Plebgate - An interesting new twist

[Scuffers]

singlecoil said:

Scuffers said:

singlecoil said:

Irrelevant, Mitchell has freely admitted that he swore at the police!

actually, no he did not.

he swore, not *at* them, but *about* them.

either way, that does not excuse what they did next.

He swore 'about them' in their presence. That's a very nice difference to swearing at them.

Whatever happened next, that does not excuse what he did, and what he did was the reason why he had to go.

Look, I am no fan of Michel, however, what the police involved in this have done is way out there, as in PCJ, perjury, fitting up a minister of the crown, etc etc.

whichever way you cut it, they should all be doing time.

[singlecoil]

Scuffers said:

singlecoil said:

Scuffers said:

singlecoil said:

Irrelevant, Mitchell has freely admitted that he swore at the police!

actually, no he did not.

he swore, not *at* them, but *about* them.

either way, that does not excuse what they did next.

He swore 'about them' in their presence. That's a very nice difference to swearing at them.

Whatever happened next, that does not excuse what he did, and what he did was the reason why he had to go.

Look, I am no fan of Michel, however, what the police involved in this have done is way out there, as in PCJ, perjury, fitting up a minister of the crown, etc etc.

whichever way you cut it, they should all be doing time.

Anyone who commits a crime should receive punishment for doing so, no argument there.

My reason for posting in this part of the discussion is to restate that the reason why Mitchell resigned is NOT because of what the police did, it's because of what HE did. That and the fact that he received no support from the people at the top of the Tory party (which was either because they wanted him to go anyway, or because of what he did, or both).

[carinaman]

singlecoil said:

My reason for posting in this part of the discussion is to restate that the reason why Mitchell resigned is NOT because of what the police did, it's because of what HE did. That and the fact that he received no support from the people at the top of the Tory party (which was either because they wanted him to go anyway, or because of what he did, or both).

Has it been established what influence the Email of lies from PC Keith WALLACE had in the decision of those within the government and/or the cabinet not to support MITCHELL?

[Red Devil]

carinaman said:

It amuses me that 'He said, she said' school playground handbags can lead to such information coming out:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/pl...

It's his 'honestly held belief' or opinion that the three bystanders were visibly shocked and distressed?

The bit I found interesting is this.

The most senior police officer present at the Downing Street gates during the Plebgate affair summed up the altercation between a cabinet minister and another officer in 2012, as “a trivial nonsense incident.”

To me that undermines the defence. If it was so trivial why did the police then make such a meal of it?

I am of the opinion that the leak to the press and the ensuing furore was politically motivated and stoked by a number of individuals wanting to make capital from it. Nothing whatever to do with wanting to embarrass the government over the implementation of Winsor Part 2 of course...

Whether it was organised as such (i.e. a conspiracy) I know not. My guess is that someone saw an available easy bandwagon and others then saw a golden opportunity to jump on board. My perception of Mitchell is that he is an odious individual who has (or maybe used to have prior to this saga) an exaggerated sense of self. However that's no excuse for the way the police behaved or their subsequent handling of the affair.

singlecoil said:

My reason for posting in this part of the discussion is to restate that the reason why Mitchell resigned is NOT because of what the police did, it's because of what HE did. That and the fact that he received no support from the people at the top of the Tory party (which was either because they wanted him to go anyway, or because of what he did, or both).

Seriously? No, it was due to the REACTION of the police. If the toxic allegation of 'plebs' hadn't been leaked to the media it would have been a non-event (see above) and we wouldn't have had nearly 200 pages of discussion on here.

Mitchell was unwise to make a big deal over opening the gates, but it was the police who decided to up the ante. Neither side comes out of this sorry episode with any credit.

carinaman said:

Has it been established what influence the Email of lies from PC Keith WALLACE had in the decision of those within the government and/or the cabinet not to support MITCHELL?

I see you have once again reverted to your penchant for surname capitalisation. Why do you indulge in this odd affectation?

[Randy Winkman]

Scuffers said:

he swore, not *at* them, but *about* them.

Swearing "about them"? Does that mean "You're a bunch of ****s" rather than "You bunch of ****s"?

[singlecoil]

Red Devil said:

singlecoil said:

My reason for posting in this part of the discussion is to restate that the reason why Mitchell resigned is NOT because of what the police did, it's because of what HE did. That and the fact that he received no support from the people at the top of the Tory party (which was either because they wanted him to go anyway, or because of what he did, or both).

Seriously? No, it was due to the REACTION of the police. If the toxic allegation of 'plebs' hadn't been leaked to the media it would have been a non-event (see above) and we wouldn't have had nearly 200 pages of discussion on here.

Mitchell was unwise to make a big deal over opening the gates, but it was the police who decided to up the ante. Neither side comes out of this sorry episode with any credit.

But? Why the but? What happened after the event doesn't affect the event. Quite the reverse in fact. People keep saying that 'but'. They shouldn't. They should treat the two things separately. Many of the police haters on this thread conveniently forget that it was Mitchell that started the whole thing.

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened, and the powers that be would have had to find another way of getting rid of him.

[carinaman]

singlecoil said:

But? Why the but? What happened after the event doesn't affect the event. Quite the reverse in fact. People keep saying that 'but'. They shouldn't. They should treat the two things separately. Many of the police haters on this thread conveniently forget that it was Mitchell that started the whole thing.

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened, and the powers that be would have had to find another way of getting rid of him.

How many ways are there to skin a cat?

How come so many police officers chose such a way that shot so many of themselves in the feet?

Perhaps if they'd stuck to telling the truth eh? Does the Constable's Oath really need to be updated with something about not telling lies?

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened,

The rest didn't need to happen.

There was a storm in a teacup, some idiots thought there was a chance to play silly buggers and they lost. Some people are still defending this stupidity when they would gain more credit by admitting that it was a big mistake.

[singlecoil]

Rovinghawk said:

singlecoil said:

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened,

The rest didn't need to happen.

There was a storm in a teacup, some idiots thought there was a chance to play silly buggers and they lost. Some people are still defending this stupidity when they would gain more credit by admitting that it was a big mistake.

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened.

[Rovinghawk]

singlecoil said:

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened.

You've said that before. I gave an answer. I won't repeat myself just because you did.

Shall we move on? Do you have any fresh response to my comment?

[eldar]

singlecoil said:

But? Why the but? What happened after the event doesn't affect the event. Quite the reverse in fact. People keep saying that 'but'. They shouldn't. They should treat the two things separately. Many of the police haters on this thread conveniently forget that it was Mitchell that started the whole thing.

If he hadn't kicked off, the rest of it would never happened, and the powers that be would have had to find another way of getting rid of him.

Maybe it was Mitchell that 'started it', maybe it wasn't. That isn't at all clear. Even to people who aren't 'police haters'.

This whole affair is a mess of truth, semi-truth and lies. I don't know exactly what happened any more than you do.

[singlecoil]

eldar said:

Maybe it was Mitchell that 'started it', maybe it wasn't. That isn't at all clear. Even to people who aren't 'police haters'.

Who else do you think might have 'started it'?

[carinaman]

singlecoil said:

eldar said:

Maybe it was Mitchell that 'started it', maybe it wasn't. That isn't at all clear. Even to people who aren't 'police haters'.

Who else do you think might have 'started it'?

PC Keith Wallace's nephew from Hong Kong, the one that's a fan of Boris Johnson? I reckon that Wallace's nephew is probably one of those students in Hong Kong protesting for democracy and adding to the journey times of Hong Kong residents.

If Wallace's nephew is anything like his uncle, he probably started it. If Wallace's nephew has joint nationally we need to get onto Theresa May and get him stripped of his British citizenship and bar him from ever entering the country again.

[Scuffers]

Randy Winkman said:

Scuffers said:

he swore, not *at* them, but *about* them.

Swearing "about them"? Does that mean "You're a bunch of ****s" rather than "You bunch of ****s"?

??

look, it takes 2 seconds to google this stuff, it's been on record now for some 2 years now, why are you still questioning it?

said:

The 58-year-old MP for Sutton Coldfield has accepted that he did say, under his breath but audibly, “I thought you lot were supposed to fking help us”’, but not at the officer.

now, I am not defending him, and he should not have said this, however, he did not turn to the officer and say "your a fking pleb" or the like.

either way, this sad event should have stopped there and then, not then taken away by said plod and with his mates, go on to fabricate evidence, leak this then to the press, as well as writing a letter to No.10 bearing false witness.

Then the Police Fed jumping in on the act, lying to the public (via TV), stoking up the incident with press releases, Tee shirts, etc etc.

how any Policeman out there can even begin to defend this behavior is just beyond me, to my mind if thats how they think they should not be wearing the uniform.

[eldar]

singlecoil said:

Who else do you think might have 'started it'?

I don't know, but at the time it was said the gate officer had raised no objection to Mitchell using the side gate previously, but on this occasion changed is mind for some reason.

Not clear cut.

[singlecoil]

eldar said:

singlecoil said:

Who else do you think might have 'started it'?

I don't know, but at the time it was said the gate officer had raised no objection to Mitchell using the side gate previously, but on this occasion changed is mind for some reason.

Not clear cut.

Granted the guy felt he had a reason for throwing a tantrum, but it was his giving way to the urge that spelled his political doom, not any provocation he might or might not have had.

[carinaman]

singlecoil said:

Granted the guy felt he had a reason for throwing a tantrum, but it was his giving way to the urge that spelled his political doom, not any provocation he might or might not have had.

It takes two to Tango. Wallace should have stayed off of the pop.

[eldar]

singlecoil said:

Granted the guy felt he had a reason for throwing a tantrum, but it was his giving way to the urge that spelled his political doom, not any provocation he might or might not have had.

I suspect without the disputed 'pleb' it would have been a non event. That one disputed word has cost careers on both sides, and done the police a deal of harm so far.

[singlecoil]

eldar said:

singlecoil said:

Granted the guy felt he had a reason for throwing a tantrum, but it was his giving way to the urge that spelled his political doom, not any provocation he might or might not have had.

I suspect without the disputed 'pleb' it would have been a non event. That one disputed word has cost careers on both sides, and done the police a deal of harm so far.

It hasn't done Mitchell much good either. Better for him if he had kept his mouth shut, whatever he said.

[carinaman]

singlecoil said:

It hasn't done Mitchell much good either. Better for him if he had kept his mouth shut, whatever he said.

That doesn't explain the stitch up relating to the meeting with the Federation in his constituency does it? The Gaunt Brothers stole the Police Federation and drove it like they stole it?