sacked

[Stagger]

Not in Durham Police's book.

Jimmy savile was innocent in the police view

[Witton Park]

Jimmy savile was innocent in the police view

Is there a Godwin's Law equivalent for Saville? If not, there should be.

[Stagger]

Old saying,

"Rights, right
Wrongs, wrong
And shits any colour".

[Mike T]

Not in Durham Police's book.

"We have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention,” a statement said.

“Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing. Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis.

“Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.”

The "might" is because DC disputes this, and therefore only a Court of Law can actually decide on guilt or otherwise. As to the minor - it is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

[Graham Breeze]

"We have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention,” a statement said.

“Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing. Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis.

“Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.”

The "might" is because DC disputes this, and therefore only a Court of Law can actually decide on guilt or otherwise. As to the minor - it is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

And another view is that the police were not involved, all they have is anecdote, there are no "facts", they know it is all a waste of their time,...but they have to say something so they produce a meaningless and inherently contradictory statement larded with qualifications and hypotheticals to assuage the baying mob.

I almost feel sorry for them.

[Muddy Retriever]

As to the minor - it is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

No it isn’t, some offences are more serious than others. A shoplifter and a serial killer have both broken the law but you don’t consider them to be equally serious.

[Witton Park]

"We have concluded that there might have been a minor breach of the regulations that would have warranted police intervention,” a statement said.

“Durham Constabulary view this as minor because there was no apparent breach of social distancing. Had a Durham Constabulary police officer stopped Mr Cummings driving to or from Barnard Castle, the officer would have spoken to him, and, having established the facts, likely advised Mr Cummings to return to the address in Durham, providing advice on the dangers of travelling during the pandemic crisis.

“Had this advice been accepted by Mr Cummings, no enforcement action would have been taken.”

The "might" is because DC disputes this, and therefore only a Court of Law can actually decide on guilt or otherwise. As to the minor - it is a bit like being a little bit pregnant.

Come of it.

This statement followed a re-look after the Labour Police Commissioner asked them to and even then they could only come up with a "might".

And they might have stopped him and if he'd said that he was driving to Barnard Castle for a walk along the river they would have had no grounds to ask him to return based on the CPS guidance put out early April after a host of examples of the police (particularly in Derbyshire) going too far.

So they might, but probably wouldn't have.

[Witton Park]

And another view is that the police were not involved, all they have is anecdote, there are no "facts", they know it is all a waste of their time,...but they have to say something so they produce a meaningless and inherently contradictory statement larded with qualifications and hypotheticals to assuage the baying mob.

I almost feel sorry for them.

you put it better than I did except I think it was also to assuage the Labour Police Commissioner that requested they take a second look.

[Mike T]

No it isn’t, some offences are more serious than others. A shoplifter and a serial killer have both broken the law but you don’t consider them to be equally serious.

So are there "minor" serial killers? We are not comparing different laws that have been breached, but the degree to which a given law has been breached - IF such a distinction exists.

[Mike T]

From the Secret Barrister:

"Lots of excitement about “might”.

The reason for this is that the police don’t determine breaches; they form an opinion. If that opinion is disputed, a court will decide.

In this context, “might” means the police concluded it *was*. Hence they say they would have sent him back."