Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
Posted on NP & E but probably better here:
The frontline Police I used to work with have extensive experience of how the government have treated them with contempt, so I think the pleb story caught a lot of traction. Sadly some officers (not the officer who dealt with him) let themselves and their profession down, but the fact it seemed ok in the MPs eyes to issue foul mouthed abuse as long as no Non PC terms were used was pathetic.
Moderator edit: no sweary pictures either please.
The frontline Police I used to work with have extensive experience of how the government have treated them with contempt, so I think the pleb story caught a lot of traction. Sadly some officers (not the officer who dealt with him) let themselves and their profession down, but the fact it seemed ok in the MPs eyes to issue foul mouthed abuse as long as no Non PC terms were used was pathetic.
Moderator edit: no sweary pictures either please.
Edited by jeremyc on Friday 28th November 19:29
Mitchell's wealth is (was?) estimated at £2m according to Wiki, but as he was reportedly involved in tax avoidance (according to the Telegraph) this might well be an underestimate.
I'm betting he is relieved he claimed all his office expenses, including the 45p for a Pritstick.
Perhaps he might be subbed a bit. His experience in (reportedly via the Guardian) lobbying on behalf of donors to the tory party will come in handy here.
He was known, I have just read, as Thrasher at Rugby school, this with regards to his 'stern discipline'.
His own legal expenses might be paid, I've been told, by party funding.
Another point is that in The Sunday Times Mitchell accused Rowland of being involved in a 'cynical smear campaign'. That's probably even more cynical than using Geldorf as a witness just when he's produced his Feed the World repeat.
One thing of note I think is the absence of a three line whip of tory party members in support of Mitchell.
"It's like this, old chap, you see there's this election thingy soon and no one knows what's going to happen - bit like your libel case, eh? - so we can't take risks. And another thing, don't call me Dave any more."
I'm half way to feeling sorry for him. Such a punishment is a bit over the top for what happened. The other half of me thinks that if I know that any libel case is a risk, especially for a mouthy git who doesn't know when to shut up when suggesting that he did not lose his temper, then he should have known it as well and he knew what he was doing.
Mind you, still a little harsh. I know he's not a nice bloke but if we fined every not very nice rich bloke all their money . . . hold on, I think I have found a way out of the recession.
I'm betting he is relieved he claimed all his office expenses, including the 45p for a Pritstick.
Perhaps he might be subbed a bit. His experience in (reportedly via the Guardian) lobbying on behalf of donors to the tory party will come in handy here.
He was known, I have just read, as Thrasher at Rugby school, this with regards to his 'stern discipline'.
His own legal expenses might be paid, I've been told, by party funding.
Another point is that in The Sunday Times Mitchell accused Rowland of being involved in a 'cynical smear campaign'. That's probably even more cynical than using Geldorf as a witness just when he's produced his Feed the World repeat.
One thing of note I think is the absence of a three line whip of tory party members in support of Mitchell.
"It's like this, old chap, you see there's this election thingy soon and no one knows what's going to happen - bit like your libel case, eh? - so we can't take risks. And another thing, don't call me Dave any more."
I'm half way to feeling sorry for him. Such a punishment is a bit over the top for what happened. The other half of me thinks that if I know that any libel case is a risk, especially for a mouthy git who doesn't know when to shut up when suggesting that he did not lose his temper, then he should have known it as well and he knew what he was doing.
Mind you, still a little harsh. I know he's not a nice bloke but if we fined every not very nice rich bloke all their money . . . hold on, I think I have found a way out of the recession.
Derek Smith said:
FiF said:
Browne who appeared for Rowland has said he wants 200k in 14 days.
The court has ordered him to pay 300k as a first payment by beginning of January.
The Fed's lawyers claim to have spent a million.
Estimates are that it will end up thick end of £3m.
Then there's his own costs. With the federation costs and those of the Sun he's in line for, it makes £4m plus damages. Have I got that right? The court has ordered him to pay 300k as a first payment by beginning of January.
The Fed's lawyers claim to have spent a million.
Estimates are that it will end up thick end of £3m.
A little while ago the civil courts, in a fit of social responsibility, imposed limits on the amount payable in libel cases and then patted itself on the back. What they did not want to do, of course, is limit the amount of milk their colleagues could get from the cash cow. (Mixed metaphors matter - as does alliteration.)
This is an indictment of the civil courts as much as Mitchell. Probably more so. Ironically, it is the courts that have lost control of themselves as well.
From some comments seems that complete and utter lack of contrition hasn't gone down well.
Meanwhile nothing on PH changes sadly. The usual have been picking the odd words out of J Mitting's comments about Rowland. He said that he was an old fashioned policeman , well suited to his job and that he believed him.
Edited by FiF on Thursday 27th November 23:39
La Liga said:
Can someone now please write a detailed method statement dealing with the opening of the gate, to be issued to all parties to prevent similar occurring again.
How much has this cost the tax payer?
V8 Fettler said:
This should have been sorted at day 1 by the "managers" of both parties concerned.
I agree totally with this. The Met Police leadership initially came out with a half hearted statement then caved totally to massive Political pressure and the snowball effect began. The Politicians need to take a good look at themselves as they seized on the idiot Ken Wallis's actions and decided to go into full on attack mode, doing the same thing the Fed are accused of and making it a Political issue. When they thought they had the upper hand, it was a no-hold barred attack on the whole Police service. It is telling that David Davis made a concerted effort to seize Fed funds and introduce legislation preventing Police from legally defending their reputation.While I agree it's time to put it all to bed and move on, I very much doubt the Politicians would be saying this if the verdict had gone the other way.
Elroy Blue said:
While I agree it's time to put it all to bed and move on, I very much doubt the Politicians would be saying this if the verdict had gone the other way.
This is very true. And it's not only politicians who are staying quiet, I notice, there's a couple of frequent posters on this thread who have had very little (or nothing at all) to say about the verdict 
Elroy Blue said:
I agree totally with this. The Met Police leadership initially came out with a half hearted statement then caved totally to massive Political pressure and the snowball effect began. The Politicians need to take a good look at themselves as they seized on the idiot Ken Wallis's actions and decided to go into full on attack mode, doing the same thing the Fed are accused of and making it a Political issue. When they thought they had the upper hand, it was a no-hold barred attack on the whole Police service. It is telling that David Davis made a concerted effort to seize Fed funds and introduce legislation preventing Police from legally defending their reputation.
While I agree it's time to put it all to bed and move on, I very much doubt the Politicians would be saying this if the verdict had gone the other way.
The bit about the attempted seizure of Federation funds (and the refusal to pay for a system of control of the police imposed on them by the government) was really quite cynical, even for this government. A case of 'Let's stop this officer defending himself and, more importantly, harming the party.'While I agree it's time to put it all to bed and move on, I very much doubt the Politicians would be saying this if the verdict had gone the other way.
V8 Fettler said:
La Liga said:
Mitchell should have cut his losses and just apologised. I have no idea what got into the heads of the jailed / sacked officers who decided do what they did. The Fed got over-excited and decided to play politics with the big boys and looked foolish (although less now they are "right").
The whole thing is like some weird satire / parody.
nail_it said:
XCP said:
Unless he has deep pockets he's probably bankrupt then?
He has deep, deep pockets.Mitchell would not bankrupt himself over this. He's had the money all calculated.
As it is, the lawyers will feed deeply and the taxpayer will suffer because no one in this case could simply do what they are paid to do properly and sensibly.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff