Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
It's a rat trap? Deep down in his pocket he finds 50p?
I hope you're well Red 4!
I had a quick flick through The Sun on Saturday. I thought Clarkson's column was a bit flat or was that the week before. Nice piece on his mum and valid point asking why churches don't leave themselves open at night to help the homeless rather than celebrating Halloween and peddling coffee.
Lorraine Kelly's page bottom left corner, mentioned the trial outcome. She mentioned a sense of entitlement and something else that echoed with a phrase used earlier in this thread.
I hope you're well Red 4!
I had a quick flick through The Sun on Saturday. I thought Clarkson's column was a bit flat or was that the week before. Nice piece on his mum and valid point asking why churches don't leave themselves open at night to help the homeless rather than celebrating Halloween and peddling coffee.
Lorraine Kelly's page bottom left corner, mentioned the trial outcome. She mentioned a sense of entitlement and something else that echoed with a phrase used earlier in this thread.
singlecoil said:
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.Have I 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.
Investigating Officer's conclusion said:
I have already stated that Mr MITCHELL later provided more detail than he did to the Officers at the meeting on 12th October. However, I would make the following comments in support of my view about a case to answer for misconduct, bearing in mind the points from the Standards of Professional Behaviour listed above.
1. Why, if he was not satisfied that Mr MITCHELL had given a full account, was Sergeant HINTON ready to "move on"? (Page 6 of the meeting transcript) This surely implies that he was happy with, or at least accepted, the explanation provided.
2. Why did three experienced police officers not press Mr MITCHELL for the full explanation they wanted during the meeting? He gave an answer, but they do not go on to indicate that they are not satisfied that he has given a full account.
3. Sergeant JONES does not challenge Mr MITCHELL when the latter says "You asked me in good faith what I said and I told you" ...Page 11).
4. Sergeant HINTON also says "….I understand that you are saying what you said now….." (page 18) and "I appreciate your candour…." (page 19). These statements are difficult to align with later statements to the press that claim that Mr MITCHELL did not tell them what he had said.
5. I cannot see how the Officers can claim that Mr MITCHELL "refused" to tell them what he said, when, as outlined above, they did not seek clarification from him during the meeting. Indeed, they appear to have accepted that he had given them his account.
6. I think that an ordinary member of the public, listening to the Officers speaking to the media after the meeting, would have interpreted their words as meaning that Mr MITCHELL would not give any account of what occurred in Downing Street on 19th September 2012. This is clearly not the case.
7. The Officers have therefore given an account of the meeting to the media that was inaccurate and misleading and contrary to the elements of the Standard of Professional Behaviour listed above.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/317...
1. Why, if he was not satisfied that Mr MITCHELL had given a full account, was Sergeant HINTON ready to "move on"? (Page 6 of the meeting transcript) This surely implies that he was happy with, or at least accepted, the explanation provided.
2. Why did three experienced police officers not press Mr MITCHELL for the full explanation they wanted during the meeting? He gave an answer, but they do not go on to indicate that they are not satisfied that he has given a full account.
3. Sergeant JONES does not challenge Mr MITCHELL when the latter says "You asked me in good faith what I said and I told you" ...Page 11).
4. Sergeant HINTON also says "….I understand that you are saying what you said now….." (page 18) and "I appreciate your candour…." (page 19). These statements are difficult to align with later statements to the press that claim that Mr MITCHELL did not tell them what he had said.
5. I cannot see how the Officers can claim that Mr MITCHELL "refused" to tell them what he said, when, as outlined above, they did not seek clarification from him during the meeting. Indeed, they appear to have accepted that he had given them his account.
6. I think that an ordinary member of the public, listening to the Officers speaking to the media after the meeting, would have interpreted their words as meaning that Mr MITCHELL would not give any account of what occurred in Downing Street on 19th September 2012. This is clearly not the case.
7. The Officers have therefore given an account of the meeting to the media that was inaccurate and misleading and contrary to the elements of the Standard of Professional Behaviour listed above.
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/317...
ninja-lewis said:
singlecoil said:
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.Have I 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.
They didn't mislead the media, they quite correctly said that Mitchell had failed to give a full account of what took place at the gate. They gave him a chance to come clean and he failed to take it. There was nothing unwitting about it.
Red Devil said:
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.
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.Why is there no executive summary at the start of the Judge's report? Do Judge's reports not have these? The lack of a diagram setting out the location and purpose of the gates also adds confusion.
singlecoil said:
I clipped off the rest because it's just one person's opinion (of what another persons opinion would be if asked).
No it isn't. The trial transcript makes it perfectly clear that 'the rest' that you have removed is the Investigating Officer's conclusions (which ask some very pertinent questions) in Version A of the supervised investigation report. Something that the absence of which in subsequent versions was commented on adversely by Davis LJ.singlecoil said:
They didn't mislead the media, they quite correctly said that Mitchell had failed to give a full account of what took place at the gate. They gave him a chance to come clean and he failed to take it. There was nothing unwitting about it.
Davis LJ considered the Fed reps conduct had an element of recklessness. Their grandstanding to the media is at odds with what occurred during the course of the meeting. The finding of the judge in the recent libel case doesn't change the points raised by the IO in any way.I'm no defender of Mitchell. I think he's a **** whose judgement and temperament leave a lot to be desired. But that doesn't make the Fed reps the 3 wise men or put haloes over their heads. Hardly anyone comes out of this entire saga with any credit. The only winners are the lawyers who have trousered some juicy fees.
Red Devil said:
singlecoil said:
I clipped off the rest because it's just one person's opinion (of what another persons opinion would be if asked).
No it isn't. The trial transcript makes it perfectly clear that 'the rest' that you have removed is the Investigating Officer's conclusions (which ask some very pertinent questions) in Version A of the supervised investigation report. Something that the absence of which in subsequent versions was commented on adversely by Davis LJ.I bet PC Wallace's nephew, the one visiting from Hong Kong that's a big Boris Johnson fan, is heartbroken that he missed that:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-303086...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-303086...
Rovinghawk said:
singlecoil said:
'Conclusions' pretty much equals 'opinion' in this case, so I contradict your contradiction.
So any investigation into anything is just an opinion? Right.I didn't say 'investigation', I said 'conclusion'. I didn't say 'any', I said 'in this case'.
singlecoil said:
Read it again, without your police hating hat on.
I wasn't aware that I had one. I don't hate police. I dislike the lazy, the self important, the corrupt & a few others. If you think that these attributes = police then you're the one with the problem.singlecoil said:
I didn't say 'investigation', I said 'conclusion'. I didn't say 'any', I said 'in this case'.
So you believe that the conclusion to this investigation is just an opinion? Because you disagree?How is it different to a investigative conclusion of which you approve?Rovinghawk said:
singlecoil said:
Read it again, without your police hating hat on.
I wasn't aware that I had one. I don't hate police. I dislike the lazy, the self important, the corrupt & a few others. If you think that these attributes = police then you're the one with the problem.Rovinghawk said:
singlecoil said:
I didn't say 'investigation', I said 'conclusion'. I didn't say 'any', I said 'in this case'.
So you believe that the conclusion to this investigation is just an opinion? Because you disagree?How is it different to a investigative conclusion of which you approve?I know I'm late to the party but one thing I never got about this is what was the big deal if he did call them plebs? 
so fking what? Two blokes have an argument ans call each other names, big whoooh. Either he should have manned-up and said yeah I did call them plebs whacha gonna do about it? Or the pc should have manned-up and said yeah he did call us plebs but I'm not going to cry about it. End of story. Hardly the worst fking name to be called in the world is it.
so fking what? Two blokes have an argument ans call each other names, big whoooh. Either he should have manned-up and said yeah I did call them plebs whacha gonna do about it? Or the pc should have manned-up and said yeah he did call us plebs but I'm not going to cry about it. End of story. Hardly the worst fking name to be called in the world is it.CoolHands said:
I know I'm late to the party but one thing I never got about this is what was the big deal if he did call them plebs? so fking what? Two blokes have an argument ans call each other names, big whoooh. Either he should have manned-up and said yeah I did call them plebs whacha gonna do about it? Or the pc should have manned-up and said yeah he did call us plebs but I'm not going to cry about it. End of story. Hardly the worst fking name to be called in the world is it.
That's what the PC did do isn't it (say he did call us plebs but I'm not going to cry about it)? so fking what? Two blokes have an argument ans call each other names, big whoooh. Either he should have manned-up and said yeah I did call them plebs whacha gonna do about it? Or the pc should have manned-up and said yeah he did call us plebs but I'm not going to cry about it. End of story. Hardly the worst fking name to be called in the world is it.What he objected to afterwards was being called a liar.
CoolHands said:
I know I'm late to the party but one thing I never got about this is what was the big deal if he did call them plebs?
Well then his constituency can decide if they want an MP who thinks all police are plebs or not, and may decide they don't want an MP who thinks all policemen are plebs. It may well be that the public in a tory stronghold might want to offer more support to the police than that.So the MP may lose his job - and indeed this may still be the case, but instead the MP is 2-3 million worse off and is still in the same position of possibly losing his position.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff