You are reading a single comment by @.mo. and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.
  • Now that weve cleared up my ignorance on human rights (a humble pie dont wory) can we get back to how terribly the police has handled this?

    Why should anybody give you that consideration, when most of your ignorant rant was attacking people here in the worst of bad faith, ascribing the worst motives you could think of to their comments? I didn't see people taking the positions you accused them of, I saw people talking about basic legal principles and also moral ones. The undeniable fact that the police often forget those principles when dealing with (and protecting) their own is not an argument for the rest of us asking for those principles to be broken when we don't like the defendant. That's what I saw people saying.

    You rode in on your high horse. The fact that this made your face-first fall into the horse shit all the more embarrassing is your fault

    "Humble pie, don't worry. But I'm so humble that I want you all to forget how embarrassed I am or that I did anything embarrassing, immediately."

  • I may be mistaken but I don’t think being held on remand is a police decision.

    From the home office website:

    You may be put on remand if:

    you’ve been convicted of a crime in the past
    the court thinks you might not go to your court hearing
    the court thinks you might commit a crime while on bail
    you have been given bail before and not stuck to the terms

  • He’d already been charged prior to absconding hence held on remand, suicide copper hadn’t been charged hence he was on bail / release under investigation whilst the investigation continued. There was no legal avenue to remand him in custody for that period.

    Rather than relying on Channel 4 and the Google school of case law, try reading PACE, start with sections 42 onwards and then move on to the Codes of Practice.

About

Avatar for .mo. @.mo. started