Coffee House

A plot to harm ministers has harmed the plotters more

16 October 2013

9:00 AM

16 October 2013

9:00 AM

Presumably one of the motivations behind the decision of Police Federation members to try to discredit Andrew Mitchell was an attempt to discredit the government’s wider reforms of and cuts to the police service, which the union representing the force was at the time engaged in a bitter battle with ministers over. But oddly enough, the plotters’ misdemeanours appear to have found them out, with calls now for reform of police disciplinary procedures.

On Today, former Home Secretary Jack Straw said the Federation had shown a ‘poverty of leadership’:

‘[They] had the idea that if they embroidered the truth – and I put that mildly – then they could get the scalp of a Conservative Cabinet minister of an administration with whom they were in conflict at the time. Now, what this shows, I think, is a poverty of leadership by the Federation and a readiness by them to resort to completely inappropriate behaviour, which you would not expect of anybody but least of all police officers.’

What a strange and elegant turnaround of events. A group apparently sets out to discredit the reputation of the government that is trying to reform the police, but ends up discrediting the reputation of the police itself. The IPCC report yesterday called into question the ‘integrity’ and ‘honesty’ of the officers involved – a blow just as damaging as the original ‘pleb’ line alleged by the officers involved in the Downing Street altercation – a separate issue to the meeting held by the Police Federation with Mitchell after the allegations surfaced. The damage to reputations of whatever emerges from the ongoing investigation into that original incident could be even greater.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.


Show comments
  • dodgy

    ..completely inappropriate behaviour, which you would not expect of anybody but least of all police officers.’

    I don’t know where Jack Straw lives, but everyone I know sees this as completely normal police behaviour. And quite a few have experience of it…

  • The age of En_lie_tenment

    From The Worcester News comments on this subject.

    f I’m ever called to sit on a jury and Inspector Ken MacKaill is giving evidence, is there any reason I should believe a word he says. The fact is that he can never again be a credible witness in Court – and therefore can not really be expected to carry out the duty’s of a police officer. I would always be wondering if he came out of an interview with a suspect and was telling a completely different version of what happened to what actually did – as of course he has done with Andrew Mitchell. Any defence barrister will point out to a jury that this man is a proven liar.

    He had no compunction about destroying the career of a Cabinet Minister – I don’t think he should have a further career as a police officer.

    Worse – Does this now call into question every case he worked on. Has he come out of an interview with a now convicted suspect and lied about what went on inside the room. Are there now going to be hundreds of appeals based on this mans proven ability to lie.

    But even with absolute evidence proving Andrew Mitchells version of events, the investigating team (and his senior colleagues at West Mercia Police) seem to think that out and out lying by this officer and others in an attempt to bring down an elected member of the Government is nothing to be oncerned about – and remain of that view despite the intervention of Deborah Glass of the IPCC.

    I have to say also that our Chief Constable seems to be keeping his head down along with our increasingly reclusive and unfit for purpose Police and Crime Commissioner and his Tonto assistant who SHOULD be the people representing the public but who appear to have gone native representing the police.

    So one has to ask, if I’m on that Jury hearing a case presented by a West Mercia officer, am I to believe any one of them as they, as an organisation, so clearly believe that lying is acceptable.

    Those three policemen, elected to post by all the other policemen, have singlehandedly undermined the trust that the public have in the police.

    And this is before we find out if the police in London will continue to cover up the original lies to set up Andrew Mitchell in the first place.

    Most police do a great job …. they are undermined by these people trying to play politics.

  • Marcus

    Q: What do get if you give the ability to exert power to a bunch of uneducated politicised institutionalised semi-literate cretins with a vendetta?

    Ans = This.

  • Agrippina

    Some coppers are awful, sadly most politicians are ghastly. I recall that the press spent a lot of ink telling us that thrasher Mitchell prob did say something awful and could believe he had behaved in the manner it had been alleged. He did swear at the police, he should not have done so. Quite frankly it is dull, who cares if Mitchell lost his job, an arrogant twit, hope he goes and finds himself another job in the city.

    • Jambo25

      My feelings exactly. You will now probably be attacked for being a “Labour stooge” as I was.

    • andagain

      I don’t give a damn if Mitchell used a rude word in a moment of anger. I do care about serving police officers lying about what happened, apparently with the intention of getting someone they dislike fired.

      It would not be so bad if it was not part of a pattern.

    • Nick

      Agreee Agrippina.Some cops are awful but that can be said about people from most professions.
      But it’s a pity and unfair when cops who are catching baddies day in and day out are tarred with the same brush.

  • Tony Quintus

    If I were the Home secretary I’d have the Warrent cards of those 3 Chief Constables for breakfast, and then their pensions for lunch. All officers involved, both on the gate then after, should face criminal prosecutions then Mitchell should sue them into the ground.

    • Sanctimony

      I fully agree with you Mr Quintus, but it might be better if you breakfasted on their warrAnt cards… sincerely, a sanctimonious pedant…

  • Nick

    I LOVE THE POLICE!!
    Shall I tell you why?…..Oh alright then.If you insist.
    Society is full of human filth and the police do a very good job at cleaning that filth up.
    Most of you on this site are tarring all police officers with the same brush.Now you know that’s wrong and unfair.So why do it?
    Do you want me to tell you why? Okay if you insist…..It’s a British thing.Crazy I know but it’s there.
    If one copper does something wrong,British society goes bonkers and says that all coppers are bent.
    It’s a weird irrational reaction.But it’s there.

    • Tom M

      Birmingham six, Guilford four, Hilsboro’, Jean Charles Menezes………
      Any one of which (and now “plebgate”) you can talk away but not all of them.

      • Nick

        My initial post has been deleted,so I’ll rephrase it.
        I do not believe the Guilford four or Birmingham six are innocent.
        The Menenzes shooting was a genuine mistake and should be recognised for that.
        And as for plebgate,who knows? But whatever the truth is regarding these incidents,they don’t make all coppers bent….That’s just common sense.

        • Sanctimony

          And Hillsborough… another cover-up ?

          • Nick

            Oh it’s definitely a cover up,cock up,call it what you like.But it doesn’t make all coppers bent.
            Ian Brady was born a male.Does that make all blokes child killers?

            • Doggie Roussel

              What an utterly fatuous analogy!

              • Nick

                What does that mean?

        • Holly

          I agree that not all police are corrupt, but…
          When the top brass are regularly doing stuff just to ‘cover their own backsides’ and that of the police in general, how long before those on the bottom become accustomed to doing the same?

          If I am correct, the police on the front line at Hillsborough took notes, and the bods back at the station did the falsifying.
          How many police officers on the scene that day felt they had the courage to speak out at the time, without wrecking their career?

    • Sanctimony

      The police are a waste of space… I have been burgled twice in the last 10 years and never seen a policeman… although I have been offered ‘victim counselling’ on both occasions!

      However, having parked my car in a space that had double-yellow lines because of a country hotel’s need for access and which had subsequently been made unnecessary, because the access was bricked up by the hotel, I am now being bombarded by threats from the police (not the traffic wardens) with a traffic violation offence, which may be offset, or reduced, if I am offered a ‘diversion course’ by the police. If this ridiculous police farce were not so frustrating, time-wasting and annoying, it would be hilarious. How is a ‘diversion course’ going to reduce my inclination to use a bit of intelligence and park somewhere that is of no inconvenience to anyone, while allowing the town’s tradespeople to benefit from my custom?

      In general the police are obstructive, petty idiots.

      Don’t ever let the police claim any excuse which cites lack of manpower or resources when they are so hell-bent on persecuting and frustrating the road users of this country to the exclusion of performing the public duties that should be their real raison d’etre.

      I will of course contest their ridiculous attempt to prosecute me for such a pointless, petty and fatuous reason and this, no doubt will involve many police employees chundering out more volumes of paperwork and procedural details, while neglecting the duties for which their organisation was created.

      • Nick

        Well if those are the only reasons for you to brand the police a waste of space,I have a suggestion for you……Man up and grow up.
        Who catches the rapists,child killers and terrorists?….the police.
        A waste of space my a–e.We’d be f–cked without them and you know it.

        • Sanctimony

          You’ve missed the point completely, haven’t you… for every instance of the petty pursuits of the police, such as minor traffic offences and trifling, politically correct nannying, with which the police are obsessed, another rapist and Jimmy Savile gets away with their heinous felonies.

          To paraphrase one of your vulgarities; if you were to take a deep breath and remove your occiput from your fundament, you might just see the point that I was trying make.

          Might I suggest that you take the deep breath before you insert your cranium into your nether parts.

          • Nick

            No,you’ve completely missed the point.You are making all coopers out to being bent and good for nothing.
            If you had a tiny bit of knowledge of how many lives the police have saved in this country by preventing terrorist attacks,you might change your mind about them.
            However,you appear to be totally tunnel visioned and incapable of rational thought processes when it comes to the police.
            Hey maybe if one of those prevented terrorist attacks had been successful,you or one of your loved ones may have had your legs blown off.
            Try and look beyond what you see and please do something about your prejudices.

  • GUBU

    I read this and think of all the valuable time that police officers have spent investigating, and inevitably exonerating, themselves over this nonsense when they could have been scouring Twitter, Facebook and Youtube for inappropriate comments, or investigating the sexual shenanigans of light entertainers of yesteryear.

    Has Mr Mitchell no sense of shame?

    Now, move along everybody. Nothing to see here.

  • Pip

    I would trust the Police over a High ranking Politician attempting to save their career, any day of the week.

    • DavidL

      The facts of this case indicate you’d be foolish to do so.

      • Pip

        What facts, these Officer didn’t just make this up out of the blue, something happened that day that concerned the Officers enough to raise the incident with their superiors. I don’t know what happened and neither do you, the only people who do are those who were present at the time. What you are witnessing is the establishment engineering this mans return to the fold for whatever reasons would be merely speculation. One thing is for sure, the Tories want to privatise the Police and they know the public would never support it so they need to vilify the Police and destroy their reputation aided by the ever willing MSM. There are none so blind as those who choose not to see.

        • DavidL

          We know (1) that the original police version of events was not true – CCTV proves it so; (2) that someone who claimed to be a member of the public who saw the event, turned out to be a policeman from the diplomatic protection unit; (3) that police “evidence” was passed to a red-top newspaper; (4) that three members of the Police Federation walked straight out of a meeting with Andrew Mitchell – which he recorded – and told a pack of lies to the waiting press (having previously told Mr Mitchell it was a private meeting); and (5) that the Chief Constables of the three lying officers then tried to explain away their behaviour on obscure procedural grounds. Who’s the blind one here?

          • Pip

            The blind ones are those who fall for this nonsense so easily and cant see the wood for the trees.

            • Tom M

              You are trying very hard to take the part of the police.
              Your comment as to the CCTV is ridicuous. The point (the one you avoided) was that the police claimed there were witnesses. The CCTV shows there were none.
              If there were no witnesses who arranged the written complaints?

              That is fabricating evidence. That is illegal.

            • ButcombeMan

              Pip
              Your attempt at intellectual arrogance is misplaced.

              What you have failed to consider is the leaking of the log to the Daily Telegraph. This from the Diplomatic Protection Group is far more serious and sinister.

              What minor words were said between Mitchell and the plods at the gate, pales in comparison.

              More serious as well (but your truly superb intellect misses it) is the alleged letter, from a DPG member (supposedly not present), pretending to be a passing member of the public and throwing petrol on the flames around Mitchell.

              Only telemachus is quite as stupid as you over this matter. He has an excuse, he is a socialist.

              He has not read his instructions though, the party has now decided Mitchell was wronged. It needed to do it now, before the criminal charges

        • Keith D

          I am a granddad well into my 50’s with a blemish free record.ie.No record at all.

          That I had to stand in Court some 3 years ago and defend myself against Police lies and embellishments is testimony to their endemic corruption.
          Wake up,it could easily have been you.

          That is all.

          • Pip

            You can apply the same logic to each and every time a Politician has lied to the people. I know which one would score highest and it isn’t the Police.

            • Keith D

              Politicians lie when their lips move.The real danger is when they betray us all.As the 3 EU feteing abominations have done for the past 20 years.

