UK Politics General Discussion

[jon81uk]

I'm not saying I believe there is myself, what I am saying is that why are those men who broke the nose of the female police officer not in jail just as quickly as one of the protestors who punched a police officer in the face? And perhaps it is things like this where people do feel there is a two tier system. We've all seen the phone videos of them attacking the officers in the airport, and it was just as violent as some of the scenes we saw this week.

Do you have a link to an article about the sentencing of those people from the airport? Did they plead guilty? Had they offended in the past?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Absolutely, it could and should be better, but that's not to say it isn't there at the moment. There are support packages, it does include housing, employment support, drug and alcohol support, and people do change. There are certainly people who are set up to fail on release though, and that shouldn't happen.
I'd say the biggest issue is actually mental health services for both prison release and pre-sentencing intervention, the support there is woeful.

The support packages are woefully misdirected, often delivered by third sector conglomerates missing not offering targeted or specialised support, and very much of a postcode lottery.

HMPPS have recently (1st August 2024) launched their CFO Evolution programme, but it's way too soon to have seen any immediate changes or positive impact yet: https://www.creatingfutureopportunities.gov.uk/cfo-evolution/

Although there are now DWP staff within prisons, they specialise in helping those on remand keep their housing and don't offer much support to those who are about to come out. They can't pre-register people for Universal Credit, or Job Centre Plus, for example; this is something the individual needs to do on the first day they're released. There also isn't a cross-departmental working approach between DWP and HMPPS/MOJ. Probationary Practitioners often don't know and don't have contact with their customer's Work Coach, or vice versa. This makes it particularly tricky for the work coach to know if what they're suggesting is suitable for the returning citizen, whether it infringes on any licence conditions, or whether it contrasts with MAPPA restrictions.

Employment support needs to go further. HMPPS and DWP need to work with employers to mythbust and change attitudes and opinions to employing those with criminal convictions. In particular they need to address the forthcoming employment crisis facing people convicted of sexual offences, and the societal two-tier attitude toward that. Blanket bans on employing people with convictions, or by offence type, need to be stopped and individual circumstances and assessments should be taken into account instead. How long ago was the offence? Has the person taken any steps to rehabilitate themselves? Is there a realised risk, or danger, to staff or customers by employing this person? Do they have a good report from their probationary practitioner?

Housing support is woeful at best and is a devolved localised issue, making it very much a postcode lottery. The council has a legal obligation to house you, but what they can offer will entirely be dependent on their level of housing stock and available financial support. This often leads to the council spending large amounts of money "temporarily" housing returning citizens in "supported accommodation", the latter of which is provided by private landlords without regulatory oversight or investigation into the type of support they're offering. I don't like using anecdotal evidence, typically, but I'm aware of one private "supported living" accommodation provider in this area, who has 180 returning citizens in various HMOs. He is a single operator, a private landlord, and the support he provides (which is enough for the local council) is a weekly phone call to each of his tenants.

The will is there, steps have been taken, but money isn't there to support it. There are many mental health failings, especially inside custodial institutions, that certainly won't be helping either.

 

[GaryH]

Do you have a link to an article about the sentencing of those people from the airport? Did they plead guilty? Had they offended in the past?

Manchester Airport: Police officer suspended after kicking video

A police officer has been suspended after a video circulated of a man being kicked and stamped on the head at Manchester Airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Four men were later arrested on suspicion of assault and affray, and all have since been bailed."

We've seen the mobile phone footage and how violent it was. At one point in the video one of the attackers tries to grab the officers Taser. And this took place in an airport with high security. My point is, anyone who attacks a police officer should receive a custodial sentence very quickly regardless of past convictions. If the courts can put one of the rioters behind bars within a week, then surely someone who actually breaks the nose of a female officer should also be behind bars in the same short amount of time?

 

[BarryZola]

If nothing else Gary H's point does illustrate just how lenient and softly softly our justice system has become. That someone could attack police officers and break a nose on camera and not be remanded in custody at the earliest opportunity. Why wouldn't that happen? Because in our system breaking a police officers nose has become not a nailed on prison sentence? That's how far we appear to have sunk. That's no good for anyone.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

I see some of the rioters, including one who punched a police officer has been sentenced within a few days and is, rightfully, off to prison.

However, I also read that the group of Asian men who kicked off in the airport a few weeks ago, attacking two police officers and breaking the nose of a woman police officer have not been sentenced, and are out on bail.

