Conservative MP - Police Rant.
Discussion
Could anybody please summarise so far please as Im confused
The facts seem to be:
Mitchell has words with Downing St plod whilst on his bike
They say he called them plebs - he denies it but resigns
CCTV surfaces with witness statements which put police evidence in question - Mitchell still denies it
Several coppers lose jobs
Mitchell goes to court for libel and today the judge says he did in fact call them plebs
Is that really it?
If so do coppers get jobs back, possibly not the one with a taste for bizarre porn whilst on duty which also surfaced after all this
Cheers
The facts seem to be:
Mitchell has words with Downing St plod whilst on his bike
They say he called them plebs - he denies it but resigns
CCTV surfaces with witness statements which put police evidence in question - Mitchell still denies it
Several coppers lose jobs
Mitchell goes to court for libel and today the judge says he did in fact call them plebs
Is that really it?
If so do coppers get jobs back, possibly not the one with a taste for bizarre porn whilst on duty which also surfaced after all this
Cheers
scenario8 said:
Well that didn't go as he would have wanted.
Expensive I should imagine.
been ordered to pay an interim 300k and total expected to be in excess of 3 million!!!Expensive I should imagine.
according to radio 4 that is.
Judge said the cop was too dim and old fashioned to make stuff up so on balance of probabilities they told the truth.
4 cops sacked one of those jailed 2 more on final writen warnings and 3 police still under investigation.
mental
Pesty said:
scenario8 said:
Well that didn't go as he would have wanted.
Expensive I should imagine.
been ordered to pay an interim 300k and total expected to be in excess of 3 million!!!Expensive I should imagine.
according to radio 4 that is.
Judge said the cop was too dim and old fashioned to make stuff up so on balance of probabilities they told the truth.
4 cops sacked one of those jailed 2 more on final writen warnings and 3 police still under investigation.
mental
I think the correct term is 'a complete clusterfk'
Derek Smith said:
As I said on another thread, many officers on duty at party political conferences have had far worse. I've been told of assaults on officers, mainly just pushing, mainly when drunk, which were ignored after apologies - some of them, a minority I assume, nearly sincere.
Just heard the total cost to Mitchell is estimated at £2 - 3 million.
I authorised the detention of a Tory boy, who claimed to be a friend of William Hague, who was nicked for Excess Alc after a Tory fundraiser. Black tie and all.Just heard the total cost to Mitchell is estimated at £2 - 3 million.
He refused to take part in the procedure so was locked up until he was fit to charge. I got him out of the cell to speak to the duty solicitor, at which point he expressed his hope, loudly, that the brief was not some 'fking '. I know that the black gentleman on the other end of the phone heard him and, to his credit, gave him advice.
He was charged and told me that he was not going to attend my 'fking court'. This reduced his chance of bail to nil, obviously.
I detained him for court, on the sweatbox, black tie and all.
Just goes to show how some of the plummy other half can behave when the amber mist descends.
PS after I had gone home he had a change of heart and managed to persuade the CO to give him bail. Shame.
The frontline Police I used to work with have extensive experience of how the government have treated them with contempt, so I think the pleb story caught a lot of traction. Sadly some officers (not the officer who dealt with him) let themselves and their profession down, but the fact it seemed ok in the MPs eyes to issue foul mouthed abuse as long as no Non PC terms were used was pathetic.
Saw this on the cop humour Facebook page and it reminded me how many of my conservative supporting former colleagues have lost trust in the conservatives as the party of law and order.
Saw this on the cop humour Facebook page and it reminded me how many of my conservative supporting former colleagues have lost trust in the conservatives as the party of law and order.
Over on the other thread commented that a the usual on PH are selectively quoting and interpreting the judge's comments about Rowland in order to have general snipes at the police, even though some did deserve such.
Rowland he said " is a rather old fashioned police officer" who is " well suited to his job" and he believed him.
Even with his no win no fee from the solicitors, who must be rueing their late submission of costs, Mitchell will still be ruined.
If his fees are met from Conservative party funds another reason to bin them.
Rowland he said " is a rather old fashioned police officer" who is " well suited to his job" and he believed him.
Even with his no win no fee from the solicitors, who must be rueing their late submission of costs, Mitchell will still be ruined.
If his fees are met from Conservative party funds another reason to bin them.
FiF said:
Over on the other thread commented that a the usual on PH are selectively quoting and interpreting the judge's comments about Rowland in order to have general snipes at the police, even though some did deserve such.
Rowland he said " is a rather old fashioned police officer" who is " well suited to his job" and he believed him.
Even with his no win no fee from the solicitors, who must be rueing their late submission of costs, Mitchell will still be ruined.
If his fees are met from Conservative party funds another reason to bin them.
if you mean me ( am i a usual at having a dig at the police?)that's what they said on radio 4 give or take, i have not read any transcripts, nor do i have a photographic* or whatever memory would remember word for word. there was no digs at the police.Rowland he said " is a rather old fashioned police officer" who is " well suited to his job" and he believed him.
Even with his no win no fee from the solicitors, who must be rueing their late submission of costs, Mitchell will still be ruined.
If his fees are met from Conservative party funds another reason to bin them.
there was no interpretation in my post.on purpose just the facts as i remembered in as flat a language bullet point style as i am able to type to get the 'gist' over which i belive i did. which was the judge believed the cops the rest of my post was just the fall out as accurately without bias as i can remember. i beleive it to be accurate.
i remembered the dim wrong that is correct as i thought he would never live that down and have the piss ripped out of him forever now. The word was " wit."
in fact i think it was something like the policeman Didnt have the wit to be able to make up a word like pleb on the spot, and an old fashioned police man...
Didn't have the wit in my head is similar to being a bit dim unless I have the meaning of wit wrong which is a possibility
unless im going mental oh and iam not a tory fan either(quite the opposite) so i have no dog in this fight other than the shame that this farce happened in the first place. hence the mental part which was my only comment on the whole affair and by mental i meant all sides.
should be on iplayer was a special thursday around 5 or 6 pm on it if you want to listen.
Edited by Pesty on Friday 28th November 01:19
Over the years I have lost count of how many times, good and credible people on SP&L have been talked out of going to court to argue with a ticket (issued by a proper policeman)
Standing in front of a judge is a member of the public and a member of HM Constabulary. Have a wild guess a which one the judge will take to be the more credible witness in ANY discussion.
Mitchell clearly felt he had to fight and he may even have been telling the truth, but he is a fool to have ever believed that a judge would take his word over a Coppers.
Pesty said:
if you mean me ( am i a usual at having a dig at the police)
No idea whether you have digs or not. Not on my radar anyway.The point is that several posters have made jokes having a dig about "not having the wit" etc. ignoring the judges other comments about Rowland which are freely available.
If the BBC also played that game then shame on them too.
Gargamel said:
Over the years I have lost count of how many times, good and credible people on SP&L have been talked out of going to court to argue with a ticket (issued by a proper policeman)
Standing in front of a judge is a member of the public and a member of HM Constabulary. Have a wild guess a which one the judge will take to be the more credible witness in ANY discussion.
Mitchell clearly felt he had to fight and he may even have been telling the truth, but he is a fool to have ever believed that a judge would take his word over a Coppers.
That's a tad strong, but isn't this just another case where one person knows what theyve said or done, and another person truly believes what they've heard or seen.Standing in front of a judge is a member of the public and a member of HM Constabulary. Have a wild guess a which one the judge will take to be the more credible witness in ANY discussion.
Mitchell clearly felt he had to fight and he may even have been telling the truth, but he is a fool to have ever believed that a judge would take his word over a Coppers.
Without third party evidence surely all you can do is assume they're both right
'That's what I believe I said' and 'That's what I believe I heard'.
Is there anyone who hasn't been there in normal conversation?
As Fabricant (what a name) said, this should never have got to court.
They could both have agreed there was an argument about a bike and a gate and left it at that.
Where would the press have taken it?
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 28th November 09:48
No, Mitchell has been refusing to say "what he actually said" but stating that he "never said PLEB". He nknows all along that he caused this issue, and he has been caught out because he's refused to state on record the exact words. Its quite possioble that he doesnt knwo the exact words, in the heat of an arguement you can often use words that you really wouldnt/shouldnt and cant even remember using them later.
But he used his position to turn this on the officers and persue the case, instead of swallowing a little humble pie and saying something along the lines of "I'm sorry if I did use those words, I cant even remenber clearly if I did or not". A grown man, a real man, would have stopped this farce with a simple appology.
He, instead, chose to persue the ruination of a number of officers careers.
He's just another c**t. nothing else describes him better, in my view.
But he used his position to turn this on the officers and persue the case, instead of swallowing a little humble pie and saying something along the lines of "I'm sorry if I did use those words, I cant even remenber clearly if I did or not". A grown man, a real man, would have stopped this farce with a simple appology.
He, instead, chose to persue the ruination of a number of officers careers.
He's just another c**t. nothing else describes him better, in my view.
numtumfutunch said:
Could anybody please summarise so far please as Im confused
The facts seem to be:
Mitchell has words with Downing St plod whilst on his bike
They say he called them plebs - he denies it but resigns
CCTV surfaces with witness statements which put police evidence in question - Mitchell still denies it
Several coppers embelish what went on that night, including one claiming to be an outraged tourist, (later disproved by CCTV) in a poor effort to spice it up, following a similar incident the previous nightlose jobs
Mitchell goes to court for libel and today the judge says he did in fact call them plebs
Essentially yes, but I think this point is probably closer to the truth:The facts seem to be:
Mitchell has words with Downing St plod whilst on his bike
They say he called them plebs - he denies it but resigns
CCTV surfaces with witness statements which put police evidence in question - Mitchell still denies it
Several coppers embelish what went on that night, including one claiming to be an outraged tourist, (later disproved by CCTV) in a poor effort to spice it up, following a similar incident the previous nightlose jobs
Mitchell goes to court for libel and today the judge says he did in fact call them plebs
Several coppers embelish what went on that night, including one claiming to be an outraged tourist, (later disproved by CCTV) in a piss poor effort to spice it up, following a similar incident the previous night, lose jobs
TTmonkey said:
Mitchell has been refusing to say "what he actually said"
That's not a crime though.How many PHers have been told when trying to get out of something they haven't done, to admit to something else?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30242193
Everyone using the incident as a coat hook to hang grievances
Edited by saaby93 on Friday 28th November 12:17
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff