 10:04:06 GMT
"...A source insisted police were polite and merely trying to arrange a proper interview, where Pearson could have a lawyer present and answer questions, in keeping with laws governing police interviews." But there's the problem: This is allegedly a "Non-crime incident". So in what way would this be a "Proper" interview? If it's not an allegation of crime, it's not a "Proper" interview and probably not even a PACE compliant one. ...IMO the right way to do it, they were not there to arrest her nor question her, and quite rightly did not name the person who reported the alleged crime to her that would have been done at the Police Station when interviewed, a person who reports a crime to Police is quite rightly classed as a " Victim"... And again we seem to be conflating two different things: Is this an allegation of crime or not? If it's a "Non-crime incident" then there's no victim (remember "No victim, no crime"? Well, the reverse also applies). And if it is an allegation of crime, then the accused is entitled to know the nature of the allegation and who their accuser is. To interview someone over something that's not a crime (but could become one if they inadvertantly incriminate themselves) is perilously close to entrapment. It is certainly confusing me and others, exactly WTF is this all about if she takes up the offer to attend an interview she was told to bring a Legal Adviser which IMO is good advice from the Police and usual practice, he or she will tell her no don't answer that question if they think it is unwise IMHO the Police will tell her who made the complaint and what she has said in full as when and if she does agree to ne interviewed, I believe she already knows who made the allegation from the Media, as for entrapment IMO why would the Police want to ? and not allowed in the UK |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 19, 2024 10:55:32 GMT
It is certainly confusing me and others, exactly WTF is this all about if she takes up the offer to attend an interview... And why on Earth would you do that for a "Non crime incident"? There is no compulsion to attend. Why waste your time? And an "Offer" implies some kind of advantage to attending. Which, for the interviewee, there absolutely is not. I believe she already knows who made the allegation from the Media... So again, why waste your time? ...as for entrapment IMO why would the Police want to ? and not allowed in the UK LOL!  I doubt that most officers today would even know what entrapment is, much less that they might be committing it. But undoubtedly they are: If she inadvertently says anything that could be construed as an admission of an offence then she will be prosecuted. And again, why would anyone take that risk? |
|
|
|
Post by Hutchyns on Nov 19, 2024 11:09:48 GMT
If someone punches you in the mouth, and you ring the Police saying you want your assailant to be charged with attempted murder, then don't the Police have the authority to over-ride members of the public who don't have a detailed knowledge of the law/offence categories and instead consider whether a charge of assault might be more appropriate ? Was it for Pearson's accuser to know exactly what category of offence was 'allegedly' being committed ? Perhaps she contacted Plod and provided the evidence along with a 'surely she's not allowed to say that these days is she ?' rider. A categorisation of potential offence wasn't established in the early stages, to the extent that the Met Police didn't even attempt to place it in the right box, but pushed it on to Sussex Police who hedged their bets by marking it as a potential non crime hate incident (NCHI) as well as a potential malicious communication. And so when it gets pushed further down the line to Essex Police they're the only one's out of the three forces involved that finally made a decision to scrap the NCHI option and to request to interview Pearson with a view to charging her with malicious communication. And let's remember that Pearson actually tagged the Metropolitan Police when she reposted, along with her own comments, the tweet that is at the root of it all. If a complainer hadn't been so quick off the mark, who's to say The Met themselves wouldn't have picked it up from their own Twitter feed when they reviewed it half an hour later  . |
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 19, 2024 11:21:21 GMT
It is certainly confusing me and others, exactly WTF is this all about if she takes up the offer to attend an interview... And why on Earth would you do that for a "Non crime incident"? There is no compulsion to attend. Why waste your time? And an "Offer" implies some kind of advantage to attending. Which, for the interviewee, there absolutely is not. I believe she already knows who made the allegation from the Media... So again, why waste your time? ...as for entrapment IMO why would the Police want to ? and not allowed in the UK LOL! I doubt that most officers today would even know what entrapment is, much less that they might be committing it. But undoubtedly they are: If she inadvertently says anything that could be construed as an admission of an offence then she will be prosecuted. And again, why would anyone take that risk? I agree as I have said this is sheer nonsense, you may assume the Police may try to entrap her , Why and how it is her decision if she wants to attend an interview , if if it is a " Non Crime " what could she be prosecuted for ? that is why don't understand all this nonsense and the waste of Police time it uses up |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Nov 19, 2024 12:40:24 GMT
And why on Earth would you do that for a "Non crime incident"? There is no compulsion to attend. Why waste your time? And an "Offer" implies some kind of advantage to attending. Which, for the interviewee, there absolutely is not. So again, why waste your time? LOL! I doubt that most officers today would even know what entrapment is, much less that they might be committing it. But undoubtedly they are: If she inadvertently says anything that could be construed as an admission of an offence then she will be prosecuted. And again, why would anyone take that risk? I agree as I have said this is sheer nonsense, you may assume the Police may try to entrap her , Why and how it is her decision if she wants to attend an interview , if if it is a " Non Crime " what could she be prosecuted for ? that is why don't understand all this nonsense and the waste of Police time it uses up It's the abuse of power to intimidate and persecute law-abiding people into conforming out of fear, which is all part of a hostile totalitarian regime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 19, 2024 13:22:50 GMT
I agree as I have said this is sheer nonsense, you may assume the Police may try to entrap her , Why and how it is her decision if she wants to attend an interview , if if it is a " Non Crime " what could she be prosecuted for ? that is why don't understand all this nonsense and the waste of Police time it uses up It's the abuse of power to intimidate and persecute law-abiding people into conforming out of fear, which is all part of a hostile totalitarian regime.
I must have told you a Million times not to exaggerate, |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Nov 21, 2024 9:14:13 GMT
It all seems to stem from McPherson where some recommendations were Definition of racist incident 12. That the definition should be: "A racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person." 13. That the term "racist incident" must be understood to include crimes and non-crimes in policing terms. Both must be reported, recorded and investigated with equal commitment. 14. That this definition should be universally adopted by the police, local government and other relevant agencies. One suspects that Mcpherson was briefed as regards what to find and what to recommend as the evidence for many of his conclusions seem singularly lacking in his report, most especially his 'institutional racism' finding. Perhaps it is just me but I alwysy thought a police investigation was to determine in part if a crime had been committed and to find out who the perpetrator was. If in the first instance no crime has been committed then the incident should be left well alone. If it is recorded as a non-crime hate incident that just opens the door for gathering of material on individuals where no crime has been committed but incidents are recorded Totally agree. But yes, this is not new - it's been a thing for 30 odd years. I suspect the police have been doing this for years at some level. |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Nov 21, 2024 9:15:23 GMT
Since McPherson in the early 90s.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handyman on Nov 21, 2024 12:07:15 GMT
Since McPherson in the early 90s. He at a stroke called labelled all Met Police Officers as Racist with his Institutionally Racism verdict LOB, due to an initial bungled investigation by Senior Officers at the scene of the murder of Steven Lawrence which IMO started the undermining of Police called Racists at every opportunity mainly by non white Criminals and or journalists , then Blair the new Met Commissioner, changed the name of the Met from Force to Service. Its just gained momentum from there, I was glad when I retired had enough of the threats insults racial insults and lies |
|
.