I came across this in relation to the 2017 Police and Crime Act

[Franticwithworry]

http://data.parliament.uk/DepositedP..._Crime_Act.pdf

She doesn't seem to realise that 'sufficient evidence for an arrest' is often only the complainant's statement, though I suppose she only knows what the authorities have told her.

[Rights Fighter]

It's easy to be offended or upset at this. What we must all remember though, is that many people who HAVE committed the offences are NFAd, "due to insufficient evidence".

The vast majority will be vehemently be protesting their innocence at that stage.

I think there should be a two-part method of wording this though:

Insufficient evidence

or

Lack of evidence

There is a huge difference between the two.

[Franticwithworry]

I agree, Rightsfighter but the implication is that there is always more than a basic statement to trigger an arrest but thats simply not true. Given the categories that the police use to justify an address, they can always claim that the accused might flee for example. It's a complete lottery and I just wish that the Baroness had consulted some people who have been accused and arrested to see how the system really works.

After all the police are always going to claim that arrests were necessary and justified aren't they?

[Rights Fighter]

It's not in their interest to get the full facts though. Unless something like false allegations affect them, they just won't care.

[Franticwithworry]

I know. It doesn't stop it being aggravating though. :-(