Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
From the guardian :
A special protection officer who accompanied the then international development secretary Andrew Mitchell on two trips to Africa in 2011 has told a court that the Tory MP was “prone to temper tantrums” and at one stage “completely lost control”.
Insp Duncan Johnston said that during their first encounter, as Mitchell stepped off a plane for a visit to refugees on the Tunisian/Libyan border, the minister ignored his outstretched hand and instead told him: “You must be the hired muscle.”
In a witness statement in a libel trial involving Mitchell, the Sun newspaper and another police officer, PC Toby Rowland, Johnston said that when he told Mitchell that entering Libya was not possible and would breach international law, he replied: “That’s above your pay grade Mr Plod.”
On a second trip, to Kenya and Somalia, where the officer was tasked with protecting the MP, Johnston said Mitchell “launched a foul-mouthed tirade” after learning of temporary alterations to the itinerary to avoid unsafe areas.
Johnston said Mitchell “completely lost control of himself” and “used a tirade of language that came quick and fast and was just swearing for the sake of swearing”. He added: “He was unpleasant until he got what he wanted. He would erupt but then minutes later be charming.”
Johnston, a Met police officer for 29 years who worked in special protection for 15, was giving evidence for News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the Sun, and Rowland.
He told the high court: “Mr Mitchell seemed to have no regard for security and I felt as though my professional opinion was worthless. The way Mr Mitchell behaved led me to believe that Mr Mitchell thought that if he put enough pressure on us, we would do what we were told.
“I don’t think that the Mr Plod comment particularly upset me – I’ve been called a lot worse in my service. I don’t think it was said to be unpleasant. It was either just misplaced humour or a put-down.”
Mitchell, 58, is suing NGN over a story about what the MP allegedly said to Rowland at the gates of Downing Street on 19 September 2012. Rowland, who is counter-suing the MP, said Mitchell called him a “f
king pleb”. Mitchell admits swearing but said he did not use the word pleb or the other “toxic phrases” attributed to him.
Two Tory MPs told the court that Mitchell had told them he could not remember what he had said during the exchange, and described an account of it he gave in the Sunday Times in December that year as “rather extraordinary” and “surprising”.
In a witness statement to the court, John Randall, the Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who was deputy chief whip at the time, said that five days after the row erupted, Mitchell told him he could not remember what he had said to Rowland.
“I asked Mr Mitchell if it was possible he had called the officer in question plod instead of pleb and that he had simply been misheard, to which Mitchell responded: ‘No’,” he said.
Michael Fabricant, the Tory MP for Lichfield in Staffordshire and a former whip, described Mitchell’s Sunday Times account of the exchange as “surprising and somewhat amusing”. Fabricant said that on 16 or 17 October 2012, a month after the incident, he had questioned the MP, but Mitchell “was unable to recall the exact words he had used during the exchange”, although he was adamant he did not use the word pleb.
Fabricant recalled a conversation in the whips office in which Mitchell said: “Michael, believe me, we will have a drink at Christmas time and I will still be chief whip because this whole incident will be behind us and will be blown over”. Fabricant said he told the MP he was deluded and did not have the support of the party or even his own whips office. Mitchell resigned on 19 October.
A special protection officer who accompanied the then international development secretary Andrew Mitchell on two trips to Africa in 2011 has told a court that the Tory MP was “prone to temper tantrums” and at one stage “completely lost control”.
Insp Duncan Johnston said that during their first encounter, as Mitchell stepped off a plane for a visit to refugees on the Tunisian/Libyan border, the minister ignored his outstretched hand and instead told him: “You must be the hired muscle.”
In a witness statement in a libel trial involving Mitchell, the Sun newspaper and another police officer, PC Toby Rowland, Johnston said that when he told Mitchell that entering Libya was not possible and would breach international law, he replied: “That’s above your pay grade Mr Plod.”
On a second trip, to Kenya and Somalia, where the officer was tasked with protecting the MP, Johnston said Mitchell “launched a foul-mouthed tirade” after learning of temporary alterations to the itinerary to avoid unsafe areas.
Johnston said Mitchell “completely lost control of himself” and “used a tirade of language that came quick and fast and was just swearing for the sake of swearing”. He added: “He was unpleasant until he got what he wanted. He would erupt but then minutes later be charming.”
Johnston, a Met police officer for 29 years who worked in special protection for 15, was giving evidence for News Group Newspapers (NGN), publisher of the Sun, and Rowland.
He told the high court: “Mr Mitchell seemed to have no regard for security and I felt as though my professional opinion was worthless. The way Mr Mitchell behaved led me to believe that Mr Mitchell thought that if he put enough pressure on us, we would do what we were told.
“I don’t think that the Mr Plod comment particularly upset me – I’ve been called a lot worse in my service. I don’t think it was said to be unpleasant. It was either just misplaced humour or a put-down.”
Mitchell, 58, is suing NGN over a story about what the MP allegedly said to Rowland at the gates of Downing Street on 19 September 2012. Rowland, who is counter-suing the MP, said Mitchell called him a “f
king pleb”. Mitchell admits swearing but said he did not use the word pleb or the other “toxic phrases” attributed to him.Two Tory MPs told the court that Mitchell had told them he could not remember what he had said during the exchange, and described an account of it he gave in the Sunday Times in December that year as “rather extraordinary” and “surprising”.
In a witness statement to the court, John Randall, the Tory MP for Uxbridge and South Ruislip, who was deputy chief whip at the time, said that five days after the row erupted, Mitchell told him he could not remember what he had said to Rowland.
“I asked Mr Mitchell if it was possible he had called the officer in question plod instead of pleb and that he had simply been misheard, to which Mitchell responded: ‘No’,” he said.
Michael Fabricant, the Tory MP for Lichfield in Staffordshire and a former whip, described Mitchell’s Sunday Times account of the exchange as “surprising and somewhat amusing”. Fabricant said that on 16 or 17 October 2012, a month after the incident, he had questioned the MP, but Mitchell “was unable to recall the exact words he had used during the exchange”, although he was adamant he did not use the word pleb.
Fabricant recalled a conversation in the whips office in which Mitchell said: “Michael, believe me, we will have a drink at Christmas time and I will still be chief whip because this whole incident will be behind us and will be blown over”. Fabricant said he told the MP he was deluded and did not have the support of the party or even his own whips office. Mitchell resigned on 19 October.
I think this is getting quite fascinating ..
There is very little coverage of this in the Tory biased msm, I think perhaps that reflects that it is not going too well for Mitchell after all the police enquiry into the events found no disciplinary or criminal case for Rowland to answer .. Ie the Met believe he was telling the truth.
The testimony of the senior police officer documented above is quite telling and fairly damning for Mitchell as indeed is the testimony of the two senior Tory MP's who expressed disbelief and incredulity at Mitchell not being able to remember what he said five days after the event ... But have total clarity several months later ...
Fascinating indeed .... And on the balance of probability under civil law ? Is he likely to have used the pleb word ?
There is very little coverage of this in the Tory biased msm, I think perhaps that reflects that it is not going too well for Mitchell after all the police enquiry into the events found no disciplinary or criminal case for Rowland to answer .. Ie the Met believe he was telling the truth.
The testimony of the senior police officer documented above is quite telling and fairly damning for Mitchell as indeed is the testimony of the two senior Tory MP's who expressed disbelief and incredulity at Mitchell not being able to remember what he said five days after the event ... But have total clarity several months later ...
Fascinating indeed .... And on the balance of probability under civil law ? Is he likely to have used the pleb word ?
Earthdweller said:
In a witness statement in a libel trial involving Mitchell, the Sun newspaper and another police officer, PC Toby Rowland, Johnston said that when he told Mitchell that entering Libya was not possible and would breach international law, he replied: “That’s above your pay grade Mr Plod.”
Well on this he was right - what role does someone tasked with personal protection have in advising in international law?Vaud said:
Earthdweller said:
In a witness statement in a libel trial involving Mitchell, the Sun newspaper and another police officer, PC Toby Rowland, Johnston said that when he told Mitchell that entering Libya was not possible and would breach international law, he replied: “That’s above your pay grade Mr Plod.”
Well on this he was right - what role does someone tasked with personal protection have in advising in international law?Mitchell is going to lose this case.
singlecoil said:
Vaud said:
Earthdweller said:
In a witness statement in a libel trial involving Mitchell, the Sun newspaper and another police officer, PC Toby Rowland, Johnston said that when he told Mitchell that entering Libya was not possible and would breach international law, he replied: “That’s above your pay grade Mr Plod.”
Well on this he was right - what role does someone tasked with personal protection have in advising in international law?Mitchell is going to lose this case.
He might better have said, "whilst I'm responsible for your personal protection solely, can I just flag some concerns on entering Libya that might apply to both of us based on my briefing from security services?"
But then one is a quote from Mitchell and one is a paraphrase from the officer in the article so it is hard to tell.
Derek Smith said:
So that means no more posts on here stating that the police officer lied.
At lat.
The odd thing is that the word itself is irrelevant. He was, as was his norm, offensive towards the officer.
I'm watching the news feed now.At lat.
The odd thing is that the word itself is irrelevant. He was, as was his norm, offensive towards the officer.
Some comments from the Judge that PC Rowland's evidence inconsistent but not necessarily fabricated. But his evidence about the public being shocked is wrong.
Otherwise, AM in the doghouse as he lost his temper.
More later.
I'll sit back and watch the fireworks on here for now!
There are a number of points that are raised by this case.
If the officer had not been backed by a federation (not a union) or a union - with considerable funds, the officer might well have had problems. £1m costs for the federation. So have unions (including government enforced federations) had their day?
Was Mitchell obliged to pursue this matter? Did his career depend on him doing so? If so then it has really cost him. Had he left it alone then he would have been able to weather it. Being offensive to those seen as underlings is hardly unique to Mitchell. Ask any officer who has been on a political party conference. Abuse is the norm and officers are told not to react to it at the first briefing.
One wonders how long it will be before he is back in a position of authority in the tory party.
I also wonder what the advice of the party's legal team was in this matter.
If the officer had not been backed by a federation (not a union) or a union - with considerable funds, the officer might well have had problems. £1m costs for the federation. So have unions (including government enforced federations) had their day?
Was Mitchell obliged to pursue this matter? Did his career depend on him doing so? If so then it has really cost him. Had he left it alone then he would have been able to weather it. Being offensive to those seen as underlings is hardly unique to Mitchell. Ask any officer who has been on a political party conference. Abuse is the norm and officers are told not to react to it at the first briefing.
One wonders how long it will be before he is back in a position of authority in the tory party.
I also wonder what the advice of the party's legal team was in this matter.
Well well well now he will be working on the task of finding the first installment of the costs 200k in 14 days iirc and the remaining couple of million to follow.
Daniel Hannan as usual right on point.
Daniel Hannan as usual right on point.
Daniel Hannan said:
Two lessons to draw from the #plebgate case.
1. Never get involved in a libel action.
2. Seriously, NEVER get involved in a libel action.
1. Never get involved in a libel action.
2. Seriously, NEVER get involved in a libel action.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff