Read the two statements below, both from the same newspaper article:
1. “Cllr Twiss told the Echo that following his complaint on November 27, officers visited him this morning, Monday, December 8, and told him they were taking no further action but the matter would be kept on file.”
and
2. “... a police spokesperson, said: “We can confirm police were contacted about comments made on a blog. Officers from the force’s neighbourhood team spoke to the reporting person and offered words of advice. The matter has been logged and at this time no further action is being taken.”
(1) could be taken to imply that Councillor Wright had not been exonerated and might face proceedings at some later date whereas (2) could be read to imply that no action is being taken against Councillor Twiss as this time.
Diametrically opposite inferences. Very, very different.
Now, “keeping a matter on file” can be done ONLY by the Crown Prosecution Service and not by the police and is done when there has been a trial and no verdict has been reached.
“In the Crown Court the judge has the power to order that entire indictments or some counts on an indictment are ordered to ‘lie on the file’. There is no verdict, so the proceedings are not formally terminated. There can be no further proceedings against the defendant on those matters, without the leave of the Crown Court or the Court of Appeal.”
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/termination_of_proceedings/
It is highly unlikely that the “officers from the neighbourhood team” would, or could, use the phrase. Rather like the confusion over the different meanings of the word cull, perhaps?
Once again it appears to show that Councillor Twiss is determined to attack the reputation of Councillor Wright.
Isn’t it now time that he should publicly apologise to her on her blog on in the local press for the distress this must be causing her?
And still six months to go before the district election and the General Election.
