• @gmtom
    link
    32
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    I hate the cops as much as everyone but thats not what the ruling says at all.

    The case was thrown out not because the cope were doing anything illegal, but because their instructions to the protestors were so unclear they couldn’t be considered a lawful order.

    As well as the fact that the incompetent cops didn’t take statements from anyone so there’s no evidence to prove they violated section 14.

    Honestly part of me suspects the cops might have did it on purpose because they were ordered to stop it but didn’t really want to. But that’s probably giving them too much credit honestly, incompetence is the most likely answer.

    • Leraje
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1310 months ago

      the cops might have did it on purpose because they were ordered to stop it

      Yep.

      The UK gvmt have been increasingly cracking down on the right to protest. For example, during the proclamation of Charles coronation (royal officers go to towns and read an official proclamation out loud) a man who said (direct quote) “Not in my name” was arrested on a public order offence and dragged through the system until the CPS said they weren’t going to take it any further.

      At every turn the current Tory gvmt have urged the Police to be heavy handed with public order ‘offences’ and sort it out later.

    • Primarily0617
      link
      fedilink
      13
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      oopsy woopsy we made a little fucky boingo that dragged you through the criminal justice system through no fault of your own and at no cost to us, all because of an unknown mix of malice and incompetence

      oh well 🤷

      • @gmtom
        link
        110 months ago

        Well there is a law that they were in theory breaking.

        A shitty authoritarian law, but still a law.

        And the whole point of the criminal justice system is to interpret cases like these and interpret the law and decide if someone is culpable. This is what happens when you have a properly separated system where cops are not judge joury and executioner, so while cops need to have some understanding of the law, its not their job to make those finer interpretations when cases could or could not be illegal. It might seem dumb in this case, but if cops have that power it would allow them to selectively enforce the law and you would have them saying “oh I didn’t arrest the rapist because of this [nonexistent] technicality that makes it not a crime”

        • Primarily0617
          link
          fedilink
          010 months ago

          your argument is that the police need to be allowed to act with as much malice or incompetence as they like because if there was more oversight in the system they could choose to not arrest rapists?

          you’re saying that more oversight would lead to the police having more freedom to enforce the law as they see fit?

          • @gmtom
            link
            110 months ago

            No. And I would rather you didn’t purposefully misinterpret what am saying for the sake of trying to “win” a pointless internet argument like a redditor would.

            • Primarily0617
              link
              fedilink
              110 months ago

              you’re the one attempting to reframe “there should be more oversight on the police’s actions” as “the police should be granted more power to interpret the law as they see fit”

    • DarkThoughts
      link
      fedilink
      510 months ago

      Plausible deniability would certainly be a fun one. But as much as I am pro climate action, cops should generally be neutral. Otherwise it would be very hypocritical if cops acted on different kind of views that I don’t agree with. Either way, the system kinda worked as intended here. That’s a good thing.