              The Police are mimicking their masters.Whether we like it or not they’ve been heavily politicised.
              All started even before the incestuous relationship between Blairs ,Tony and Sir Iain.

              They should be held to account or do we hold everyone to different standards?

              • Pip

                I agree but with this particular incident something stinks and it isn’t the Police Officer who came into conflict with Mitchell.

        • Nick

          Well said PIP.
          There’s good and bad in all walks of life but the British for some unknown reason go overboard when the police do something wrong.
          I’ve never quite understood that British mindset.But I guess it’s because I have a balanced point of view about things and I don’t respond with knee jerk reactions.

          • startledcod

            ‘but the British for some unknown reason go overboard when the police do something wrong.’, er, are you mad, the Police are there to uphold and enforce the law.

            • Nick

              Agreed.But they are human.There are laws in place which are broken everyday by society.We’re not supposed to murder people but it’s happening all the time.
              We expect too much from our police who I agree have become politicised but they are not all bad.Most of them in fact are very good law abiding citizens and it just isn’t fair to tar them all with the same brush.

              • startledcod

                Nick, read Peter Oborne’s piece in today’s DT. He makes the point that the Police enjoy special protections for example the specific charge of assaulting a Police Officer with extra penalties for offenders, consequently, in return, they should held to a higher standard than a ordinary subject and punished more severely when they digress.

                • Nick

                  Yes fine.But what has that got to do with society tarring all police officers with the same brush?
                  If you are a bloke then you are as bad as Ian Brady.
                  If you are a woman then you are as bad as Moira Hindley.
                  Do you think that’s how it should be?

                • startledcod

                  I’m not suggesting tarring all Police with the same brush, I don’t believe all Police are lying, smearing, fitting-up, politics playing scum, I accept that they are a very tiny minority however I do believe that as they wield so much power and are afforded extra legal protection they should be held to a higher standard of probity and in the event they are found wanting they should be punished more severely.

                • Nick

                  Thank you for clarifying your meaning.I must admit that I’m torn between whether the police should receive harsher punishment or not for their wrongdoings.
                  I mean,would a judge,barrister or solicitor receive a harsher sentence if convicted of a crime?

                • startledcod

                  Undoubtedly, the Police should receive harsher sentences because they have the ability, quite often on their word alone, to send people to jail. Solicitors don’t Barristers don’t but I think the higher standard of probity and the consequent harsher sentencing should apply to Judges as they determine sentences for others.

                  Nick, it is so simple, if we cannot rely on the Police to tell the truth the consequences to society are almost too terrible to contemplate; you may say that only a tiny minority are dishonest but they are rotten apples contaminating the whole crop. If some cannot be replied upon then the whole lot fall under suspicion.

            • Nick

              True,and the public are there to obey the law.But they don’t and coppers are human beings just like the public.

        • Tom M

          “…I don’t know what happened and neither do you,”
          Oh don’t I? What was actually said remains unknown but this much I do know. The police claimed there were witnesses outside the gates who heard everything and those same “witnesses” were claimed to have written in to complain about the minister’s actions.

          The video tapes of the Dowing street security cameras are in the public domain and there were no “witnesses” outside the gates. In fact the street was empty at the time.
          Funnily enough these “witnesses” turned out to be ex policemen.
          That, was the DPG trying to “stich-up” a government minister and for that they deserve the maximum punishment under the law.

  • Eddie

    No.

  • johnslattery

    The British ‘justice’ system lost my trust during the Tony Martin affair and things have just got worse from there. Plod has now evolved into the UK thought police, concerned mainly with enforcing multiracialism and ‘upholding social cohesion,’ a term that bears a revealing similarity to ‘maintenance of social stability’ in China. Without radical change, the police will never regain true public trust. Avoid, avoid, avoid is the mantra for many of us now.

    • http://wrinkledweasel-resurgam.blogspot.co.uk/ wrinkledweasel

      They are still persecuting “have a go” types. A recent case involved a bloke who tracked down his burglar and took his stuff back. The judge in the case applauded his action. The police treated him like a criminal. Of course they did, he was doing their job.

  • Tom Tom

    NO ! There are too many with minor convictions permitted to join the Police anyway. Having witnessed police mendacity in court and seen Witness Statements where the dates given contradict the automatic time stamp from the computer system, I have come to the conclusion that the docks in court should be adjacent

  • http://wrinkledweasel-resurgam.blogspot.co.uk/ wrinkledweasel

    Perhaps at last, the epithet “gate” is worthy of use. The original misdemeanour here, is being trounced by the clumsy attempt by the police to first, fit somebody up, and second, to lie about it, both for political purposes. It’s Watergate, or gate-gate if ever there was such a thing.

    The only logical step now is to root out the senior officers whose fingerprints are on this, and sack them.

  • Bob Hutton

    This whole episode doesn’t surprise me. We all know the plods lie; the tragedy is that honest plods are prevailed upon by their dishonest colleagues to lie and, when they don’t, they get drummed out of the force.

    I well remember reading about a car driver who went to court to contest a fine for using his mobile at the wheel. He could prove from phone records that he wasn’t using the phone. However, because 2 plods lied and said they saw him he was convicted. This is why no-one in their right minds has any trust in them.

  • kyalami

    It remains staggering that charges haven’t been laid.

    When this matter was first reported I firmly believed that Mitchell should resign or be sacked. But the real story appears to be corrupt policemen who are prepared to break the law to get their political ends.

    Take them to court.

    • ButcombeMan

      Patience. I am ASSURED, some charges are contemplated. My source seems to be in the know.

  • startledcod

    This brings to my mind an incident that recently affected a friend of mine. He was just beginning divorce proceedings when his wife accused him of a serious criminal offence; the Police weighed in with size 10 boots the supervising officer being a good friend of the wife (the only prosecution witness). After 15 months during which my friend was subject to extremely onerous bail conditions the case came to trial. After the only prosecution witness had given ‘evidence’ for two and a half days the Judge dismissed the jury as he ruled that there was no case to answer.

    Taxpayers will now have to pick-up the £250k defence costs, not to mention the Police and CPS costs. What I am not sure about is to what extent the Police decision to pursue the case was driven by factors other than the evidence before them, are Police just too political?

  • dalai guevara

    Yes, I too will be happy to confirm my admiration for the ‘elegance’ with which we outsource our Leveson forces to Bahrain or straight into retirement. Broken Britain fixed.

  • DavidL

    The real issue is this: Plebgate means that a jury is now less likely to convict on the uncorroborated evidence of police officers. Plebgate adds to the mounting evidence (Hillsborough, Stephen Lawrence, the Menezes shooting, to name but three) that the police will lie through their teeth and fabricate evidence whenever it suits their purposes to do so. And Plebgate shows that this maverick relationship with the truth extends to “respectable” members of society, not just those the police might justifiably view with suspicion of villainy.
    Ultimately they are the losers by this, as people like me – white, middle-aged, no criminal record, and brought up to respect and trust authority in this country – now regard them with instinctive mistrust.

  • Jacques Protic

    Whilst I fully agree with the authors view points, but as
    a society in the partly devolved UK we have allowed the definition of ‘democracy’
    to become highly blurred and it means different things to different people,
    especially the pressure groups with ‘agendas’.

    I’m writing from Wales which is partly a devolved ‘nation’
    but under any definition run by nationalists and for the nationalists as in
    more separation and more power to the devolved bodies being demanded daily (In
    this context the nationalists are Welsh speaking minority who have
    unprecedented stranglehold of public bodies throughout Wales).

    The Welsh Government is now targeting the Police and
    Judiciary as the next power grab parallel to getting tax raising devolved
    powers and Westminster is substantially ignorant of the real issues at stake
    and largely compliant with the demands of a minority.

    What I want to highlight is the Police duplicity in Wales
    and especially the North Wales where police officers are largely employed on
    their ‘bilingual ability’ rather than skills or merit and if anyone questions
    this approach they are told that the Police has full commitment to the Welsh
    language, therefore on your bike!

    In Wales even ‘crimes’ are now defined by the police upon
    linguistic segregation and not long ago I have uncovered via FOI provisions huge
    corruption and fraud within Local Governments that deals with imposition of the
    Welsh language in areas where the English speakers form substantial majority.

