Plebgate - An interesting new twist

[ClaphamGT3]

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.

Are these two of the three simpletons who turned up to the enquiry and made complete monkeys out of themselves?

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

carinaman said:

Police being petty minded jobsworths allowed to use the tiniest of infractions to score a point is one of the few remaining perks of the job.

MPs being petty minded, foul-mouthed, full of their own importance, arrogant, lying idiots - all on the balance of probabilities, you understand - is one of the few remaining perks of the job ... until a judge rules you told porkies ...

I suspect the misconduct hearings for the fed reps will be a witch-hunt.

Nobody will come out of this well.

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.

[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....

[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

[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

[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?

[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

[ClaphamGT3]

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.

In what way was it different? Be specific.

Andrew Mitchell
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.

[ClaphamGT3]

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.

In what way was it different? Be specific.

Quite a lot of stuff

Which, although concerning the Plebgate affair, didn't actually answer my question, and gives the impression of being a deliberate obfuscation.

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'

[ClaphamGT3]

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.

The use of the word 'pleb' is not a fact, it is a point of contention. They said Mitchell didn't clarify what He said. The tape demonstrated that he did clarify what was said. Mitchell may be many things, but he is not the liar here.

[ClaphamGT3]

Red 4 said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

The use of the word 'pleb' is not a fact, it is a point of contention.

Not according to a court of law it isn't.

Maybe you missed that bit.

You may have missed that the case in question was a civil case

[ClaphamGT3]

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'm sorry, I can't possibly imagine the alternate universe you are inhabiting but anyone living in the real world but any sane and reasoned individual would acknowledge that they are the ones who lied. Mitchell still contends that he did not use the word 'pleb' and no one has proved that he did. What has been proved is that the three fed reps gave an account of the Mitchell meeting which was different to the one that took place. To really labour the point in order to help you understand this, they claimed that Mitchell responded to their questions in one way, when taped evidence later proved he responded in another way. Please try and grasp this as it is fundamental to this whole issue and, until you do, your posts are just meaningless and distracting ramblings.

[ClaphamGT3]

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.

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

[ClaphamGT3]

singlecoil said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

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

I don't like doing EFAs, so will point out here that what you think of as the public are in fact your fellow police-haters.

All the general public will remember about the Plebgate affair is that Mitchell lost an extremely expensive court case because he lied.

Although, interestingly, I am not a police hater......

I suspect that most of the public have already forgotten that a reasonably wealthy guy got dinged a fair bit because he was ill-judged enough to think that NI would roll over and settle out of court