Plebgate - An interesting new twist

[ClaphamGT3]

Seight_Returns said:

rewc said:

Then even more reason to have expected the Federation to have told the truth. They were fully aware of the storm and were so intent on adding to the pressure on Mr Mitchell that they lied.

I think the point is that the Federation Reps were relatively junior police officers, not particularly politically or media savvy - and were blind sided by their blood lust at the prospect of claiming the scalp of a cabinet minister at a time when the Government were on the cusp of introducing deeply contentious police reforms. Plebs indeed.

Just to play devils advocate - we still don't actually know that the gate officers lied do we ? It's looking pretty conclusive that the witnesses (both police and MOP) that the CCTV showed weren't there lied - and the transcript of the 12Oct meeting appears to show that the Fed Reps lied - but as for the original protagonists, it's still all hearsay and their word against Mitchell's isn't it ?

I think that youre right to say that there is no conclusive proof that the gate officers lied, although the CCTV footage of the episode suggests that the exchange as they recorded it in their log couldnt have taken place in the time that he was at the gate. I think in their case, it isnt entirely unreasonable to say that they weren't making a verbatim account and that, whilst their log-keeping could and should have been more accurate, its hardly worth the effort of disciplining them over a relatively minor error.

What we dont know - and may never know - is whether they invited colleagues to support a deliberate falsification of the log, or whether their colleagues took it upon themselves to do so. If the former could ever be proven then they would deserve to have the book thrown at them.

I guess we need to see what comes out of the CPS before judging on this

[ClaphamGT3]

Snowboy said:

I think most people don't give a crap that a cop and a politician had an argument at the gate about a pushbike.
I doubt anyone cares who insulted who.
Well, apart from the fact it's a bit funny.

I think the only reason people care is because it looks like people have lied, and someone lost their job. And that's quite serious.

There are quite a few journalist vultures looking for blood, and professional political stirrers making it worse.

I wouldnt put Jack straw of Hugh Orde into either of your categories above.

This is an article in that hot-bed of radicalism, the Telegraph.

The damage that the police have done to their credibility is incalculable.

[ClaphamGT3]

Exige77 said:

It just looks BIB have this siege mentality.

How dare anyone questions "us".

Feels like BIB are pursuing a Vendetta against society.

Ex77

I like to hope that 99.9% of police officers are seething in anger at how a tiny handful of their colleagues have so badly let them down and would cheerfully throttle the perpetrators on sight

[ClaphamGT3]

singlecoil said:

I've read a lot of comments that would suggest that various parts of the police and/or their representatives have done the whole police force lasting damage through this and other incidents.

I'm interested to know where people feel this is all heading? Will having a damaged reputation make a scrap of difference to anything? I have long held the view from reading this and other threads that many people already hate or at least dislike the police, and others (myself included) are generally positive towards them. So is this incident going to make any real, concrete difference?

For me - and I have long articulated this view and often been shouted down for it - the concrete difference is that, on the assumption that there is sooner or later going to be a radical programme of change in the police service driven largely by budgetary constraints and perceived inefficiencies, the police themselves will be marginalised in the exercise and will have change imposed upon them.

This will be understandable because there will be an ingrained public belief that they are not capable of laying to one side their personal self interest and acting with integrity but it will also be a great shame as no one has a better idea of what makes good policing than them.

In summary, they've lost the right to be at the table when the future of policing in this country is decided. The federation wanted to try and protect its members; in reality it may well have condemned whole swathes of them to working for G4S on zero-hours contracts for the minimum wage.

[ClaphamGT3]

singlecoil said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

singlecoil said:

I've read a lot of comments that would suggest that various parts of the police and/or their representatives have done the whole police force lasting damage through this and other incidents.

I'm interested to know where people feel this is all heading? Will having a damaged reputation make a scrap of difference to anything? I have long held the view from reading this and other threads that many people already hate or at least dislike the police, and others (myself included) are generally positive towards them. So is this incident going to make any real, concrete difference?

For me - and I have long articulated this view and often been shouted down for it - the concrete difference is that, on the assumption that there is sooner or later going to be a radical programme of change in the police service driven largely by budgetary constraints and perceived inefficiencies, the police themselves will be marginalised in the exercise and will have change imposed upon them.

This will be understandable because there will be an ingrained public belief that they are not capable of laying to one side their personal self interest and acting with integrity but it will also be a great shame as no one has a better idea of what makes good policing than them.

In summary, they've lost the right to be at the table when the future of policing in this country is decided. The federation wanted to try and protect its members; in reality it may well have condemned whole swathes of them to working for G4S on zero-hours contracts for the minimum wage.

Thanks for the reply. It does seem to me though that if the powers that be reckon they can get away with it then the police will have changes imposed on them anyway, whether the Plebgate thing had happened or not. It's not as if the voting public will have a say in it as none of the parties at the next election will be standing on the police issue.

It comes across in the same way as so many news items on the BBC that insist that "this (whatever it happens to be) had done great damage to the Government" and yet the Government goes on entirely unaffected and will continue to do so until the next election whereupon no-one will have the (whatever it happened to be) on their minds when they are ticking the boxes anyway.

I think that your conclusion may well be right, but I'm inclined to challenge your analysis.

If you take the MOD as an example, or the Health Service as another, both are massive consumers of budget and where any exclusively rational spending review would go to find budgetary reductions. Both have however been able to, at the very least, reduce the scale of cuts by playing the 'Our brave boys and girls on the front line/saving lives - making a difference' PR very, very effectively. For example, look at the positive PR of the 'Honour the Covenant' campaign (which would have had at least tacit MOD support) compared to the police federation's efforts to create public support for their members.

In effect, I tend to think that had the police managed to corner public support for them in the face of cuts/reform/transformation etc, the Govt would be much more circumspect in its reform agenda than they need to be now. I don't want to be overly melodramatic, but the Govt can now set the narrative of 'we're reforming those nasty, crooked coppers' rather than 'we're repaying our fearless boys and girls in blue by firing 20% of them, and making the remaining 80% work harder for less remuneration'

[ClaphamGT3]

rewc said:

singlecoil said:

I've read a lot of comments that would suggest that various parts of the police and/or their representatives have done the whole police force lasting damage through this and other incidents.

I'm interested to know where people feel this is all heading? Will having a damaged reputation make a scrap of difference to anything? I have long held the view from reading this and other threads that many people already hate or at least dislike the police, and others (myself included) are generally positive towards them. So is this incident going to make any real, concrete difference?

In a sense it will make a difference as even more people will believe that the Police will make up evidence if they want to, lie when it suits them and close ranks to protect each other against the indefensible. Perhaps the Police will not want or need the public support and adopt the "you only want us when you need us" mentality.
If the Police believe for one minute that things such as the Hillsborough cover up, the Ian Tomlinson affair and Plebgate will not effect their reputation and an automatic assumption that they will tell the truth then they are deluded. Sir Hugh Orde understands it and has said he agrees with the Home Secretary that the actions of the Federation go to the heart of Policing.

Support is never guaranteed and even the firefighters are finding that public support for their recent and planned strikes is nowhere near as strong a it was last time.

Edited by rewc on Wednesday 16th October 11:46

I think that there is a huge amount in what you say here.

look at the original 'Peelian principles' which form the basis of our police service and ask yourself how far from them recent events suggest we have moved. Bear in mind that Peel also stated that all officers should be issued with an identification number to be visible at all times to ensure accountability of actions and that any figure of authority should accept that the maintenance of public trust and accountability are paramount;
1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5.Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it

Look particularly at 5 and 8

[ClaphamGT3]

Elroy Blue on Pistonheads is a microcosm of the PR fiasco thet the police have on their hands.

The sensible, reasoned, balanced posts of very many policemen and women here will count for nothing in upholding the public confidence in the police when we plainly see those holding and articulating his points of view.

I'm sure that he is a diligent and honest policeman who feels passionately about his trade and wants to benefit the community he serves but his blind adherence to the view that he/the police are right and everyone else is wrong does he and his fellow officers no good at all.

[ClaphamGT3]

Elroy Blue said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Elroy Blue on Pistonheads is a microcosm of the PR fiasco thet the police have on their hands.

The sensible, reasoned, balanced posts of very many policemen and women here will count for nothing in upholding the public confidence in the police when we plainly see those holding and articulating his points of view.

I'm sure that he is a diligent and honest policeman who feels passionately about his trade and wants to benefit the community he serves but his blind adherence to the view that he/the police are right and everyone else is wrong does he and his fellow officers no good at all.

Strange that you seem to have a bee in your bonnet about me. Is that because I don't agree with most of what you post about the Police. Is it because 99.9% of what the press (and Politicians) print about incidents the Police attend and the Police in general is inaccurate at best and just plain lies at worst. But when these facts are pointed out, a group of prolific posters then close ranks themselves and post 'look Police corruption', 'typical Police' etc etc.

You only have to look at the comments made about the investigation into the three Fed reps to see just how ridiculous it gets. The FACTS have been reported regarding the IPCCs involvement in the investigation. They are there for all to see. But it remains 'Police cover up', 'Police incompetence'. The Home Sec will also be fully aware of what the IPCC can do, could do and did in this investigation. But she chooses to persist with 'Police can't be trusted to investigate themselves' because it suits her agenda. It is not Politically expedient to tell the truth that the IPCC had full involvement in the investigation, were ASKED to do it independently (they refused), had full access and supervision throughout and were repeatedly consulted. Despite all this being posted on this thread, some posters still post nonsense such as 'Chiefs look after their own'.
It is very telling that the grey members of ACPO, who normally remain behind the scenes and slavishly follow Home Office dictacts have reacted with such fury to the IPCC statement. They have done so because it is disingenous at best, bordering on an outright lie.

As for PH. Strange as it may seem, I don't live my life on PH. I like a good debate, but there are some posters I raise my eyebrows at and some I just plain ignore and will no longer make any reply to whatsoever. They are either just plain nasty, with no reasoned view at all or complete fruitcakes. Once I've had my say, I'll look at a thread about tyres or something, turn the PC off and have a cup of tea. I certainly don't lose sleep about anything on here. Your view is just that, your view. I have an opinion about you and you, me. You may be nothing like the person I imagine, but it isn't really that important to me. I know how the general public react to me and the rest of my colleagues and their general view of Police and the comments of those referred to as the 'usual suspects' certainly don't represent them.

As for the Mitchell affair. I'll happily confirm MY view of things.

Mitchell was abusive and rude to the Officers on the gate. He did not get immediate support from his colleagues in Westminster because as one said "the verdict by one of Mitchell's senior Tory ministerial colleagues. "He's a nasty piece of work," added the minister. "And he's disliked right across the party at Westminster." So contrary to the views of some, he is not Jesus.

If he did not do anything then why did it take six months for a heavily edited CCTV to be released to a journalist who also happened to be one of his best friends. You'd have thought all that what have been released immediately. But at that time they didn't know what the public had seen or heard. Once it was clear that no-one else had heard what was said, the state machine went into overdrive. it The programme released by Crick was hardly a balanced affair. (Cue 'your in denial' etc type posts along with selective quoting)

The post-incident shenanigans, were disappointing at best. As some like to trawl my past posting history, they may like to find the one where I said the idiot who lied about being outside the gate should be hung from the nearest lampost for the damage he did to the Police. Releasing the log to the press was also stupid (as I understand it, it is for THIS offence one of the Officers present at the gate has been arrested for, NOT what was actually written in it)

The three Fed reps were ill-judged to meet Mitchell and extremely naive not to think it wouldn't be recorded with some very good surveillance equipment. The 'proud to be a pleb' T-shirt campaign was just plain embarrasing.

One poster has said this affair has got nothing to do with Police reform. On the contrary, it has got everything to do with it because it has been seized upon to push through all the plans the Gov had. It is more than coincidence that just before a major cut back is announced, a major 'scandal' comes into the headlines. This particular one ties in nicely with the announcement on compulsary redundancy next week.

Regardless, the incident has indeed done massive damage to the 'Police'. It hasn't done any damage to the individual Officers who go to work every day and get the support and help of the general public. I used to be so 'passionate' in the defence of the Police because I cared about what this Government was doing and what it's future plans were. I cared about how this was going to affect the general public and the harm that it was likely to cause. Now I don't care. I go to work, do my job (and do it pretty well) and go home. I still get a buzz out of arresting criminals and reuniting the public with their stolen property, or seeing that somebody assaulted gets justice, but once I evetually finish, I go home and forget about it. In a few years, you'll wake up to a massive increase in camera enforcement, undertrained, private company employees stopping you and asking you to acccount for your prescence in an area and the inability of Officers to put themselves in 10 places at once. (My Force has reduced the number of ststions from 40 to 9). Regretfully, the sad but definite fact will be that these issues will also become the fault of the 'Police', while those that did the damage will be employed as directors in the very companies that have taken over.

I will indeed also confirm that I am not a member of the Fed, having ended my subscriptions. They are a totally useless organisation who do nothing to represent rank and file members. A view pretty well universally held by frontline Officers. The only reason most stay in it, is because of the legal cover that is needed to protect against the malicious and false complaints that are a regular feature of doing the job.

Just to round off what is probably my longest and most rambling post on PH, I will congratulate Cameron and his Government on one spectacular achievement. In just a few years, they have turned an organisation that was 99% solid Conservatives into one that is now 1%. That's a pretty impressive record.

Bee in my bonnet?

No - youre just a random bloke on the internet who happens to post stuff that helps me illustrate my point.

[ClaphamGT3]

XCP said:

It's a shame that hardworking honest officers will be carrying the can after these jokers have gone.

I agree with your post entirely.

And carry it they will for years to come.

[ClaphamGT3]

The Question Time thing was sobering; not a single voice dissenting from the view that the police are considered less trustworthy now than before; they couldn't even get a debate going - the panel and the audience all violently agreed.

[ClaphamGT3]

I think a number of people are struggling with the issue that this isn't about facts anymore; its now about perception.

The facts that surround the Andrew Mitchell case are now largely irrelevant to the impact it has on the public because the police are PERCEIVED as less trustworthy than before. What I cannot understand is that neither the police nor a number of posters here can understand that the police need to focus on a PR exercise to rebuild their image rather than continually bring the debate back to the very facts that damaged them in the first place.

[ClaphamGT3]

singlecoil said:

I agree.

I'll add that although we have heard a chorus of "they have lost our trust" I've yet to hear what this will amount to in practical terms. There are lots of bodies that have lost my trust, and yet they seem to be carrying on regardless.

I did post the answer to this the other day. What it means is that when this or any future Govt decides to reform policing, they will only involve the police as and when it suits them. Because the public trust in the police is diminished, the public will not respond as supportively to police requests to have more of a say.

[ClaphamGT3]

Any assessment of whay might happen in the future is speculative to some degree. The hypothesis is however based on some precedent; the mining industry, the motor industry and the docking industry all went through transformational change without the engagement of the workforce as a result of this issue and the same is currenty being seen with the teaching profession and the fire brigade.

[ClaphamGT3]

I'm not sure what, if any, validity the "it was once much worse so we must now accept that its as good as its going to get" carries to be honest.

I think that this episode will also harm the police as it will further reduce the appetite of law abiding citizens to engage with and support the police. Most of the population is law-abiding and wants the police service that serves them to be so too. I think that anyone who says the public "won't care" insults the intelligence and civic responsibility of most citizens

[ClaphamGT3]

singlecoil said:

Still can't see what difference it will make. If the government feels it can get away with whatever changes it wants to make then it will do so no matter how many seats the police have at the discussion table.

The Govt is only going to feel that they can 'get away' with excluding the police because the police can't call on enough public support to make the Govt take a more circumspect approach.

[ClaphamGT3]

Much as I deplore what they appear to have done, putting three junior policemen through a ritualised public humiliation like this is a bit distasteful; it would be more appropriate for them to be disciplined internally behind closed doors and for their superiors to answer for their actions in public

[ClaphamGT3]

Oh, I don't think for a minute that they should escape punishment; I just think its a bit vindictive to take three junior "Oi woz pro-ceedin' in a westerly direction..." Provincial plods and stick them in front of a parliamentary committee on national TV. If they were animals, you wouldn't be allowed to get away with it.

[ClaphamGT3]

Rationally, you're right of course, its just that, morally, the old "the mark of a great man is his treatment of the little man" instinct in me feels uncomfortable about it

[ClaphamGT3]

XCP said:

The idea of Chief Constables taking responsibility and being apologists for what the Federation say is slightly odd. Many of them barely speak to the Federation and are completely at odds with them. Some would like nothing better than to see them shoot themselves in the foot.

But surely you can see that the public doesn't distinguish between a policeman and a policeman with his 'fed rep' hat on; to the public he's just a policeman working in his capacity as a popliceman - and, in this case, getting caught lying

[ClaphamGT3]

How can this possibly have a good outcome?

There are only three ways this can go;

1. They take maxima mea culpa - result; the police tarnished in the eyes of the public
2. They defend their position - result; the police really tarnished in the eyes of the public
3. They say as little as they can get away with - result; the police really, really tarnished in the eyes of the public