    In simple terms the Local Education Authorities have
    bypassed all legal provisions to changing schools linguistic profile, hijacked
    school governance and have only employed ‘bilingual teachers’ to promote their
    vision of future Wales.

    When I raised the matter with the NW Police at the senior
    level at first they agreed to investigate the legal breaches but quickly
    changed their stance and stated in writing that no investigation will be forthcoming.

    I then approached the NW Police Commissioner (Winston
    Roddick QC) who again in writing stated the Welsh language issues are in the
    remit of the Welsh Language Commissioner (WLC) so not a police matter – MIND BOGGLES
    and in Wales a crime is not a crime if its committed for the benefit of Welsh
    speakers (More disclosures to follow on glasnost.org.uk soon)

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Face it Britisher pals, you`ve got a failed police force on your hands.

    • Fergus Pickering

      And you are?

  • Fergus Pickering

    Jail for the police. Lots of jail.

  • Framer

    The problem is the looming solution. The police are one of the last bastions of working class power with entry at street level. (City traders and barristers’ clerks the others). This job perk depended on them remaining respectful of governing power and doing its reasonable bidding quietly.

    Once they started to behave like unionised public sectorists they were doomed, the Police Federation stitch-up of Andrew Mitchell being their nemesis.

    However Theresa May has announced that graduates can now be recruited straight into the police’s middle and higher ranks, breaking that monopoly. Given the growing p.c. culture in the force linked to being public sector they will be now be captured and come under the control of the Guardian-reading classes (e.g. Keir Starmer soundalikes).
    It will thus get worse – more inefficiency, aversion to risk and monstrous over-staffing. Where no copper today will operate without another in safe areas and without dozens in problem situations, it will soon require hundreds more unionised jobsworths in head office back-up roles.

    Costs will spiral along with crime.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Oh come sir. Fifty per cent of young people have degress and I doubt that ther ones that read The Guardian are likely to want to jin the police. The Beeb more like. Everyone reads the Guardian there.

  • drjohngalan

    What chance do WE have? This sums up the problem that most law-abiding citizens feel: going to the heart of the rule of law.

    I left the UK in 2005 after small, and trivial, contributory factors to that decision: a speeding ticket and a parking fine. In Mr Blair’s Britain it was as though the state apparatus chased the easy targets: someone speeding (on a deserted dual carriageway) or parking in the wrong place (for no more than a couple of minutes), while the “real” criminals who knew their “rights” got off scot-free. Not much seems to have changed.

    This incident strikes me as serious as it can get. However, the passage of time and multiple, lengthy “enquiries” have allowed the heat to dissipate. Much in the same way as the UK seems to be sleep-walking towards a press shackled by politicians, a corrupt police force does not seem to be making anything like the impact that it should. It does not bode well.

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      You are well out of it sir. A shackled press and a corrupt police force on the other hand are exactly what the Labour Party requires in order to cement its proposed reign of oppression on the UK citizens ‘who do not think proper thoughts as we do’.

  • Mynydd

    Under Mr Cameron’s instruction the independent Cabinet Office investigated the incident. Following its report to the Prime Minister, Mr Mitchell resigned, or maybe forced to resign. If he was whiter than white why did he do that?

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      To protect the image of the government. It has now transpired and this seems to have passed you by, that the Police Federation representatives, in the view of the IPCC. lied in order to promote their own political agenda. Most sensible people can now draw the conclusion that Mitchell was forced to resign on an entirely false premise. Also, Mr Mitchell never claimed to be ‘whiter than white’ to borrow your inelegant phrase and admitted to swearing which even under the last Labour Junta was not illegal.

      • Mynydd

        Why was there a need to protect the image of the government if he did nothing wrong, and why did Mr Cameron accept his resignation. Maybe Mr Cameron should apologise to Mr Mitchell. Are you sure that swearing at the police is not illegal.

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          Yes, I am absolutely sure that swearing at the Police is neither a common or statute law offence in England and Wales but no doubt Ed Milliband will try and change that one day. In all probability, the Police would try and invoke some other ‘disturbing the peace’ if it suited them but swearing at the police is, I repeat, not an offence. Your question is, in any event utterly irrelevant, because Mr Mitchell swore ‘in front’ of the Police and not ‘at’ them. Your first question is too stupid and naive to warrant the effort of an answer.

    • Fergus Pickering

      But he was whiter than white, as we now know.

    • startledcod

      He resigned, as is clearly documented, because he felt he had lost the confidence of his fellow Conservative MPs, which he had. BTW what is the ‘independent Cabinet Office’?

      • Mynydd

        The Cabinet Office is a civil service department therefore independent.

        • startledcod

          I don’t want to be a pedant, really I don’t, but it was not the Cabinet Office that investigated the incident but Sir Jeremy Heywood. His investigation is now recognised as being wholly inadequate, I believe he even didn’t view the CCTV footage nor speak to the person who had apparently witnessed the whole thing and was so moved that he wrote to his MP. I don’t think his fellow MPs were wrong so much as misled; the Police reports, Jeremy Heywood’s investigation and lastly the Police Federation meeting led to his support ebbing away and it was at that point that he resigned. I think that almost all of his fellow MPs who called for his resignation will now recognise that they were wrong and that, as the grisly details unfold, AM is a man who has been traduced.

  • fathomwest

    So before the reports are completed the coppers are guilty! Beside a discipline enquiry exonerating officers of the West Midlands force, they are guilty. The article and comments here is that all coppers are bastards and are not entitled to a fair hearing.
    I believe in freedom of speech but some should be careful what they write.
    I did write something similar yesterday. I never use inflammatory language, unlike others, yet my comment was removed. Why? Does the spectator only want anti police comments?

    • Swiss Bob

      before the reports are completed

      You mean the federation officers weren’t lying on tape and you need an official report to tell you that?

      Do you need an official report to tell you what can clearly be seen in the CCTV outside Downing St that the police officers were lying?

      What is your interest ‘officer’?

      If it walks like a duck etc

      They are bent, they should be in the nick.

      Answer me this, how many police officers have ever been convicted of an unlawful killing?

      • fathomwest

        I am amazed at the stupidity and ignorance of some people. I am a seventy year old individual but have learned that it is far better to have all the facts, and not what you garner from reports within the press, before you can make a judgement.
        As for your comment in full. I take it you dislike the police. I pity you.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Of course he dislikes the police. They are eminently dislikeable.

        • Swiss Bob

          I’m amazed at the stupidity of someone who is unable to believe the evidence of their own eyes (video evidence) and ears (tape recorded evidence), evidence that is undisputed.

          I have worked in the security services, I hold no special contempt for the police, just their corrupt members, unfortunately there seem to be few ‘good’ cops these days.

      • crosscop

        I know of at least two – in Lancashire about 20 odd years back. Both went down for the killing of a drunken man called (if I remember correctly) Owen Roberts. Conviction was later reduced to manslaughter, I believe.
        I also remember three cops at roughly the same time who lost their lives bravely ( or foolishly) trying to save a man who had gone into the sea after his dog.
        Yes, these liars are a disgrace and should be hung out to dry – but there are still some good cops out there. Funny though, that politicians (of all people) should be complaining about somebody else telling lies when they do it for a living.

        • andagain

          Yes, these liars are a disgrace and should be hung out to dry

          Except that they are not being. They are being protected. Which means that the police collectively protect such people.

          What does it say, that the police should attempt to protect three coppers who were shown to be bent in full view of the national press?

          And if they succeed, that is an even worse sign.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Of course they are guilty. Anyone who saw the camera evidence and herard the taped evidence knows they are guilty. Smoking guns all over the shop. Lots of jail!

