Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
ClaphamGT3 said:
There's only one person talking b
ks here pal, and that's you.
When does school go back?
I'm out chaps.ks here pal, and that's you.When does school go back?
The (ill-informed) haters are out in force tonight and I can't be arsed.
When you can show me EXACTLY what the fed3 said I might reply.
Until then enjoy the hate ... I reckon one day Rovingtroll's head will explode ... especially if the fed2 are exonerated.
Simply for that - I hope they are.
Night night haters.
I do hope Mr Mitchell has paid PC Rowland his £80,000 in damages, and the rest of his multi-million £ legal bill 
The Fed 3 tried to play politics and be clever with the big boys. They messed it up and helped add to the whole farce. An absolute waste of time, energy and money, but if their conduct amounts to misconduct then they need to be held to account for it.
The CC shouldn't have suggested Sergeant Hilton didn't understand the question, he should have suggested the panel / Vaz get a better grip of the subject matter and specific language they were using.
The Fed 3 tried to play politics and be clever with the big boys. They messed it up and helped add to the whole farce. An absolute waste of time, energy and money, but if their conduct amounts to misconduct then they need to be held to account for it.
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.
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.
No spin needed. A proceeding is a misconduct meeting or hearing. Just because you have 13 complaints doesn't mean you have had any proceedings. "Actions" could amount to a local resolution or "management advice", which would both be informal and (usually) outside of a meeting / hearing. Both of his actions were the latter. 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.
The CC shouldn't have suggested Sergeant Hilton didn't understand the question, he should have suggested the panel / Vaz get a better grip of the subject matter and specific language they were using.
Rovinghawk said:
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.
Last one .....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
What is the difference between MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS and a MISCONDUCT HEARING. Specifically.
Police Regs are freely available on the interweb ...
Good luck with that one ...
TTFN.
Red 4 said:
What is the difference between MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS and a MISCONDUCT HEARING. Specifically.
Don't know, don't care. Proceedings- a course of action.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proceedings
He lied. If Parliamentary records aren't enough proof for you then so be it.
Rovinghawk said:
Don't know, don't care.
Proceedings- a course of action.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proceedings
He lied. If Parliamentary records aren't enough proof for you then so be it.
You said you didn't say misconduct hearing - you said misconduct proceedings.Proceedings- a course of action.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/proceedings
He lied. If Parliamentary records aren't enough proof for you then so be it.
You implied there was a difference but now you are saying you don't know what that difference is ...
You are tying yourself up in knots as is the Rovingtroll way ...
When you have managed to unravel yourself (if you can) try and make a valid point ...
You have failed miserably thus far.
Red 4 said:
You said you didn't say misconduct hearing - you said misconduct proceedings.
No, I said proceedings, You quoted it, why don't you read it?Red 4 said:
You implied there was a difference but now you are saying you don't know what that difference is ...
I said I don't care.Red 4 said:
You are tying yourself up in knots as is the Rovingtroll way ...
Don't insult, prove your point.Red 4 said:
When you have managed to unravel yourself (if you can) try and make a valid point ...
OK- they lied. They have been proven to lie. Their Chief Constable wrote bullst to excuse their lies. All this is on public record, no matter how much you deny it.Sleep well.
Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 11th August 05:58
If you ask a police officer about "misconduct proceedings", then you're asking about formal misconduct meetings / hearings. That's the organisational language and the meaning those words together are given.
If you ask someone how many complaints they've received, then that widens the scope to include everything.
Vaz (or whoever asked the question) may have meant the latter, but they apparently used language that would mean the former to a police officer. It doesn't take much to see where the ambiguity could have come from.
If you ask someone how many complaints they've received, then that widens the scope to include everything.
Vaz (or whoever asked the question) may have meant the latter, but they apparently used language that would mean the former to a police officer. It doesn't take much to see where the ambiguity could have come from.
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.
Spin that.
There you have it.IIRC he had been subject to 13 such proceedings, of which two found against him.
Spin that.
No ambiguity whatsoever.
You said Sergeant Jones has been subject to 13 misconduct "proceedings".
He has not.
You are wrong. Again.
La Liga said:
If you ask a police officer about "misconduct proceedings", then you're asking about formal misconduct meetings / hearings. That's the organisational language and the meaning those words together are given.
If you ask someone how many complaints they've received, then that widens the scope to include everything.
Vaz (or whoever asked the question) may have meant the latter, but they apparently used language that would mean the former to a police officer. It doesn't take much to see where the ambiguity could have come from.
Jargon, and job specific. As a member of the great unwashed public, it looks to me fairly simple. The Police tries to stitch up a minister for political reasons. Said minister was not entirely honest and truthful.If you ask someone how many complaints they've received, then that widens the scope to include everything.
Vaz (or whoever asked the question) may have meant the latter, but they apparently used language that would mean the former to a police officer. It doesn't take much to see where the ambiguity could have come from.
Trouble is, neither were the Police, so everyone ends up looking self interested, dishonest and untrustworthy.
No winners here, but lots of losers.
You have to admit its very confusing. The "13" perhaps came from here: (itv source)
"...5 November 2013 at 3:22pm
'Plebgate' officer had 13 disciplinary proceedings
Sgt Chris Jones was forced to reveal that 13 complaints had been made against him during his 28-year service, with none resulting in any misconduct proceedings.
The issue arose as the committee was questioning Sgt Jones for the second time after he failed to mention any disciplinary proceedings during his first appearance.
Sgt Jones also told the Home Affairs Select Committee that he did not feel responsible for any distress Andrew Mitchell or his family had been subjected to in the wake of the 'plebgate' scandal.
Last updated Tue 5 Nov 2013..."
"...5 November 2013 at 3:22pm
'Plebgate' officer had 13 disciplinary proceedings
Sgt Chris Jones was forced to reveal that 13 complaints had been made against him during his 28-year service, with none resulting in any misconduct proceedings.
The issue arose as the committee was questioning Sgt Jones for the second time after he failed to mention any disciplinary proceedings during his first appearance.
Sgt Jones also told the Home Affairs Select Committee that he did not feel responsible for any distress Andrew Mitchell or his family had been subjected to in the wake of the 'plebgate' scandal.
Last updated Tue 5 Nov 2013..."
eldar said:
Jargon, and job specific.
Quite, but very relevant when asking someone in that specific job. eldar said:
As a member of the great unwashed public, it looks to me fairly simple. The Police tries to stitch up a minister for political reasons. Said minister was not entirely honest and truthful.
Trouble is, neither were the Police, so everyone ends up looking self interested, dishonest and untrustworthy.
No winners here, but lots of losers.
A good summary. Trouble is, neither were the Police, so everyone ends up looking self interested, dishonest and untrustworthy.
No winners here, but lots of losers.
williamp said:
You have to admit its very confusing. The "13" perhaps came from here: (itv source)
"...5 November 2013 at 3:22pm
'Plebgate' officer had 13 disciplinary proceedings
Sgt Chris Jones was forced to reveal that 13 complaints had been made against him during his 28-year service, with none resulting in any misconduct proceedings.
The issue arose as the committee was questioning Sgt Jones for the second time after he failed to mention any disciplinary proceedings during his first appearance.
Sgt Jones also told the Home Affairs Select Committee that he did not feel responsible for any distress Andrew Mitchell or his family had been subjected to in the wake of the 'plebgate' scandal.
Last updated Tue 5 Nov 2013..."
As La Liga says, misconduct proceedings are different to complaints received."...5 November 2013 at 3:22pm
'Plebgate' officer had 13 disciplinary proceedings
Sgt Chris Jones was forced to reveal that 13 complaints had been made against him during his 28-year service, with none resulting in any misconduct proceedings.
The issue arose as the committee was questioning Sgt Jones for the second time after he failed to mention any disciplinary proceedings during his first appearance.
Sgt Jones also told the Home Affairs Select Committee that he did not feel responsible for any distress Andrew Mitchell or his family had been subjected to in the wake of the 'plebgate' scandal.
Last updated Tue 5 Nov 2013..."
