The absolute brass neck of Sir Mark Rowley to claim that the police’s hands are tied and they absolutely have to investigate if it looks like it might fall within the definition of a crime.
When the Met are failing to investigate actual crimes with evidence on clear-cut offences like burglary, car crime and domestic violence. They openly refuse to investigate, and say as much, even where crime victims present them with evidence they’ve gathered themselves. As somebody living within the Met’s fiefdom I am disgusted at their abject failure over the years to police effectively.
So, Sir Mark, which is it?
Are you honour bound to investigate all putative crimes?
Or only some?
And if the latter (which, let’s face it, is obviously what’s happening), who chooses which crimes get investigated and which get ignored, and on what basis is this decided?