New Tory Leader

[Herman 9,732]

19 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I suspect you'd have to be the equivalent of punch drunk and away with the fairies in la la land to keep on blindly supporting Johnson as he turns cartwheels every few hours/days/weeks. How else do you explain it?

Surely there must come a time when Kwasi/Grant/Tory MP find their dignity/integrity and say enough is enough?? 😀

[horsefly 4,288]

16 minutes ago, Herman said:

Surely there must come a time when Kwasi/Grant/Tory MP find their dignity/integrity and say enough is enough?? 😀

Kwasi will only say "enough is enough" when Boris tells him to say it.

[RobJames 880]

Owen Patterson should explain whether he introduced his late wife (the Chairman of Aintree) to Randox or whether he was introduced to Randox by his wife (they sponsored the Grand National Races she organised). Randox was awarded contracts worth £475m by the Government with no competitive process as a result of his introductions so it is a matter of public interest how they became associated. This is particularly the case if he maintains that the investigation of his dealings was a factor prompting his wife's suicide, and that his wife's suicide is prompting his resignation now.

[Herman 9,732]

18 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Kwasi will only say "enough is enough" when Boris tells him to say it.

[horsefly 4,288]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

You've changed font I see. But still up for a fight!

Any fair process in relation to serious matters should have a right to appeal. That is why, for instance, you have an employment tribunal and an employment appeals tribunal.   Or why you can appeal a criminal conviction in a higher court. There are any number of other examples of rights of appeal.  

I honestly cannot see why suggesting that a right of appeal should be part of a disciplinary process that is capable of handing out serious sanctions is remotely controversial. 

Also if there is an appeals process no one can really whine about how the ultimate decision is unfair. It adds credibility to the whole process.

I said nothing more and nothing less than this, so please stop with your continual attempts to put words in my mouth- It is rather annoying, or better still read my post and then hold your tongue.

What's the ECJ got to do with this?  why must everything be seen through the prism of brexit?

 

Perhaps you should take a look at the following site to see just how extensive and fair the process of dealing with Paterson's case has been:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/

It contains the following links to Paterson's specific case:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/158246/committee-on-standards-publish-report-on-the-conduct-of-rt-hon-owen-paterson-mp/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmstandards/797/79702.htm

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7647/documents/79909/default/

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7647/documents/79909/default/

Once you've read those I would love to hear where and how you think Paterson has been mistreated.

[Barbe bleu 816]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Perhaps you should take a look at the following site to see just how extensive and fair the process of dealing with Paterson's case has been:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/

It contains the following links to Paterson's specific case:

https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/news/158246/committee-on-standards-publish-report-on-the-conduct-of-rt-hon-owen-paterson-mp/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5802/cmselect/cmstandards/797/79702.htm

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7647/documents/79909/default/

https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/7647/documents/79909/default/

Once you've read those I would love to hear where and how you think Paterson has been mistreated.

I might look at these but as he has walked  I am not sure it matters much now.

Just in case you are slowly turning into the other poster....  I have never commented on the facts of the case or the decision  I suspect  that the original decision was fair and proper and I dont suppose that his case to an appeal would be successful.

The point I was making is about procedure and could apply to any case that goes this way.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[Well b back 3,190]

So did Boris want the Paterson thing to protect himself ?. Does it ever end ?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59163689

[horsefly 4,288]

3 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I might look at these but as he has walked  I am not sure it matters much now.

Just in case you are slowly turning into the other poster....  I have never commented on the facts of the case or the decision  I suspect  that the original decision was fair and proper and I dont suppose that his case to an appeal would be successful.

The point I was making is about procedure and could apply to any case that goes this way.

I was merely referring you to the extensive range of material which demonstrates that the procedures followed by the committee on standards are indeed fair and just. Paterson's claims that he has not had fair treatment are entirely without foundation. As Keir Starmer has pointed out, Paterson has indeed exercised his right to appeal (including representation by his lawyers) and the cross-party committee unanimously found absolutely nothing in his responses to the report from Stone that undermined her verdict that he was guilty of many egregious breaches of the rules regarding paid lobbying. 

