Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
... or, in other words, the IPCC have spat their dummy out because 2 forces concerned - Warwickshire and West Mercia, have previously declined to hold misconduct hearings because they do not think there are sufficient grounds for doing so.
West Mids have already cleared Sgt Jones of any wrongdoing.
This smacks of the IPCC's nose being put out of joint.
Clapham GT3 - you should meet up with Rovingtroll and go hand in hand to the hearings.
They are held in public now.
Make of that what you will.
West Mids have already cleared Sgt Jones of any wrongdoing.
This smacks of the IPCC's nose being put out of joint.
Clapham GT3 - you should meet up with Rovingtroll and go hand in hand to the hearings.
They are held in public now.
Make of that what you will.
ClaphamGT3 said:
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.
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
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.
ClaphamGT3 said:
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, after the meeting, the three policemen claimed that Mitchell refused to clarify what he said. The tape recording of the meeting demonstrated that Mitchell had been absolutely clear that he had sworn but stated that he hadn't used the term 'pleb'
Well, if he left out the fact that he used the word 'pleb' then they would be right, he didn't 'clarify' what he said, nor did he give a full account of the confrontation.So they didn't lie, Mitchell did. The fact that the tape showed that Mitchell lied again doesn't seem to bother you.
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, after the meeting, the three policemen claimed that Mitchell refused to clarify what he said. The tape recording of the meeting demonstrated that Mitchell had been absolutely clear that he had sworn but stated that he hadn't used the term 'pleb'
Well, if he left out the fact that he used the word 'pleb' then they would be right, he didn't 'clarify' what he said, nor did he give a full account of the confrontation.So they didn't lie, Mitchell did. The fact that the tape showed that Mitchell lied again doesn't seem to bother you.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24537521
"He apologised
True.
"He has also repeated his denial of using many of the words reported in the officer's notes."
He has denied using the key word that caused the whole affair. "Many" isn't an accurate word unless there's any of the transcript missing.
"His explanation was he didn't want to get into a firefight with the police."
True.
"He is still refusing to elaborate on what happened."
This struck me as wrong when I heard it, as he has given an account, but 1) has he elaborated relative to what he has already said prior to the meeting, "still refusing"? And 2) the definition of elaborate includes "to add details to; to expand". He won't expand upon whether or not the officer is lying, whose account is right etc and chooses to side-step it with claiming it may have been down to interpretation / mishearing etc. Now this is an important part as it causes the Fed to steer the meeting along the lines of whether or not the officers have lied and potential misconduct implications. At the end of the meeting it's still unknown what happened with the key word that cause the whole mess.
"Refuse" is a strong word, but again, the definition is to, "indicate or show that one is not willing to do something", which is accurate.
Answering whether or not he should resign? A little too political for my liking.
Transcript said:
Mitchell says: "I will not as a supporter of the police for twenty six years be put in a position of suggesting an officer is not telling the truth but equally I did not say and I give you my word, I give you my word, I did not call an officer an f'ing pleb I did not say you are an f'ing moron and I did not say you should know your f'ing place.
"I would never speak to anyone like that least of all a police officer and you have my word I never said those things."
He goes on: "I don't want to impugn, it is quite possible that there was a mishearing or something. The incident was very brief. I complied with the officer and I picked up my bicycle.
"But I did say, under my breath but audibly, in frustration, I thought you lot were supposed to f***ing help us and it is for that I apologise, and I am grateful to that officer for accepting my apology.
"I should never have said it and I will never do it again and I think we all of us in our lives occasionally let go and that is when I let go.
"But I don't want to get in to a, who is lying, because of my respect for the police and the fact that this may well have got twisted in translation...
"I am not asking you to choose between two recollections, I am asking you to draw a line so that we can get on and work together in the future because I am one of your local MPs; you're my local fed. I am ask that we draw a line now and get on with that work."
Warwickshire Rep: "We have said today that it is time to move on."
West Midlands Rep: "Are you happy though that those officers made their notes up in accordance with the courts and were they to give their evidence for any reason would expect to rely on those notes in court?"
There is some discussion over the implications of what this means and whether the MP's notes or the police account would be more accurate - with the MP insisting he would have remembered if he had used the word pleb.
West Mids: "It feels to me there is an untruth still and I know you don't wish to impugn those officers but if they have put those words in their notes and they wish to rely on that as their original, as the notes that they would use to refresh their memory in evidence, the court would expect that to be true and accurate."
Mitchell: "Well I can't explain that, you know I just ask you to accept what I have said which is true and I have given my word on that."
