If police make an arrest, which does not result in a charge, they leave themselves open to being sued for False Arrest.
In other words, police are not free to take people's liberty on a whim, and then say - My bad.
Despite what TV shows may program us into believing.
The act of arrest, is the act of a policeman placing himself in legal jeopardy.
He must now, put up or shut up.
If he realizes he doesn't have enough evidence to justify the arrest in the first place, he is in a very difficult position.
If he charges, without sufficient evidence, he is breaking the law.
If he releases the arrested party, he is admitting he broke the law.
On the other hand, the more the law is broken, the more it will be broken.
If no-one questions the legality of this kind of over the top, Nazi behaviour, it will continue and probably worsen.
The station that arrested Bernie is probably holding their breath and hoping for the clock to run out before she makes a complaint.
If a complaint is made, it will have to be looked into.
But time is of the essence. There are often deadlines.
Perhaps the Police Complaints Authority, or the Ombudsman, or an honest lawyer friend who won't charge to give information, would be a good starting point for Bernie.
But I think she should make a complaint about being arrested and denied her liberty for 36 hours (which is no small thing) when it appears there was clearly insufficient evidence to charge.
She has, in effect, been found guilty without evidence, and sentenced to a one and a half day prison sentence, then told to go home, because there is no evidence of wrong doing.
Police are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions, in which they arrest people, just to see what they say.
There is no such thing as - Arrested for Questioning.
They are not supposed to arrest, unless they already have sufficient evidence to charge, BEFORE the arrest is made.
So you see, the act of arresting, holding for 36 hours, then releasing without charge, is an admission that the arrest was unlawful.
I don't want to 'guilt trip' Bernie.
But, if abused women don't complain, their abusers will be encouraged.
And there will be more.
Some policemen are Reasonable Men.
And others are not very bright, sick, abusive, individuals who are attracted to uniforms, and badges, and power, and handcuffs, and truncheons, and pepper spray, and sirens, and get off on having power over women.
This is why there is a Police Complaints Authority.
Because serving, fully trained, sworn police officers of almost all ranks, were one day drawing their pay and enjoying the good life, and the next were being charged with rape.
The first line of defence is not the police.
Would you really trust them to police themselves ?
The first line of defence is we the people.
We pay their wages.
And we must flag it up when they overstep the mark.
Dear David
If police make an arrest, which does not result in a charge, they leave themselves open to being sued for False Arrest.
In other words, police are not free to take people's liberty on a whim, and then say - My bad.
Despite what TV shows may program us into believing.
The act of arrest, is the act of a policeman placing himself in legal jeopardy.
He must now, put up or shut up.
If he realizes he doesn't have enough evidence to justify the arrest in the first place, he is in a very difficult position.
If he charges, without sufficient evidence, he is breaking the law.
If he releases the arrested party, he is admitting he broke the law.
On the other hand, the more the law is broken, the more it will be broken.
If no-one questions the legality of this kind of over the top, Nazi behaviour, it will continue and probably worsen.
The station that arrested Bernie is probably holding their breath and hoping for the clock to run out before she makes a complaint.
If a complaint is made, it will have to be looked into.
But time is of the essence. There are often deadlines.
Perhaps the Police Complaints Authority, or the Ombudsman, or an honest lawyer friend who won't charge to give information, would be a good starting point for Bernie.
But I think she should make a complaint about being arrested and denied her liberty for 36 hours (which is no small thing) when it appears there was clearly insufficient evidence to charge.
She has, in effect, been found guilty without evidence, and sentenced to a one and a half day prison sentence, then told to go home, because there is no evidence of wrong doing.
Police are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions, in which they arrest people, just to see what they say.
There is no such thing as - Arrested for Questioning.
They are not supposed to arrest, unless they already have sufficient evidence to charge, BEFORE the arrest is made.
So you see, the act of arresting, holding for 36 hours, then releasing without charge, is an admission that the arrest was unlawful.
I don't want to 'guilt trip' Bernie.
But, if abused women don't complain, their abusers will be encouraged.
And there will be more.
Some policemen are Reasonable Men.
And others are not very bright, sick, abusive, individuals who are attracted to uniforms, and badges, and power, and handcuffs, and truncheons, and pepper spray, and sirens, and get off on having power over women.
This is why there is a Police Complaints Authority.
Because serving, fully trained, sworn police officers of almost all ranks, were one day drawing their pay and enjoying the good life, and the next were being charged with rape.
The first line of defence is not the police.
Would you really trust them to police themselves ?
The first line of defence is we the people.
We pay their wages.
And we must flag it up when they overstep the mark.
As the Jungle Doctor said -
Little tigers, become big tigers,
and big tigers kill.
God Bless
Yes, however Bernie did speak to them. She should not have done so.
I didn't realise it was her.