Plebgate - An interesting new twist

[Derek Smith]

Rovinghawk said:

Derek Smith said:

I do believe that Mitchell might well have got his mates to stitch up the police, and probably still will.

Judging by the sackings & jail sentence, they seem to be doing a good job of screwing themselves without any outside assistance.

Well, there's an odd way of looking at things.

The police have been accused on here, by Cameron's cronies, of a brotherhood of silence and looking after their own. Much of this has been refuted by serving officers, but this has been ignored by the usual suspects.

Now, after strong action by the police against their own, we have an example of how the brotherhood of silence is an invention. Yet even here, with the police service doing more against their own than most/all professions, we get those who struggle to accept the truth when it contradicts their prejudice, criticising the police for exemplary action.

The ones who protect their own are the MPs. We see evidence of this all the time, with evidence being shredded with the full knowledge of those in charge, we see obstruction of those tasked to perform the role of standards, and the MPs who are criticised heavily, for blocking investigations, are allowed back into the higher echelons of the party. We see those who have fiddled their expenses in a way that would not only get a police officer sacked but prosecuted as well, yet time and again we get the same olds having a go at the police, and in this case for doing a good job on cleaning themselves.

The sackings - and it wasn't so long ago that police officers would not be sacked for feeding non critical information to the press - will be spun as the police being dishonest by those who can't cope with the fact that the police have the most thorough discipline out there.

[Rovinghawk]

Derek Smith said:

The sackings - and it wasn't so long ago that police officers would not be sacked for feeding non critical information to the press - will be spun as the police being dishonest by those who can't cope with the fact that the police have the most thorough discipline out there.

The jail sentence suggests that the dishonesty thing is a bit more than spin.

The Chief Constable telling Parliament that the Fed Rep might have misunderstood the question "have you ever been subject to disciplinary proceedings" to cover for a lie to a Parliamentary Committee also suggests dishonesty from top to bottom as opposed to the 'most thorough discipline' that you claim.

Spin that.

[mybrainhurts]

Derek Smith said:

stuff

You don't have to tell us about politicians, that's common knowledge, but you surely don't condone the shenanigans of the police union, do you?

[Garvin]

mybrainhurts said:

Derek Smith said:

stuff

You don't have to tell us about politicians, that's common knowledge, but you surely don't condone the shenanigans of the police union, do you?

Exactly. I'm not aware anyone here condones the antics of politicians who fiddle their expenses and, BTW, I do believe that some were prosecuted and jailed for their antics.

I'm not aware anyone here is condoning Mitchell 'going off on one' and cursing his bad luck, indeed by all acounts he does appear to be an odious little man.

What I do see here are claims that being called a pleb meant little to the officer on the gate, almost certainly called worse in his career, etc., etc.

If so, then why the following events that caused the biggest upset of all by far i.e. that some BiB took it on themselves to fabricate evidence and lie to seek some political gain over, what the majority see as, a minor incident? It is this that has caused so much 'outrage' and set in motion Mitchell having to defend himself. There is no doubt that a concerted campaign was then in full swing to 'get' Mitchell. To claim that it would all have passed over if he, at that time, had held his hands up and just apologised, is at best just downright disingenuous. Some on here remain so partisan that they are completely and utterly blind to this.

[V8 Fettler]

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?

Do we know if the key issue of who opens the gate and for whom has been resolved? Perhaps there's now a notice posted in the immediate vicinity to clarify the issue for the squabbling factions? With simple, short words in big letters for all participants involved in the process to see. Different languages as well.

Defies belief that this issue has reached the stage it has, a point which is missed by most who are too close to it.

[anonymous-user]

Garvin said:

To claim that it would all have passed over if he, at that time, had held his hands up and just apologised, is at best just downright disingenuous. Some on here remain so partisan that they are completely and utterly blind to this.

If he'd have immediately apologised, how do you even know he would have told his colleagues? Or that him telling them what occurred including the apology wouldn't have changed the course of action?

Not considering those scenarios and other variables is blindness.

Rovinghawk said:

The jail sentence suggests that the dishonesty thing is a bit more than spin.

The Chief Constable telling Parliament that the Fed Rep might have misunderstood the question "have you ever been subject to disciplinary proceedings" to cover for a lie to a Parliamentary Committee also suggests dishonesty from top to bottom as opposed to the 'most thorough discipline' that you claim.

Spin that.

You can infer what you want from a conditional statement. That is spinning as you're taking the interpretation you want to be true.

What is factual is, as Derek says, a ruthless process to get rid of people who have behaved in a manner unsuitable for the post.

I wonder if the government will adopt the same standards with Mitchell, since his dishonesty has been found proven on the same threshold of proof that found some of other officers without their job any more. I doubt it, though. One rule for one?

[singlecoil]

La Liga said:

I wonder if the government will adopt the same standards with Mitchell, since his dishonesty has been found proven on the same threshold of proof that found some of other officers without their job any more. I doubt it, though. One rule for one?

My guess is no, they won't.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

a ruthless process to get rid of people who have behaved in a manner unsuitable for the post.

What happened to the chief constable I referred to? The one that tried to talk bks to Parliament to cover up a lie by one of his subordinates? Was he ruthlessly dealt with or not? (My presumption is that his behaviour was 'unsuitable for the post')

[anonymous-user]

If you think him lying is suggesting someone may or may not have understood a question, then I think we have different standard of what constitutes lying.

Incidentally, if I'm asked, as you put, "have you ever been subject to disciplinary proceedings?", then my answer could be "yes" or "no" depending on where you want to lay the threshold:

1) Complained about.
2) A recorded complaint that is formally served under the misconduct regulations.
3) A misconduct meeting / hearing without any action taken.
4) A meeting / hearing with some form of action taken.
5) Any of the above pending.

[IroningMan]

Garvin said:

mybrainhurts said:

Derek Smith said:

stuff

You don't have to tell us about politicians, that's common knowledge, but you surely don't condone the shenanigans of the police union, do you?

Exactly. I'm not aware anyone here condones the antics of politicians who fiddle their expenses and, BTW, I do believe that some were prosecuted and jailed for their antics.

I'm not aware anyone here is condoning Mitchell 'going off on one' and cursing his bad luck, indeed by all acounts he does appear to be an odious little man.

What I do see here are claims that being called a pleb meant little to the officer on the gate, almost certainly called worse in his career, etc., etc.

If so, then why the following events that caused the biggest upset of all by far i.e. that some BiB took it on themselves to fabricate evidence and lie to seek some political gain over, what the majority see as, a minor incident? It is this that has caused so much 'outrage' and set in motion Mitchell having to defend himself. There is no doubt that a concerted campaign was then in full swing to 'get' Mitchell. To claim that it would all have passed over if he, at that time, had held his hands up and just apologised, is at best just downright disingenuous. Some on here remain so partisan that they are completely and utterly blind to this.

Quite.

[singlecoil]

IroningMan said:

Garvin said:

mybrainhurts said:

Derek Smith said:

stuff

You don't have to tell us about politicians, that's common knowledge, but you surely don't condone the shenanigans of the police union, do you?

Exactly. I'm not aware anyone here condones the antics of politicians who fiddle their expenses and, BTW, I do believe that some were prosecuted and jailed for their antics.

I'm not aware anyone here is condoning Mitchell 'going off on one' and cursing his bad luck, indeed by all acounts he does appear to be an odious little man.

What I do see here are claims that being called a pleb meant little to the officer on the gate, almost certainly called worse in his career, etc., etc.

If so, then why the following events that caused the biggest upset of all by far i.e. that some BiB took it on themselves to fabricate evidence and lie to seek some political gain over, what the majority see as, a minor incident? It is this that has caused so much 'outrage' and set in motion Mitchell having to defend himself. There is no doubt that a concerted campaign was then in full swing to 'get' Mitchell. To claim that it would all have passed over if he, at that time, had held his hands up and just apologised, is at best just downright disingenuous. Some on here remain so partisan that they are completely and utterly blind to this.

Quite.

Not quite.

He may have been obliged to defend himself but he did so with LIES. He kept making it worse, which is what often happens when people simply won't admit to what they have done.

[Rovinghawk]

La Liga said:

If you think him lying is suggesting someone may or may not have understood a question,

I didn't say the CC lied, I said he spoke bks in defence of his subordinate's lies.

La Liga said:

Incidentally, if I'm asked, as you put, "have you ever been subject to disciplinary proceedings?", then my answer could be "yes" or "no" depending on where you want to lay the threshold:

1) Complained about.
2) A recorded complaint that is formally served under the misconduct regulations.
3) A misconduct meeting / hearing without any action taken.
4) A meeting / hearing with some form of action taken.
5) Any of the above pending.

The man in question had been subject to proceedings 11 times & found guilty on 3. Based on that, I think that the question "Have you ever been subject to proceedings?" could not in all honesty have been answered "no". If you disagree then we certainly have different thresholds as to what constitutes a lie.

[anonymous-user]

Jones, Hinton and MacKaill are still under an IPCC investigation IIRC, so we'll see the outcome of that. They were well out of their depth in the big boy's world of politics and looked pretty stupid. Although Mitchell's arrogance has hardly helped the IPCC.

Regarding anyone senior appearing in Vaz's Parliamentary circus, I wouldn't expect them to act in any other way than in a "corporate" and defensive manner. The thing is a farce.

[Rovinghawk]

Yes to all of that. Sad, isn't it?

[anonymous-user]

I can think of fewer better examples to illustrate "knowing when the throw the shovel away" than this incident.

[Jasandjules]

I think the one thing we can agree on is that none of them come out of this looking good.

[anonymous-user]

Generally, no.

It's not until you really read into the detail do you find anyone who actually behaved well. The officer commented upon in point 221 onwards is the sort of officer we want: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/4014.h...

[Red Devil]

V8 Fettler 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?

Do we know if the key issue of who opens the gate and for whom has been resolved? Perhaps there's now a notice posted in the immediate vicinity to clarify the issue for the squabbling factions? With simple, short words in big letters for all participants involved in the process to see. Different languages as well.

Defies belief that this issue has reached the stage it has, a point which is missed by most who are too close to it.

That's a very good question. It was that part of the trial reporting that I found so depressing (paragraphs 17-41). The utterly shambolic lack of clarity (i.e. failure to dot the 'i's and cross the 't's in communication within the DPG and between Downing Street internal security and the DPG beggars belief. No wonder it led to a lack of understanding at the coal face which exacerbated the situation. Add a personality clash into the mix and it was a perfect storm.

If between them they can make such a hash over something so simple I dread to think how they all might up over something far more serious.

[FiF]

La Liga said:

Generally, no.

It's not until you really read into the detail do you find anyone who actually behaved well. The officer commented upon in point 221 onwards is the sort of officer we want: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/4014.h...

Indeed, when reading the judgement for the first time it stood out and is worthy of a second read.

Be interesting to see what happens with the IPCC investigation into Hinton and Jones. Not sure MacKaill even has any problem to worry about.

Aiui Hinton is accused of saying something was a typo, ie referring to the Home Secretary as that woman or similarly.

Jones is accused relating to his account of his disciplinary record and potentially misleading Vaz's bunch of clowns.

The issue of the accusations re saying Mitchell didn't give a full account has been smashed out of the park.

Have I got that right?


Suspect that some of them, Vaz and his clowns, have made more misleading statements in a week than even the serial haters on here.

[singlecoil]

FiF said:

The issue of the accusations re saying Mitchell didn't give a full account has been smashed out of the park.

Have I got that right?

Yes, you have got that right.

The federation reps were quite correct to say he hadn't given a full account of what happened that night at the gate.