[denton-scratch]

They charged him without any evidence. They were harrassing an activist. It wasn't incompetence.

[Edit: the article didn't say they charged him; I was wrong]

Well, that's how it looks to me, on the basis of a single report in a tech journal with a sort-of tabloid outlook. Maybe there will be more information in coming days.

[feu]

>They charged him without any evidence.

The article explicitly says that the police did not charge him.

[tssva]

No where in the article does it say they charged him with anything.

[denton-scratch]

I'm wrong - they didn't charge him. I don't know why I wrote that - I had read the article.

But they did arrest him.

[crimsoneer]

That's how the UK legal system works. An arrest is an investigative tool.

[chrisseaton]

> They charged him

Eh?

[bmsleight_]

A British term, means formally charged with an offence. Police compile evidence and/or arrest a person. If the Police think there is enough of a case, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) decide if there is enough evidence to support a 'charge'

https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/cps-says-role-cps-deciding-w...

Basically Police arrest, looked at the evidence then took no action as Police decided no crime - therefore not charged.

[chrisseaton]

Yeah I know what it means. But he wasn’t charged. I don’t know why the person I’m replying to is saying that because it’s untrue.

[denton-scratch]

You are right, he wasn't charged. He was arrested. I was wrong about that.