Ceri Black update on invitation to interview v. arrest

She’s an absolute warrior and her courage is inspiring.

I always wonder where posters like Blueberry, Barley, Margarita etc are on threads like this.

I presume they are too busy on other threads saying "it didn't happen" or "if it did it was her fault" and "it's not a big deal" and "well you lot deserve it anyway"

The process is the punishment and the chilling effect is the goal.

The police are being used to harrass women who say no to men.

At what point does this become harassment?

The first time they said the interview would be under caution (so not a voluntary one she could leave at any time). Her legal advice for her particular case was do not go voluntarily for an interview under caution. If was going to be under caution wait for them to arrest you.

This may not apply to other cases. E.g. if you’ve been accused of theft but can prove you were nowhere near the area at the time it makes sense go to to a voluntary interview. But not in this situation.

This is insane.

More flowers for Ceri.

Another update.

UPDATE: I've been informed that another complaint has been made about me to police.

PSNI didn't bother to threaten arrest this time, they're passing it straight on to the prosecution service.

If i want to know who made the complaint, i have to go for interview

It'll be interesting to see whether they come out to read me my rights again. If it is an entirely separate complaint, i guess they will have to.

In the mean time, don't worry about me - if there's not enough evidence to arrest me, there's not enough evidence to prosecute.

All of which means that I'm not going to see the inside of a courtroom, let alone a prison cell, over all this.

twitter.com/FemmeLoves/status/1484277277315584002

Great piece here:

thecritic.co.uk/prisoner-of-conscience

If I'm getting this right, the police have tried to interview her about an alleged offence.

They can do this - if there is no necessity to arrest (so no immediate threat, harm, risk and they are satisfied of the identity of the person) they can do this as a voluntary interview.

This will allow the person an opportunity to put their side of the story across - we have the complaints side of the story - its only fair to get the 'accused' persons side of the story too - or at least to give them the opportunity to do this.

The interview is voluntary and as the persons is not under arrest, they can leave at any point - however if they do this, then we only have the complaints side of the story to go on.

Certain offences can be charge with police making the charging decision, whereas others need to go through CPS.

I don’t understand what’s gone on here.

The police should only read you rights if they are arresting you or interviewing you under caution.

Coming to a woman’s house to read her rights before informing her that her file is being sent to the CPS, is very odd.

Normally they just pass to the CPS regardless and it’s them who make a charging decision. Was this about giving you a chance to say something?

I wonder if, eventually the SW infiltration of the Police both NI and teh rest of the UK, will become something like the Freemason scandals. Just one of the many reviews etc that happened from 1960's to end of 1990's publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199899/cmselect/cmhaff/467/46703.htm

I may have missed it, but what was the specific offence they wanted to interview her for?

And what was the harassment she received from PSNI?

I'll just add to this.

My DH used to be a police officer, many decades ago. A few years ago he had reason to make a complaint about a police officer. Rather than demand he be sacked/reduced-in-rank and that my DH be paid compensation - all the usual kinds of demands from aggrieved members-of-the-public, he suggested rather that if the complaint was upheld, he would be happy if the constable was simply spoken-to by a senior officer. He noted that he would not expect or demand an apology, nor would not publicise the incident and subsequent investigation.

And indeed that is precisely what happened. He received a phone call from the relevant Professional Services department to say that the officer had indeed been spoken-to.

In reality that meant the officers 'cards had been marked'. He might have just made it to Sergeant, but his chances of promotion beyond that would be blocked; he'd never be trusted with an important role.

I've no evidence, but I don't reckon the senior management of PSNI were aware, at least up until recently, about the harassment Ceri was getting from some officers.

Hence the recent announcement of a 'review' of the relationship with Stonewall.

I reckon Ceri has been harassed by a cabal of 'Stonewalled' PSNI officers. Conceivably that cabal could include Public Prosecution Service (the equivalent of the CPS) staff, but there's no evidence of it yet, and Ceri hasn't actually been subject to a charge, let alone an interview under caution.

It does rather sound like an effort to shut-her-up, which has patently failed, leaving the cabal with the choice of backing-down or trying a more threatening stance (the caution) which ratchets-up the risk to them even more of being exposed. They've chosen the latter, and it has failed.

I would recommend she and her solicitor consider a complaint to the PSNI's Professional Standards Department, which if accepted, might be willing to investigate and uncover that cabal. Certainly that would be a get-out for the PSNI; that some officers were engaged in unauthorised activity against a citizen. If not accepted, it would lumber the PSNI's senior management with an association with the harassment-to-date, which would be tough to wriggle out of later.

It might be possible for Ceri's solicitor and herself to come to an agreement whereby the cabal are addressed by Professional Standards, she signs an NDA and some recompence comes her way and/or to a favourite charity. I would recommend a channel-of-communication with PSNI beyond those she has been contacted by to date.

The PSNI and Ceri would be winners from such an arrangement, and the NDA would save any embarrassment. It should be noted that Paisley has canned his Twitter account, though that might simply be because he needs to secure employment, and it would be a struggle for any HR department responsible for female staff to be able to approve his recruitment.

The actions-to-date sound decidedly weird. Weird enough for a Chief Constable to wonder what the heck was going on in his own Force. For-the-moment I think it is reasonable to assume that if he knew, he wouldn't approve of the actions of some of his officers with respect to their harassing of Ceri.

I've just read the original blog post. Brava, Ceri, brava!

Ceri

Ceri, thank you for your strength.

It's wonderful to see you on here, Ceri. Glad that you're keeping strong.

I imagine the prosecutor will throw this ridiculous case out very quickly and, with any luck, will tell the police to find more important matters to get on with. But you never know.

Has there been any coverage of your case in the NI media at all?

@CeriBlack we’ve got your back x

Strength to you, Ceri.

Do I infer correctly that the "complainant" is the same man who was offended by ribbons at a bus stop, or have I got that wrong?