Talk:Crown Prosecution Service

message: Could the person who removed my 'Controversy' section please explain why they did so. I expected my additions to be soon edited, of course, and perhaps substantially so. But was I suprised to find them entirely erased with the note "unstructured polemic" attached. 
Surely a lack of structure and even a polemical tone are failings of style alone, easily put right by an better-prosed editor; yet the controversy section touched upon some undeniable facts which I believe have a place in the CPS article; to remove the whole section then is a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
It is true that there is a 'CPS Charging Standard Code' which differs from the legal definition of various offences (e.g. following Moriarty v Brookes (1834) any harm which breaks both layers of the skin amounts to wounding, whereas the Charging Standards limit the definition of wounding to more serious cuts). The CPS are using more internally-employed advocates, and sometimes advocates who are not qualified solicitors or barristers. And, as the many links to the Times Law Supplement showed, it is true that these have been the source of public criticism, public debate and official responses from the CPS itself.
If it were the case that all 'controversy' sections were deleted by Wikipedia as a rule I would understand this person's decision to remove mine, and I would learn from my mistake. However very many topics have a section on controversies and criticisms: the Barclays bank page, for example, blames them for involvement with apartheid and Mugabe and their part of the large-bonus culture. I do not understand why objectivity includes acknowledging the bad with the good when writing about our private enterprises, but not when writing about government departments. Would you erase from the DEFRA page a mention of how they handled the Foot & Mouth crisis a few years back, and all the criticism this led to? (though I note that there is no such mention, so perhaps someone has got to it already)
As a show of good faith I will not revert this person's own reversion and restore my 'controversy' section. But I would like a reasonable explanation as to why there is no place for mention of the above facts (even if in a setting other than I wrote for them) on the CPS page. Otherwise some might suggest there is a prima facie case of unpalatable facts about the English executive mysteriously and inexplicably disappearing...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.64.241 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed "controversy" section 

message: The article is no longer accurate in terms of charging authority.  A recent change in charging policy has meant a large bulk of 'volume crime' offences have had charging authorities and decisions reverted back to the police away from the CPS.  The opening paragraphs are therefore wrong when describing charging authority. Dibble999 (talk) 15:42, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Charging Policy 

message: The word "barrister" is not found in this article. It should include some information about the relationship between the Crown Prosecution Service and the Bar. 98.246.154.230 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 06:42, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By now the word is in it, so I'll keep my explanation short: The CPS employs, among other professions, also barristers. The CPS itself is not a member of the bar, but the barristers who work for it are. SchnitteUK (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barristers 

message: The history section is missing something.  For its entire existence from 1974 until 1986, West Midlands County Council was responsible for prosecutions in the West Midlands.  This was independent of the police but it wasn't set up by them.  The article implies that the onus was entirely upon the police to solve the independent prosecutor problem, but there was clearly more going on.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.24.17.35 (talk) 02:08, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  History - Role of police in creating independent prosecutors 

message: The "History" section of this article begins:
:"Historically had no police forces and no dedicated prosecution service."
This has no subject, so it is not a sentence and actually tells the reader nothing.
What had no police forces and no prosecution services?  My guess is that it was intended to say "the UK", but it would probably be better for the editor who wrote it to review and rewrite it than for me to interfere. Hedles (talk) 21:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaningless and ungrammatical 'sentence'