I'm shocked, NOT!

CarrotTop

It's not a cop show (where everyone involved knows everything before the cameras are even switched on to record it). The case of Ann Widdicombe's murder is real life, where information is being collected all the time and some of it proves to be irrelevant, inadmissible or even untrue. The authorities are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to disclosing information (not only what they reveal but also when they reveal it). Which way should they fall in disclosing what they know? (Please don't say "They should just tell us the truth - I mean, you don't have to be very old to realise that revealing everything to everyone at every stage is hardly a sensible route to take?) How many of us would like to have the job of making public announcements in the face of baying masses from social media sites demanding to be told everything all at once, regardless of any security issues?
I agree with Cossy that the Police should probably have kept their lips buttoned. In this instance, all the authorities (not just the hapless Police) were trapped between a rock and a hard place. It defies good sense to demonise them, almost 3 months after the event, for letting us (perhaps) know something more than we (perhaps) knew in the days immediately after it.
As I said, it isn't a cop drama where, even before the cameras are set up, everyone involved knows what is happening, why, and who did it (not to mention, in some cases, who told them to do it).

I so agree, but for unknown reason, there are people around, not here so much but definitely in “real life”, who feel that they should know literally everything!

Everything the police think, do and know. Everything our justice system thinks, dies and know. Ditto the RF, the PM and all MPs.

Apologies for the appalling punctuation and pee-poor sentence construction.

It's not a cop show (where everyone involved knows everything before the cameras are even switched on to record it). The case of Ann Widdicombe's murder is real life, where information is being collected all the time and some of it proves to be irrelevant, inadmissible or even untrue. The authorities are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to disclosing information (not only what they reveal but also when they reveal it). Which way should they fall in disclosing what they know? (Please don't say "They should just tell us the truth - I mean, you don't have to be very old to realise that revealing everything to everyone at every stage is hardly a sensible route to take?) How many of us would like to have the job of making public announcements in the face of baying masses from social media sites demanding to be told everything all at once, regardless of any security issues?
I agree with Cossy that the Police should probably have kept their lips buttoned. In this instance, all the authorities (not just the hapless Police) were trapped between a rock and a hard place. It defies good sense to demonise them, almost 3 months after the event, for letting us (perhaps) know something more than we (perhaps) knew in the days immediately after it.
As I said, it isn't a cop drama where, even before the cameras are set up, everyone involved knows what is happening, why, and who did it (not to mention, in some cases, who told them to do it).

I agree MartavTaurus the police released a statement that too early before the full facts were known.

Assault not assume. Sorry.

You are absolutely correct. The police should probably have said nothing.

It seems Farage was also correct. However, why is this an act of “terrorism” rather than attempted murder or assume in Farage’s case and actual murder in the case of Ms Widdecombe? I completely accept that these acts are politically motivated.