Plebgate - An interesting new twist

[carinaman]

singlecoil said:

carinaman said:

singlecoil, you need to acquaint yourself with the College of Policing Code of Ethics.

You need to acquaint yourself with the real world. Just because the police wouldn't let you join doesn't mean that every policeman is a very bad person.

It would be better for the good apples if the bad apples were dealt with properly.

If being a policeman was about playing technicalities, and taking advantage of knowing the rules over those that don't then I wouldn't be suitable police anything material.

How many officers in Downing Street at the time failed to cuff some of their colleagues around the ears and make them aware of the inherent risks of digging themselves into a hole while playing making mountains out of molehills?

And those officers were to be trusted with guns and bullets?

They were in police uniforms in Downing Street not the school playground.

Edited by carinaman on Monday 10th August 21:59

[Red 4]

ClaphamGT3 said:

No one denies that Mitchell's behaviour was wrong - even Mitchell - but the only people who set out to deliberately lie were a number of policemen, including the thre federation reps. I am surprised that it's taken this long for them to be disciplined.

I'm not sure the 3 fed reps did set out to deliberately lie.

The third rep has apparently already been to a misconduct hearing - no case to answer.

If I recall correctly the fed reps said that Mitchell said he could not remember exactly what he said at the gates of Downing Street - but he did remember exactly what he definitely did not say; i.e. he did not call the officers "plebs".

A judge clearly thought otherwise.

I agree that a number of other officers were stupid. There is no excuse - however, as far as the fed reps go - I can't see where they have lied.

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

No one denies that Mitchell's behaviour was wrong - even Mitchell - but the only people who set out to deliberately lie were a number of policemen, including the thre federation reps. I am surprised that it's taken this long for them to be disciplined.

I'm not sure the 3 fed reps did set out to deliberately lie.

The third rep has apparently already been to a misconduct hearing - no case to answer.

If I recall correctly the fed reps said that Mitchell said he could not remember exactly what he said at the gates of Downing Street - but he did remember exactly what he definitely did not say; i.e. he did not call the officers "plebs".

A judge clearly thought otherwise.

I agree that a number of other officers were stupid. There is no excuse - however, as far as the fed reps go - I can't see where they have lied.

Just to jog your memory, where they left the meeting with Mitchell and stated what had been said, not realising that Mitchell would later provide a tape recording that proved that their account was not truthful. To further jog your memory, when called out on this by a parliamentary enquiry, they stuck to what we might call the "three year old child defence" of flatly denying their deceit even in the face of the facts to the contrary.

And then people here wonder why police ethics and integrity are questioned....

[Scuffers]

Red 4 said:

I'm not sure the 3 fed reps did set out to deliberately lie.

The third rep has apparently already been to a misconduct hearing - no case to answer.

If I recall correctly the fed reps said that Mitchell said he could not remember exactly what he said at the gates of Downing Street - but he did remember exactly what he definitely did not say; i.e. he did not call the officers "plebs".

A judge clearly thought otherwise.

I agree that a number of other officers were stupid. There is no excuse - however, as far as the fed reps go - I can't see where they have lied.

They lied about what was said at the meeting, they got caught out because it was taped.

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

I'm not sure the 3 fed reps did set out to deliberately lie.

One of them was asked by Parliament whether he'd ever been subject to misconduct proceedings; he said no.

IIRC he had been subject to 13 such proceedings, of which two found against him.

His Chief Constable then wrote to Parliament suggesting that he might have misunderstood the question.

All this is a matter of public record. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/pl...

Spin that.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 10th August 22:33

[dacouch]

Rovinghawk said:

One of them was asked by Parliament whether he'd ever been subject to misconduct proceedings; he said no.

IIRC he had been subject to about 12 such proceedings, of which several found against him.

His Chief Constable then wrote to Parliament suggesting that he might have misunderstood the question.

All this is a matter of public record.

Spin that.

Perhaps the CC also misunderstood the question.

[Red 4]

Scuffers said:

They lied about what was said at the meeting, they got caught out because it was taped.

Did they ?

They said, if I recall correctly, that Mitchell did not/ would not say what he had said at the gate.

That was true.

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

Scuffers said:

They lied about what was said at the meeting, they got caught out because it was taped.

Did they ?

They said, if I recall correctly, that Mitchell did not/ would not say what he had said at the gate.

That was true.

You are making yourself look absurd now

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

if I recall correctly

There seem to be some examples where you don't. The link above proves this.

[Red 4]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Red 4 said:

Scuffers said:

They lied about what was said at the meeting, they got caught out because it was taped.

Did they ?

They said, if I recall correctly, that Mitchell did not/ would not say what he had said at the gate.

That was true.

You are making yourself look absurd now

OK Einstein, what - exactly - did the fed3 say.

Links or direct quotes only please ... not the ramblings of your imagination.

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

OK Einstein, what - exactly - did the fed3 say.

Links or direct quotes only please ... not the ramblings of your imagination.

Link is above. Here it is again:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/pl...

They told lies.

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

There seem to be some examples where you don't. The link above proves this.

Your link relates to a reference made about the Home Secretary and Sergeant Jones being subject to 13 complaints - not 13 misconduct hearings as you said earlier.

Must try harder ...

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Red 4 said:

Scuffers said:

They lied about what was said at the meeting, they got caught out because it was taped.

Did they ?

They said, if I recall correctly, that Mitchell did not/ would not say what he had said at the gate.

That was true.

You are making yourself look absurd now

OK Einstein, what - exactly - did the fed3 say.

Links or direct quotes only please ... not the ramblings of your imagination.

I don't indulge this sort of infantile posting.

The facts are well known and publicised - do some reading and stop making yourself look like a pillock

[Red 4]

Rovinghawk said:

One of them was asked by Parliament whether he'd ever been subject to misconduct proceedings; he said no.

IIRC he had been subject to 13 such proceedings, of which two found against him.

All this is a matter of public record. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/pl...

Spin that.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 10th August 22:33

Not spin - fact.

13 complaints does not mean 13 misconduct hearings.

2 complaints resulting in action being taken does not necessarily mean there was a misconduct hearing.

Try not to over-egg the pudding ... oh, wait ... it's Rovingtroll.

Serial police hater and talker of bks.

[Red 4]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I don't indulge this sort of infantile posting.

The facts are well known and publicised - do some reading and stop making yourself look like a pillock

I have.

Have you ?

The pillock prize belongs to you. Try and get your facts right.

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

Rovinghawk said:

One of them was asked by Parliament whether he'd ever been subject to misconduct proceedings; he said no.

IIRC he had been subject to 13 such proceedings, of which two found against him.

All this is a matter of public record. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/05/pl...

Spin that.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 10th August 22:33

Not spin - fact.

13 complaints does not mean 13 misconduct hearings.

2 complaints resulting in action being taken does not necessarily mean there was a misconduct hearing.

Try not to over-egg the pudding ... oh, wait ... it's Rovingtroll.

Serial police hater and talker of bks.

There's only one person talking bks here pal, and that's you.

When does school go back?

[Rovinghawk]

Red 4 said:

Not spin - fact.

13 complaints does not mean 13 misconduct hearings.

2 complaints resulting in action being taken does not necessarily mean there was a misconduct hearing.

Try not to over-egg the pudding ... oh, wait ... it's Rovingtroll.

Serial police hater and talker of bks.

The fact is that he said he hadn't been subject to proceedings, which was a lie. As it wasn't an accidental lie I'd suggest it was deliberate.

It's on Parliamentary record- how much more proof do you need?

Insulting me won't change the fact that he deliberately lied, as did others. Your claim that they didn't is provably wrong.

btw- I didn't say misconduct hearing, I said proceedings. These did take place and that is also a matter of public record.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 10th August 22:52

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

I don't indulge this sort of infantile posting.

The facts are well known and publicised - do some reading and stop making yourself look like a pillock

I have.

Have you ?

The pillock prize belongs to you. Try and get your facts right.

I have to say that any claim that you have read up on this is even more worrying than if you hadn't because you clearly can't understand what your reading.

As others have said on this thread and as even senior police officers have acknowledged, they didn't tell the truth. Millions of people watched them lie live on TV.

Why are you being so dogmatic in trying to justify their actions and why don't you realise the extent to which your frankly laughable hair-splitting makes you look absolutely ridiculous?

[ClaphamGT3]

Rovinghawk said:

Red 4 said:

Not spin - fact.

13 complaints does not mean 13 misconduct hearings.

2 complaints resulting in action being taken does not necessarily mean there was a misconduct hearing.

Try not to over-egg the pudding ... oh, wait ... it's Rovingtroll.

Serial police hater and talker of bks.

The fact is that he said he hadn't been subject to proceedings, which was a lie. As it wasn't an accidental lie I'd suggest it was deliberate.

It's on Parliamentary record- how much more proof do you need?

Insulting me won't change the fact that he deliberately lied, as did others. Your claim that they didn't is provably wrong.

btw- I didn't say misconduct hearing, I said proceedings. These did take place and that is also a matter of public record.

Edited by Rovinghawk on Monday 10th August 22:52

RH, I'd stop feeding the troll if I were you

[Rovinghawk]

ClaphamGT3 said:

RH, I'd stop feeding the troll if I were you

Thank you for your advice. Please note that I didn't descend to his level.