Conservative MP - Police Rant.

[Pesty]

The fact that he has not clarified what he said and is being very evasive makes me think that the police have this spot on.

If not he would have come out and said.

Again Cameron looks weak IMO and its a lose, lose for him. The "pleb" word is bad enough but what is worse for me is the Alleged "know your place" comment.

I think he will go eventually and it will just look like Cameron tried to protect him because he is one of his own i.e "toff" who feels the same way about plebs. so he will get no benefit from letting him go.

[Dibble]

^^^^^^^^^^

What I was trying to say, but much more succinctly put!

[FiF]

In my jaundiced opinion I suspect he isn't 100% sure what he did or didn't say. He doesn't remember saying exactly what he has been accused of, but can't be 100% sure that he didn't say that, as he was in rant mode at the time.

I still stand by what I wrote on 24th September

FiF said:

If he'd stood up at first instance and said "yes I'd had a bad day, I did rant, I did swear, and I did call them plebs" (or whatever) then the line would have been drawn, and he possibly would have actually gained credit for being a man, admitting fault and taking the lumps of doing wrong up front.

Thinking about it some more, to be honest I'm quite happy that he and Cameron are brazening it out, becuse the more they brazen it out, the more damaged they become. I didn't and wouldn't vote for Cameron and feel more vindicated in that decision with every passing day. I would not piss on him if he were on fire.

[brenflys777]

I thought wrongly ( and stated such ) that he would have been sacked much earlier.

His current half denial/apology is most understandable to me if he is not sure if there is more damning evidence against him. Essentially he may be concerned that as soon as he categorically states what he DID say, someone will come forward with a mobile phone recording or CCTV etc showing he has lied.

Perphaps the papers are awaiting a slower news day.. or perphaps there is no evidence and he will be allowed to continue as a toxic asset for sometime yet. I think the Federation let themselves down from the moment they attempted to belittle the Home Secretary at their conference and the way they have handled the media in this case has again played to cheap points rather than shown the profession as such, however you have to wonder why a man who is intelligent and media aware wishes to remain ambiguous in his defence, my instinct is not incompetence but deliberate strategy... however the coalitions performance so far does little to encourage this attitude.

Edited by brenflys777 on Sunday 14th October 19:38

[Sparta VAG]

He's shot himself in the foot by appearing to lie and then stick to the lie.

He has denied calling them plebs, but then refuses to say what he did actually say.

The police statement is clear he used the term plebs, so if Mitchell isn't lying, the police officer is perverting the course of justice by falsifying a statement.

3 weeks on and he still won't clarify what he said.

Then he has a meeting with the Police Federation and says they that have accepted his apology. The police in the meeting say they did no such thing.

Mitchell has been caught in a lie and he is rubbish at covering it up. If he'd have admitted it straight away and apologised for the plebs remark, this would have been forgotten about by now with less damage done.

If the Met's Professional Standards Department investigate the officer then they will ask Mitchell to make a formal signed statement about what he said, which of course means that he either admits the lie or lies in his statement and potentially commits an offence.

Politicians lie all the time and face no consequences so have to say I am quite enjoying this one.

[ClaphamGT3]

Sparta VAG said:

He's shot himself in the foot by appearing to lie and then stick to the lie.

He has denied calling them plebs, but then refuses to say what he did actually say.

The police statement is clear he used the term plebs, so if Mitchell isn't lying, the police officer is perverting the course of justice by falsifying a statement.

3 weeks on and he still won't clarify what he said.

Then he has a meeting with the Police Federation and says they that have accepted his apology. The police in the meeting say they did no such thing.

Mitchell has been caught in a lie and he is rubbish at covering it up. If he'd have admitted it straight away and apologised for the plebs remark, this would have been forgotten about by now with less damage done.

If the Met's Professional Standards Department investigate the officer then they will ask Mitchell to make a formal signed statement about what he said, which of course means that he either admits the lie or lies in his statement and potentially commits an offence.

Politicians lie all the time and face no consequences so have to say I am quite enjoying this one.

Presumably, if he did give a statement, he'd just say that he couldn't recall exactly what he'd said. The Met are hardly likely to want an investigation however as that might start to ask awkward questions about how police logs got into the hands of the press etc, etc.

I think he made a mistake meeting his local police federation, as its given the story another gasp of life. He should have just told them to do one.

The police federation are behaving absolutely appallingly in this, I have to say, and are doing themselves no favours whatsoever. Cameron has a well-documented distaste for being 'bounced' into decisions and the more they whine on and on about this, the more he's going to protect Mitchell. The police federation, and Tully in particular, are coming out of this looking like low-rent opportunists and are doing nothing to help the perception of the police in the eyes of the public. I notice that the combined ire of the police federation and Yvette Cooper couldn't get this on the front page of a single paper today and, on Friday and Saturday, it was Phil Hammond's criticism of the police federation's role that got most of the column inches around the story.

[Pupp]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Presumably, if he did give a statement, he'd just say that he couldn't recall exactly what he'd said.

Whereas he has total recall as to what he didn't say? Funny how that happens...

ClaphamGT3 said:

He should have just told them to do one.

Err, isn't that what caused the problem?

ClaphamGT3 said:

The police federation are behaving absolutely appallingly in this

Whereas Mitchell's conduct is what exactly?

ClaphamGT3 said:

Cameron has a well-documented distaste for being 'bounced' into decisions and the more they whine on and on about this, the more he's going to protect Mitchell.

He's allowed his chum to get him in a hole. If he sacks him, he'll be crucified for being weak; if he keeps him in post, it will be perceived as nepotistic disregard for honesty and integrity.

ClaphamGT3 said:

The police federation, and Tully in particular, are coming out of this looking like low-rent opportunists and are doing nothing to help the perception of the police in the eyes of the public.

The same public looking at Mitchell and thinking 'he's an upright, in-touch guy'? Righto

ClaphamGT3 said:

I notice that the combined ire of the police federation and Yvette Cooper couldn't get this on the front page of a single paper today

Can't say about paper editions but it was front page on the on-line versions of the Times and Telegraph earlier. Still is on the Telegraph as I type.

He's toast; and rightly so regardless of political allegiance.

[Sparta VAG]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Presumably, if he did give a statement, he'd just say that he couldn't recall exactly what he'd said. The Met are hardly likely to want an investigation however as that might start to ask awkward questions about how police logs got into the hands of the press etc, etc.

They've already started one.

The Police Federation are playing a decent hand with the little they've got. If a police officer had called someone a "fking pleb" and told them to learn their place, and then lied to cover it up, they'd get disciplined and possibly sacked. Should we demand lower standards of our MPs?

Likewise the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire was found guilty of gross misconduct for giving an application form for a job to a relative, yet it's perfectly ok for MPs to put their own family members on their payroll and rinse the taxpayer and there's no consequences for them. Absolute double standards.

The amount of lies, disinformation and sheer bullsh*t the government spouted about the police to ease the Winsor Report through will not be forgotten or forgiven by the Police Federation. Any leverage the police have on the government is going to be used to the fullest extent possible to cause the most embarassment they can. If MPs don't like being held up to scrutiny for lying, they shouldn't do it.

Mitchell hasn't got the balls to either admit what he said and that it was wrong, or openly deny it and then follow it to the logical conclusion and accuse the officers of lying.

(Lest I be accused of being anti-Tory (I'm not, I'm just massively, massively disappointed and recently confirmed ex-Tory), I know for a fact there was a near-identical tirade from a Labour cabinet minister a few years ago but the press never took it up for some reason. I'll save it for my memoirs.)

[ClaphamGT3]

Sparta VAG said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

Presumably, if he did give a statement, he'd just say that he couldn't recall exactly what he'd said. The Met are hardly likely to want an investigation however as that might start to ask awkward questions about how police logs got into the hands of the press etc, etc.

They've already started one.

The Police Federation are playing a decent hand with the little they've got. If a police officer had called someone a "fking pleb" and told them to learn their place, and then lied to cover it up, they'd get disciplined and possibly sacked. Should we demand lower standards of our MPs?

Likewise the Chief Constable of North Yorkshire was found guilty of gross misconduct for giving an application form for a job to a relative, yet it's perfectly ok for MPs to put their own family members on their payroll and rinse the taxpayer and there's no consequences for them. Absolute double standards.

The amount of lies, disinformation and sheer bullsh*t the government spouted about the police to ease the Winsor Report through will not be forgotten or forgiven by the Police Federation. Any leverage the police have on the government is going to be used to the fullest extent possible to cause the most embarassment they can. If MPs don't like being held up to scrutiny for lying, they shouldn't do it.

Mitchell hasn't got the balls to either admit what he said and that it was wrong, or openly deny it and then follow it to the logical conclusion and accuse the officers of lying.

(Lest I be accused of being anti-Tory (I'm not, I'm just massively, massively disappointed and recently confirmed ex-Tory), I know for a fact there was a near-identical tirade from a Labour cabinet minister a few years ago but the press never took it up for some reason. I'll save it for my memoirs.)

You are very quick to accuse Mitchell of lying but I see no evidence.....

I don't think this Government give a jot or tittle for what the police federation think and, probably more importantly, I dont think the public do either. The public would rather that the police got on with policing rather than playing silly games to try and get out of taking their share of impact around changes to public services.

The difference between the CC who got fired and MPs boils down to the fact that it isnt against any code of conduct to appoint family members to work for you as an MP (though increasingly unwise - see Iain Duncan-Smith and Derek Conway to name but two....)

I'll come back to the point I've made before that Mitchell is as safe as he wants to be

[Sparta VAG]

ClaphamGT3 said:

You are very quick to accuse Mitchell of lying but I see no evidence.....

Police Officers say Mitchell called them plebs. Mitchell says he didn't. So either he is lying, or the police are.

Mitchell could easily say the police are lying, or even clarify what he did say, but he won't.

He also said yesterday that the Police Federation had accepted his apology, but they say they said no such thing took place.

So either Mitchell is lying, or the police are. The accusations are quite justifiable, and very easy for Mitchell to dispel, but he won't because his lying face isn't very good on camera.

The reputation of MPs is very low, and this does not help them at all.

Likewise it's all very well saying that the Police ought to grin and bear their share of the cuts to wages and pensions, but then what wage and pensions cuts are Mitchell & Co undergoing? None whatsoever. So people fell justifiably irked when being told "we're all in it together" while the MPs continue to stick their noses in the trough completely untroubled.

A higher standard of behaviour should be expected from MPs, and when things like this happen it should not be acceptable for a couple of quiet news days and a bit of spin make it all go away as though it doesn't matter.

ClaphamGT3 said:

rather than playing silly games ...

The only "silly game" the Police Federation are playing is refusing to let an MP wriggle out of trying to lie and fudge his way out of a comment that is deeply embarassing to him.

[ClaphamGT3]

Sparta VAG said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

You are very quick to accuse Mitchell of lying but I see no evidence.....

Police Officers say Mitchell called them plebs. Mitchell says he didn't. So either he is lying, or the police are.

Mitchell could easily say the police are lying, or even clarify what he did say, but he won't.

He also said yesterday that the Police Federation had accepted his apology, but they say they said no such thing took place.

So either Mitchell is lying, or the police are. The accusations are quite justifiable, and very easy for Mitchell to dispel, but he won't because his lying face isn't very good on camera.

The reputation of MPs is very low, and this does not help them at all.

Likewise it's all very well saying that the Police ought to grin and bear their share of the cuts to wages and pensions, but then what wage and pensions cuts are Mitchell & Co undergoing? None whatsoever. So people fell justifiably irked when being told "we're all in it together" while the MPs continue to stick their noses in the trough completely untroubled.

A higher standard of behaviour should be expected from MPs, and when things like this happen it should not be acceptable for a couple of quiet news days and a bit of spin make it all go away as though it doesn't matter.

ClaphamGT3 said:

rather than playing silly games ...

The only "silly game" the Police Federation are playing is refusing to let an MP wriggle out of trying to lie and fudge his way out of a comment that is deeply embarassing to him.

No one doubts that Mitchell's behaviour was pretty low-rent, but he apologised for it and his apology was accepted by the officer in question. Beyond that, its really no one's business, Yes, the PM may want to bear this in mind in any future re-shuffle, but that's for him to judge. We may never know who is lying in this; Mitchell has inferred quite clearly that it is the officer who is lying but has stated clearly that as the matter is closed, he's not going to say that.

The police federation are looking more and more like huckstering opportunists in this. The fact that the cabinet all took a pay cut of 5% and a pay freeze for the life of this parliament has obviously passed you and the police federation by........

[billzeebub]

The crux of the matter in my opinion isn't the pleb comment. This, if true, just shows Mitchell up to be the nasty little man that most assume him to be. The salient point is regarding the swearing and general attitude. Namely, that if it wasn't for who he was Mitchell would in all probability have been treated in a sterner way for his actions. You or I would have ended up apologising at the time or being arrested. It was only the discretion and self-control/professionalism of the officer that stopped this happening. Mitchell knew this. Ie he wouldn't dream of speaking to a civilian in the street like this because without his (perceived) position protecting him the round- shouldered little twerp would have been filled in.

..furthermore why did Mitchell see fit to try and tell trained specialist Officers how to Police the arguably most strategically important street in the UK? Has he been party to all Government/ SB/ Security Service Security briefings etc. It is quite obvious, even as a layman, that the more times the main gates are opened the more chance there is of a security breach/terrorist incident..the blokes a prick, and now a liability. The sooner he goes the better

[ClaphamGT3]

billzeebub said:

The crux of the matter in my opinion isn't the pleb comment. This, if true, just shows Mitchell up to be the nasty little man that most assume him to be. The salient point is regarding the swearing and general attitude. Namely, that if it wasn't for who he was Mitchell would in all probability have been treated in a sterner way for his actions. You or I would have ended up apologising at the time or being arrested. It was only the discretion and self-control/professionalism of the officer that stopped this happening. Mitchell knew this. Ie he wouldn't dream of speaking to a civilian in the street like this because without his (perceived) position protecting him the round- shouldered little twerp would have been filled in.

..furthermore why did Mitchell see fit to try and tell trained specialist Officers how to Police the arguably most strategically important street in the UK? Has he been party to all Government/ SB/ Security Service Security briefings etc. It is quite obvious, even as a layman, that the more times the main gates are opened the more chance there is of a security breach/terrorist incident..the blokes a prick, and now a liability. The sooner he goes the better

In fairness, the gate had routinely been opened for him up to that date and he does work - and have an official residence in - Downing St; I doubt you'd be very pleased if the security guard in your block of flats tried to tell you that you couldnt use the main entrance

Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Sunday 14th October 23:57

[Dibble]

ClaphamGT3 said:

No one doubts that Mitchell's behaviour was pretty low-rent, but he apologised for it and his apology was accepted by the officer in question. Beyond that, its really no one's business....

Apologies for the selective quote.

But I think it is the electorate's business how honest politicians are (and of course, the Police).

I've no idea whether or not Mitchell will survive this, either short term or as a result of a "reshuffle". If Mitchell had made the comments attributed to him, I'd think more of him (or less less of him, IYSWIM) if he did cough to it and apologise (as if what I think matters).

I'm aware that we're not really "all in this together", but it's that kind of thing that grates, when the politicians pretend we are. I wonder if any of them, even the "working class" types, actually believe it.

So I think it is important we know the integrity of our elected representatives. Integrity which, on the evidence available, Mitchell appears to lack (with the usual caveat that of course the officer could be lying).

[Elroy Blue]

ClaphamGT3 said:

The fact that the cabinet all took a pay cut of 5% and a pay freeze for the life of this parliament has obviously passed you and the police federation by........

The poor darlings. That must have been why Mitchel spent £19000 of taxpayers money decorating his house. He must be nearly destitute. Being on the breadline means his arrogant behaviour is perfectly understandable. I mean , he must be poor, have you seen his bike.

[billzeebub]

ClaphamGT3 said:

billzeebub said:

The crux of the matter in my opinion isn't the pleb comment. This, if true, just shows Mitchell up to be the nasty little man that most assume him to be. The salient point is regarding the swearing and general attitude. Namely, that if it wasn't for who he was Mitchell would in all probability have been treated in a sterner way for his actions. You or I would have ended up apologising at the time or being arrested. It was only the discretion and self-control/professionalism of the officer that stopped this happening. Mitchell knew this. Ie he wouldn't dream of speaking to a civilian in the street like this because without his (perceived) position protecting him the round- shouldered little twerp would have been filled in.

..furthermore why did Mitchell see fit to try and tell trained specialist Officers how to Police the arguably most strategically important street in the UK? Has he been party to all Government/ SB/ Security Service Security briefings etc. It is quite obvious, even as a layman, that the more times the main gates are opened the more chance there is of a security breach/terrorist incident..the blokes a prick, and now a liability. The sooner he goes the better

In fairness, the gate had routinely been opened for him up to that date and he does work - and have an official residence in - Downing St; I doubt you'd be very pleased if the security guard in your block of flats tried to tell you that you couldnt use the main entrance

Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Sunday 14th October 23:57

To be fair the average-Joe block of portered flats is not a particularly high profile target for all sorts of nutjobs, activists and stalkers. I would still be polite though in view of future encounters. The old phrase of 'don't st on your own doorstep' if nothing else. A complete lack of judgement that I don't really want anywhere near the ear of Downing Street

Edited by billzeebub on Monday 15th October 00:06

[ClaphamGT3]

Dibble said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

No one doubts that Mitchell's behaviour was pretty low-rent, but he apologised for it and his apology was accepted by the officer in question. Beyond that, its really no one's business....

Apologies for the selective quote.

But I think it is the electorate's business how honest politicians are (and of course, the Police).

I've no idea whether or not Mitchell will survive this, either short term or as a result of a "reshuffle". If Mitchell had made the comments attributed to him, I'd think more of him (or less less of him, IYSWIM) if he did cough to it and apologise (as if what I think matters).

I'm aware that we're not really "all in this together", but it's that kind of thing that grates, when the politicians pretend we are. I wonder if any of them, even the "working class" types, actually believe it.

So I think it is important we know the integrity of our elected representatives. Integrity which, on the evidence available, Mitchell appears to lack (with the usual caveat that of course the officer could be lying).

And here you get to the nub of it - it is highly unlikely that the full facts will ever come out and debates such as this will always be so much conjecture

[Dibble]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Dibble said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

No one doubts that Mitchell's behaviour was pretty low-rent, but he apologised for it and his apology was accepted by the officer in question. Beyond that, its really no one's business....

Apologies for the selective quote.

But I think it is the electorate's business how honest politicians are (and of course, the Police).

I've no idea whether or not Mitchell will survive this, either short term or as a result of a "reshuffle". If Mitchell had made the comments attributed to him, I'd think more of him (or less less of him, IYSWIM) if he did cough to it and apologise (as if what I think matters).

I'm aware that we're not really "all in this together", but it's that kind of thing that grates, when the politicians pretend we are. I wonder if any of them, even the "working class" types, actually believe it.

So I think it is important we know the integrity of our elected representatives. Integrity which, on the evidence available, Mitchell appears to lack (with the usual caveat that of course the officer could be lying).

And here you get to the nub of it - it is highly unlikely that the full facts will ever come out and debates such as this will always be so much conjecture

'twas ever thus! Is there a single thread on PH that isn't full of conjecture?

If he said it, he should have 'fessed up/apologised.

If he didn't, he should have said what he DID say.

I think whatever he says now will be tainted by his (perceived) dishonesty.

[oyster]

Elroy Blue said:

ClaphamGT3 said:

The fact that the cabinet all took a pay cut of 5% and a pay freeze for the life of this parliament has obviously passed you and the police federation by........

The poor darlings. That must have been why Mitchel spent £19000 of taxpayers money decorating his house. He must be nearly destitute. Being on the breadline means his arrogant behaviour is perfectly understandable. I mean , he must be poor, have you seen his bike.

Is this how low the level of this debate has got?

If you reply to fact with cynicism then the argument is lost I'm afraid.

[Elroy Blue]

Ok!

Fact. He is not destitute. Fact: He spent £19000 of taxpayers money claiming expenses for the decoration of his house. I don't think he's suffering too badly. MPs salary. Ministers salary. Expenses. Backhanders to African despots (he's big pals with Rwanda's boss) and did some strange 'aid' deals in his previous role.

I must try the 'don't remember' line next time I'm in court. Not sure it'll go down very well. It wouldn't be acceptable for me and it's certainly not acceptable for a Government Minister.

(And Fact: His bike's rubbish)