24 hours in police custody...

[randomuntrainedcuntowner]

Do you think he did it?

I am very suspicious of a man who would take on an alcoholic and the ration her alcohol. It's very controlling. And he is so odd.

Of course he gave his consent regarding filming/broadcasting - would he have allowed them in his house for the final interviews otherwise? He also had a solicitor present as mentioned as you see their legs in shot but they didn't focus on the solicitor as it wasn't the usual no comment interview where the solicitor has to keep reminding them to keep their mouth shut.

For those who are outraged that they kept him in for 36 hours with no evidence, that's precisely how it works. If they have reasonable grounds for suspicion, they take that person into custody to preserve evidence (stop them disposing things, talking to people, disappearing etc.) and question them.

It's then a 24 hour race to collect the evidence to prove (or not) sufficiently that there is enough evidence to charge.

If there isn't, the CPS say they cannot charge and have to release on bail. If there is, the CPS give the charge. If it's unclear but still a possibility that the suspect is guilty, the CPS grants the 12 hour extension for further questioning/evidence gathering. That decision isn't made by the police.

If there isn't, the CPS say they cannot charge and have to release on bail. If there is, the CPS give the charge. If it's unclear but still a possibility that the suspect is guilty, the CPS grants the 12 hour extension for further questioning/evidence gathering. That decision isn't made by the police.

If that is the case (the bold (hopefully) bit), that was not the impression the senior police officer gave when he extended the 12 hours. He said that he had granted permission to hold the suspect for a further 12 hours.

In this case, though, there seemed pitifully little evidence to arrest the suspect on, other than the police thought he was a bit dodgy and had possible motive.

I am just not convinced people give permission to be filmed in this series. There are people charged with unpleasant crimes and are they really consenting for this to be broadcast to the whole nation?

From the Radio Times:

'But what if a villain who hasn’t consented wants to keep his guilty face off the TV screens? “We have to balance the suspect’s right to privacy with the public’s right to know,” says Ford. Just as local newspaper reporters sit in court and publish the names of the guilty, “in cases where someone doesn’t want to be on the programme, we might decide it’s in the public interest for that person to be seen.'

Personally I think that there is a huge difference between publishing a name and making entertainment of the worst hours of people's lives. It really is a modern version of the stocks.

@larrygrylls the CPS make the decisions. Getting a charging decision takes ages of sitting on hold on a phone. They rarely show that for obvious reasons

Another,

I don't disbelieve you. Why didn't the officer then say that the CPS had granted them permission for another 12 hours; self aggrandizing? I assume the officer would be obliged to show the suspect a document with this permission, too?

Again, although I find this series quite addictive, I do feel disquiet about it. It is car-crash TV. And, if it is going to be on at all, I do feel that processes should be shown truthfully and explained clearly.

I can't remember precisely what was said. Also it's a TV series. They cut out hours/days/weeks of investigation and paperwork and to fit it into an hour slot.

He was the last person to see a dead woman alive. It was a relationship with domestic violence and the police had been called to that previously on numerous occasions. I can’t believe posters are claiming he shouldn’t have been arrested and questioned, wtf?! A woman was dead. Imagine her family’s feelings in all of this.

You can question someone by appointment and without arresting them.

The CPS don’t make the decision to extend the detention by a further 12 hours; this can be authorised by an officer at the rank of superintendent or above.

I found the dog part really unsettling for some reason. I'm all for training your animals but he seemed to really relish the control there. Agree he seemed like a troubled man but so did she. Sad outcome for everyone involved.

Kane from this week is like a real life MC Grinda.

The level of stupidity is astounding given how arrogant he is!

Kane's partner is his former probation officer.. hmmm

Kane's partner is a complete and utter idiot.

Can't believe she was his probation officer. When they first said that I expected her to be quite smart.

I know, that was a major shocker. What an abuse of her position.

Anyone have any idea why they censor out the toilets in the cells?! Can't figure it out!

They’re blocked out on the actual station cameras permanently not added by the production company.

I wondered that for ages too.

I think the censors are built into the cctv system for privacy.

It's so they can't be observed on the loo.

Why were they all in the sane police station?

Ahhh that explains it! Thanks.

awful (the former probation officer). Also amazed she only got 12 months and not in jail. She was right in it, texting him about the main dealer bloke and clearly looking after all his money fgs!

awful (the former probation officer). Also amazed she only got 12 months and not in jail

I think her previous role as a probationer officer needs to be examined.

She was a disgrace.

I was really surprised the court seemed to not take that into account! And they had all that evidence from her phone

Superintendent extends by 12 hours over the first 24, that's why the police said "we" have extended.

Further extensions of up to 36 above the first 36 will be by a Magistrate.