Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
Time to start throwing mud??
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30188899
Cant imagine why this is news, other then to "prove" that tory MP's are capable of bad "everyday" language
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30188899
Cant imagine why this is news, other then to "prove" that tory MP's are capable of bad "everyday" language
gruffalo said:
The thing is that we have already heard from independent witness that "Pleb" is not a word used frequently by Mr Mitchell, nor is it a word that I would use.
I would remember if I had used it as it would be very unusual, however I would not remember if I had or had not used a word more commonly used as it simply would not standout in my memory.
There is ample evidence that the chap swore. The word pleb is derogatory. If he didn't say it then there is plenty of other things he said which are not in dispute. I would remember if I had used it as it would be very unusual, however I would not remember if I had or had not used a word more commonly used as it simply would not standout in my memory.
It is a common defence ploy to focus on one detail to the exclusion of all else. If a witness gives a description which is 90% accurate then they will concentrate on the 10%, the hoped for effect on the jury is that the jury will think that if that part was wrong then the rest of the evidence, including that from other people, should be ignored. And it does work on occasion, enough to make it a frequent tactic. I've been in one case where there was much discussion on the definition of kerfuffle. It was completely immaterial, yet it consumed most of my cross examination.
There is little concern about whether he said pleb or not. Who cares? It only becomes important when it is made to be important by the defence. All of a sudden there is a small industry as to why the word not being used makes everything else unimportant.
Was there a dispute regarding the gate being opened? Did he swear? Was this normal conduct from the bloke?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
They're as bad as each other.
The trouble with playing school playground handbags with Plod is that they're likely to have more handbags.
They're as bad as each other.
The trouble with playing school playground handbags with Plod is that they're likely to have more handbags.
carinaman said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
They're as bad as each other.
The trouble with playing school playground handbags with Plod is that they're likely to have more handbags.
Or a well funded federation of handbags with an extensive media machine?They're as bad as each other.
The trouble with playing school playground handbags with Plod is that they're likely to have more handbags.
Vaud said:
Or a well funded federation of handbags with an extensive media machine?
Unlike the tory party of course with its lack of sophisticated spin doctors, media back up. I would suggest that the 'handbags' you suggest the 'well funded' federation has is no match for those of any party, let alone the tories.It is an unequal battle. Politicians are normally untouchable.
Derek Smith said:
It is an unequal battle. Politicians are normally untouchable.
They both lost. But the handbags had fun.Rather like Emily Thornham's ill judged Tweet, plod shot themselves in the feet. Perhaps they should have left the politics to the politicians? Police playing politics risks the public bracketing them in the same group as politicians.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 25th November 15:34
Derek Smith said:
Unlike the tory party of course with its lack of sophisticated spin doctors, media back up. I would suggest that the 'handbags' you suggest the 'well funded' federation has is no match for those of any party, let alone the tories.
It is an unequal battle. Politicians are normally untouchable.
Its irrelevant Derek, the politican in this case was not untouchable.It is an unequal battle. Politicians are normally untouchable.
Lies, deceit and criminal wrongdooing, pursuaded a member of parliamwent to resign his elected position, when he did not do what was alleged, and the Police are fully responsible. How may police have to go to jail over this to change your mind?
Trax said:
Derek Smith said:
Unlike the tory party of course with its lack of sophisticated spin doctors, media back up. I would suggest that the 'handbags' you suggest the 'well funded' federation has is no match for those of any party, let alone the tories.
It is an unequal battle. Politicians are normally untouchable.
Its irrelevant Derek, the politican in this case was not untouchable.It is an unequal battle. Politicians are normally untouchable.
Lies, deceit and criminal wrongdooing, pursuaded a member of parliamwent to resign his elected position, when he did not do what was alleged, and the Police are fully responsible. How may police have to go to jail over this to change your mind?
Trax said:
Its irrelevant Derek, the politican in this case was not untouchable.
Lies, deceit and criminal wrongdooing, pursuaded a member of parliamwent to resign his elected position, when he did not do what was alleged, and the Police are fully responsible. How may police have to go to jail over this to change your mind?
You understand what the word normally means?Lies, deceit and criminal wrongdooing, pursuaded a member of parliamwent to resign his elected position, when he did not do what was alleged, and the Police are fully responsible. How may police have to go to jail over this to change your mind?
This is unusual, unique. A politician swore, on his own admission, at the police. One assumes this was the reason he was asked to resign. The use of plebs, as regards his conduct, is the real irrelevant detail. He abused police officers who were following instructions, ones they had followed in the past. He was challenging the police, putting them in their place for doing what they were supposed to do.
I've disciplined a lad for not stopping a judge going where he was told to let no one through. And quite rightly.
I've never, in any post on here, defended the conduct of the police who lied. Without checking back, I seem to remember a number of police officers, many/most/all of whom felt that the MP got what he deserved, who reckoned that the police officers who lied should have been dealt with severely. I don't think any of them have suggested the penalties are wrong.
What I'm saying is that, from what we've been told is uncontested, an MP, who habitually abused those he saw as underlings went too far. It was his conduct that caused his downfall. We have an example of an MP losing his temper because, it seems going by what he said, that he believed that a mere worker, one might say pleb, could be sworn at with impunity.
The world is full of people who abuse those who can't respond. I've found it true in industry, in factories and in the police. We also see it on TV where someone in authority abuses those who have no way of getting back. Here we have one of the foul-mouthed brigade who found that they sometimes, if rarely, can.
The police were never going to 'win', or to come out on top in this matter. The governmental spin doctors, with their symbiotic press, would confuse and confound.
The fact remains, if what we are told is correct, that he swore at the police for them performing their function as ordered.
Derek Smith said:
The fact remains, if what we are told is correct, that he swore at the police for them performing their function as ordered.
Image taken from: http://action4equalityscotland.blogspot.co.uk/2014...
If we want to do facts, it was PC Keith Wallace that was found to have lied, and been shown to be a police officer that fabricates evidence.
carinaman said:
Derek Smith said:
The fact remains, if what we are told is correct, that he swore at the police for them performing their function as ordered.
Image taken from: http://action4equalityscotland.blogspot.co.uk/2014...
If we want to do facts, it was PC Keith Wallace that was found to have lied, and been shown to be a police officer that fabricates evidence.
carinaman said:
Derek Smith said:
The fact remains, if what we are told is correct, that he swore at the police for them performing their function as ordered.
Image taken from: http://action4equalityscotland.blogspot.co.uk/2014...
If we want to do facts, it was PC Keith Wallace that was found to have lied, and been shown to be a police officer that fabricates evidence.
singlecoil said:
Irrelevant, Mitchell has freely admitted that he swore at the police!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...That judge says swearing isn't that serious.
Swearing justifies police officers making up tall tales in retaliation?
The police were also found to have lied about what was said during the meeting with Police Federation officials in Mitchell's constituency.
The police have been shown to have fibbed at least twice during this battle of the handbags.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 25th November 16:42
Scuffers said:
singlecoil said:
Irrelevant, Mitchell has freely admitted that he swore at the police!
actually, no he did not.he swore, not *at* them, but *about* them.
either way, that does not excuse what they did next.
Whatever happened next, that does not excuse what he did, and what he did was the reason why he had to go.
Derek Smith said:
You understand what the word normally means?
This is unusual, unique. A politician swore, on his own admission, at the police. One assumes this was the reason he was asked to resign. The use of plebs, as regards his conduct, is the real irrelevant detail. He abused police officers who were following instructions, ones they had followed in the past. He was challenging the police, putting them in their place for doing what they were supposed to do.
I've disciplined a lad for not stopping a judge going where he was told to let no one through. And quite rightly.
I've never, in any post on here, defended the conduct of the police who lied. Without checking back, I seem to remember a number of police officers, many/most/all of whom felt that the MP got what he deserved, who reckoned that the police officers who lied should have been dealt with severely. I don't think any of them have suggested the penalties are wrong.
What I'm saying is that, from what we've been told is uncontested, an MP, who habitually abused those he saw as underlings went too far. It was his conduct that caused his downfall. We have an example of an MP losing his temper because, it seems going by what he said, that he believed that a mere worker, one might say pleb, could be sworn at with impunity.
The world is full of people who abuse those who can't respond. I've found it true in industry, in factories and in the police. We also see it on TV where someone in authority abuses those who have no way of getting back. Here we have one of the foul-mouthed brigade who found that they sometimes, if rarely, can.
The police were never going to 'win', or to come out on top in this matter. The governmental spin doctors, with their symbiotic press, would confuse and confound.
The fact remains, if what we are told is correct, that he swore at the police for them performing their function as ordered.