West Mids: "We have got bad apples - have we got bad apples in our barrel?"
Mitchell: "I am not comfortable to comment on that I wouldn't."
Warks: "It doesn't feel right that the officers have attributed those words to you if that's not true... All I am saying is that I can understand certain parts being, getting the wrong way around getting words wrong but to get so much fundamentally wrong I mean it is almost like it is a complete falsification."
Mitchell: "Well this is why I did not want to get into this because I think I would be impugning the integrity of a police officer... I am trying not to escalate it. Why I have not been explicit publicly is to try not to have a fire fight with the police."
Warks: "We are where we are, yes it may not have gone to court it may not be used in any complaint but if an officer has written those words in his pocket notebook or in a report and they are false then that is actually a very serious misconduct issue... their integrity is no longer intact."
West Mids: "...I feel really uncomfortable now knowing we have got officers who are prepared to lie on paper to a court... They have committed to paper in a formal record which is held on record within the Metropolitan police an account of events which is blatantly untrue. They have put words in your mouth that are untrue."
Mitchell: "I have made it clear I am trying to deescalate this and not have a great massive row over who is lying and who is not because it seems to me that is not in the interest of the police and it is not in my interest."
The meeting goes on to discuss the law relating to police officers who falsify an account and what kind of criminal offences or misconduct hearing that could lead to.
West Mids: "It should be a misconduct investigation."
Warks: "There is nothing we would like to do more than to draw a line under it but as Chris has said we are now put in a position as Police Officers under our Code. Having spoken to you under our code of conduct we should report this to the Met and say as far as you are concerned we are in possession of information now."
Mitchell: "Well I hope you feel you can say to the nine cameras or whatever it is outside that between us we have drawn a line under this point."
West Mids: "I don't think it is possible to draw a line under it because now we know, and I have said before there are bad apples in the barrel and that affects the integrity of every single police officer in the service and that really does need to be looked at now."
Warks: "I have no choice, my code of conduct to the police is that we have to without exception report the fact that another officer is possibly corrupt. And when I say corrupt I mean he falsified a document and you know tell me if I am wrong as well but as a Sergeant I am not wrong."
Mitchell: "Well you have to do what you think is right and proper."
The video doesn't seem that far from the transcript. There are a few thing things that are said: "I would never speak to anyone like that least of all a police officer and you have my word I never said those things."
He goes on: "I don't want to impugn, it is quite possible that there was a mishearing or something. The incident was very brief. I complied with the officer and I picked up my bicycle.
"But I did say, under my breath but audibly, in frustration, I thought you lot were supposed to f***ing help us and it is for that I apologise, and I am grateful to that officer for accepting my apology.
"I should never have said it and I will never do it again and I think we all of us in our lives occasionally let go and that is when I let go.
"But I don't want to get in to a, who is lying, because of my respect for the police and the fact that this may well have got twisted in translation...
"I am not asking you to choose between two recollections, I am asking you to draw a line so that we can get on and work together in the future because I am one of your local MPs; you're my local fed. I am ask that we draw a line now and get on with that work."
Warwickshire Rep: "We have said today that it is time to move on."
West Midlands Rep: "Are you happy though that those officers made their notes up in accordance with the courts and were they to give their evidence for any reason would expect to rely on those notes in court?"
There is some discussion over the implications of what this means and whether the MP's notes or the police account would be more accurate - with the MP insisting he would have remembered if he had used the word pleb.
West Mids: "It feels to me there is an untruth still and I know you don't wish to impugn those officers but if they have put those words in their notes and they wish to rely on that as their original, as the notes that they would use to refresh their memory in evidence, the court would expect that to be true and accurate."
Mitchell: "Well I can't explain that, you know I just ask you to accept what I have said which is true and I have given my word on that."
West Mids: "We have got bad apples - have we got bad apples in our barrel?"
Mitchell: "I am not comfortable to comment on that I wouldn't."
Warks: "It doesn't feel right that the officers have attributed those words to you if that's not true... All I am saying is that I can understand certain parts being, getting the wrong way around getting words wrong but to get so much fundamentally wrong I mean it is almost like it is a complete falsification."
Mitchell: "Well this is why I did not want to get into this because I think I would be impugning the integrity of a police officer... I am trying not to escalate it. Why I have not been explicit publicly is to try not to have a fire fight with the police."
Warks: "We are where we are, yes it may not have gone to court it may not be used in any complaint but if an officer has written those words in his pocket notebook or in a report and they are false then that is actually a very serious misconduct issue... their integrity is no longer intact."
