Roy Greenslade in The Guardian lauds the Current Bun and its lampooning of the Police and the inconsistent, not to say perplexing, no to say asinine, approach it is taking to high profile cases currently.
The piece is quoted in full below.
The Sun has registered its outrage and incredulity at the decision by the Metropolitan police not to charge the peer it pictured and filmed appearing to take drugs.
In July, the Sun on Sunday ran photographs, plus footage on its website, that seemingly showed Lord Sewel using a rolled-up banknote to snort white powder, which the newspaper maintained was cocaine.
“Lord Coke”, as the paper termed him in a headline, was shown partying with two women who were said to be prostitutes and, following the exposure, Sewel resigned from the House of Lords, where he was deputy speaker and chair of its privileges and conduct committee.
Two days after the initial story was published, Metropolitan police officers raided Sewel’s flat in London’s Dolphin Square and launched an investigation into the matter.
But the Met issued a statement on Tuesday saying: “Following a review of all the material, including a forensic examination of an address in central London, there is insufficient evidence to proceed with this investigation and the matter is now closed.”
The Sun’s response was clear from its front page headline, “You must be coking”, a full page inside, “How much evidence do you need?” and a leading article, “Police farce”.
“We’ve heard it all now,” said the editorial. “Lord Sewel won’t be charged with drug offences due to a lack of evidence. Lack of evidence?
“He was pictured on our front page snorting cocaine through a rolled-up bank note. If that’s not incriminating, we are stumped as to what is.
“If the Metropolitan Police was uniformly reluctant to go after the rich and famous, we could vaguely understand it. At least it would be consistently useless.
“But the same force takes spectacular punts on other cases only to fall flat on its face and credulously pursues unprovable tales of child abuse and murder with no evidence whatsoever. What a laughing stock it has become under [commissioner] Bernard Hogan-Howe.”
I must say that it is a very surprising turn of events. Even though I thought Sewel suffered at the time from an over-the-top media hue and cry, I could not imagine that he would avoid prosecution.
As the Sun rightly said, just how much evidence did the police require? Or are there things we don’t know that, in such circumstances, we should? For example, what did the two women have to say?
Given the public nature of the incident, it is incumbent on the Met to be more transparent about its reasoning.