Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
who cares. Police should have opened the gate as there is NO rule to say they cannot. Olive look daft. he looks daft , the whole thing is daft . The public is so worried about silly issues. What if the policeman had called him a "snob" would that also be a insult ? as all it is rally is a snide comment on status like "pleb"
soi6 said:
who cares. Police should have opened the gate as there is NO rule to say they cannot. Olive look daft. he looks daft , the whole thing is daft . The public is so worried about silly issues. What if the policeman had called him a "snob" would that also be a insult ? as all it is rally is a snide comment on status like "pleb"
I think you will find that the police officer was not particularly concerned about the word pleb. I seem to remember the PC accepted Mitchell's apology. So I'm not sure how the officer looks daft, nor 'worried about silly issues'. He acted maturely.The officers are under instructions as to when to open the main gate and when to leave it closed. Whilst there is no rule to say they should not open it for someone who can use the side gate, I would suggest that any person with even the slightest bit of security training will say that the big gate should be opened for as short a time as possible.
I agree with you that the whole thing looks daft but it was of Mitchell's making. He should have quit while he was ahead. He should have been grateful for the largess of the PC he abused and just got on with his career, and enjoying his house that he reckons he's now going to sell.
So the police officer comes out of this rather well I think. He was the one abused, he accepted the, insincere as it turns out, partial apology and he was the one who was happy to continue as before. He was the one, you remember, who did not call Mitchell a f*****g snob, despite ample evidence to the contrary one might have thought.
The PC was called a liar. He defended his reputation. Can't see anything to criticise him for in that.
I've been called a liar by those in gowns in public and have had no redress. This is despite the bloke accusing me knowing that the chap who hired him was a serial liar. The problem, form the begowned bloke's point of view, was that the evidence was overwhelming. But he was protected by the court systems and I had to take it. Nice to see it doesn't go for always.
Derek Smith said:
. . . . . I agree with you that the whole thing looks daft but it was of Mitchell's making. He should have quit while he was ahead. He should have been grateful for the largess of the PC he abused and just got on with his career, and enjoying his house that he reckons he's now going to sell. . . . . .
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Mitchell that 'blew it out of all proportion' in the first place but the, now proven illegal, activities of a number of police seeking political capital. Mitchell wasn't really allowed to "just get on with his career"!XCP said:
Got a collection of T shirts for that Derek.
I'd just moved from London to Sussex and arrested a supporter of a team that played their matches nowhere near Millwall Docks oddly enough, for assault on a 22-year-old woman for requesting them to move out of the way as they were blocking the road. Others gave her boyfriend multiple fractures of the leg and ankle. They bought this London-based barrister whom I'd come up against previously, this when a group beat up a group of middle aged blacks on their way to office cleaning. I knew what to expect.
He accused me to telling lies over a minor bit of my evidence. He then feigned exasperation and moved on. Later he took his seat, giving me a dismissive wave of his hand, and said: "No further questions." Or rather almost sat down.
The judge, my first time with her so to speak, intervened. She said peremptorily: "You have accused one of my [yep, 'my'] officers of telling lies, an accusation that amounts to a serious crime. None of your further questions have justified this accusation. You have not finished question this officer or else you will withdraw the accusation.
The lawyer sort of stopped half way. He stood and then, in a confused state asked a couple of irrelevant questions, with no connection to my 'lies' and then said a sort of pathetic 'that's all' with a pleading look towards the judge before sitting down. She made a noise, turned to me and said: 'I will be addressing this matter in my summing up, officer.'
I spoke with the OIC later that day - the plea changed to guilty for most offenders and NG for a couple - and mentioned this judge's attitude. He said she was not pro police to any extent as it did not do to go before her unprepared, but she took no manure from briefs either.
XCP said:
It can be dangerous ground of course. When the prosecution follows up by questioning the character of the defendant based on his precons... 
One or two of the defendants, about half a dozen tried together, were without previous and it was felt by the CPS, post case, that they might have had problems reporting on the pre-cons of the others as it might compromise the others' chance of a fair trial.The judge was a bit of a lone wolf. Her social was was not 'standard'. I gave evidence three, possibly four, times in front of her and each time there was a comment or two against professional witnesses or the various briefs, both sides. CPS were a bit in awe of her and I thought it best to follow suit.
I was beaten up by a farmer's son. Big bloke and as I was struggling with a prisoner at the time I didn't see the first punch coming. I didn't see the second punch coming as I'd been punched before. He was found guilty on two charges: assault police and public order, but it was on the same evidence. Pressure from division overcame CPS reluctance to fail to conform to good practice.
I was called to the appeal in front of this judge but did not give evidence. As we awaited the decision an usher came to me with a written not from the judge. She said that the chap would be found NG of one of the charges as the CPS was correct and that she would listen to any representation from me if I wished to make one.
I wrote back that I was happy to leave the decision to her (as if I had any other option). I was then called in for the decision to be told to the defendant. She tore into him, criticised the charging, pointing out all the other offences that could have been chosen alongside the assault on police. In the end she dropped the assault police and went with the PO. He was visibly relieved and smiled at his father. She then told him off for smiling, saying he should thank the 'understanding' victim of his conduct (me!).
I always reckoned that if I had a dodgy job I hoped I'd be up before her, but that was the last time.
Nice old girl. I liked her.
Garvin said:
Derek Smith said:
. . . . . I agree with you that the whole thing looks daft but it was of Mitchell's making. He should have quit while he was ahead. He should have been grateful for the largess of the PC he abused and just got on with his career, and enjoying his house that he reckons he's now going to sell. . . . . .
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Mitchell that 'blew it out of all proportion' in the first place but the, now proven illegal, activities of a number of police seeking political capital. Mitchell wasn't really allowed to "just get on with his career"!Mitchell is a first rate knob, IMO, but the police don't come out of it much better, not only in my opinion but, apparently, in the eyes of the law. The best that's been said about any officer involved seems to be that he wouldn't have the wit to make things up. Oh, to damn with faint praise.
REALIST123 said:
Garvin said:
Derek Smith said:
. . . . . I agree with you that the whole thing looks daft but it was of Mitchell's making. He should have quit while he was ahead. He should have been grateful for the largess of the PC he abused and just got on with his career, and enjoying his house that he reckons he's now going to sell. . . . . .
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Mitchell that 'blew it out of all proportion' in the first place but the, now proven illegal, activities of a number of police seeking political capital. Mitchell wasn't really allowed to "just get on with his career"!Mitchell is a first rate knob, IMO, but the police don't come out of it much better, not only in my opinion but, apparently, in the eyes of the law. The best that's been said about any officer involved seems to be that he wouldn't have the wit to make things up. Oh, to damn with faint praise.
It does indeed take all sorts.
REALIST123 said:
The best that's been said about any officer involved seems to be that he wouldn't have the wit to make things up. Oh, to damn with faint praise.
Had you read the report in full you would know that that is not 'The best that's been said about any officer'.The 'wit' reference is not as you have interpreted it.
What the judge meant to say, and said if you have the sense to interpret it without bias, is that the officer could not have known that the use of the word pleb would have such repercussions, so the suggestion of a conspiracy to ensure Mithcell lost his job was not a runner as a defence. It is there if you read the findings, but then if you had you would have known that the wit reference was not the best that was said about the officer.
What the judge is in effect saying is that the officer was not devious and was not politically aware enough to invent the use of that one word after the tirade of invective.
Not faint praise. Indeed, I might suggest that few of us could have predicted the outcome.
I'm quite happy to say that, given the abuse which I know has been directed at police officers merely doing their job by the great and the good, including MPs and those in positions of power within the government, the political fall-out of that one little word has surprised me.
Given that the officer had the good grace to accept the insincere partial apology of Mitchell and get on with his life, despite the insult, means in my book that the chap came out of it better than anyone else, and with more show of common sense than the bloke who was a major player in the government of this country.
All rather worrying.
My belief, although there is nothing to support it apart from belief how devious politicians can be, is that the reason Mitchell lost his job was because he admitted to his leaders that he had used the word pleb. They would have had the wit to realise what could happen and in a damage limitation exercise sacked the bloke (accepted his resignation) with the promise to rehire him, then purified, after the election when any resentment from the public at large could be safely ignored.
After all, what the plebs think outside of election year is of no consequence.
Garvin said:
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Mitchell that 'blew it out of all proportion' in the first place but the, now proven illegal, activities of a number of police seeking political capital. Mitchell wasn't really allowed to "just get on with his career"!
Well getting your journalist best mate to make a hour long TV report which included heavily edited CCTV and an altered Police report seems like 'blowing it of proportion' to me. Of course, at that time they felt they had the upper hand, so this was ably assisted by Theresa May and Cameron using it as a stick to beat the Police at every opportunity. Mitchell made plenty of 'woe is me' Tv appearances. He really didn't want to let it lie when there was advantage to be gained.
Elroy Blue said:
Garvin said:
Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't Mitchell that 'blew it out of all proportion' in the first place but the, now proven illegal, activities of a number of police seeking political capital. Mitchell wasn't really allowed to "just get on with his career"!
Well getting your journalist best mate to make a hour long TV report which included heavily edited CCTV and an altered Police report seems like 'blowing it of proportion' to me. Of course, at that time they felt they had the upper hand, so this was ably assisted by Theresa May and Cameron using it as a stick to beat the Police at every opportunity. Mitchell made plenty of 'woe is me' Tv appearances. He really didn't want to let it lie when there was advantage to be gained.
Garvin said:
Mitchell pitches up to the gate, an altercation ensues and Mitchell shuffles off through the side gate with 'his tail between his legs'. I think, on the balance of probabilities, that if certain members of the police had not embarked on their nasty and reckless campaign then Mitchell would not have taken it any further - or do you think he would have got his 'mates' to try and 'stitch up' the police over the incident come what may?
If he had not denied using the word pleb everything would have settled. And as you asked, I do believe that Mitchell might well have got his mates to stitch up the police, and probably still will.
Mitchell didn't 'take it further', he lied.
Derek Smith said:
Garvin said:
Mitchell pitches up to the gate, an altercation ensues and Mitchell shuffles off through the side gate with 'his tail between his legs'. I think, on the balance of probabilities, that if certain members of the police had not embarked on their nasty and reckless campaign then Mitchell would not have taken it any further - or do you think he would have got his 'mates' to try and 'stitch up' the police over the incident come what may?
If he had not denied using the word pleb everything would have settled. And as you asked, I do believe that Mitchell might well have got his mates to stitch up the police, and probably still will.
Mitchell didn't 'take it further', he lied.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff