Plebgate - An interesting new twist

Plebgate - An interesting new twist

Author
Discussion

bitchstewie

50,782 posts

209 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Nothing to do with the actions of an arrogant Gov Minister then.
At what point is leaking of the contents of a pocket book, something which I'm guessing is potentially evidence if it goes to trial, acceptable in your opinion?

Zeeky

2,779 posts

211 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Tea Pot One said:
rewc said:
Of course Plebgate is political, the Police Federation made sure of that.
A politician effectively accused officers of lying ... so they challenged that - quite correctly.
That is not the only effect of a difference in two versions of events. Dishonesty is one, mistake is another.

The Police Federation knows why it chose to assume one over the other. People might interpret this assumption as being politically motivated.

XCP

16,876 posts

227 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
I think the reaction would have been the same whatever colour tie he wore.

Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Well, here's the thing, I never said it was. What is disgusting is the treatment of this Officer and the complete disregard of Pace code G, which has been rammed down our throats this last couple of months.

But what is clear is the sustained campaign by Mitchell to portray himself as wronged, despite constant refusals to clear up what he did or did not say. Still, when it's one of Cam Jong Il's own doing the leaking, the Tory party seem to have a different opinion.
2008: Cameron “extremely angry” over Damian Green arrest for leaking info and has accused Labour of “Stalinesque” behaviour”

toml555

111 posts

138 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Nothing to do with the actions of an arrogant Gov Minister then.
Correct. He isn't a Minister, and he wasn't at the time either.

10 Pence Short

32,880 posts

216 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Apparantly it's okay to commit gross misconduct by leaking info to the press in order to push a government minister to resign over what are merely unsubstantiated allegations, yet to deal with the person actually committing the offence is somehow 'vidictive'.

What nonsense.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
10 Pence Short said:
Apparantly it's okay to commit gross misconduct by leaking info to the press in order to push a government minister to resign over what are merely unsubstantiated allegations, yet to deal with the person actually committing the offence is somehow 'vidictive'.

What nonsense.
What nonsense indeed.

Leaking of information goes on all the time. It is common. It has only ever been an issue when it involves info regarding a case in court. In my force we were ordered to share info with the press. If there was any doubt, the officer should contact the press officer whose job it was to give out the information in any case. As long as it did not prejudice a case, everyone was happy.

Leaking information does not become gross misconduct just because it is about the chief whip. Oh, wait a minute, yes it does. As pointed out by a serving officer, there is, and has always been, one rule for us and one rule for them. The big test is whether they see themselves as important.

It becomes gross misconduct if the information is wrong and the officer 'leaking' it knows this to be so.

And let us be clear: Mitchell did substantiate the allegations, he just refused to say whether he used certain words. The actions are agreed.

If the officer was under a direct order or a force order not to disclose the information then it is an internal matter and one for which there is no power of arrest.

The general rule is that if D&C resort to mis/malfeasance or MiaPO they have insufficient evidence for a proper charge. And it didn't take me anywehre near 30 years to realise that. These offences are catch-alls, something that in normal circs would be laughed out of court.

I'm not defending the officer. He knew the risks, but it is rather like the risk of upsetting someone in the lodge.

Caulkhead

4,938 posts

156 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
toml555 said:
Elroy Blue said:
Nothing to do with the actions of an arrogant Gov Minister then.
Correct. He isn't a Minister, and he wasn't at the time either.
Please, don't interrupt Elroy Blue's long standing and vicious personal hatred of Cameron (he treats his protection officers like dirt you know?) and the tories with facts.

Mitchell is ex-army and should've known better than to treat uniformed officers the way he would've treated subordinate uniformed squaddies, but as a one-off incident it's well below the idiocy shown by many other MP's of all persuasions.

Elroy Blue

8,686 posts

191 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Caulkhead said:
Please, don't interrupt Elroy Blue's long standing and vicious personal hatred of Cameron (he treats his protection officers like dirt you know?) and the tories with facts.

Mitchell is ex-army and should've known better than to treat uniformed officers the way he would've treated subordinate uniformed squaddies, but as a one-off incident it's well below the idiocy shown by many other MP's of all persuasions.
I don't think my dislike of Cameron and his ilk compares with your stalking of me. You seem to have a right little bee in your bonnet

Mitchell served five minutes in the army. Its interesting that you think his behaviour us an acceptable way to treat 'squaddies'. As someone who has also held a commission in the Forces, it is never acceptable to display such arrogant and contemptuous behaviour.