If anyone is willing to support Tory claims that the current investigative processes are unfair they should at least have some understanding of what those processes in investigating cases through the offices of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, and the related Committee on Standards, ,actually involve. I think you will find reading the links I have provided will demonstrate very clearly that those accused of breaching parliamentary rules have a more than adequate opportunity to respond to, and appeal against, the accusations made against them.

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

46 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

I might look at these but as he has walked  I am not sure it matters much now.

Just in case you are slowly turning into the other poster....  I have never commented on the facts of the case or the decision  I suspect  that the original decision was fair and proper and I dont suppose that his case to an appeal would be successful.

The point I was making is about procedure and could apply to any case that goes this way.

The point you were making was that there should be a right of appeal in the system and that Paterson had been denied such a right, whereas the truth is that there is a right of appeal, which Paterson used, and had the guilty verdict confirmed.

[ricardo 7,350]

Genius from Matt as usual

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

2 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

You've changed font I see. But still up for a fight!

Any fair process in relation to serious matters should have a right to appeal. That is why, for instance, you have an employment tribunal and an employment appeals tribunal.   Or why you can appeal a criminal conviction in a higher court. There are any number of other examples of rights of appeal.  

I honestly cannot see why suggesting that a right of appeal should be part of a disciplinary process that is capable of handing out serious sanctions is remotely controversial. 

Also if there is an appeals process no one can really whine about how the ultimate decision is unfair. It adds credibility to the whole process.

I said nothing more and nothing less than this, so please stop with your continual attempts to put words in my mouth- It is rather annoying, or better still read my post and then hold your tongue.

What's the ECJ got to do with this?  why must everything be seen through the prism of brexit?

 

The suggestion of the ECJ was intended to be ludicrous to chime with the ludicrousness of your own dissembling post.

You can repeat 'Any fair process in relation to serious matters should have a right to appeal' as often as you like - that is your opinion (perhaps) but it doesn't make it right.

IMO you are wrong and your Government seems to agree with me since it has 11 years in which to correct this rather fundamental flaw in your view and yet has taken no action until all of a sudden this corrupt government decides they want to protect 'one of their own' from the consequences of his indisputeably corrupt conduct.

Perhaps you would also care to explain why even if the system needed some reform to introduce a right to appeal, for example, that it wasn't done properly rather than ramming through an amendment with no consultation and a 3 line whip to avoid a particular MP receiving a very light but also very well deserved suspension - a 30 day suspension, a tiny rap on the knuckles for an offence which as others have pointed out would have brought criminal charges in most other walks of life.

Most of all I would like you to explain why it was right to try and change the rules applying to this case retrospectively when all our legal and parliamentary principles forbid the idea making retrospective changes to process and the law. If you recall with the MP Rob Davies, another Tory scumbag who picked up a 12 week suspension but wasn't landed with a recall petition because of a technicality which even the Government acknowledged needed fixing. But nevertheless they insisted that nothing could be done in his case because they couldn't act retrospectively.

That was when a Tory scumbug was getting away with it, but when another Tory scumbag is going to get his just deserts (or at least some mild retribution) it turns out they can act retrospectively.

You attempted defence of this rank corruption is sad and pathetic.

[Yellow Fever 3,750]

6 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The point you were making was that there should be a right of appeal in the system and that Paterson had been denied such a right, whereas the truth is that there is a right of appeal, which Paterson used, and had the guilty verdict confirmed.

There is it seems very little wrong with the existing system. An investigation and finally an independent panel of piers to judge (and to which any MP can make personal representation). I actually don't see how it could be materially improved.

No, Paterson was found guilty by his piers fair and square but the government tried to subjugate and change the judgment. Guilty as charged.

[Barbe bleu 816]

47 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

The point you were making was that there should be a right of appeal in the system and that Paterson had been denied such a right, whereas the truth is that there is a right of appeal, which Paterson used, and had the guilty verdict confirmed.

If there were two distinct tribunals to which both the MP (whoever that may be)  and the investigating and 'charging' authority can make representations, and if a clear decision came out of the first tribunal against which an appeal could be made, then that would be satisfactory to my mind.

It would be slightly different if there were an investigatory phase leading to a recommendation/charges and then a single decision hearing proper. 

In the first example this would be akin to the police charging the defendant, it going to a crown or magistrates' court and with  the option of taking it to the next court up available to the defendant in the event that it doesn't go their way in the hearing.

In the second example it would be akin to the police charging and then the matter being finally determined by the first tribunal. To my mind that is not satisfactory - the investigator should not be considered as an independent tribunal, its simply too difficult for an investigator, no matter how professional and competent they may be to maintain sufficient impartiality for this to be permitted.

In all other walks of life we invariably have two post-investigatory tribunals for good reason.

Unfortunately reporting on this isn't very strong on detail, only the politics, leaving very little for the impartial observer to base a judgement on. If there were three phases, investigation , first tier tribunal, appeal tribunal then the current system has the bones of something I would agree with and I might struggle to see what purpose fundamental  reform would  serve or why there would be a vote for it.

And I repeat............ I actually trust the decision of the first tribunal.  My contribution is solely to what a fair and impartial disciplinary procedure might look like if it were being  built from scratch and we wished to balance the public interest in maintaining standards with protection of the accused.

 

 

[horsefly 4,288]

Earlier this morning Kwasi Kwarteng was calling for the Commissioner for Standards to "consider her position" on the grounds that, “It’s up to her to do that. I mean, it’s up to anyone where they’ve made a judgment and people have sought to change that, to consider their position, that’s a natural thing" 

Well Kwasi, you made a judgement to vote for saving Paterson's neck and people have subsequently sought to change that. Can we expect to see the anouncement of your resignation imminently? Obviously you wouldn't want to be considered a hypocrite, so let me be the first to wish you well outside of the world of politics for which you have demonstrated yourself to be so ill-suited.

[horsefly 4,288]

2 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

If there were two distinct tribunals to which both the MP (whoever that may be)  and the investigating and 'charging' authority can make representations, and if a clear decision came out of the first tribunal against which an appeal could be made, then that would be satisfactory to my mind.

It would be slightly different if there were an investigatory phase leading to a recommendation/charges and then a single decision hearing proper. 

In the first example this would be akin to the police charging the defendant, it going to a crown or magistrates' court and with  the option of taking it to the next court up available to the defendant in the event that it doesn't go their way in the hearing.

In the second example it would be akin to the police charging and then the matter being finally determined by the first tribunal. To my mind that is not satisfactory - the investigator should not be considered as an independent tribunal, its simply too difficult for an investigator, no matter how professional and competent they may be to maintain sufficient impartiality for this to be permitted.

In all other walks of life we invariably have two post-investigatory tribunals for good reason.

Unfortunately reporting on this isn't very strong on detail, only the politics, leaving very little for the impartial observer to base a judgement on. If there were three phases, investigation , first tier tribunal, appeal tribunal then the current system has the bones of something I would agree with and I might struggle to see what purpose fundamental  reform would  serve or why there would be a vote for it.

And I repeat............ I actually trust the decision of the first tribunal.  My contribution is solely to what a fair and impartial disciplinary procedure might look like if it were being  built from scratch and we wished to balance the public interest in maintaining standards with protection of the accused.

 

 

You really do need to read the links I provided above if you want to comment seriously and accurately on the processes that the Commissioner for Standards, and the Committee for Standards follow in their investigations and judgements.

[Barbe bleu 816]

27 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You really do need to read the links I provided above if you want to comment seriously and accurately on the processes that the Commissioner for Standards, and the Committee for Standards follow in their investigations and judgements.

Happy for you to summarise them.

If there are three 'phases' like in a criminal case I'd probably think that was sufficient.

 

[Barbe bleu 816]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

There is it seems very little wrong with the existing system. An investigation and finally an independent panel of piers to judge (and to which any MP can make personal representation). I actually don't see how it could be materially improved.

Ched Evans formerly of this parish was found guilty after an investigation and an independent panel of his peers.  He is probably quite glad that someone thought another layer of scrutiny after the crown court would improve things. 

 

[horsefly 4,288]

Just now, Barbe bleu said:

Happy for you to summarise them.

If there are three 'phases' like in a criminal case I'd probably think that was sufficient.

 

I'm afraid t's your responsibility to educate yourself about the actual processes involved if you wish to comment on them accurately rather than speculate about what goes on. Why not treat yourself to reading the record of the meeting where Paterson turns up with his lawyers to appeal against the findings of the Stone report .

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

9 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Happy for you to summarise them.

If there are three 'phases' like in a criminal case I'd probably think that was sufficient.

 

What are the three equivalent phases in a criminal case?

[sonyc 5,493]

This could get very interesting!!!

Bring it on. A coalition of the centre and left.

[Barbe bleu 816]

31 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

What are the three equivalent phases in a criminal case?

(1) Police investigation leading to charges.  (2) Trial in the Magistrates' or Crown Court and then (3) appeals upwards (a criminal case might ultimately go as far as a request for a Supreme Court hearing).

Even a minor matter could go through five stages before being finally determined (more if you don't ignore the ECHR and appeals on points of law).

Our judicial and quasi judicial systems come with a lot of built-in protections to the individual. Ultimately these benefit not just the individual but society as a whole and ensure the highest possible faith in the eventual outcome.

Five stages is going to be overkill on this but investigation, hearing  and final appeal seems appropriate.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[horsefly 4,288]

16 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

Ched Evans formerly of this parish was found guilty after an investigation and an independent panel of his peers.  He is probably quite glad that someone thought another layer of scrutiny after the crown court would improve things. 

 

Leaving aside the obvious objection that a criminal trial is significantly different from an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee for Standards, let's indulge your comparison for a moment. In criminal cases an appeal is not an automatic right, a case has to be made for why a particular judgement of a jury should be reviewed. The case for an appeal is considered by a judge(s) to see if it has any merit. Paterson availed himself of very much the same sort of process when he attended, along with his two lawyers, a meeting of the Committee for Standards to respond to the report produced by the Commissioner Kathryn Stone (Feel free to read the full transcript of the meeting which I linked above). The (independent) committee unanimously judged that Paterson's objections to Stone's report had no merit and confirmed her original findings to be safe; very much like a judge might confirm an original trial and verdict of a jury to be safe when she refuses the application for an appeal. The simple fact is Paterson had a fair hearing and was unable to demonstrate that his conviction for multiple breaches of parliamentary regulations on lobbying was anything other than overwhelmingly proved (again, read the report detailing his many and clear breaches of the rules). Rees-Bogg's claim that the process of scrutinising parliamentary misconduct is unfair to MPs is simply nonsense on stilts (to quote Bentham) and nothing more than an ill-disguised attempt to distract from the corruption and sleaze endemic within this Tory government.

[Herman 9,732]

48 minutes ago, sonyc said:

This could get very interesting!!!

Bring it on. A coalition of the centre and left.

Gary Neville??

[Barbe bleu 816]

24 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Leaving aside the obvious objection that a criminal trial is significantly different from an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee for Standards, let's indulge your comparison for a moment. In criminal cases an appeal is not an automatic right, a case has to be made for why a particular judgement of a jury should be reviewed. The case for an appeal is considered by a judge(s) to see if it has any merit. Paterson availed himself of very much the same sort of process when he attended, along with his two lawyers, a meeting of the Committe.

How many times do I have to say that I have no reason to doubt the decision in this case!!!? I appreciate you want to make political hay of this, I'm not stopping you but please do not misrepresent what I have said as a defence of Mr Paterson.

My post is not about this particular decision but about what a fair disciplinary procedure would look like.

I'm  not sure I agree with your analysis of rights of appeal either.  A defendant has an automatic right of a full appeal hearing against a decision made in the Magistrates' Court.   Leave is indeed required to take it from Crown to CoA or CoA to Supreme Court but the application is nevertheless considered by an impartial judge or judges who will grant  once the for a full hearing if the case is arguable

In effect then you can go 'one above' as of right.

We've been talking about criminal law but employment law also had a three stage process.   Investigation (by employer) leading to a 'charge',   independent employment  tribunal, employment appeals tribunal for points of law.

Be honest, if we were talking not of a Standards Commissioner investigation but of a police investigation would you be so keen to abolish the higher courts and accept that the police are entirely impartial and not prone to any form of conscious or unconscious biases? Given your past comments I suspect not.

Edited November 4, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

36 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

(1) Police investigation leading to charges.  (2) Trial in the Magistrates' or Crown Court and then (3) appeals upwards (a criminal case might ultimately go as far as a request for a Supreme Court hearing).

Even a minor matter could go through five stages before being finally determined (more if you don't ignore the ECHR and appeals on points of law).

Our judicial and quasi judicial systems come with a lot of built-in protections to the individual. Ultimately these benefit not just the individual but society as a whole and ensure the highest possible faith in the eventual outcome.

Five stages is going to be overkill on this but investigation, hearing  and final appeal seems appropriate.

I thought that was was you were going to claim. It isn’t the same. The police try to amass enough evidence for a prosecution and if they think they have that they will charge the person. But the first time all the evidence, for the prosecution and the defense, is tested with examination and cross-examination, and assessed independently, by the jury, with expert guidance from the judge, is at trial, with a verdict produced on guilt or innocence. Then therecan be an appeal.

it is essentially the same with this parliamentary process. A case for the prosecution, as it were, can be put forward by an interested party, but the first time you have  the equivalent of a criminal trial, with all the evidence being judged, is when the. Commissioner  looks into the case, and delivers a verdict. And then there can be an appeal.

I have come to this quite late, but as far as I can see you based your argument on the idea that there was no appeal built into the system and on being told there was you have indulged in all manner of dissembling to avoid admitting you were wrong on what you had made the key matter of fact.

[Barbe bleu 816]

15 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

I thought that was was you were going to claim. It isn’t the same. The police try to amass enough evidence for a prosecution and if they think they have that they will charge the person. But the first time all the evidence, for the prosecution and the defense, is tested with examination and cross-examination, and assessed independently, by the jury, with expert guidance from the judge, is at trial, with a verdict produced on guilt or innocence. Then therecan be an appeal.

it is essentially the same with this parliamentary process. A case for the prosecution, as it were, can be put forward by an interested party, but the first time you have  the equivalent of a criminal trial, with all the evidence being judged, is when the. Commissioner  looks into the case, and delivers a verdict. And then there can be an appeal.

I have come to this quite late, but as far as I can see you based your argument on the idea that there was no appeal built into the system and on being told there was you have indulged in all manner of dissembling to avoid admitting you were wrong on what you had made the key matter of fact.

The Standards Commissioner here launched her own investigation and in effect did the exact same thing the police would do: gathered evidence, weighed it in the balance and came to a decision on charges. She is the Standards police, she is not a tribunal.  That's not a criticism at all, just a reflection of the facts of the matter as I see them.

If there is a real difference between the two it is the the police must also convince the CPS of the case. 

Perhaps it's time to agree to disagree (and i doubt anyone in power reads the dark and sad side of  a regional football forum).

I think the  investigator /police are not sufficiently impartial to be considered as an indepenant tribunal, you believe that they, or at least the Commissioner, is.

I believe that if there is doubt over protection levels then more should be built in, you disagree that there is any issue over the protection of individual rights

These are  judgement calls and there are no right or wrong ways of looking  at them so it's pointless going on trying  to convince each other of absolutes.

Maybe in the final analysis you just have more faith in institutions than I do and maybe I have grown into a cynical lefty in my old age

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2021 by Barbe bleu

[PurpleCanary 5,555]

Guy Adams in the Mail has an excellent forensic summary of just why Paterson was absolutely guilty, and incidentally makes the point that at the time of his wife’s suicide and for a long time afterwards Paterson never linked that to the accusations against him. That came much more recently.

[horsefly 4,288]

Just now, Barbe bleu said:

How many times do I have to say that I have no reason to doubt the decision in this case!!!? I appreciate you want to make political hay of this, I'm not stopping you but please do not misrepresent what I have said as a defence of Mr Paterson.

My post is not about this particular decision but about what a fair disciplinary procedure would look like.

I'm  not sure I agree with your analysis of rights of appeal either.  A defendant has an automatic right of a full appeal gearimg against a decision made in the Magistrates' Court.   Leave is indeed required to take it from Crown to CoA or CoA to Supreme Court but the application is nevertheless considered by an impartial judge or judges who will grant  once the for a full hearing if the case is arguable

In effect then you can go 'one above' as of right.