Two tier policing or not, perhaps its things like this which make people feel like there is.

Once a person has been arrested and bailed the police and CPS have 30 days in which to investigate and decide whether to charge. The allegation has to pass the 50% test. They can apply to extend this period in a court, but need a strong legal reason to do so.

You will always, usually, be granted bail if you have no prior convictions, aren't considered to be an immediate flight risk, or a realistic threat to the community that can't be controlled through bail conditions. A 40 year old man, accused and arrested for rape (for example), is likely to be released on bail but subject to conditional requirements, such as no contact with the victim. If he has previous, he's unlikely to be granted bail. If he's a flight risk, he's unlikely to be granted bail. If the police/CPS can demonstrate that not granting him bail will likely lead to a new offence.

I also read that the group of Asian men who kicked off in the airport a few weeks ago

Having read the article about the event you're referring to, I'm confused about how you've managed to infer the nationality of the people arrested. The article provides no detail about who the men are. If you're basing it on the colour of the skin of the people in the video, that seems a bit off. Something about this phrase bugs me. They're most likely British men, but we only refer to their skin colour and other them if something goes wrong? I'm only raising this because you didn't highlight the ethnicity/nationality of the police officers involved.

Manchester Airport: Police officer suspended after kicking video

A police officer has been suspended after a video circulated of a man being kicked and stamped on the head at Manchester Airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Four men were later arrested on suspicion of assault and affray, and all have since been bailed."

We've seen the mobile phone footage and how violent it was. At one point in the video one of the attackers tries to grab the officers Taser. And this took place in an airport with high security. My point is, anyone who attacks a police officer should receive a custodial sentence very quickly regardless of past convictions. If the courts can put one of the rioters behind bars within a week, then surely someone who actually breaks the nose of a female officer should also be behind bars in the same short amount of time?

The case you're referring to here is not clear cut. A deeper investigation into the circumstances around the event need to take place, particularly as a result of the alleged conduct by the suspended police officer. The men arrested on suspicion of assault and affray, who have been bailed, could have been acting in self defence.

My point is, anyone who attacks a police officer should receive a custodial sentence very quickly regardless of past convictions.

Not clear cut. If you're defending yourself, or someone else, against a police officer who is stamping on someone's head, surely you're using reasonable force?

then surely someone who actually breaks the nose of a female officer should also be behind bars in the same short amount of time?

I'm not sure why the officer's gender is of particular concern here.

There isn't two-tier policing going on here. There is an investigation into a particularly confusing incident, with multiple offending parties. This takes longer than witnessing someone setting fire to a hotel, in the middle of a riot. The lack of a charge in the first instance is because the CPS are still weighing up what happened, whether anything is a chargeable offence and whether there is a realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

If nothing else Gary H's point does illustrate just how lenient and softly softly our justice system has become. That someone could attack police officers and break a nose on camera and not be remanded in custody at the earliest opportunity. Why wouldn't that happen? Because in our system breaking a police officers nose has become not a nailed on prison sentence? That's how far we appear to have sunk. That's no good for anyone.

All I see on camera, in that footage, is a police officer pointing a taser at someone who is restrained on the floor, before kicking him in the face and stamping on his head unprovoked. Then everything gets a bit hectic in the heated response as the people around really don't think that sort of behaviour is ok.

Incidentally, that police officer wasn't arrested and hasn't faced criminal charges. His actions, however, mean that the case is no longer clear cut and that further investigation needs to happen before the CPS can make a decision on the initial incident.

Why wouldn't that happen? Because in our system breaking a police officers nose has become not a nailed on prison sentence? That's how far we appear to have sunk. That's no good for anyone.

Breaking a police officer's nose, to my knowledge, has never been a specific offence in this country. If the police officer's nose became broken during a scuffle for self defence, or because they tripped during a chase, or because another officer accidentally struck their colleague, then it wouldn't necessarily lead to a charge and certainly not prison time.

Our justice system is built on two fundamental principles, rehabilitation and the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. I think people tend to forget about that last bit.

 

[jon81uk]

Manchester Airport: Police officer suspended after kicking video

A police officer has been suspended after a video circulated of a man being kicked and stamped on the head at Manchester Airport.

www.bbc.co.uk

"Four men were later arrested on suspicion of assault and affray, and all have since been bailed."

We've seen the mobile phone footage and how violent it was. At one point in the video one of the attackers tries to grab the officers Taser. And this took place in an airport with high security. My point is, anyone who attacks a police officer should receive a custodial sentence very quickly regardless of past convictions. If the courts can put one of the rioters behind bars within a week, then surely someone who actually breaks the nose of a female officer should also be behind bars in the same short amount of time?

But without further context we don't know why they were bailed, did they plead guilty or not, do they have a past history?

Additionally at the time of their sentencing there wasn't really any likelihood of further riots related to that issue. Whereas this week judges are keen to send a message to those considering going out rioting this weekend.

 

[SirDossa]

I believe the CCTV footage that Gary H is referring to was the footage that was released a few days after the news originally broke..

Andy Burnham renews calls for calm after new video revealed

Uproar and allegations of police brutality were sparked last week when a video appeared to show a 19-year-old boy being kicked and stamped on by a police officers.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

The incident in question has had further revelations within the past 24 hours:

Fresh allegations over Manchester Airport police kick incident

A solicitor for the man stamped on at Manchester Airport make further claims of police mistreatment.

www.bbc.co.uk

Further allegations of mistreatment by the suspended police officer have been made. It is claimed that the person in the footage "was threatened by an officer, thrown to the ground and had his neck knelt upon in an area of the terminal without cameras."

The suspended police officer is now facing criminal investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct over the level of force used. Just let it be noted though that the person who stamped on someone's head, and then kicked them whilst pointed a taser at them, wasn't arrested, hasn't been remanded in custody, hasn't been charged by the CPS and hasn't been handed a prison sentence either. What on earth is this country coming to?

What all of this stresses though, is that unlike the riot arrests this particular incident is multifaceted and needs to be investigated thoroughly, and properly, before any charging decisions can be made.

 

[Benzin]

It's like seeing some complaining that the 17 year old who committed the murders that kicked off the riots has also not been sentenced yet. And that was someone sitting in the House of Lords!

Those who have been sentenced are in essentially "cut and dry" cases. I mean there's plenty of idiots out there who film themselves doing stuff illegally, and likely that these ones are the first of many. Likely picked up on the day, plenty of evidence that they all plead guilty and get it done in Crown Court.

I'd imagine the other incidents will go up to Magistrates Court. Or whichever of the two is the higher level.

 

[BarryZola]

All I see on camera, in that footage, is a police officer pointing a taser at someone who is restrained on the floor, before kicking him in the face and stamping on his head unprovoked. Then everything gets a bit hectic in the heated response as the people around really don't think that sort of behaviour is ok.

Incidentally, that police officer wasn't arrested and hasn't faced criminal charges. His actions, however, mean that the case is no longer clear cut and that further investigation needs to happen before the CPS can make a decision on the initial incident.

Breaking a police officer's nose, to my knowledge, has never been a specific offence in this country. If the police officer's nose became broken during a scuffle for self defence, or because they tripped during a chase, or because another officer accidentally struck their colleague, then it wouldn't necessarily lead to a charge and certainly not prison time.

Our justice system is built on two fundamental principles, rehabilitation and the presumption of innocence until PROVEN guilty. I think people tend to forget about that last bit.

But not long after the original video, within 24-48 hours another video was widely shared that showed an earlier phase of the incident where the guy who was later tasered was attacking (punching etc) the police. The police presumably would have had this stuff on their body-cams and the airport would have had CCTV. I also agree that the police officer should be prosecuted (based on what we saw on the footage). However, I believe that the police do have a sort of protected status (bad wording most probably) which is meant to lead to harsher sentencing as this basically gives better protection to emergency workers (so that they can go about their business without being harmed). If the police have man-handled the guy it still doesn't give them the excuse to break a police officers nose. They have recourse to complain afterwards if they feel they've been mistreated and then an investigation can take place.

 

[GaryH]

Having read the article about the event you're referring to, I'm confused about how you've managed to infer the nationality of the people arrested. The article provides no detail about who the men are. If you're basing it on the colour of the skin of the people in the video, that seems a bit off. Something about this phrase bugs me. They're most likely British men, but we only refer to their skin colour and other them if something goes wrong? I'm only raising this because you didn't highlight the ethnicity/nationality of the police officers involved.

It was reported widely at the time when the video clips were shown on the news, but this article will give you a lot more background to it, along with the subsequent disturbances it started in the community.

Manchester Airport police attack sparks Islamophobia accusations

Muslim community leaders in the UK have expressed their distress and shock at a incident, where a South Asian man was beaten and kicked by a police officer.

www.newarab.com

To quote : "Muslim community leaders in the UK have expressed their distress and shock at a incident, where a South Asian man was beaten and kicked by a police officer."

Personally, I don't care what colour or belief a person is, if they are in the UK they fall under UK laws, of which I believe assaulting a police officer is one?

The case you're referring to here is not clear cut. A deeper investigation into the circumstances around the event need to take place, particularly as a result of the alleged conduct by the suspended police officer. The men arrested on suspicion of assault and affray, who have been bailed, could have been acting in self defence.

Not clear cut. If you're defending yourself, or someone else, against a police officer who is stamping on someone's head, surely you're using reasonable force?

The first video which came out after the second where the police officer kicks the man on the ground shows the fight that took place in which the police officers were attacked. The incident with the police officer kicking the man on the ground, to me, is separate. He should also find himself subject to a charge of assault if its not proven he was acting in self defence, but the first video shows the police trying to arrest the men, at which point it all kicked off.

I'm not sure why the officer's gender is of particular concern here.

There isn't two-tier policing going on here. There is an investigation into a particularly confusing incident, with multiple offending parties. This takes longer than witnessing someone setting fire to a hotel, in the middle of a riot. The lack of a charge in the first instance is because the CPS are still weighing up what happened, whether anything is a chargeable offence and whether there is a realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

In the days of equal rights and all that, yeah ok gender shouldn't be of particular concern, but, to me, this was a group of 4 men, of which one attacked a female officer. Maybe I am old school, but I would never hit a female.

But bringing this back to the riots, how do we know the chap who hit the police officer wasn't acting in self defence? There was a video I saw on X (cant find it now) of a chap in a red top walking across the front of a police line, not touching the police, when one of the officers pushed him with their riot shield, as the man stumbled he pushed him again harder knocking them to the floor. Could it be argued if the man then kicked out at the police officer this was self defence? I feel the same arguments you are making above could also apply to these other cases. Both have video footage associated with them for all to see. One must wonder with the quick sentencing of some of these people ifs it a case of making an example of them to stop further riots (probably), and dare I say the Manchester Airport incident is taking longer to let tensions calm down within the community?

By the way, I find your posts interesting and respect your opinion, and in no way am I condoning the actions of the rioters, but to me, the law is the law, and I think all individuals should face the same punishment, in the same time scale, regardless of belief, ethnicity etc. but I am highlighting the fact that perhaps recently, people feel this hasn't been the case, and it may be these feelings which have contributed to the anger seen this week. I appreciate there may be further complexities, and again, maybe I am looking at this too simplistically, but if a person is filmed hitting a police officer, or any emergency worker for that, then they are guilty as charged.

 

[GaryH]

Another clip of the video here showing what happened prior to the police kicking the man on the ground incident:

Manchester mayor urges public not to rush to judgement after new airport footage

Footage appears to show two men fighting with three police officers at Manchester Airport

www.independent.co.uk

Notice at 0:24 the man attempts to grab the Taser from the armed officer.

After this second video came out, the lawyer for the men said he wouldn't represent them.

 

[BarryZola]

I believe that it's absolutely the case that after these COBRA meetings from the top down the justice system has been given the green light (or orders) to just send out a massive message through pretty much the quickest and harshest sentencing possible that people are not going to get away with these kinds of disturbances. Basically, it's a bad week to get into any trouble as part of a group. Do the same thing in isolated incidents in a few months time and you'll wait months for a court date and you'll get a fine and maybe a bit of community service. No way you'll push a bin slowly towards the feet of a police officer and get sent to prison like we've seen in the last 48 hours.

It's a one week special and we'll soon be back to the normality of a weak and inefficient justice system. BUT, I can absolutely see why the government has had to resort to it to provide a real life deterrent and try to nip these riots in the bud.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

But not long after the original video, within 24-48 hours another video was widely shared that showed an earlier phase of the incident where the guy who was later tasered was attacking (punching etc) the police. The police presumably would have had this stuff on their body-cams and the airport would have had CCTV. I also agree that the police officer should be prosecuted (based on what we saw on the footage). However, I believe that the police do have a sort of protected status (bad wording most probably) which is meant to lead to harsher sentencing as this basically gives better protection to emergency workers (so that they can go about their business without being harmed). If the police have man-handled the guy it still doesn't give them the excuse to break a police officers nose. They have recourse to complain afterwards if they feel they've been mistreated and then an investigation can take place.

A full recent writeup of the events, as we know and understand them to have happened, have been summarised by Sky News (including the run up to what happened):

Manchester Airport: Lawyer requests all footage be retained after man was kicked and stamped on by police officer

In extensive detail, solicitor Aamer Anwar provided the family's version of events, including what allegedly happened to spark the incident at Manchester Airport last month.

news.sky.com

The same officer kicked another person in the face, unprovoked, and also pepper sprayed another bystander, unprovoked (as witnessed in the mobile phone footage).

It has been alleged that some of the body worn camera footage is missing, or wasn't working, for certain periods of the three incidents, in areas where CCTV also isn't available.

There was a video I saw on X (cant find it now) of a chap in a red top walking across the front of a police line, not touching the police, when one of the officers pushed him with their riot shield, as the man stumbled he pushed him again harder knocking them to the floor. Could it be argued if the man then kicked out at the police officer this was self defence? I feel the same arguments you are making above could also apply to these other cases.

In the scenario that you've described, I would consider the kicking out action of the person in the red top a proportionate response to initially being knocked down by a riot shield. It could be considered to be within self defence.

Both have video footage associated with them for all to see. One must wonder with the quick sentencing of some of these people ifs it a case of making an example of them to stop further riots (probably), and dare I say the Manchester Airport incident is taking longer to let tensions calm down within the community?

Quick sentencing can only happen if the defendant makes a guilty plea. If they plead not guilty then things take a little, to a lot, longer and further investigations are made. What we're seeing now, with the riots, are people knowing they've been caught bang to rights and pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity in exchange for leniency with their sentence (1/3rd off remember). In the case of the Manchester Airport incident, all the defendants are currently pleading "not guilty" to the allegations. It's not a matter of letting tensions calm down in the community, it's the reality of how the cases are playing out.

By the way, I find your posts interesting and respect your opinion,

Thank you for your kind words! I feel the same toward yours and appreciate that we can have a respectful discussion and exchange of ideas.

and in no way am I condoning the actions of the rioters, but to me, the law is the law, and I think all individuals should face the same punishment, in the same time scale, regardless of belief, ethnicity etc. but I am highlighting the fact that perhaps recently, people feel this hasn't been the case, and it may be these feelings which have contributed to the anger seen this week.

The law is the law and individuals should be treated as equals under it, but the sad fact is that this isn't always the case. I disagree with the phrase "two-tier justice", but if we are going to use it then why don't we highlight that if you're BAME you're statically more likely to be found guilty by a jury; if you're BAME, you're statistically more likely to receive a harsher sentence compared to a white person. There have been found to be institutionally racist failings of our justice system, but it's not against the white people.

I appreciate there may be further complexities, and again, maybe I am looking at this too simplistically, but if a person is filmed hitting a police officer, or any emergency worker for that, then they are guilty as charged.

You are looking at this a bit too simplistically, and if you ever get to be a jury member for a criminal trial you might be interested to see how these things play out. Video isn't clear cut evidence, it can be manipulated and taken out of context. Often it doesn't have audio. We don't always get to see what happened in the run up to the event, and never really after. Most people only start filming just as things have kicked off. A perfect example of this is the Manchester incident you shared. Lots of different videos, presented to the public in different ways, often out of sequence and none of the important stuff of what happened in between. Someone is only guilty as charged if it's been proven beyond all reasonable doubt.

 

[Benzin]

Another clip of the video here showing what happened prior to the police kicking the man on the ground incident:

Manchester mayor urges public not to rush to judgement after new airport footage

Footage appears to show two men fighting with three police officers at Manchester Airport

www.independent.co.uk

Notice at 0:24 the man attempts to grab the Taser from the armed officer.

After this second video came out, the lawyer for the men said he wouldn't represent them.

Was that lawyer the same bloke who is widely known as being a chancer/grifter?

Bail just means they don't sit in a cell awaiting court/trial dates anyway. It'll get sorted eventually, and purporting a belief that this is proof of a "two tier" policing system (which, given that it involved a police officer going above the law in assaulting an incapacitated person irrespective of what happened prior is an awkward argument to make) doesn't really help anyone since the law is pretty much being followed how it normally goes.

The Justice system is just yet another area of the country's infrastructure that has been sidelined demolished by the previous government. Starmer is just doing what he did when the 2011 riots happened. The real anger will be from those awaiting trials for longer now that have to process over 400 and counting idiots on top of the current backlog.

 

[BarryZola]

A full recent writeup of the events, as we know and understand them to have happened, have been summarised by Sky News (including the run up to what happened):

Manchester Airport: Lawyer requests all footage be retained after man was kicked and stamped on by police officer

In extensive detail, solicitor Aamer Anwar provided the family's version of events, including what allegedly happened to spark the incident at Manchester Airport last month.

news.sky.com

The same officer kicked another person in the face, unprovoked, and also pepper sprayed another bystander, unprovoked (as witnessed in the mobile phone footage).

It has been alleged that some of the body worn camera footage is missing, or wasn't working, for certain periods of the three incidents, in areas where CCTV also isn't available.

As I said, I'm happy for the police officer to receive whatever punishment he needs to receive for his actions. Anyway, I've just read that article and to sum it up, basically, some randomer was allegedly being racist to the asian lad's mum whilst on the flight. Then the lads found the guy in the airport after meeting her there and went and got into an altercation with the guy. Police turn up and then whatever happens and the asian lads start battering the police, then that one police officer gets all crazy, loses it, and goes way over the top in retaliation to the attack on his fellow officers. Some footage appears to be missing from parts of this. There was insufficient evidence to prosecute that the guy on the plane was being racist.

Not sure where they're claiming self defence for having to attack the police or whatever? As Gary has said anyway, what's to stop those in the riots just pleading not guilty or saying it was self defence and then getting to go home and not be remanded in custody before trial, just like the airport guys? Oh, some of them actually have pleaded not guilty but the judges have remanded them anyway. I read about several who that happened to yesterday. Here's just one example from the below link:

"Lloyd Killner, 35, of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, appeared at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court charged with violent disorder in Liverpool city centre on Saturday.


Asked to enter a plea, he said: ‘Not guilty, I was on my own.’


He was remanded in custody to appear at Liverpool Crown Court on August 30".

Judge brands Southport rioters a 'disgrace' as he jails them for 32 months

At least 378 people have been arrested so far as the anti-immigrant and anti-Islam in riots seen across the UK.

metro.co.uk

 

[rob666]

For clarification of the Manchester incident, nobody has "the full picture" from what has been shown so far...this matter started on the plane, that was "Incident number one" in this overall event, all video evidence is what happened after the initial incident that caused the police to be involved initially.
Everything shown on video is in response to earlier matters on board the plane.

Split posting...what Mr Zola said!

 

[Matt N]

On a side note; is it me, or does it seem like the new government's popularity is really decreasing?

The winter fuel payment decision was not received well at all, with fears it could plunge a number of pensioners into poverty, and some are fearing a tax raid come the winter. I also feel like Starmer's response to the riots has not been received very well.

Is it just me, or does anyone else feel like the shine is coming off the new government in the minds of much of the population? I fear this could lead to people concluding that "Labour are just as incompetent as the Tories" and voting in a Reform government for "change" in 2029...

On the other hand, perhaps it comes from the fact that The Telegraph seems to make up half of my recommended news articles on my iPad's news app, and they never seem to have a good word to say about Labour...

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

As Gary has said anyway, what's to stop those in the riots just pleading not guilty or saying it was self defence and then getting to go home and not be remanded in custody before trial, just like the airport guys? Oh, some of them actually have pleaded not guilty but the judges have remanded them anyway. I read about several who that happened to yesterday. Here's just one example from the below link:

"Lloyd Killner, 35, of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, appeared at Liverpool Magistrates’ Court charged with violent disorder in Liverpool city centre on Saturday.


Asked to enter a plea, he said: ‘Not guilty, I was on my own.’


He was remanded in custody to appear at Liverpool Crown Court on August 30".

I can't comment about ongoing court cases, or the individual circumstances in the case that you have cited. I can, however, point you in the direction of the guidance surrounding bail: https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/bail

Everyone in this country is guaranteed the legal right to bail, unless one of the exemptions apply. If someone hasn't been granted bail, and has been remanded into custody, there will be a legal reason as to why. No one has "remanded them anyway".