As for it being a 'one off', I think you'll find even Mitchell's supporters would disagree with you there. (But as you seem to know all the facts, you'll probably want to come out with some more juicy information)

IroningMan

10,154 posts

245 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Caulkhead said:
Please, don't interrupt Elroy Blue's long standing and vicious personal hatred of Cameron (he treats his protection officers like dirt you know?) and the tories with facts.

Mitchell is ex-army and should've known better than to treat uniformed officers the way he would've treated subordinate uniformed squaddies, but as a one-off incident it's well below the idiocy shown by many other MP's of all persuasions.
Any officer in the RTR in which I served who behaved like that would've been sacked. Or lamped. Or both.

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
XCP said:
pits said:
I have no interest in the story itself, but Plebgate? Seriously? Was he trapped in a gate when this happened, or is it just a moronic twist on Watergate? I thought the world was past adding 'gate to stuff I thought it was reserved for the prize bellends working in the media.
The story revolves around the opening ( or not)of a gate.
I prefer "Gategate".

IroningMan

10,154 posts

245 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Breadvan72 said:
I prefer "Gategate".
If 'Gategate' was the original affair, then surely this new development would be 'Gategate-gate'?

anonymous-user

53 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Indeed.

Caulkhead

4,938 posts

156 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Caulkhead said:
Please, don't interrupt Elroy Blue's long standing and vicious personal hatred of Cameron (he treats his protection officers like dirt you know?) and the tories with facts.

Mitchell is ex-army and should've known better than to treat uniformed officers the way he would've treated subordinate uniformed squaddies, but as a one-off incident it's well below the idiocy shown by many other MP's of all persuasions.
I don't think my dislike of Cameron and his ilk compares with your stalking of me. You seem to have a right little bee in your bonnet

Mitchell served five minutes in the army. Its interesting that you think his behaviour us an acceptable way to treat 'squaddies'. As someone who has also held a commission in the Forces, it is never acceptable to display such arrogant and contemptuous behaviour.

As for it being a 'one off', I think you'll find even Mitchell's supporters would disagree with you there. (But as you seem to know all the facts, you'll probably want to come out with some more juicy information)
You appear on every even half-related thread to whine about Cameron. I'd have to avoid virtually all political threads to avoid 'stalking' you.

You need to learn to read - where did I say I thought his behaviour was an acceptable way to treat squaddies? As someone who served himself including in Op Granby, I am well aware of how new officers on an SSC after public school can treat the lower ranks. How exactly is saying he 'should've known better than to treat uniformed officers the way' confirming it is acceptable behaviour?

It's just another opportunity for you to exercise the chip on your shoulder as usual - you didn't even know he wasn't a minster.


bitchstewie

50,782 posts

209 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Elroy Blue said:
Well, here's the thing, I never said it was. What is disgusting is the treatment of this Officer and the complete disregard of Pace code G, which has been rammed down our throats this last couple of months.
I don't know what Pace code G is and I suspect many of us here don't, but I do know, or at least always assumed, that Police Officers are, and know they are, subjected to a higher degree of scrutiny than members of the public.

I don't agree with Mitchell's actions in the slightest but when you have the Police saying ”The officer arrested was not on duty at the time of the incident in Downing Street.” I think you have to question the reasons he leaked the document as it doesn't seem it could be out a sense of having been personally wronged by Mitchell's actions.

Rovinghawk

13,300 posts

157 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
Leaking information does not become gross misconduct just because it is about the chief whip. ...........

It becomes gross misconduct if the information is wrong and the officer 'leaking' it knows this to be so.
The case for the prosecution is that it is misconduct when it's blabbed without permission.

RH

Fort Jefferson

8,237 posts

221 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
I blame Thatcher, if it wasn't for her, there wouldn't be any gates.biggrin

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
So what does Pace Code G actually mean - I've had a quick look, but is my simple eyes it looks like you need some evidence to arrest people, and don't pick on minority groups. Which doesn't seem unreasonable?

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9750005/A...

It seems others have picked up the failure to conform to procedures as well.

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Monday 17th December 2012
quotequote all
Rovinghawk said:
Derek Smith said:
Leaking information does not become gross misconduct just because it is about the chief whip. ...........

It becomes gross misconduct if the information is wrong and the officer 'leaking' it knows this to be so.
The case for the prosecution is that it is misconduct when it's blabbed without permission.

RH
Then the prosecution will fail.

It often does when politics is involved.