CPS criticised over Hastings Pier arson investigation (From The Argus)

Is Sussex Police Authority some kind of idiot? The reason given by the CPS for not wanting to prosecute was that there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Therefore, the only valid counterargument Sussex Police Authority could make was that they felt there *was* sufficient evidence. Instead that they have said they felt that the decision would "dent public confidence". Well boo-hoo for the 'public' - they can be disappointed to the point of tears, it would change the fact that the evidence was insufficient. Furthermore, whose job was it to gather the evidence? THE POLICE. So whose fault was it? Not the CPS's, but the police.
All of the above assuming that Ben Parson's report is accurate, of course...

Expect more of this 'No Action'... Had same result 4 serious offence's with Evidence,,, 'Cut Backs' x x

feline1 wrote:
Is Sussex Police Authority some kind of idiot? The reason given by the CPS for not wanting to prosecute was that there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Therefore, the only valid counterargument Sussex Police Authority could make was that they felt there *was* sufficient evidence. Instead that they have said they felt that the decision would "dent public confidence". Well boo-hoo for the 'public' - they can be disappointed to the point of tears, it would change the fact that the evidence was insufficient. Furthermore, whose job was it to gather the evidence? THE POLICE. So whose fault was it? Not the CPS's, but the police. All of the above assuming that Ben Parson's report is accurate, of course...

That is assuming that the evidence was there in the first place, feline.
Unless of course you want to go back to the days when police were corrupt, solicited false confessions under threat or torture & planted evidence in the belief that "The end justified the means".
One way to assist in enabling the evidence could be more CCTV cameras but I suspect that would simply provoke outcry from all the argus barrack room lawyer & armchair whingers!
If you want to blame anyone, blame the t0ssers who burnt it down!!
Oh for Pete's sake, why am I even wasting my time writing this?
Oh yes, waiting for my kettle to boil for my pre-bedtime hot drink. Far more important!
;-)

feline1 wrote:
Is Sussex Police Authority some kind of idiot? The reason given by the CPS for not wanting to prosecute was that there was INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Therefore, the only valid counterargument Sussex Police Authority could make was that they felt there *was* sufficient evidence. Instead that they have said they felt that the decision would "dent public confidence". Well boo-hoo for the 'public' - they can be disappointed to the point of tears, it would change the fact that the evidence was insufficient. Furthermore, whose job was it to gather the evidence? THE POLICE. So whose fault was it? Not the CPS's, but the police. All of the above assuming that Ben Parson's report is accurate, of course...

Wow quite the know it all aren't you? Not content with criticising the journalism of The Argus with a venom I find a bit strange (sure you've never been dismissed by them?), you've now fixed your expert opinion on the police. Maybe the police should bring you in to help them out as you clearly have years of experience of police investigations. Would it ever have occured to you that there just isn't any more evidence out there? Maybe the police have given all they can but it just wasn't enough to satisfy the cps in this case?
Tell you what, maybe you should stick to your 'technical writing' and the police should stick to policing.

the evidence is to satisfy the COURT, not the CPS, AmboGuy.

As Page the Oracle says, if the police didn't have sufficient evidence they were chancing their arm even arresting this pair in the first place. Their statement that they "didn't want to dissapoint the public" is telling.

the bottom line is that if there's not enough evidence to prove that that pair burnt down the pier, then they remain innocent until proven guilty. If you don't like that, then I suggest you move to Iran, North Korea or some other place more suited to your tastes.

Sussex Police could not solve Cluedo. They either botch investigations or procedural errors get them thrown out. The CPS review the cases and it is rich for the Police to scream about it when they were quite pleased to get Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe the thieving adulteress dropped by the CPS.

game on wrote:
Sussex Police could not solve Cluedo. They either botch investigations or procedural errors get them thrown out. The CPS review the cases and it is rich for the Police to scream about it when they were quite pleased to get Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe the thieving adulteress dropped by the CPS.

The Rowe case was passed to Kent CPS to ensure impartiality & I happen to know that all Sussex Police officers who believed in justice were outraged. In any case, change the record. Don't want to be thought of as an irrational nutter with a single issue fixation now do you?!

Hugh Jass wrote:

game on wrote:
Sussex Police could not solve Cluedo. They either botch investigations or procedural errors get them thrown out. The CPS review the cases and it is rich for the Police to scream about it when they were quite pleased to get Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe the thieving adulteress dropped by the CPS.

The Rowe case was passed to Kent CPS to ensure impartiality & I happen to know that all Sussex Police officers who believed in justice were outraged. In any case, change the record. Don't want to be thought of as an irrational nutter with a single issue fixation now do you?!

Kent CPS Could only act on the evidence gathered and supplied by the useless (or POOR as it states in the HMIC Report) Sussex Plod. Ask any serving officer in the neighboring forces what the opinion of Sussex Police is... or compare the ratings of Sussex with say.. Hampshire a similar sized force....
Careful, you might end up looking like one of those apologists for poor service we keep hearing about on here.. or worse one of the lying Police Officers .. and you certainly would NOT want that!

game on wrote:

Hugh Jass wrote:

game on wrote:
Sussex Police could not solve Cluedo. They either botch investigations or procedural errors get them thrown out. The CPS review the cases and it is rich for the Police to scream about it when they were quite pleased to get Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe the thieving adulteress dropped by the CPS.

The Rowe case was passed to Kent CPS to ensure impartiality & I happen to know that all Sussex Police officers who believed in justice were outraged. In any case, change the record. Don't want to be thought of as an irrational nutter with a single issue fixation now do you?!

Kent CPS Could only act on the evidence gathered and supplied by the useless (or POOR as it states in the HMIC Report) Sussex Plod. Ask any serving officer in the neighboring forces what the opinion of Sussex Police is... or compare the ratings of Sussex with say.. Hampshire a similar sized force....
Careful, you might end up looking like one of those apologists for poor service we keep hearing about on here.. or worse one of the lying Police Officers .. and you certainly would NOT want that!

Bibble (Sorry, 'sum mishtake'), don't know why I'm even bothering but here goes. Apologist? No. Facts? Yes.
There were grounds to prosecute (So the 'Plod' as you so eloquently & impartially {!} refer) obviously managed to gather said evidence. However, the decision not to prosecute was decided by Kent CPS (& them alone) as being 'Not in the public interest!'
I'm more than happy to accept that poor service can, is and will be delivered but by everyone whether they be public or private 'businesses' but I base my view on the facts of each individual case.
Tarring every police officer with the same brush because one or two let the side down is tantamount to saying " All teachers are the same" or "All Bankers are the same" or, heaven forbid, All people of the same skin colour, race, religion & sexuality are the same".
To quote -.. and you certainly would NOT want that!