If only it were that simple.This is unusual, unique. A politician swore, on his own admission, at the police. One assumes this was the reason he was asked to resign. The use of plebs, as regards his conduct, is the real irrelevant detail. He abused police officers who were following instructions, ones they had followed in the past. He was challenging the police, putting them in their place for doing what they were supposed to do.
I've disciplined a lad for not stopping a judge going where he was told to let no one through. And quite rightly.
I've never, in any post on here, defended the conduct of the police who lied. Without checking back, I seem to remember a number of police officers, many/most/all of whom felt that the MP got what he deserved, who reckoned that the police officers who lied should have been dealt with severely. I don't think any of them have suggested the penalties are wrong.
What I'm saying is that, from what we've been told is uncontested, an MP, who habitually abused those he saw as underlings went too far. It was his conduct that caused his downfall. We have an example of an MP losing his temper because, it seems going by what he said, that he believed that a mere worker, one might say pleb, could be sworn at with impunity.
The world is full of people who abuse those who can't respond. I've found it true in industry, in factories and in the police. We also see it on TV where someone in authority abuses those who have no way of getting back. Here we have one of the foul-mouthed brigade who found that they sometimes, if rarely, can.
The police were never going to 'win', or to come out on top in this matter. The governmental spin doctors, with their symbiotic press, would confuse and confound.
The fact remains, if what we are told is correct, that he swore at the police for them performing their function as ordered.
The swearing at policemen is neither here or there - but the use of the word pleb is. It is a word loaded with class, prejudice and arrogance. The use of that specific word the the root of this whole sorry mess once it was leaked to the press.
Why the event happened in the first place is also open to question - had the police on the gate been consistent in their operation or not?
It appears this was an off the cuff attempt to to make a politician look bad at a time when police/hmg relations were dire. That is fairly clear from the fall out so far that the pot was stirred by some police persons.
Neither the police or the politician come out of this with any credit whatsoever.
Derek Smith said:
gruffalo said:
The thing is that we have already heard from independent witness that "Pleb" is not a word used frequently by Mr Mitchell, nor is it a word that I would use.
I would remember if I had used it as it would be very unusual, however I would not remember if I had or had not used a word more commonly used as it simply would not standout in my memory.
There is ample evidence that the chap swore. The word pleb is derogatory. If he didn't say it then there is plenty of other things he said which are not in dispute. I would remember if I had used it as it would be very unusual, however I would not remember if I had or had not used a word more commonly used as it simply would not standout in my memory.
It is a common defence ploy to focus on one detail to the exclusion of all else. If a witness gives a description which is 90% accurate then they will concentrate on the 10%, the hoped for effect on the jury is that the jury will think that if that part was wrong then the rest of the evidence, including that from other people, should be ignored. And it does work on occasion, enough to make it a frequent tactic. I've been in one case where there was much discussion on the definition of kerfuffle. It was completely immaterial, yet it consumed most of my cross examination.
There is little concern about whether he said pleb or not. Who cares? It only becomes important when it is made to be important by the defence. All of a sudden there is a small industry as to why the word not being used makes everything else unimportant.
Was there a dispute regarding the gate being opened? Did he swear? Was this normal conduct from the bloke?
gruffalo said:
But this is my point, he admits to swearing, nothing hugely strange about that, but he does not admit to saying pleb, not typically in his vocabulary so it would be memorable if he had used it.
Yet Michael Portillo, a senior Tory stated he'd heard Mitchell use it previously. A bit of an inconvenient truth.Elroy Blue said:
gruffalo said:
But this is my point, he admits to swearing, nothing hugely strange about that, but he does not admit to saying pleb, not typically in his vocabulary so it would be memorable if he had used it.
Yet Michael Portillo, a senior Tory stated he'd heard Mitchell use it previously. A bit of an inconvenient truth.Elroy Blue said:
gruffalo said:
But this is my point, he admits to swearing, nothing hugely strange about that, but he does not admit to saying pleb, not typically in his vocabulary so it would be memorable if he had used it.
Yet Michael Portillo, a senior Tory stated he'd heard Mitchell use it previously. A bit of an inconvenient truth.Portillo retracted it.
I don't care either way. I've met abusive and obnoxious police officers that have used strong language, sometimes in an effort to intimidate. Respect is a two way street. Some police officers don't respect the truth. Those officers disrespect the office of Constable and they disrespect the public.
Edited by carinaman on Tuesday 25th November 17:50
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff