High street store Lush brands the police "liars"

lemon I rest my case - you’ve so nicely proved my point for me, I don’t need to add anything.

Maggie I think you need to start a few posts back when your sarcastic posting started. I’m not going to continue this discussion with you, as I suspect I know what’s really rattling your cage.

However, between you and lemon and your targeted attacks on ME I’m pretty disgusted. You really need to examine how your behaviour makes other people feel.

You are now free to rant and rave as much as you wish because I really CBA’d to come down to your level, so I’ll wander off back to RL and leave GN for now. If this is the level of discussion then carry on....but remember I won’t be reading it.

I am a very nice person OldMeg but not at all naive.
I seem to have aquired a different name.....it’s Lemongrove
Not Lemongrass btw.
Let the due process of law proceed is the gist of what I had to say, and not have trial by soap shops.
The police have enough to put up with ......without anti-police material being draped in windows.
Maryeliza it must be exhausting maintaining your levels of anger against all and sundry.

Is this the offensive remark, OldMeg?

OldMeg Perhaps you ought to read my post in a wider context?
Maggiemaybe Or perhaps you should stick to the subject of the thread?
So rude? Me, but not you?

And calling another poster naive isn’t rude at all, is it?

www.ucpi.org.uk

Here you are lemon a link to the enquiry

WARNING this link may contain FACTS and may therefore be harmful to those allergic to such ingredients

And lemongrass if you’d bothered to read the letter from the exwives you’d have understood that but as a general rule I suppose irs easier to adopt an anti-Lush position without bothering yiurself with any FACTS as they can be just so inconvenient?

lemongrass the review HAS been set up but is prevaricating in starting hearing evidence because of the delaying tactics of the police. I’m surprised you are commenting on the Lush csmoaign when you clearly don’t know this basic FACT ( ie not an opinion).

No I mean Maggiemaybe and of course Lush cannot start proceedings, but they can and have made a push to get this issue talked about and it will now have to be addressed.

You cannot be as naive as you seem lemongrass, in fact you are probably a nice person who trusts the powers that be to get things right.

Ilovecheese good to read a balanced post at last. Behind all this there are some serious examples of bad behaviour from undercover agents and it’s not the first time.

The review, like so many others in the past, could easily have been delayed, and delayed again or brushed under the carpet were it not for concerned individuals or organisations pressing for answers.

Lush cannot start proceedings OldMeg these things come about if there is a need for one ( inquiry) but there must be fact based evidence and enough of it for prosecuction to bring a case.I have no idea if there is enough evidence or not.

Haven’t seen any rude posts by Maggiemaybe I think you mean Maryeliza.

lemongrove do you really believe that?

Are you usually so rude Maggiemaybe or have I upset you?

The review will be started if it deserves to be started, simple as that.Depending on evidence and facts.

Or maybe they’ll just die away like Greggs did?

They’ll hopefully be a bit more careful next time but they won’t be stoppingbther campaign and charity work I’m sure

What would you do lemon and ab to get this review kick started or would you just leave it on the basis that it doesn’t matter much? Lush do much charity work and campaigning and have done for years and to sugges its all about publicity says a great deal about you.

Cheap way to advertised

Good posts Maggiemaybe
Regardless of any rights/wrongs by undercover police, Lush have decided to enter the arena of news and politics instead of concentrating on selling overscented and overpriced bath bombs/soaps.
I expect they are happy, having got their shops in the news.
If they are not happy, perhaps they won’t do this kind of thing again, it all depends on how it has affected their sales.
Their shop in Oxford was completely empty when I passed by this week, with two young shop assistants stood together chatting.

Doreen Lawrence supports Lush by the way and if anyone knows anything about unacceptable police behaviour,it’s her

Crack = cack

Joel we need the review to try and find out the truth so why on Earth is it being allowed to be held up like this - 3 years? 3 years? We’ll probably need a review to find out why the delay and whose interests were being served? Not the women’s that’s for sure . I’m guessing that senior officers knew about the sex and turned a blind eye and I bet there’s evidence to that effect. Ilove I agree with you about the campaign being crack handed and probably lush would have done better to outsource it and use different tactics. None of this makes the problem go away but what the delay dies is send a message to the police as an organisation that they are entitled to delay access to justice and hope to get away with it as the there will be all the arguments of ‘ but we can’t remember it was so long ago’.

It's not just infidelity though, it is a misuse of public office. I don't suppose they were instructed to have sex with the women, but did their senior officers turn a blind eye? The enquiry needs to look at the culture that surrounded the use of undercover officers.

It’s intellectually lazy to criticise without an alternative solution

Unlike you, maryeliza, I've never claimed to be an intellectual.

All who commit adultery are 'undercover'. My question has always been: Were the police officers involved instructed to have sexual relationships with these women. If the answer was yes, then the force should be held responsible. If the answer was no, then what are the police force being blamed for the misdeeds of a couple if officers. Would we hold any other employer responsible for the infidelity of their employees?