13 complaints with 28 years service is less than 1 complaint every 2 years.
Police officers get complained about - for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes the complaint has merit, often it does not, but all complaints are recorded.
It's lazy, ill-informed reporting and making a mountain out of a molehill.
For the benefit of Rovingtroll, Sgt Jones received 13 complaints over a 28 year period WITH NONE RESULTING IN MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS.
Red 4 said:
As La Liga says, misconduct proceedings are different to complaints received.
13 complaints with 28 years service is less than 1 complaint every 2 years.
Police officers get complained about - for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes the complaint has merit, often it does not, but all complaints are recorded.
It's lazy, ill-informed reporting and making a mountain out of a molehill.
For the benefit of Rovingtroll, Sgt Jones received 13 complaints over a 28 year period WITH NONE RESULTING IN MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS.
"I'm out....."13 complaints with 28 years service is less than 1 complaint every 2 years.
Police officers get complained about - for a wide variety of reasons. Sometimes the complaint has merit, often it does not, but all complaints are recorded.
It's lazy, ill-informed reporting and making a mountain out of a molehill.
For the benefit of Rovingtroll, Sgt Jones received 13 complaints over a 28 year period WITH NONE RESULTING IN MISCONDUCT PROCEEDINGS.
"Last one........."
Make your mind up, it can't be too hard.
carinaman said:
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.
I can't figure out if you have lost your grip on reality because you hate so much, or hate so much because you have lost your grip on reality.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
Your inability to construct a coherent argument doesn't help.
Scuffers said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33854227
and it still rumbles on....
Millions of £ available to spend on this crap, yet no money for a children's charity.
A suspect analogy.and it still rumbles on....
Millions of £ available to spend on this crap, yet no money for a children's charity.
The two Fed officers are to be investigated for allegedly lying and attempting to force the resignation of a cabinet minister.
Kids Co was badly managed, poorly governed and probably produced dodgy data about its services. A classic case of the media, politicians and trustees falling under the spell of a charismatic CEO.
My ten bob goes towards finding the truth about plebgate. Badly run charities deserve to fail. Another will look after the kids and won't feel the need to pay them either.
They are facing disciplinary action because the commissioner of the IPCC wants them to face disciplinary action.
The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
Mitchell did not resign because of what those policemen said, he resigned because that was what the PM's office wanted him to do.
The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
Mitchell did not resign because of what those policemen said, he resigned because that was what the PM's office wanted him to do.
singlecoil said:
T
The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
Their account of the meeting was different from that recorded by Mr Mitchell. They lied, they played a dangerous game and lost. The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
rewc said:
singlecoil said:
T
The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
Their account of the meeting was different from that recorded by Mr Mitchell. They lied, they played a dangerous game and lost. The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
singlecoil said:
rewc said:
singlecoil said:
T
The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
Their account of the meeting was different from that recorded by Mr Mitchell. They lied, they played a dangerous game and lost. The officers didn't lie because Mitchell did not give a full account of the confrontation, as has been shown by his losing the court case, and quite a lot of money.
The affair concerns a 45-second encounter between Andrew Mitchell and police officers at the gates of Downing Street
'Plebgate'
Mitchell hits out at 'plebgate lies'
What next for Andrew Mitchell?
Transcript and audio of 'plebgate' meeting
Apology over 'plebgate' row evidence
Allegations that Conservative chief whip Andrew Mitchell called some police officers plebs during a row in Downing Street cost him his government job.
But the scandal has since embroiled the police in accusations that they have not been sufficiently robust in disciplining officers accused of trying to discredit the MP as part of a campaign to "toxify" his party.
BBC News looks back at how the row unfolded.
19 September 2012
Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, then the government's chief whip, has a row with police officers who would not let him cycle through Downing Street's main gate.
20 September 2012
The story is revealed in the Sun newspaper, which reports that he swore at the officers and called them "plebs" who should learn their place.
21 September 2012
Mr Mitchell denies using the word "plebs" but apologises for being disrespectful.
24 September 2012
Mr Mitchell says he wants to "draw a line" under the incident, telling reporters: "I did not use the words that have been attributed to me."
But speculation about the exact words he did use continues. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg urges him to explain "fully and in detail his version of events".
25 September 2012
A police log of the incident, appearing to confirm previous reports and contradict Mr Mitchell's position, is leaked to the Daily Telegraph.
7 October 2012
Posters and T-shirts produced by the West Midlands Police Federation for the Conservative Party Conference in Birmingham
Police representatives associated the row with their campaign against cuts
Mr Mitchell remains in his job, but members of the Police Federation wear "PC Pleb" T-shirts at demonstrations against police funding cuts at the Conservative Party conference.
12 October 2012
Three local representatives of the Police Federation meet Mr Mitchell at his Sutton Coldfield constituency office for 45 minutes, telling reporters afterwards that he had still not disclosed the precise words he used in the incident.
They criticise him for implying that the Downing Street officers' accounts are not accurate. The chief whip has "no option but to resign", one representative concludes.
17 October 2012
David Cameron, with Andrew Mitchell watching on
In a Commons clash, David Cameron said Mr Mitchell should be able to carry on with his job
David Cameron tells Parliament that what Mr Mitchell "did and said" was wrong, but since he had apologised and the officer involved had accepted his apology, he should be allowed to get on with his job.
But opposition leader Ed Miliband says that, despite the apology, Mr Mitchell is "toast".
19 October 2012
Mr Mitchell resigns, claiming the "damaging publicity" means he can no longer do his job.
In his resignation letter to the PM, he writes: "The offending comment and the reason for my apology to the police was my parting remark 'I thought you guys were supposed to f***ing help us.'
"It was obviously wrong of me to use such bad language and I am very sorry about it and grateful to the police officer for accepting my apology."
16 December 2012
A police constable with the diplomatic protection group is arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office, and suspended from his duties in connection with accounts of the Downing Street incident.
18 December 2012
CCTV footage, broadcast on Channel 4 news, casts doubt on the police officers' version of events.
The police log said Mr Mitchell's use of a number of expletives had left members of the public looking on "visibly shocked". But the footage suggests that no-one other than the officers involved were within earshot.
Mr Mitchell says he has fallen victim to a "stitch-up".
19 December 2012
Scotland Yard says it is opening an investigation into claims that an officer gave false evidence.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe says: "The allegations in relation to this case are extremely serious. For the avoidance of doubt, I am determined there will be a ruthless search for the truth - no matter where the truth takes us."
In the ensuing months, eight people are arrested and bailed under the investigation, codenamed Operation Alice, including five police officers.
7 March 2013
Mr Mitchell launches libel action against the Sun over its reporting of the "plebgate" incident.
19 September 2013
A year after the original incident, former home secretary Jack Straw criticises the "inordinate and unjustified" length of time the investigation has taken.
15 October 2013
Independent Police Complaints Commission deputy chair Deborah Glass says the IPCC disagrees with police chiefs' decision not to hold misconduct hearings on the three Federation officers involved in the October 2012 meeting with Mr Mitchell.
Andrew Mitchell
Mr Mitchell has always denied calling the officers "plebs"
The IPCC released a transcript of the meeting - from a recording made by Mitchell - which showed that, while he admitted swearing, Mitchell denied using the word "pleb" or insulting the police.
However, after the meeting the three officers said he had refused to elaborate on what had happened and should resign.
21 September 2012
Mr Mitchell denies using the word "plebs" but apologises for being disrespectful.
24 September 2012
Mr Mitchell says he wants to "draw a line" under the incident,
This really should have been the end of it. A few choice words after a long day, a public appology and a suggestion to move on should have been the end of it. Maybe a beer bought and a personal appology too. Maybe not. Instead this has been going on for nearly 3 years now.
Mr Mitchell denies using the word "plebs" but apologises for being disrespectful.
24 September 2012
Mr Mitchell says he wants to "draw a line" under the incident,
This really should have been the end of it. A few choice words after a long day, a public appology and a suggestion to move on should have been the end of it. Maybe a beer bought and a personal appology too. Maybe not. Instead this has been going on for nearly 3 years now.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff