Wendy Chamberlain on how the Police can regain public trust

Wendy Chamberlain is the only female former Police Officer in Parliament. We are very lucky to have her. She gave a brilliant interview to Sky News yesterday about the murder of Sarah Everard and what the Police needs to do now to regain trust.

She explained very well how the Police are getting it wrong and what they need to do to get it right.

Read more by or more about , or .
This entry was posted in News.


  • Ruth Bright 2nd Oct '21 - 2:07pm

    Wish she were head of the Met rather than a backbencher.

  • Jason Connor 2nd Oct '21 - 3:46pm

    I think Cressida Dick is doing a good job in London despite all the attacks on her by some politicians who want to replace her with a male commissioner.

  • Nonconformistradical 2nd Oct '21 - 5:41pm

    @Jason Connor
    Cressida Dick has a track record for failure.

    She is the person who should have on her desk the sign saying ‘The buck stops here’.

    She should go – and without a fat payoff.

    I for one would wish to see her replaced with someone qualified and prepared to listen to women and minorities and to take on what appears to be a toxic culture of mysogeny.

    But I really don’t care about the successful candidate’s gender.

  • Michael Bukola 2nd Oct '21 - 10:51pm

    The reputation of the Metropolitan Police Service is completely discredited and should be disbanded as it cannot carry the confidence of the public. We need a new policing authority with more inclusive values at its heart rather than a quasi-military culture which exists today based on ‘closing ranks’ when things go wrong. A watershed moment is upon us, will we take it…

  • Peter Martin 5th Oct '21 - 2:58am

    Politicians will now likely create bad laws in an attempt to be seen to “doing something”.

    We saw that in the Stephen Lawrence case. The 800 year law on double jeopardy was overturned. This gave the police powers to have a second try if anyone was acquitted of murder in a way they didn’t like. Which is usually the case! Now the police, the same police who lack public confidence, can simply look into their evidence bag, pull out a new sample of DNA which they somehow “missed” previously and have another go. I know of one such case which has almost certainly resulted in a huge miscarriage of justice. There doesn’t seem to be any requirement for police and expert witnesses to be truthful in their evidence. They can claim, without consequence, an accused to be 4 inches taller than he is, for example. Supposedly, there are still laws on perjury and perversion of the course of justice but getting them enforced when police and their paid “experts” break them is not a trivial matter.

    The next thing likely to go will be the ability of an accused to be able to present all the available evidence. If Liam Allan were to be tried under the new proposals to give alleged rape victims total confidentiality over the contents of their text and email messages, his chance of an acquittal would be slim.


  • jayne mansfield 5th Oct '21 - 9:12am

    @ Peter Martin,
    The problem is not one of too many criminals being found guilty, but too few. In what way is the double jeopardy where compelling evidence comes to light after acquittal of s suspect, bad law? Advances in DNA testing have meant that families , sometimes after decades finally see justice.

    I find it shocking that you use the case of Stephen Lawrence to bolster your argument.. I saw Doreen Lawrence on the front row of the Labour Conference, alongside a political leader who was a former Director or Public Prosecutions who came across as an honest man, a man of integrity, one that you do everything in your power to undermine, preferring instead the re-election of a man who is the polar opposite.

    There are laws on perjury and pervasion of justice. No ‘supposedly’ about them.

  • Peter Martin 5th Oct '21 - 10:03am

    @ Jayne Mansfield,

    I can assure you it is “supposedly”. When I reported my evidence to the police I was told, by the Force solicitor, that it “would not be appropriate” for the police to investigate and so possibly undermine the findings of a jury. My report of a crime to be investigated wasn’t even recorded on the system.

    The IOPC took the same line. So the legal position, at least according to them, is that the law on perjury and perversion of the course of justice stops after a guilty verdict. I’m happy to supply all the details if you are interested to know more.

    I’m all for more convictions of criminals but not more convictions of innocent people. The tradition of Blackstone is that it was better than ten guilty people should be acquitted than one innocent be wrongly convicted. But many people, including yourself by the sound of it, want those numbers reversed.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Brad Barrows
    Sunak and Javid may be hoping to salvage their reputations by choosing to distance themselves from the current PM…or they could be making their moves to be in...
  • Tristan Ward
    Time for a vote of no confidence to force tory MPs to declare their position on the record....
  • Mick Taylor
    I hope David Raw is tongue in cheek in his comments. He knows full well that LibDems in Scotland do not, in the main, support independence, though some do. Part...
  • Joseph Bourke
    The resignation of Sajid Javid and Rishi Sunak feels like the Geoffrey Howe moment that led to the resignation of Mrs Thatcher....
  • David Raw
    Question : “Should a late middle aged overweight male of untidy (and often unseemly) habits, exhibiting early signs of convenient memory loss, be regarded ...