Policewoman accidentally reveals what the police are really trying to do

[the advocate]

The story is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...5-minutes.html

Nothing remarkable, you might think. Just the usual where some unfortunate goes through hell for nearly a year, because of an accusation which is so patently false that the jury only spends 15 minutes before deciding he is not guilty.

However, the police spokeswoman commented, and I quote direct from the newspaper report, "On Friday DC Karen Parker, of Lancashire Police, said: "Whilst we are disappointed with the outcome of this trial, we of course respect the decision of the jury and I would like to thank them for their consideration of this case.""

So a policewoman, and by her comment, the rest of Lancashire Police, is disappointed that a man was found not guilty? What has happened to the role of the police in investigating? There are two conclusions from this. Either

• The police are so target driven to ensure convictions that the concepts of guilt or innocence do not enter therir consciousness. Or,
• The police want to take over the functions of the judges and juries, and decide on guilt themselves.

Whichever one of these is the case, it still leaves a very bad taste in the mouth

[can it get worse]

Yes I found this comment hard to believe she said it.
When my partner was fa'd, Social Services said something like 'it must be true'. When he received his NG, SW said she was pleased with the verdict. Why would SS be pleased with the outcome if they believed the allegation to be true.

[Incredulous]

If someone is charged with an offence and someone speaks out for them to the press before they go to court, what would happen to the person speaking out? All the false accusations that gave gone on, no one has afforded anonymity to the accused. So what if a relative speaks out to the press in a clear concise manner that the only victims in this debarkle is the accused?

[Incredulous]

If someone is charged with an offence and someone speaks out for them to the press before they go to court, what would happen to the person speaking out? All the false accusations that gave gone on, no one has afforded anonymity to the accused. So what if a relative speaks out to the press in a clear concise manner that the only victims in this debarkle is the accused?

Anyone know the answer please ??

[Casehardened]

Anyone know the answer please ??

I don't think there would be any problem with someone standing on the courtroom steps and voicing their thoughts (right of free speech, etc) but whether the press would actually publish these would be another matter.

Google sub judice to get an idea of the issues, plus of course the courts will order lifetime anonymity for the accusers whatever the result.

[Incredulous]

I don't think there would be any problem with someone standing on the courtroom steps and voicing their thoughts (right of free speech, etc) but whether the press would actually publish these would be another matter.

Google sub judice to get an idea of the issues, plus of course the courts will order lifetime anonymity for the accusers whatever the result.

What about if he is charged, before any trial takes place? No one seems to speak up for the falsely accused? Why is that.

I understand sub judice now against a media coverage. What about an individual who tries to seek justice via social media? Would action be taken against that person who starts that activity?

[whatsgoingon?]

Policewoman accidentally reveals what the police are really trying to do

I think some members of the police have lost the plot , are becoming unaccountable and are a potential danger to society as a whole . This is a far cry from the role they're supposed to play and are being paid for.

[Incredulous]

At the moment I believe there is a 'System' and not a 'Justice System' The System is built on statistics and conviction rates and the Truth is if no consequence.

[can it get worse]

At the moment I believe there is a 'System' and not a 'Justice System' The System is built on statistics and conviction rates and the Truth is if no consequence.

So do I.

[edinashed]

The story is here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...5-minutes.html

Nothing remarkable, you might think. Just the usual where some unfortunate goes through hell for nearly a year, because of an accusation which is so patently false that the jury only spends 15 minutes before deciding he is not guilty.

However, the police spokeswoman commented, and I quote direct from the newspaper report, "On Friday DC Karen Parker, of Lancashire Police, said: "Whilst we are disappointed with the outcome of this trial, we of course respect the decision of the jury and I would like to thank them for their consideration of this case.""

So a policewoman, and by her comment, the rest of Lancashire Police, is disappointed that a man was found not guilty? What has happened to the role of the police in investigating? There are two conclusions from this. Either

• The police are so target driven to ensure convictions that the concepts of guilt or innocence do not enter therir consciousness. Or,
• The police want to take over the functions of the judges and juries, and decide on guilt themselves.

Whichever one of these is the case, it still leaves a very bad taste in the mouth

That's disgusting, totally undermines the concept of trial by jury. And what message does that send out about the man who was accused to any members of the public who may have read the police woman comments? I imagine it's hard enough to mmove away from false allegations without the police exacerbating the situation by alluding to the fact in spite of being acquitted you are indeed guilty.

I'm sure there must be some recourse for the gentleman after these comments, and if I were him I would be seeking it ASAP.