Read a different article here yesterday which really annoyed me as it sounded like they would all get to see the evidence against them before answering police questions. Makes a complete mockery of the reason Gray’s report wasn’t released which was so the police could investigate and interview without the report distorting things.
The important difference mentioned in this article is:
>“They will only be able to access notes of their own internal interview – their own words – to assist them in completing the Met Q&A.”
>It is understood the Met had no objection.
While it still seems highly unusual to me, allowing people to see what they themselves said doesn’t seem totally absurd.
[removed]
I’d already forgotten about partygate since there were of course 0 consequences for it.
3 comments
Read a different article here yesterday which really annoyed me as it sounded like they would all get to see the evidence against them before answering police questions. Makes a complete mockery of the reason Gray’s report wasn’t released which was so the police could investigate and interview without the report distorting things.
The important difference mentioned in this article is:
>“They will only be able to access notes of their own internal interview – their own words – to assist them in completing the Met Q&A.”
>It is understood the Met had no objection.
While it still seems highly unusual to me, allowing people to see what they themselves said doesn’t seem totally absurd.
[removed]
I’d already forgotten about partygate since there were of course 0 consequences for it.