Politics: a parliament fail

By Richard North - November 20, 2024

I scarcely need a full post to deal with the self-regarding and essentially vacuous authored piece by Allison Pearson in today’s Telegraph, although the points raised need detailed examination.

Headed, “My week from hell shows that the Britain we love and trust is gone”, her sub-heading argues that: “This must once again be a fair and free country with a police force that solves actual crimes instead of imaginary ones”, demonstrating that the paper’s star columnist is not really resident on the same planet as the rest of us.

Although she describes herself at “the eye of the storm”, it is largely one of her own making, precipitated by her original piece where she claimed (wrongly) that two plods on her doorstep had informed her that she had been accused of a non-crime hate incident.

For someone who makes their living as a supposed journalist, this is shoddy work as she completely misunderstood the purpose of the plod visit which was to arrange a “voluntary” interview at the local station to address an “alleged offence of inciting racial hatred, linked to a post on social media”.

At this point the plod were not prepared to give any further detail, which they justify by saying. “That’s because we have to follow the law and make sure that everyone’s rights and entitlements, in particular to seek legal advice, were respected”.

They go on to say that “this is the right way to do things – it’s the correct procedure as set out by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)”, then saying that “Fuller details of an alleged offence are always provided prior to the commencement of a voluntary interview, under caution. That allows those present to seek appropriate legal advice and representation if they wish to”.

Here, one has to refer back to my assertion that Pearson’s grief is largely of her own making and point out that Essex constabulary – described later as “incompetent” – are partly responsible for this ongoing charade.

Their claim that “this is the right way to do things – it’s the correct procedure as set out by the Police And Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE)”, is what is technically known as “bullshit”. Look at the text of the Act – there is no procedure set out in it, and nor is that the place where you would expect detailed procedures to be set out.

In fact, the place to look is the PACE Code G, and in particular Code C.

Code C sets out the detail and makes it clear that, before being interviewed, the “suspect” must be given information about the offence(s) in question, sufficient “to enable them to understand the nature of any such offence(s) and why they are suspected of committing it”.

The “suspect” has a right to be legally represented and the Code also states that, if they are represented, before a person is interviewed “their solicitor must be given sufficient information to enable them to understand the nature of any such offence, and why they are suspected of committing it, in order to allow for the effective exercise of the rights of the defence.

If the person being interviewed has been arrested and detained, this happens at the same time or immediately before the interview, but in the case of the voluntary interview, there is absolutely nothing in the Code that suggests that the information cannot be given at the time when the arrangements are being made.

I have actually been through this whole procedure, when I was falsely accused of an assault, and was given full details of the alleged offence well before the interview, giving me time to engage a solicitor and brief him before the interview took place. There was no reason why Essex constabulary could not have done the same.

That said, if Pearson had been on the ball, and listened to what she was being told, her obvious (and necessary) option would have been to defer any agreement on attendance until she had spoken to a solicitor, as was her right, and then got her lawyer to gather the information needed “to allow for the effective exercise of the rights of the defence”.

To that extent, misreading the purpose of the visit and responding in entirely the wrong way, Pearson has contributed immensely to the fog of confusion which has pervaded this whole affair. She might have been far better off had she waited until she had been interviewed before going public, in which case she would have been better informed and better able to make her case.

As it is, in her current article, she writes: “You rack your frantic brain in the small hours wondering, “Did I do something wrong?”, adding: “I know I didn’t do anything wrong”.

Actually, now she acknowledges the tweet identified as hers, there is prima facie evidence that she has a case to answer. That is not to say that she is guilty of any offence but, while she claims that she was merely criticising the (Metropolitan) police, she did accuse the Pakistani men in the photograph on which she was commenting as being “Jew haters”.

As such, as the Socialist Worker asserts, she can’t really claim victim status. And while the Telegraph and others are quick to highlight egregious cases of inaction over ostensible hate crimes, tu quoque – although regrettable and on occasions manifestly unjust – is not a defence in law.

The weakness of Pearson’s case is further explored by iNews which has writer Simon Kelner who observes that “Pearson’s post on X is, at the very least, worthy of consideration by the police”. It is no defence, he moots, to say it is more than a year old, suggesting that the police might have responded by saying they had been too busy investigating burglaries and car thefts to get round to it.

But what sends this whole affair completely off the rails is Pearson long whinge about the actions of the police. She complains that the “social justice” which the chief constable appears to care about – equity, diversity and inclusion – “is a far cry from the justice the society he is meant to serve cares about: you know, catching the bad guys and making the world a safe place for our children”. She goes on in her own self-regarding way to assert:

Such a virtue-signalling police philosophy does not readily promote virtue, I think: on the contrary, it emboldens criminals to fill their boots (because they know they won’t get caught) and interferes with the freedom of expression of innocent people (because they think they might). In addition, there is the troubling question of what “hate” the police care about.

What she misses completely is how “hate crime” developed in response to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, when the Met Police were accused of “institutional racism”, forcing police forces onto the back foot ever since.

With the active approval of, and pressure from, parliament, and a raft of legal provisions, backed by race grifters and fellow travellers, “hate crime” has become a major industry directed at pressuring police forces into more and more extreme action, with the ongoing encouragement from government and the mindless complicity of the courts.

All this passes by la Pearson, whose self-obsession clouds her ability to look at the bigger picture. This is left to Laurie Wastell in the Spectator which, unusually, makes some good points.

Wastell refers to the much-maligned Roger Hirst, the Essex Police and Crime Commissioner, who emphasises the point that the police are enforcing the law, saying; “If the law is felt to be a constraint on free speech then that is for Parliament to debate and hopefully change”.

Indeed, writes Wastell. “One can see why coppers might feel aggrieved when police continually get it in the neck from politicians for enforcing the laws that Parliament made”.

Unfortunately, she adds, this means that many of those criticising the investigation into Pearson are shouting in the wind. Badenoch, for instance, has said it is “absolutely wrong” to have “journalists getting visited by the police for expressing opinions” but has said nothing about the specific law under which this is being carried out.

Even Starmer has told police forces to “concentrate on what matters most to their communities” – an intervention that only amounts to handwaving if he refuses to reckon with why police feel Pearson’s post might be considered a crime in the first place.

Boris Johnson, Wastell says, blasts police for “shameful” time-wasting on online messages, while declining to criticise the “decades-old statute” that has police taking an interest in what Pearson may or may not have been thinking when she sent her post.

Thus she concludes that, given the public concern about the chilling investigation of Pearson, this case surely represents a major opportunity. After years of overbearing, censorious speech laws, the statute book is an unweeded garden that grows to seed. Surely, she says, the time is now to pull up the roots.

This is more or less a development of the sentiment I expressed yesterday, reinforcing my view that this situation exists because parliament permits it – nay, actively encourages it. The focus must be there, on parliament, with a recognition that, over many decades, this institution has failed to do its job.