CPS-''Can criminal prosecution of senior police,ever be justified?'

[b***@hotmail.com]

Taken from an article in last Sunday's Observer.

If this is the CPS approach,then senior police are bullet
proof!!!!!!!!!!!!

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1821660,00.html

[Alex Heney]

Post by b***@hotmail.com
Taken from an article in last Sunday's Observer.
If this is the CPS approach,then senior police are bullet
proof!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1821660,00.html

Your headline text is not in that article anywhere.

[a***@yahoo.co.uk]

Post by Alex Heney

Post by b***@hotmail.com
Taken from an article in last Sunday's Observer.
If this is the CPS approach,then senior police are bullet
proof!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1821660,00.html

Your headline text is not in that article anywhere.

"Prosecutors knew that securing a manslaughter conviction
in such cases was notoriously difficult. Plus, they asked,
could criminal charges against high-profile police officers
ever be in the public interest?"

And they were right. It would not be in the public interest
to do anything that might have a chilling effect on the way
that the police protects the public from terrorist suspects.
Even the suggested prosecution under the Health and Safety
at Work Act is foolish in that respect as it might make
the officer in charge of an operation to hestitate in future
with possibly fatal results.





--
Oh Fatherland, Fatherland, show us a sign
Your children are waiting to see!
The morning will come when the world is mine!
Tomorrow belongs to me!

[Alex Heney]

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk

Post by Alex Heney

Post by b***@hotmail.com
Taken from an article in last Sunday's Observer.
If this is the CPS approach,then senior police are bullet
proof!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1821660,00.html

Your headline text is not in that article anywhere.

"Prosecutors knew that securing a manslaughter conviction
in such cases was notoriously difficult. Plus, they asked,
could criminal charges against high-profile police officers
ever be in the public interest?"

Right.

I searched for the word "justified".

I'd like to know where the Guardian got that information (assuming
they didn't just make it up).

Post by a***@yahoo.co.uk
And they were right. It would not be in the public interest
to do anything that might have a chilling effect on the way
that the police protects the public from terrorist suspects.
Even the suggested prosecution under the Health and Safety
at Work Act is foolish in that respect as it might make
the officer in charge of an operation to hestitate in future
with possibly fatal results.

You know, when you repeat this stuff as often as you do, many people
might well think you actually mean it.

Sarcasm doesn't work very well in a text only media at the best of
times.