There is not much I can add to the comments already made by others, particularly in the initial post by John Bradley.I was one of those preparing to give evidence at the court, to testify that Curran himself had been at the centre of a similar protest outside my own home a year or so earlier. Is he seriously suggesting that I should have dialled 999 (the number for emergencies, note) as soon as I spotted him gurning inanely for the camera with his buddies?And if I had, would the boys in blue have been as enthusiastic in feeling his collar as they would appear to have been in Paul's case?I'm not a legal expert, but there seems to me to be something deeply amiss about a case being dropped a day before it is due to be heard due to an absence of evidence. Surely the time for considering whether or not the evidence for the prosecution is viable is prior to deciding whether to bring a case to trial in the first place? Just what were the CPO thinking?This eleventh-hour decision, welcome though it was, asks more questions than it answers. Was the CPO placed under any pressure or "special pleading" by the police to sidestep its usually robust procedures in order to bring forward a charge which could not be substantiated? And if so, for what purpose was Steve Curran afforded special attention not available to other citizens?Was the case brought as a "frightener", not just for Paul but also for other members of the community who might be tempted to participate in active opposition to this Council's policies, as well as its almost pathological unwillingness to engage with residents?Or, as somebody else has suggested on this thread, was it a gamble in the hope that Paul would simply cave in to the pressure and plead guilty to something he was demonstrably not guilty of?Steve Curran has emerge from this with neither dignity nor credibility intact. He should do the decent thing and resign, and allow the local authority to elect a Leader who listens to the people he was elected to represent rather than one who bullies them, and invokes others in authority to do likewise.If he doesn't his colleagues should remove him, and if they don't it is reasonable for electors to conclude that their own moral compasses are every bit as lacking as his.At the very least the Opposition, which at best has been entirely silent on this matter, should hold him to account. Not close ranks with a fellow politician who has tried and failed to intimidate a community campaigner into silence.By their words, or their lack of them, they shall all be judged over the coming days and weeks.
Phil Andrews ● 3322d