Recently fired Cheshire police chief says that scrutiny about the Lucy Letby case outside of the courts is "not welcome." Which begs the question: Why, then, did his police force pay a Daily Mail podcaster for "publicity" in the middle of Letby's trial?

Is anyone actually surprised, seriously? I'm not. It is shocking, but it appears to me to be a new 'normal'. "Police Scotland has said 45 serving officers are currently suspended over allegations of violence against women and girls. Chief constable Jo Farrell said she expected more would face sanctions over their behaviour following a spate of former officers being convicted for sexual offences."

One does not need necessarily to be anti-police for the sake of such, but one does need to be frank and objective in their observations about the issues which are plainly apparent and determinable. The cumulative findings of our investigation to date raise a fundamental question about British policing: Whether national coordination affected the independent assessment of allegations concerning the Government’s own Covid response. The documentary record includes an internal policing communication describing “guidance to not record” as having “been a success”. Police Scotland attributed the advice underlying its approach to the NPCC and the UK Gold Command structure. Those are matters of record. Their precise scope, authority and application across individual forces require explanation. The concern is straightforward. Police must assess allegations according to the applicable law, recording standards and evidence. If their treatment is instead predetermined by a national position concerning the subject matter, operational independence becomes a principle asserted rather than a practice demonstrated. That does not mean every allegation must be recorded as a crime or subjected to a full criminal investigation. It means that a decision not to proceed must result from a proper assessment - not merely from the allegation falling within an institutionally unwelcome category. CRN 6029679/21 illustrates why the distinction matters. The Metropolitan Police’s disclosed records contain screening, allocation to a detective, CID involvement and continuing handling alongside a no-crime classification. Those records require a precise explanation of what was done, what was considered and how the decision was reached. A classification is an outcome. It is not, by itself, an explanation of the process producing it. The wider difficulty is accountability. Where decisions involve local forces, national policing structures and other institutions, responsibility must remain identifiable. Referral does not explain assessment. Coordination does not establish lawful authority. An institutional assurance does not reconcile a contradictory record. Questions concerning these matters remain outstanding across several bodies. Their silence does not prove wrongdoing. It does, however, leave material questions unanswered. What appears to be emerging is a gap between the independence policing professes and the transparency needed to demonstrate that independence when allegations concern those who exercise State powers. The public is entitled to expect a policing system capable of examining such allegations objectively and of explaining, through evidence, why it acted or declined to act. This applies whether or not issues involved relate to COVID matters.

THE SEVEN MISSING MODULES Allegations the @metpoliceuk @MetCC appear never yet to have addressed. Read about them here: ethicalapproach.co.uk/the_7_…