Legal-Charging-Police Bail-Under Investigation

In North Korea probably don’t bother with the investigation or trial

 

This is what happens if the government keeps cutting essential public services for ten years. Eventually things grind to a near standstill and all kinds of negative consequences occur.

 

It seems neither do our police who prefer to keep people dangling for months and years with no recourse in law and the person have to accept that only the police will decide how long they will keep your life in suspension

 

Robinson boarding a plane today at Leeds Bradford Airport...

We can all write off an imminent return for him now - football season just kicked off and he’s off on holiday.

Such a shame.

 

Shame he couldn't engage his brain and think about how his actions could impact Bradford City football club as well as his own life.

 

All this “I’m back soon” / “he’s back soon” (I know him) talk was utter nonsense!

 

Maybe he thought he was going to be.

 

Do you seriously believe that this delay time is due to police preference? It's not the fault of the police that their resources to investigate this type of alleged crime have been slashed to the bone in the name of austerity. The same is true for the CPS, who are likely to make the decision whether to prosecute, not the police.

The wait time in Robinson's case is not exceptional, it is the current norm, as @Allotment Bantam has pointed out above.
I have personal knowledge of another case that took 26 months from initial police involvement to an actual charge, due to lack of resources, and it is likely to be several further months before it gets to court.

So don't hold your breath for a return any time soon.

 

Never a truer word said. Great post!

 

While accepting some of what you say the point I made is still valid and is not acceptable that only the police shall determine when you are released as a potential criminal and you have no recourse to the law or courts, The previous bail system had time limits that the police could only extend with appropriate evidence of a criminal charge to a judge,
Under the present system that time limit has been removed and the police have made full use of it, There is a suspicion that the police are demonstrating the effects of the cuts in this area to prove a point.

Here is some more information for those interested in the subject and what is becoming a human rights issue,
Courtesy the Daily Telegraph
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/18/changes-police-bail-has-led-delays-uncertainty/

" Jenny Wiltshire, Head of General Crime at Hickman & Rose solicitors, said: "The changes to the police bail regulations were meant to end the injustice of people being kept in legal limbo for months on end as they waited for police to decide what to do. This shows the problem hasn't gone away. In fact it's got worse.

"Whereas criminal suspects were previously kept waiting for far too long on bail; now they are kept waiting for even longer while 'under investigation'.

“In one way this new ‘under investigation’ status is even worse than bail as police are not obliged provide updates on how the case is progressing nor when it may end.

“People, who may be innocent of any crime, are forced to put their whole lives on hold - and live under a cloud of suspicion - as they wait for the police to make up their minds without any idea of when this might happen."

 

Yes, I accept that the law change may have contributed to an unacceptable situation, leaving people in limbo for an indefinite period.
But you said that the police prefer to keep people hanging on with no recourse to law. That is nonsense. Regardless of the legal framework, the primary reason that long delays occur is because swingeing cuts have left them with insufficient resources to complete investigations promptly and then process the necessary paperwork. And when they have eventually done that the file sits at the bottom of a bulging CPS in-tray, waiting many more months for a decision to be made about whether to take it to court or not.
The police and CPS don't prefer this situation - they hate it. They'd much rather have sufficient resources to do their jobs properly. But ten years of cuts has made that impossible.

 

Welcome to the police state we now live in.

 

If the police didn't spend so much time on investigating petty hate crime, dancing with the revellers at gay pride events, or marching gangs of muslim youths to attack legitimate political rallies they might have more resources to devote to serious crime.

 

I think your analysis of why the Police don’t have time is far too simplistic. The investigation of sexual crimes requires specialist police who require extensive training and preferable with experience. Plus I know for a fact they cannot recruit Police into the specialist work and tbh who can blame them. Constant stress, not enough time to do the job properly oh and if they make a mistake disciplinary action await.

There are no easy answers on this. As a society if we want these types of crime to be given a rigorous investigation in a timely manner, we need to invest hard cash into the Police. We also need to show some respect to Police and Social Workers who are given this type of work. Form a queue for those who would like to sit looking at disgusting child pornography to determine what category they must charge the alleged perpetrators. Or have to listen to a violent rape victim. Or listen to child disclosing sexual abuse. The unpleasant list goes on, and these are public servants who work in the background trying to safeguard children and vulnerable ppl.

I think the current system due to lack of resources is a breach of ppls basic human rights to have their investigation completed in a timely manner.

 

There are almost too many things wrong with this post to list. But here's a start:
1. Policing public events, of many types is, and always has been, a core police activity. There would very soon be complaints if they stopped doing it and people got hurt, traffic wasn't redirected etc.
Presumably you would just like them to stop policing the particular events that you don't personally approve of.

2. Police esorting neo-Nazi thugs around, chanting racist crap in support of white supremacist arseholes like Stephen Yaxley-Lennon because it's a 'legitimate political rally' is somehow ok, eh? Yet escorting those (of various faiths and skin colours) exercising their legitimate right to demonstrate an opposing political view is somehow not ok? Great logic there bud.

3. Policing public order issues is a relatively small element of police time and resources and cutting down on it would make little or no difference to their capability to investigate sexual crimes. Particularly since those investigating such crimes are specially trained CID officers who take no part in uniformed public order policing. Reduction in public order policing would be very unlikely to result in more resources going to specialist CID units. I'm sure you really know this, but it doesn't fit your narrative to acknowledge it.

4. Hate crime is only petty if you are not a victim of it. If you were having your life made a misery because of your skin colour, religious beliefs, sexuality, disability etc then you wouldn't think it was petty. In my professional life I've seen people self harm, suffer serious mental health problems, be forced to move home several times and even kill themselves because of hate crime persecution. As straight white western males we don't have to contend with such issues, but others do and it can wreck their lives. So, to suggest that police should stop investigating hate crime shows a pretty breathtaking lack of empathy for those who are often least able to defend themselves.

 

I can't disagree with most of that. I sure wouldn't want the job of investigating serious crimes, but their are awesome police personnel who are tied up dealing with crap on a daily basis. I have many friends who are coppers and all of them give the impression that much of their day is spent behaving like a social worker sorting out domestics, and when they're not doing that they're doing paperwork or they're stood around making sure nobody steps on Extinction Rebellion protesters laying on the floor on public walkways.

I agree they're under-resourced, and I don't understand why we can't afford the previous budgets, but the money is clearly going somewhere, or has gone somewhere. 20% on police pensions is a hefty hit, but the reality is that without big tax hikes there just isn't the money to afford the kind of first world budgets we used to be able to afford. Alas, we are slowly becoming like a third world nation who can't afford luxuries like the NHS, decent policing, decent education, roads that are not full of potholes, etc.

 

In answer to your points:

1. There didn't used to be police out in numbers at all these events. Now you can't have a fun run without having increased presence. Maybe it is the terrorist threat. Maybe it is because the council is scared of being sued if anything goes wrong. Maybe it is health and safety. The other week there were FIFTEEN police turned up because there was a bit of trouble by the river at the old iron bridge near Ilkley. They were drafted in from Bradford. No arrests were made. Just a massive police presence just in case. Police haven't always been at these events. It is a relatively recent phenomenon.

2. Have you seen the videos of what happened in Oldham? Clearly not or you wouldn't be saying what you said.



Watch it. You'll be shocked.

I like to keep an open mind on these things and tend to research things myself rather than just believe what I read in The Guardian or The Independent or whatever agenda the BBC has. Often I'm shocked when I find out what really happened, as was the case with this.

3. You are right in some ways, but there are many very capable and willing police personnel who could be trained and promoted to do these jobs, but they are tied up daily dealing with c**p like domestics. Yes, these things need to be handled, but most of the police didn't sign-up to have to spent 80% of their time sorting out arguments between people or controlling yobbish youths who have nothing better to do than smash up park benches and the like.

4. The kind of hate crime you speak of is GENUINE hate crime. Unfortunately, the police spent a lot of time dealing with issues that were not previously classed as hate crime, but now have a 'hate crime' element attached due to the ever changing definition of what constitutes a 'hate crime'. I'm sure you understand that as it has been quite well documented over the last few years. And your comment about 'straight, white, western males' is very racist and quite possibly sexist. There are many straight white males who suffer from hate crime on a daily basis. Try working in a homeless shelter, or with released prisoners, and you might thing differently.

Here's an up-to-date list of what can be classed as a hate crime:

• verbal abuse like name-calling and offensive jokes
• harassment
• bullying or intimidation by children, adults, neighbours or strangers
• physical attacks such as hitting, punching, pushing, spitting
• threats of violence
• hoax calls, abusive phone or text messages, hate mail
• online abuse for example on Facebook or Twitter
• displaying or circulating discriminatory literature or posters
• harm or damage to things such as your home, pet, vehicle
• graffiti
• arson
• throwing rubbish into a garden
• malicious complaints for example over parking, smells or noise.

So calling somebody a 'white supremacist arsehole' (as you did) would be classed as a hate crime and would have to be investigated if it was reported in the right way

I agree proper hate crime is a terrible and potentially life-damaging thing and when it is a proper hate crime it should be investigated vigorously. However, many events are being incorrectly categorised as 'hate crimes' to serve other agendas. The problem with this is that resources are wasted on trivial things when those same resources could be used investigating genuine hate crime, violent crime, sexual crime, terrorism, etc.

I sure don't envy the police as they have to deal with this nonsense on a daily basis and have to walk this politically correct tightrope on a daily basis.

 

I can understand the police and their defenders complaining of cuts to the budget but have little sympathy for the simple reason that instead of reform they CHOSE to cut police officers and services instead, Just think of the savings that could be made,
43, Police commissioners
43 Assistant police commissioners
43 police commissioners, office staffing, cars and headquarters
43 Chief constables constables
43 Assistant chief constables
43 chief superintendents
43 police headquarters
43 Headquarter staffing
43 police accountants
43 lots of office staff
43 Pool cars for head office staff
And lots others probably missed,
Had the police agreed to be reformed down to maybe 4/6 areas then they would not have had to make most of the cuts they claim to have reduce the service to the public, It seems the police are more interested in keeping 43 gravy trains going rather than what is best for the public

 

Well that is a great argument, let’s end the debated all sorted. Do you also have risk analysis of wiping out all levels of management, and the backroom staff? If you do, I would be sending it in to the West Yorkshire Police commissioner.