It is becoming a regular feature of the news. Changes will be made - they always say. And they never are. It really is time British Police were overhauled from top to bottom.

Andy Marsh, Chief Constable of Avon and Somerset Police, apologised for failing Mr Ebrahimi "in his hour of need".
"We've made many changes since Mr Ebrahimi's murder in response to the things we learnt and identified to be in need of change," Mr Marsh said.

Pull the other one; it's got bells on it.

www.itv.com/news/2017-07-05/police-could...e-murder-of-refugee/

I still see the word/s "believed" and "not believed" used. In dealing with crime in reports the words should never be used. All reported incidents should simply to be "taken seriously" whether "believed" or "not believed" then the facts can be established. Of course, there will be times when the report will be noting the immediate emotional assessment in passing, of belief or not belief, but that is all, then the actions carried out should form the real basis.

For myself, like most individuals, when I read a story I have the usual emotional reaction of "believe" or "not believe". But when I am actually considering the story for real then all that matters is the facts that can be established to form some sort of assessment of what the truth is or likely to be. As to the initial gut reaction then sometimes it is correct and sometimes it is not.

What the police and society need to learn is to be objective. Unfortuately people are not taught how to disregard initial emotional assessments.

So I look forward to the time that all reports are "taken seriously" initially and appropriately assessed and maybe if required revisited. Which does not mean continued stupid witch hunts like the Edward Heath case. No the police do not and never have to follow every whim and fancy as the senior guy seems to believe.

And there is more than the Henriques condemned BELIEF (as shown in Westminster Magistrates Court where the Judge told off police and CPS for using the word Victims) - why are some celebrities not prosecuted (with those weasel words "insufficient evidence") when others, especially non celebrities are prosecuted with identical "evidence" (one person's word)? Why prosecute David Bryant (false claims by Danny Day) yet not Chris Evans (false claims dropped)? Something really stinks. The system is broken.

"murder of a disabled refugee by a vigilante who wrongly believed he was a paedophile"

I had the impression from reading reports at the time and it seems to be borne out by more recent reports that accusing him of being a paedophile was just an escalation of the victimisation he had received because of his race and disability. Not because the killer actually believed he was a paedophile but an excuse for the killer to maximise the victimisation, and possibly an excuse he thought would help his defence as a sign of well-intentioned public-spiritedness. So I don't understand why ITV is giving the killer the benefit of the doubt by calling him a vigilante and claiming that he wrongly believed the victim was a paedophile.

A couple of BBC reports
Bijan Ebrahimi: Police 'failed' murdered man for years
Bristol police officers jailed over 'vigilante' death (I think the BBC was right to put vigilante in quotation marks)

Panorama did a report on racism in Bristol just four years before this murder. It's still available, in three parts, on YouTube under the title "Racism in multicultural Britain".
BBC reporters highlight racism on Bristol estate

The police behaviour in this case seems to have been abominable. I wonder if they really are now taking racism and/or disability victimisation in Bristol more seriously than they clearly did not in this case.