West Mids: "...I feel really uncomfortable now knowing we have got officers who are prepared to lie on paper to a court... They have committed to paper in a formal record which is held on record within the Metropolitan police an account of events which is blatantly untrue. They have put words in your mouth that are untrue."
Mitchell: "I have made it clear I am trying to deescalate this and not have a great massive row over who is lying and who is not because it seems to me that is not in the interest of the police and it is not in my interest."
The meeting goes on to discuss the law relating to police officers who falsify an account and what kind of criminal offences or misconduct hearing that could lead to.
West Mids: "It should be a misconduct investigation."
Warks: "There is nothing we would like to do more than to draw a line under it but as Chris has said we are now put in a position as Police Officers under our Code. Having spoken to you under our code of conduct we should report this to the Met and say as far as you are concerned we are in possession of information now."
Mitchell: "Well I hope you feel you can say to the nine cameras or whatever it is outside that between us we have drawn a line under this point."
West Mids: "I don't think it is possible to draw a line under it because now we know, and I have said before there are bad apples in the barrel and that affects the integrity of every single police officer in the service and that really does need to be looked at now."
Warks: "I have no choice, my code of conduct to the police is that we have to without exception report the fact that another officer is possibly corrupt. And when I say corrupt I mean he falsified a document and you know tell me if I am wrong as well but as a Sergeant I am not wrong."
Mitchell: "Well you have to do what you think is right and proper."
"He apologised
True.
"He has also repeated his denial of using many of the words reported in the officer's notes."
He has denied using the key word that caused the whole affair. "Many" isn't an accurate word unless there's any of the transcript missing.
"His explanation was he didn't want to get into a firefight with the police."
True.
"He is still refusing to elaborate on what happened."
This struck me as wrong when I heard it, as he has given an account, but 1) has he elaborated relative to what he has already said prior to the meeting, "still refusing"? And 2) the definition of elaborate includes "to add details to; to expand". He won't expand upon whether or not the officer is lying, whose account is right etc and chooses to side-step it with claiming it may have been down to interpretation / mishearing etc. Now this is an important part as it causes the Fed to steer the meeting along the lines of whether or not the officers have lied and potential misconduct implications. At the end of the meeting it's still unknown what happened with the key word that cause the whole mess.
"Refuse" is a strong word, but again, the definition is to, "indicate or show that one is not willing to do something", which is accurate.
Answering whether or not he should resign? A little too political for my liking.
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, after the meeting, the three policemen claimed that Mitchell refused to clarify what he said. The tape recording of the meeting demonstrated that Mitchell had been absolutely clear that he had sworn but stated that he hadn't used the term 'pleb'
Well, if he left out the fact that he used the word 'pleb' then they would be right, he didn't 'clarify' what he said, nor did he give a full account of the confrontation.So they didn't lie, Mitchell did. The fact that the tape showed that Mitchell lied again doesn't seem to bother you.
Is it not the case that a number of officers have already been found guilty of misconduct, at least one criminal conviction, etc.?
The current discussion here relates to whether another group of officers lied, yes?
It appears to me that the three Fed Reps just did not believe Mitchell during their meeting so did not report the meeting accurately. If they had said that Mitchell gave a full account but that they didn't believe him, that would have, to my mind, been more accurate. Instead they reported that he hadn't given a full account when he had, erroneously or otherwise.
At the time the court case had not been held that subsequently attributed that Mitchell had used the 'P' word so this can't be used to justify that they didn't lie or, at the very least, seek to mislead at that time. They did. To believe otherwise is just to support actions where the end justifies the means.
At the time the court case had not been held that subsequently attributed that Mitchell had used the 'P' word so this can't be used to justify that they didn't lie or, at the very least, seek to mislead at that time. They did. To believe otherwise is just to support actions where the end justifies the means.
flemke said:
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, after the meeting, the three policemen claimed that Mitchell refused to clarify what he said. The tape recording of the meeting demonstrated that Mitchell had been absolutely clear that he had sworn but stated that he hadn't used the term 'pleb'
Well, if he left out the fact that he used the word 'pleb' then they would be right, he didn't 'clarify' what he said, nor did he give a full account of the confrontation.So they didn't lie, Mitchell did. The fact that the tape showed that Mitchell lied again doesn't seem to bother you.
Is it not the case that a number of officers have already been found guilty of misconduct, at least one criminal conviction, etc.?
The current discussion here relates to whether another group of officers lied, yes?
Garvin said:
It appears to me that the three Fed Reps just did not believe Mitchell during their meeting so did not report the meeting accurately. If they had said that Mitchell gave a full account but that they didn't believe him, that would have, to my mind, been more accurate. Instead they reported that he hadn't given a full account when he had, erroneously or otherwise.
At the time the court case had not been held that subsequently attributed that Mitchell had used the 'P' word so this can't be used to justify that they didn't lie or, at the very least, seek to mislead at that time. They did. To believe otherwise is just to support actions where the end justifies the means.
Not quite.At the time the court case had not been held that subsequently attributed that Mitchell had used the 'P' word so this can't be used to justify that they didn't lie or, at the very least, seek to mislead at that time. They did. To believe otherwise is just to support actions where the end justifies the means.
The fed reps referred to PC Rowlands' notes/ the incident log.
They asked Mitchell if the officer was lying - and if Mitchell said he was then they were duty-bound to report the matter.
Mitchell said categorically that he did not call the officers "plebs" but couldn't really remember what he did say - he could have been misheard/ the dog ate his homework/ a big kid did it and ran off, etc. etc.
I'd agree that the fed reps didn't believe him - someone wasn't telling the truth.
The court didn't believe Mitchell either.
Red 4 said:
Garvin said:
It appears to me that the three Fed Reps just did not believe Mitchell during their meeting so did not report the meeting accurately. If they had said that Mitchell gave a full account but that they didn't believe him, that would have, to my mind, been more accurate. Instead they reported that he hadn't given a full account when he had, erroneously or otherwise.
At the time the court case had not been held that subsequently attributed that Mitchell had used the 'P' word so this can't be used to justify that they didn't lie or, at the very least, seek to mislead at that time. They did. To believe otherwise is just to support actions where the end justifies the means.
Not quite.At the time the court case had not been held that subsequently attributed that Mitchell had used the 'P' word so this can't be used to justify that they didn't lie or, at the very least, seek to mislead at that time. They did. To believe otherwise is just to support actions where the end justifies the means.
The fed reps referred to PC Rowlands' notes/ the incident log.
They asked Mitchell if the officer was lying - and if Mitchell said he was then they were duty-bound to report the matter.
Mitchell said categorically that he did not call the officers "plebs" but couldn't really remember what he did say - he could have been misheard/ the dog ate his homework/ a big kid did it and ran off, etc. etc.
I'd agree that the fed reps didn't believe him - someone wasn't telling the truth.
The court didn't believe Mitchell either.
ClaphamGT3 said:
You may have missed that the case in question was a civil case
And your point is ?Is it a balance of probabilities argument ?
I hate to burst your bubble but balance of probabilities means exactly that.
i.e. the judge thought Mitchell had, in fact, defamed PC Rowland and had, in fact, called him a f
king pleb.Edited by Red 4 on Tuesday 11th August 18:54
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, after the meeting, the three policemen claimed that Mitchell refused to clarify what he said. The tape recording of the meeting demonstrated that Mitchell had been absolutely clear that he had sworn but stated that he hadn't used the term 'pleb'
Well, if he left out the fact that he used the word 'pleb' then they would be right, he didn't 'clarify' what he said, nor did he give a full account of the confrontation.So they didn't lie, Mitchell did. The fact that the tape showed that Mitchell lied again doesn't seem to bother you.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservat...
Andrew Mitchell PROBABLY did call PC Toby Rowland “a pleb”. That was the verdict reached by Mr Justice Mitting at the Royal Courts of Justice last Thursday.
The ruling was unambiguous. “I am satisfied at least on balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same, including the politically toxic word 'pleb'", he wrote in a written judgment. In Justice Mitting’s eyes, Rowland’s account of the notorious events at the gates of Downing Street had been accurate. Andrew Mitchell’s had not.
Nothing wrong with settling a case on the balance of probabilities. The case has to end someway and taking a judge's opinion with all his years of experience seems a reasonable way to settle issues.
That said, the judge's opinion in a case like this is not a fact or cast iron proof... It is what he feels. This is a case of he said, she said and the judge believed the policeman.
Andrew Mitchell PROBABLY did call PC Toby Rowland “a pleb”. That was the verdict reached by Mr Justice Mitting at the Royal Courts of Justice last Thursday.
The ruling was unambiguous. “I am satisfied at least on balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same, including the politically toxic word 'pleb'", he wrote in a written judgment. In Justice Mitting’s eyes, Rowland’s account of the notorious events at the gates of Downing Street had been accurate. Andrew Mitchell’s had not.
Nothing wrong with settling a case on the balance of probabilities. The case has to end someway and taking a judge's opinion with all his years of experience seems a reasonable way to settle issues.
That said, the judge's opinion in a case like this is not a fact or cast iron proof... It is what he feels. This is a case of he said, she said and the judge believed the policeman.
rewc said:
singlecoil said:
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.
lost.
Their account of the meeting was different from that recorded by Mr Mitchell. They lied, they played a dangerous game and lost.
Chief Inspector Reakes-Williams' conclusion said:
"I have read the IO’s report, and understand the conclusions he has reached and his rationale. However, my view is that the officers do have a case to answer for misconduct. Without repeating unnecessarily aspects already covered in detail, I set out below my rationale ...
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
What I do not see from the information gained through the investigation is a malicious attempt to deliberately misrepresent what took place at the meeting. It seems to me that it was more a case of being poorly prepared, badly advised and inexperienced in dealing with such intense media scrutiny. The Officers were somewhat ‘caught in the headlights’, coming straight out of the meeting to face the assembled media without taking any time to discuss what had taken place between themselves and to agree a reasoned, balanced and accurate response.
There is an element of recklessness here because it is inconceivable to me that the Officers would not have been aware that the media were gathered and would have wanted an account to go out on the 6 o’clock news.
I have considered whether ALL of the officers have a case to answer. Although it was Inspector MacKaill who acted as the main spokesman after the meeting, it is clear that all the Officers spoke to the media either immediately after the meeting or subsequently, and all gave the same message. In interview, they have all stated their agreement with the information given to the media. In my view, this makes them all jointly responsible.
By giving a misleading account of what took place at the meeting, I believe the Officers have a case to answer for misconduct and bringing discredit on the Police Service."
Procedurally this is the conclusion that should have appeared in the final report to the IPCC, not the conclusion of the Deputy Chief Constables. Reakes-Williams told the Select Committee that had he thought the three officers had deliberately given false statements, his recommendation would have been gross misconduct.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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
What I do not see from the information gained through the investigation is a malicious attempt to deliberately misrepresent what took place at the meeting. It seems to me that it was more a case of being poorly prepared, badly advised and inexperienced in dealing with such intense media scrutiny. The Officers were somewhat ‘caught in the headlights’, coming straight out of the meeting to face the assembled media without taking any time to discuss what had taken place between themselves and to agree a reasoned, balanced and accurate response.
There is an element of recklessness here because it is inconceivable to me that the Officers would not have been aware that the media were gathered and would have wanted an account to go out on the 6 o’clock news.
I have considered whether ALL of the officers have a case to answer. Although it was Inspector MacKaill who acted as the main spokesman after the meeting, it is clear that all the Officers spoke to the media either immediately after the meeting or subsequently, and all gave the same message. In interview, they have all stated their agreement with the information given to the media. In my view, this makes them all jointly responsible.
By giving a misleading account of what took place at the meeting, I believe the Officers have a case to answer for misconduct and bringing discredit on the Police Service."
ClaphamGT3 said:
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
To put it in terms simple enough for you to understand, after the meeting, the three policemen claimed that Mitchell refused to clarify what he said. The tape recording of the meeting demonstrated that Mitchell had been absolutely clear that he had sworn but stated that he hadn't used the term 'pleb'
Well, if he left out the fact that he used the word 'pleb' then they would be right, he didn't 'clarify' what he said, nor did he give a full account of the confrontation.So they didn't lie, Mitchell did. The fact that the tape showed that Mitchell lied again doesn't seem to bother you.
I suggest you lay off the sarky remarks if you want to be taken seriously.
singlecoil said:
You can keep saying they lied about the meeting until you are blue in the face, but what you can't do is actually demonstrate it. And the reason you can't do that is because Mitchell was the one who lied, not the reps.
I suggest you lay off the sarky remarks if you want to be taken seriously.
I have really tried to help you understand that the fed reps lied about what Mitchell said at the meeting at his constituency office. I just can't set it out any more clearly for you but, for some reason, you can't (or won't) grasp the perfectly simple fact that all the evidence points to the men lying. I suggest you lay off the sarky remarks if you want to be taken seriously.
Clearly, irrespective of what you and I think, the IPCC commissioner and West Mercia Police think that they lied - and they will have seen far more evidence than either of us - hence two of these individuals are now facing disciplinary hearings.
As I, and others, have said repeatedly in this thread (and you have, again, failed to grasp) this isn't about the fact that an ill-mannered politician spoke ungraciously to a policeman; the lasting legacy of this sorry saga is likely to be the public perception of the unprofessional and, in some cases, dishonest behaviour of the police
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff