Allegations EP were tipped off about future legislation on evidence destruction:

[Adam]

It's been said this week that the police destroyed evidence in 1996 'several months before new legislation was made making this illegal'.

This future legislation would not have been finalised by the government of the day when the police destroyed evidence. It would then have to go through parliament. The Queen's speeches from 1995 and 1996 do not mention any proposals of legislation regarding this.

Were EP aware of this future possible legislation ? If so how ? Which government minister told them ? It would have to a senior minister that would know that early discussions were taking place on this. But why would someone like Michael Howard tip off EP ? The Bamber case from ten years earlier was nothing to do with him. If discovered it would ruin his career.

If the police were not aware of future legislation, then they were not be panicking and trying to get evidence destroyed before the law came in. 

The evidence which another poster said yesterday was destroyed was unlikely to support guilt or innocence to either Bamber or Sheila. If it was, then surely the police would have destroyed it sooner. They had ten years to do this. 

Do other people believe that after ten years, the police simply felt it was an appropriate time to destroy evidence. Rather than knowing about future legislation which was 'several months away'.
 

[gringo]

It's been said this week that the police destroyed evidence in 1996 'several months before new legislation was made making this illegal'.

This future legislation would not have been finalised by the government of the day when the police destroyed evidence. It would then have to go through parliament. The Queen's speeches from 1995 and 1996 do not mention any proposals of legislation regarding this.

Were EP aware of this future possible legislation ? If so how ? Which government minister told them ? It would have to a senior minister that would know that early discussions were taking place on this. But why would someone like Michael Howard tip off EP ? The Bamber case from ten years earlier was nothing to do with him. If discovered it would ruin his career.

If the police were not aware of future legislation, then they were not be panicking and trying to get evidence destroyed before the law came in. 

The evidence which another poster said was destroyed was unlikely to support guilt or innocence to either Bamber or Sheila. If it was, then surely the police would have destroyed it sooner. They had ten years to do this. 

Do other people believe that after ten years, the police simply felt it was an appropriate time to destroy evidence. Rather than anything sinister ?

  Only the really gullible and naive believe this version, Adam.

[Jane]

It's been said this week that the police destroyed evidence in 1996 'several months before new legislation was made making this illegal'.

This future legislation would not have been finalised by the government of the day when the police destroyed evidence. It would then have to go through parliament. The Queen's speeches from 1995 and 1996 do not mention any proposals of legislation regarding this.

Were EP aware of this future possible legislation ? If so how ? Which government minister told them ? It would have to a senior minister that would know that early discussions were taking place on this. But why would someone like Michael Howard tip off EP ? The Bamber case from ten years earlier was nothing to do with him. If discovered it would ruin his career.

If the police were not aware of future legislation, then they were not be panicking and trying to get evidence destroyed before the law came in. 

The evidence which another poster said yesterday was destroyed was unlikely to support guilt or innocence to either Bamber or Sheila. If it was, then surely the police would have destroyed it sooner. They had ten years to do this. 

Do other people believe that after ten years, the police simply felt it was an appropriate time to destroy evidence. Rather than anything sinister ?

I don't believe that police would have held on to ANYTHING which may have had the potential to come back and bite them at a later stage. There were such things as shredders in 1985. Failing that, there was the good, old fashioned but efficient bonfire.

[Adam]

  Only the really gullible and naive believe this version, Adam.

Who do you believe tipped off EP of possible future legislation that was not in the Queens speech and was several months away ?

[gringo]

Who do you believe tipped off EP of possible future legislation that was not in the Queens speech and was several months away ?

   Why do you believe that a police force need "tipping off" about pending legislation?
   Do you imagine that the police get to find out about changes in the law on the day that the legislation is introduced? How does this happen do you think? Maybe they have to wait until it is in the papers.
   Let us know what you imagine the usual procedure is for the police to be informed of legislation which directly affects their procedures, Adam.
   Maybe they hope that someone "tips them off" 

[Adam]

If people are saying the government or a senior minister tipped off EP, that puts the case up several notches. The framing conspiracy  increasing substantially in numbers and seriousness.

If no one tipped off EP, then Nugs's thread this week is answered and some Items were destroyed  after ten years as it was simply considered an appropriate time.

[David1819]

Who do you believe tipped off EP of possible future legislation that was not in the Queens speech and was several months away ?

This is a very stupid question

[susan]

   Why do you believe that a police force need "tipping off" about pending legislation?
   Do you imagine that the police get to find out about changes in the law on the day that the legislation is introduced? How does this happen do you think? Maybe they have to wait until it is in the papers.
   Let us know what you imagine the usual procedure is for the police to be informed of legislation which directly affects their procedures, Adam.
   Maybe they hope that someone "tips them off" 

Hi Gringo
nice to see you. Bet EP read it on the internet 

[gringo]

If people are saying the government or a senior minister tipped off EP, that puts the case up several notches. The framing conspiracy  increasing substantially in numbers and seriousness.

If no one tipped off EP, then Nugs's thread this week is answered and Items were destroyed as it simply considered an appropriate time.

  Nobody is saying that though. Read the post above.
   Most are probably shaking their heads with incredulity that anyone could believe that a police force need tipping off by "the government or a senior minister" to warn them of impending legislation that is a matter of public record(hansard debates etc.).
   I would imagine that most people would understand that all police forces have to be aware of all pending legislation and will have procedures in place to keep up with this.
   I doubt that even you really believe the version of events that you are attempting, not very successfully, to support.

[gringo]

Hi Gringo
nice to see you. Bet EP read it on the internet 

  Hi Susan. Probably someone else read it on the internet and then "tipped them off"

[lookout]

That's more like it.

[Adam]

  Nobody is saying that though. Read the post above.
   Most are probably shaking their heads with incredulity that anyone could believe that a police force need tipping off by "the government or a senior minister" to warn them of impending legislation that is a matter of public record(hansard debates etc.).
   I would imagine that most people would understand that all police forces have to be aware of all pending legislation and will have procedures in place to keep up with this.
   I doubt that even you really believe the version of events that you are attempting, not very successfully, to support.

So EP were constantly monitoring internal discussions within parliament ? Ready to destroy evidence which wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

Why didn't they just destroy it sooner ? Or was ten years the protocol at the time ?

Has anyone got a source on the dates EP destroyed the evidence and the date this legislation was brought in ? Other posters have claimed this is what happened so must have a source. 

If this new legislation was 'several months away' and had not even been discussed within the home office, then the guilters stance is a dead duck.

[gringo]

So EP were constantly monitoring internal discussions within parliament ? Ready to destroy evidence which wouldn't have made any difference anyway.

Why didn't they just destroy it sooner ? Or was ten years the protocol at the time ?

Has anyone got a source on the dates EP destroyed the evidence and the date this legislation was brought in ? If this new legislation had not even been discussed within the home office, then the guilters stance is a dead duck.

  These are all very stupid questions even by your, admittedly low, standards.
    How do you believe that police forces become aware of new legislation?

[Adam]

  These are all very stupid questions even by your, admittedly low, standards.
    How do you believe that police forces become aware of new legislation?

I have reported you to the moderators. I don't recall any threads or good posts from you. Although you're post yesterday about what items were apparently destroyed was interesting.

It wasn't new legislation. It was several months away and not included in the Queen's Speech. So how would EP know about legislation which did not exist ?

[lookout]