lechiffre55
I do explain the challenges we face and the complexities of the job. A couple of pages back, people where aghast about the OIC being away from the shift for 7 weeks and why their team can't progress the investigation in their absence. So, I explained what the 7 weeks could be (annual leave & a course perhaps) and why we can't simply pass the case on to another colleague.
Vol interviews - the thread about KJK attending for an interview. Yes my advice would be to attend. In fact most solicitors we deal with advise their clients to attend. Otherwise it the complainants word against nothing and off to court it goes. If you give your 'side of the story' we at least have a defence to examine if the person can provide an account or alibi. That way the case can be resolved without it going to court.
If you were the victim of a crime - theft, common assault etc. Would you be happy for the police to advise you that "The suspect has refused or been advised not to attend for an interview so we are not pursuing the case any further". If there was no power or necessity to arrest - what would you want the police to do next?
If Dennis Noel Kavanaugh was the one who suggested that anything said in a police interview can not be used in court and that we don't investigate defence statements & alibis from a suspect - then I personally would question his advice.
A man makes dozens of complaints about someone he doesn't like on twitter - Again we are not 100% certain that it is the same person at this stage if you mean the CF case, but if it can be shown that the complaint if false and vexatious, then it will be ignored and the reporting person pursued for making a false statement. Lots of similar calls do. But then you get the ones where it can't be determined at this stage. Its the cry wolf scenario. There are loads of reports we get from the same callers - ASB for example where, when the police get there, all is quiet and nothing going on or any damage etc. When do we start to ignore those calls? Or DV cases where the reporting person declines to provide details of any assaults/crimes. Do we start to ignore them after the 5th call they make?
Each call has to be taken on its own merits. They are also assessed by the initial call taker, dispatcher, management unit before they get passed out to a cop. And are all assessed for threat, harm, & risk.
Each crime has to be investigated. Nuisance calls to some might just be ignored and seen as a bit silly. To others it might seriously be affecting their lives & mental health. Yes, they will not be seen as a priority such as DV cases, burglaries, missing from homes etc - that's possibly why CF's enquiry is sat on the OIC's job queue - along with the other 15 jobs that fall into the same priority category. It will just be progressed when the OIC can. I know not ideal, but we don't have endless resources and cases have to fall into a priority list. With limited resources & officers I'm not sure how else you would want this to happen.
There are lots of rules that i would love to change in the police - cell watches, hospital watches, missing from homes, mental health cases, the length of time CPS take to provide a decision, the fact that CPS want a full file before they act, the amount of file redactions, BWV and its data storage, training - I could go on and on. And yes, we could look at ignoring calls from people who have made the same complaint 10 times about the same person. But would society accept this when the 11 call turned out to be a serious assault or murder.