We've been talking about criminal law but employment law also had a three stage process.   Investigation (by employer) leading to a 'charge',   independent employment  tribunal, employment appeals tribunal for points of law.

Be honest, if we were talking not of a Standards Commissioner investigation but of a police investigation would you be so keen to abolish the higher courts and accept that the police are entirely impartial and not prone to any form of conscious or unconscious biases? Given your past comments I suspect not.

How many times do I have to say that the Paterson case should be read as an example to see how in EVERY case the Commissioner and Committee conduct the process of investigating MP misconduct. You are clearly not reading my posts correctly and are clearly too lazy to read the actual reports that I have linked. 

As for your claim:

'Im  not sure I agree with your analysis of rights of appeal either.  A defendant has an automatic right of a full appeal gearimg against a decision made in the Magistrates' Court.   Leave is indeed required to take it from Crown to CoA or CoA to Supreme Court but the application is nevertheless considered by an impartial judge or judges who will grant  once the for a full hearing if the case is arguable

You have in substance just repeated EXACTLY my claim that there is no automatic right to an appeal in a criminal case. A case has to be made for an appeal to be approved by an independent judge who can REJECT the application for an appeal hearing. The Committee for Standards is precisely an INDEPENDENT panel constituted by members of all the main parties and a MAJORITY of lay-persons. They listen to the case put forward by the accused and make an independent judgement regarding the fairness of the Commissioner's report.

As for your final point:

Be honest, if we were talking not of a Standards Commissioner investigation but of a police investigation would you be so keen to abolish the higher courts and accept that the police are entirely impartial and not prone to any form of conscious or unconscious biases? Given your past comments I suspect not.

This is both absurd and irrelevant. Where have I said there shouldn't be a right to appeal? My whole bloody point is that the current process for investigating MP misconduct does indeed include an appeal process. The EXAMPLE of Paterson's case demonstrates perfectly that he was given the opportunity (lawyers in tow)  to respond to the judgements that had been made about his conduct point by point. Try reading the actual reports. Paterson's EXAMPLE is true of the process in ALL cases. Finally the Committee for Standards is NOT remotely comparable to a body like the police. The Committee is constituted by members of all the main parties and a majority of lay-persons who are NOT MPs at all. Hard to see how you can constitute a more unbiased and impartial committee than that. Here is a link to its current membership (not that you're likely to bother clicking on it)

 https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/290/committee-on-standards/membership

[Barbe bleu 816]

5 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Guy Adams in the Mail has an excellent forensic summary of just why Paterson was absolutely guilty, and incidentally makes the point that at the time of his wife’s suicide and for a long time afterwards Paterson never linked that to the accusations against him. That came much more recently.

I dont know if that was addressed to me.  If so, then I can only repeat that I think he probably was guilty of breaching the rules.   Even of it wasn't addressed to me I can say with some certainty that you are preaching to the converted!

[Creative Midfielder 1,985]

10 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

The Standards Commissioner here launched her own investigation and in effect did the exact same thing the police would do: gathered evidence, weighed it in the balance and came to a decision on charges. She is the Standards police, she is not a tribunal.  That's not a criticism at all, just a reflection of the facts of the matter as I see them.

If there is a real difference between the two it is the the police must also convince the CPS of the case. 

Perhaps it's time to agree to disagree (and i doubt anyone in power reads the dark and sad side of  a regional football forum).

I think the  investigator /police are not sufficiently impartial to be considered as an indepenant tribunal, you believe that they, or at least the Commissioner, is.

I believe that if there is doubt over protection levels then more should be built in, you disagree that there is any issue over the protection of individual rights

These are  judgement calls and there are no right or wrong ways of looking  at them so it's pointless going on trying  to convince each other of absolutes.

Maybe in the final analysis you just have more faith in institutions than I do and maybe I have grown into a cynical lefty in my old age

Pathetic and sad, but I'm happy to be able to re-assure you that you most definitely have not grown into any sort of leftie 😂

Quite the opposite in fact, your right wing credentials are burnished each and every time you take up arms to attempt to defend the indefensible actions of this corrupt government, even persisting when it seems that all your fellow travellers have realised the futility of trying to polish this particular t*rd.