of the position of the met, was it that those arrests were lawful? �*i�*es. that those arrests were lawful? yes. i'm not that those arrests were lawful? yes. i'm not asking _ that those arrests were lawful? yes. i'm not asking you — that those arrests were lawful? yes. i'm not asking you to _ that those arrests were lawful? fies i'm not asking you to repeat but that those arrests were lawful? .23 i'm not asking you to repeat but can you say why the met thought they were lawful. that you say why the met thought they were lawful-— you say why the met thought they were lawful. . ., ., .,, were lawful. at that moment those officers form _ were lawful. at that moment those officers form regional— were lawful. at that moment those officers form regional grounds i were lawful. at that moment those officers form regional grounds to i officers form regional grounds to believe people they had detained for committing the offence. and it's for those officers and the state taking into account the overall intelligence picture, the briefings they had, to justify why there is reasonable grounds formed, but from what i've seen, my belief and we've touched on the difference between reasonable grounds to suspect on the evidential threshold needed to charge, and to prove, but i believe they are lawful. charge, and to prove, but i believe they are lawful-— they are lawful. perhaps if you could... the _ they are lawful. perhaps if you could... the point _ they are lawful. perhaps if you could... the point has - they are lawful. perhaps if you could... the point has been i they are lawful. perhaps if you i could... the point has been made to you, i think, could... the point has been made to you, ithink, why could... the point has been made to you, i think, why should people who he put into custody if they're being arrested for an offence that there is not a custodial offence at the