I think the enforcement agencies have discredited themselves, in Newbury at least,

Which agencies do you refer to, and what is the basis of your opinion?

The Police; the Mitchell affair with the bike, the ongoing issues with the Lawrence case at the Met, the Hillsborough cover up, 999 injury claims, credit card scam enquiries passed to a call centre, and so on and on. So I quite see why people would far rather ask their own questions these days and only involve the law when it's almost cut and dried.

The Police; the Mitchell affair with the bike, the ongoing issues with the Lawrence case at the Met, the Hillsborough cover up, 999 injury claims, credit card scam enquiries passed to a call centre, and so on and on. So I quite see why people would far rather ask their own questions these days and only involve the law when it's almost cut and dried.

Or why bother at all unless a crime reference number is needed for an insurance claim? They are totally discredited.

You referred to Newbury

I don't think there is much difference, the ethos and attitude is national.

Over my working life I have spent 30+ years working with and around the homeless, unfortunate, etc. Your ability to patronise is amazing.
I don't know all the answers, but I do know I wouldn't have any idea after 24 hours.

If it isn't political, please ensure any reference to Newbury Labour Party is excluded form press stories, letters etc.

Assuming some of that responds to what I said, be wary of mis-interpretation.

Amateur detective work can all too easily destroy a valid investigation, as can unfounded pressure to prosecute on the basis of what looks like a good story. That doesn't mean it is to be banned, just progressed with wise caution.

I have not been 'involved in the activity' (whatever you mean as I neither work in a homeless institution nor organise end of life regimes) for 30 years, but my work has brought me into contact with most of the parties involved. It is an extremely complex situation - far more than accommodating people who choose to live away from home. Some have sad and serious mental health issues for instance, that are no longer seen as conditions for treatment within the NHS. Obtaining evidence from some of the people at the sharp end can be difficult.
RGs quality should be judged by what he actually and personally achieves, not how many hares he sets running.

I suggest that if you have been out of the loop for 30 years, you may want to speak to the department for health, leading organisations such as St Mungo's and maybe read the end of life care plan legislation to bring you up to speed.

I don't think there is much difference, the ethos and attitude is national.

I suggest that if you have been out of the loop for 30 years, you may want to speak to the department for health, leading organisations such as St Mungo's and maybe read the end of life care plan legislation to bring you up to speed.

Your assumption is ridiculous and your "evidence" more than dubious.

Your assumption is ridiculous and your "evidence" more than dubious.

The Police; the Mitchell affair with the bike, the ongoing issues with the Lawrence case at the Met, the Hillsborough cover up, 999 injury claims, credit card scam enquiries passed to a call centre, and so on and on.

I am personally all for the public realising that policing is far too an important an issue to be left to the police service alone, but I would suggest that the public is better placed holding the service to account and scrutinising them, than actually attempting to replace the service as investigators, etc.

I may well share some concerns, but the police service is still far more professional, effective and efficient than some of its critics would have everyone believe. In the main it is staffed by highly skilled personnel that have a service ethos at their core, and wish to serve the public.

When it comes to investigations such as those that are indicated in this thread, I have the utmost confidence that Thames Valley Police would undertake a far more in-depth, rigorous, non-judgemental and independent investigation than people who have not been trained to do so.

I am personally all for the public realising that policing is far too an important an issue to be left to the police service alone, but I would suggest that the public is better placed holding the service to account and scrutinising them, than actually attempting to replace the service as investigators, etc.

How is that to be done when there is no independent method of holding the police to account? They need root and branch change before they are fit for the modern world. 42% of IPCC investigators are ex police. So too are you.

I actually concur with your concerns about the IPCC, and yes I am a former officer myself. One thing is for certain Police and Crime Commissioners are NOT going to be able to make the reforms to the police service that society needs, but that is a different issue.

The culture if "them and us" is overwhelming. So is their black and white view of the world. For example, if someone is drunk and loud in town, then they are "scum" and to be treated as such. Even if they are celebrating. If someone is at a football match then they should expect to be treated as a hooligan. Even if they are with their family. It is a tribal attitude and nothing to do with "service" and doing good. That at least is my experience and the experience of many others.