Andrew Mitchell

[supaseagull]

I don't think that many people really care about this news story. Andrew Mitchell was wrong for doing what he did and if the police have fibbed about what happened then naught them. However the utter waste of taxpayers money already thrown at this unimportant non event is pretty obscene and a complete waste.

 

[Badger]

Since when has police corruption been trivial ?

But the actual event itself, it was so minor that I wouldn't even consider it newsworthy. One person (allegedly) called another person a name and the reaction his been ridiculous.

 

[drew]

The skills needed are to examine evidence and come to a conclusion. It's what we ask (untrained) jurors to do every day.

I disagree. Jurors have to evaluate evidence to come to a decision but they are not responsible for gathering that evidence. At the end of the day, the police gather evidence and the CPS evaluate whether there are grounds for prosecution and putting the matter in front of a jury.

I don't like the man much, but I think the answer to your question is no, not really. He has admitted swearing at them and denied calling them plebs. He has done so regularly and consistently. Personally, I don't think that knowing what the actual swear words are makes much difference. "Plebs" was always the heart of the matter - the word implies disdain and, from the mouth of a Tory, has strong class connotations, which, for Mitchell, was always going to be career terminating. It's starting to look like a cover up - 8 people arrested following the initial incident, the IPCC calling into question the honesty and integrity of the three officers who subsequently met him, and now three chief constables saying that no investigation of their officers' conduct was or is necessary. Hmmm.

As far as I'm aware, all he has done has continually reiterated that he didn't use the word 'pleb'. I think he admits using the 'f' word but other than that nothing else. If the 'f' word was the worse thing he said then why not release his version of everything else. Even if what he said was worse than the 'f' word then he still would be better to say what was said. All the time he doesn't then it appears to most people that he still has something to hide.

I thought he had.

At its very worse, the Police attempted a Coup d'état. (Granted, probably without the intellect to realise they were doing it). So yes, very much so.

Are you serious? How was this an attempt to overthrow a government?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

But the actual event itself, it was so minor that I wouldn't even consider it newsworthy. One person (allegedly) called another person a name and the reaction his been ridiculous.

I agree when it's about the original event. Mitchell said something he shouldn't and the police took issue. Quite why the police kicked up such a stink is beyond me - you can't tell me they're not used to being called names ?

My issue is they have then gone on and attempted to create their own version of the truth - this needs investigating - we can't have police officers presenting mis-truths.

 

[Steve.S]

I don't think that many people really care about this news story. Andrew Mitchell was wrong for doing what he did and if the police have fibbed about what happened then naught them. However the utter waste of taxpayers money already thrown at this unimportant non event is pretty obscene and a complete waste.

That would depend? Stephen Lawerence, Hillsborough to name a few. Do we want honest police force? Maybe if you found yourself before a judge and convicted by the evidence of these police officers and they were lies. Then maybe you would have a different outlook. The point would be if these police had lied, I would expect anyone that has been convicted of a crime, because of these, would be asking their solicitor to look at the evidence again. If a police officer is found to have lied, then surely that would put into question any case in the past where he has given evidence.

 

[Stoo82]

Are you serious? How was this an attempt to overthrow a government?

I said at its worst.

Are you saying that the intent of the police was not to get a Minister of the Crown sacked? What was it they said he called them? A pleb? It had the 'potential' to bring down a Concervative led Government. So yes, at its WORST, it was an unintential Coup d'état.

 

[beorhthelm]

Obviously, if you think that this enquiry and the amount of media attention it is getting is justified then, then of course that's your opinion. However, at a time when teachers and firefighters are going on strike and people are looking at losing their jobs, do you REALLY think that Andrew Mitchell is THE most important news story around at the moment?

i dont think you really grasp the significance of the story, or what the story is. its not the original "offence" that is at issue, its trivial and frankly not worth more than a couple of paragraphs on page 12. its the fact that every point after that the police have ignored or outright faught accusations anything was wrong when bang to rights. the system thats supposed to firebreak poor practice and corruption have failed at every level.

 

[Withdeano]

I don't like the man much, but I think the answer to your question is no, not really. He has admitted swearing at them and denied calling them plebs. He has done so regularly and consistently. Personally, I don't think that knowing what the actual swear words are makes much difference. "Plebs" was always the heart of the matter - the word implies disdain and, from the mouth of a Tory, has strong class connotations, which, for Mitchell, was always going to be career terminating. It's starting to look like a cover up - 8 people arrested following the initial incident, the IPCC calling into question the honesty and integrity of the three officers who subsequently met him, and now three chief constables saying that no investigation of their officers' conduct was or is necessary. Hmmm.

Have to point out a big error in what you write here. The 3 forces in question ACTUALLY ASKED for the matter to be investigated and requested that the IPCC do so. The IPCC declined. The forces then conducted the investigation themselves under IPCC supervision (supervising in this instance is quite different to running). Following the investigation the forces decided that the actions of the 3 officers did not amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. The issue at stake here is this finding. The IPCC has now decided to question it and following this HASC, the Home Sec and now the media have followed suit BUT if you read between the lines there is an awful lot of mischief making going on. It suits this govt's police reform agenda for police integrity to be repeatedly questioned and even the usually balanced Mark Easton from the BBC seems to be on a mission on this one - on BBCR4Today he linked this integrity issue (have no doubt, I agree there are issues raised in this case that need resolving) with the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes. I found that quite staggering.

This statement made by the 3 police chiefs who are today getting a kicking from the media and off kilter MPs like Mark Reckless, is quite revealing: http://www.westmercia.police.uk/new...tml?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

 

[Seasidesage]

I find it incredible how few people seem to have problem with the Police lying. Surely it is fundamental to the justice system that the Police tell the truth? If you cannot rely on the police to provide honest evidence to the CPS the whole justice system becomes tainted as a result.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Everyone including Police Officers and MPs are entitled to make errors of judgement providing they are honest and put their hands up after. Both sides in this matter appear guilty of misdemeanours but this matter was then seized upon by the Police Federation to taint a Tory minister at time the Govt were pressing for some major reforms of the Police. Mitchell is an obvious target but it because of his attitude but now looks like they picked the wrong issue to fight because it has rebounded on them big time.

Now the reputation of the Police (including the majority of diligent honest Officers) is getting a thorough kicking and will be that much easier to target for further reforms. Only this week the Govt has agreed that applicants for senior Police Officer posts no longer have to be serving Officers but can come from other occupations such as the military. Unfortunately with issues like Hillsborough refusing to go away and most likely to gain more prominent headlines in coming months it all suits the Govts agenda.

 

[albion534]

the guys a pleb, the police are plebs, end of story

 

[Goldstone1976]

Have to point out a big error in what you write here. The 3 forces in question ACTUALLY ASKED for the matter to be investigated and requested that the IPCC do so. The IPCC declined. The forces then conducted the investigation themselves under IPCC supervision (supervising in this instance is quite different to running). Following the investigation the forces decided that the actions of the 3 officers did not amount to misconduct or gross misconduct. The issue at stake here is this finding.

I stand corrected. I did know this, but was lazy in my initial post. Thanks for pointing out the error.

 

[glasfryn]

the guys a pleb, the police are plebs, end of story

is at last the correct answer

 

[Nibble]

During the 60's Police Corruption was denied and then in the 70's corruption was denied but the 60's corruption was admitted. In the 80's the 70's corruption was acknowledged but the 80's corruption denied. In the 90's the 80's corruption was acknowledged but the 90's corruption denied. In the....well you see where I'm going with that.

What is worrying is thinking what those coppers have seen others get away with to think they have a pretty good chance of getting away with it themselves. A lot I would imnagine.

 

[cirC]

I find it incredible how few people seem to have problem with the Police lying. Surely it is fundamental to the justice system that the Police tell the truth? If you cannot rely on the police to provide honest evidence to the CPS the whole justice system becomes tainted as a result.

Correct,ask the Lawrence family,the newspaper seller who was knocked to the ground and maybe the family of a current case regarding firearms.If the police lie to justify themselves then that is not acceptable.FULLSTOP.

 

[Nibble]

Mitchell was a pillock. However I want to see truth from all concerned. It appears Mitchell has told the truth and the Babylons have allegedly conspired to lie.

I couldn't give a tinker's **** what the outcome is as long as the truth outs that's what is required.

 

[drew]

Mitchell was a pillock. However I want to see truth from all concerned. It appears Mitchell has told the truth and the Babylons have allegedly conspired to lie.

I couldn't give a tinker's **** what the outcome is as long as the truth outs that's what is required.

I'm not sure you can claim that Mitchell has told the truth as he has never advised us of what he actually said and has always refused to do so (unless that has passed me by somewhere and if so, perhaps someone could enlighten me). All he has done is a) apologise for loosing his temper and swearing and b) denied using the word Pleb.

My understanding of the subsequent details are that at a meeting he apologised to the officers which they apparently accepted but then the Federation reps decided the matter should go further because Mitchell although denying saying plebs, refused to confirm what he had actually said. At that point Mitchell was still in a job so why did he not use the evidence of the recording he made then to justify his position and keep his job!!!!

Presumably the IPCC didn't investigate on a technicality because Mitchell didn't actually make a complaint. The three Police Chiefs decided to investigate, decided that there wasn't enough to actually take further action against the officers but that decision is now what the furore is about with the IPCC suggesting that they should have been disciplined and Mitchell's pose of MP friends jumping on the bandwagon.

Can someone clarify whether it is the officers that were on duty that night or the federation reps (who are presumably officers) that were at the meeting who it is suggested should be disciplined?

 

[paddy]

I'm not sure you can claim that Mitchell has told the truth as he has never advised us of what he actually said and has always refused to do so (unless that has passed me by somewhere and if so, perhaps someone could enlighten me). All he has done is a) apologise for loosing his temper and swearing and b) denied using the word Pleb.

My understanding of the subsequent details are that at a meeting he apologised to the officers which they apparently accepted but then the Federation reps decided the matter should go further because Mitchell although denying saying plebs, refused to confirm what he had actually said. At that point Mitchell was still in a job so why did he not use the evidence of the recording he made then to justify his position and keep his job!!!!

This is the transcript of the meeting between Mitchell and the police officers released by the IPCC which was produced from a tape recording: http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/defaul...ommissioner_reports/Transcript of meeting.pdf. Mitchell clearly gives a full account of what he said ('I thought you lot were supposed to f***** help us') in addition to denying he said what was attributed to him in the papers. The issue is immediately afterwards the police went outside on camera and said he refused to give confirm what he said. The transcript proves that what the police said afterwards was inaccurate.