If that was what you were actually doing then sure, but you're simply making up things have never even been suggested to have happened to fit your narrative. You're assuming GMP did stuff there's no actual evidence of, and wilfully ignoring other stuff like totally dismissing the words of the judge as speculation because it would damage your theory. It's massive blinkers. You can't just create some false narrative and then accuse someone of moving the goalposts because they don't indulge you and keep talking about the actual issue they've been talking about since the start. You went from saying "If him being arrested and let go for breaching happens even just once. It’s honestly pointless hauling him in front of a court room again for the same thing" to "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches". See the contradiction?
The benefit of arresting people for breach of police bail is it allows the police a window to gather evidence to establish if a substantive offence has occurred, such as witness intimidation or perverting the course of justice through witness intimidation. They at no point did any of this, despite being aware of breaches.
The process for breaking pre-charge bail is arrest, first and foremost. The GMP failed to do that and failed at every point from there onwards. The only way you can make your argument is to pretend the GMP had no evidence he was breaking police bail, that alone should tell you you're talking absolute nonsense.
Find a single piece of guidance for cases where police observe a breach of bail and the first step is not to arrest and investigate. But if your entire argument about the GMPs conduct relies on Greenwood's solicitor making a claim that wasn't true at his hearing that the GMP didn't push back on, to the point where the judge verbally admonished them then we kind of have no where to go because frankly that's hysterical.
But the big giveaway here is that the judge himself felt the need to criticise them, after a full hearing. Your weird defence of them which totally contradicts that criticism is rather clownish.
Nothing has been made up. The problem is you don’t really know the system and you’ve decided on your narrative so you’ve not filled in the obvious blanks and then pretended that it’s made up when someone fills them out for you.
The obvious blank here being police arresting someone for a relatively black and white offence and then charging them for it. But supposedly whilst in custody they’ve actually just done nothing about it and not mentioned it to a court despite arresting him for it.
I’m assuming GMP did stuff there’s no actual evidence of? That’s rich when you’ve basically decided they were knowingly ignoring breaches for months. Even though all we have is what I’ve pointed out is an implication from a solicitor and a judge elaborating on said implication . Again find me reports where the GMP has done this it is evidenced. I will accept I am completely wrong if you can find even one report that shows this.
You went from saying "If him being arrested and let go for breaching happens even just once. It’s honestly pointless hauling him in front of a court room again for the same thing" to "nobody gets put in front of a judge/jury to answer to a charge of pre charge police bail condition breaches". See the contradiction?
There’s absolutely no contradiction here.
If you arrest someone for breaching bail and still haven’t charged them it is definitely pointless arresting them again in the grand scheme of things . They spend less than 24 hours in custody and then come out and rinse repeat. System needs changing and even Greenwoods solicitor didn’t think much of it. As he literally said Greenwood had breached it numerous times. If it actually mattered do you think a solicitor stands in front of a judge and his client openly telling the judge his client breached numerous times.
I don’t know what that has to do with me saying that nobody will go to court and be charged with an offence that isn’t actually an offence….
As for witness intimidation, as advised previously, go and look up the points to prove/guidelines for that offence, reflect on it and then decide if you think that’s something that would apply here and would have a realistic chance of conviction. If you do that and still think that to be the case then I think you live in serious bubble.
The process for breaking pre-charge bail is arrest, first and foremost. The GMP failed to do that and failed at every point from there onwards. The only way you can make your argument is to pretend the GMP had no evidence he was breaking police bail, that alone should tell you you're talking absolute nonsense.
That is absolutely and unequivocally not the case for every matter involving breach of police bail.
The only way you can make your argument is to pretend that there is evidence that police had actual evidence Greenwood had breached bail numerous times and deliberately ignored it.
Please explain a scenario to me where Police would have proven Greenwood breached his bail without some form of co-oberation from a person or another.
On a side note, what is it exactly GmP had to gain from deliberately ignoring evidenced greenwood breaches and not arresting for it? So they went through the effort of taking on the initial investigation before the victim had even alleged anything. Did all this work gathering statements, evidence, phone evidence etc. pushed forward with very serious charges that the CPS deemed good enough to charge for? Which isn’t always the case…. But for some reason, a simple breach of bail they just decided they would just completely drop the ball on?
I also love how much you go on about the judge, like his opinion is sacred. Judges in this country are as corrupt, incompetent, outlandish and agenda driven as all the people and organisations they pass judgment on. I wouldn’t be taking their word or actions as gospel. You don’t do it for the police or the cps so why then for a judge?
What’s weird here is your inability to see the absolutely flawed justice system in this case. As I initially retorted you are gravely mistaken if you don’t realise the issues here go far beyond the police. If breaching police bail actually meant something maybe just maybe this thing could have been dealt with differently.
