The Cliff case (a
good beginning denoting the issue as far as the legal stuff is
concerned) is quite exciting insofar the strange statements made by
all and sundry. First of all I saw the BBC report made at the time,
using a helicopter to show Cliff’s little pad. Was he even there?
Well, the police did not seem to care much whether he was or not. The
real implication about all of this, should people be named in
investigations or not? Obviously the police has to investigate
allegations of wrongdoing. I am certain the Crown Prosecution Service
was informed and might have given an indication that sounds like an
approval. But the next question is – why was the BBC involved at
that time? You do not hire a helicopter in five minutes, so collusion
with the police?
I think we need to
be blunt here, people under investigation must not be named. Actually
it serves no purpose to name persons as it only serves unwarranted
intrusion and might even harm the court case to come, if any. In
other countries, like Holland for instance, reports are made by just
using initials. Such as In the court of London the accused HW (the
correct name initials!) faced blah blah blah, he will appear at the
Crown Court on blah, blah, blah. I don’t think this will harm the
public rights to know what is going on but it will stop persons not
found guilty to further harm.
In all of this we
need a judicial system that will be above any signs of incompetence,
we need a CPS that is without doubt more than excellent. And a police
force that works for the benefit of the population. Frankly, that
stands at 40%. of what it should be. Like in all cases, it is not
just a question of money but of leadership. If donkeys are leading
lions then who clears the dung?
Yeah, right!
No comments:
Post a Comment