  • Jambo25

    Some points here. 1) Tories have realised that the police: particularly the Met, are a bunch of useless, lying sods. Congratulations, you’ve just worked out what lots of us have known for decades. 2) Mitchell could have cleared this whole business up if he’d simply admitted what he said immediately. He didn’t. It took him 4 weeks. 3) Mitchell still used foul language to the cops on the gate. Not exactly what you would expect from a Tory Chief Whip and enough to get Joe Public lifted.for ‘Offensive Behaviour’ or some such. What gives Mitchell a free pass? 4) Given the reaction of someTory MPs and fellow ministers, after the event, it’s pretty clear that Mitchell was very unpopular with sections of the Party who were only too happy to throw him to the wolves. 5) Who allowed the police to see themselves as being above the law? Much of it can be traced back to the ‘Blessed Mags’ and her crew, during the 80s who saw the cops as ‘their’ Praetorian Guard in doing over the unions. I was never pro-NUM, during the strike, but was very uneasy with what was obviously very dubious behaviour, by police, all over the UK. My wife and I drove from Scotland to the English Midlands, to visit relatives, on a number of occasions, during the strike. We were frequently stopped at police check points (Probably illegally.) and questioned in obtrusive and threatening ways. Other police crowd control activities verged on or went over into the illegal. 6) The pay-back appears to have come after the Hillsborough Disaster. At least one local Tory MP misled the press and public on behalf of the South Yorkshire Police. and there have been persisitent rumours, almost certainly true, that people within the Home Office and Thatcher’s Number 10 operation were part of some kind of cover-up. We don’t know because there are still files which government refuses to let the public see from that time. I doubt that La Thatch and her chums fully knew what was going on but it seems that some Tory pols got very close to what was a criminal conspiracy involving the police.

    In view of the above and the very much worse fates of Harry Stanley, Charles de Menezes nd others: do I have any sympathy for Mitchell? Nah.

    • neotelemachus

      Blah, blah, blah. Cut and paste smears from the Guardian, Labtard HQ etc.

      • Jambo25

        Yep. Just stick your fingers in your ears and go la,la,la,la,la and you won’t have to hear inconvenient truth.

        • neotelemachus

          The inconvenient truth as you put it is: Mitchell is innocent and was stitched up by the police and you lefty idiots are denied a Tory Minister’s scalp and you just can’t accept it.

          • Jambo25

            Of course Mitchell was innocent of what the cops said he said to them. If you can find anywhere where I deny that, please quote me. Police lie all the time and until it happened to hit ‘one of them’; Tories were perfectly happy to back them up on that.

            • neotelemachus

              If he is, as you quite rightly say, innocent of what the cops said he said to them, and we have established that swearing in the presence of the police is not an offence in English law, why on earth have yo taken half this blog to condemn him?

              • Jambo25

                I didn’t. I was condemning a Tory Party which only seemed to notice this when it hit one of their own.

                • ButcombeMan

                  The Tory party through Cameron was compliant and went along with the Police version.

                  You are right on one point, their eyes have been opened.

                • Jambo25

                  Andrew Neil (Is he Tory friendly enough for you?) made the point on ‘Daily Politics’, yesterday, that if the Cops are to apologise to Mitchell (And that’s the least that should happen.) then Cameron’s apology should be following on.

                • ButcombeMan

                  I make no presumption about Andrew Neil’s political views, nor should you. He is, I think, one of the most acute interviewers on TV or anywhere. I find I often agree with his analyisis. I would like to see him leading the BBC.

                  You on the other hand, seem to hate everyone, Tories, Labour, Police. sensible contributiors here.

                  Your anger and hatred and flaky judgement make you miss a lot of the real point of what is being discussed..

                  In fact you and I might agree about quite a lot of things. Your anger and bitterness about everything and towards everyone, stops you seeing that.

                  As for suggesting the cops should apologise and that being enough or an acceptable “least that should happen”

                  You are away with the fairies.

                  The leaking and the continued fit-up, post event, of Mitchell, is way beyond an apology.

                  It is very serious criminality.

                  It is serious criminality that the UKs top Police Officer did not spot or understand, it is serious criminality that the Cabinet Secretary did not understand, it is serious criminality that David Cameron did not want to deal with or face up to, it is serious criminality that most of the media ignored, They understood, but enjoyed the Mitchell & “Tory toff ” hunting, too much, as did many commentators here.

                  What the whole thing shows is the paucity of integrity and plain common sense across much of our public life.

                • Jambo25

                  I have never denied that it was serious criminality. The points I made, overall, are very simple 1) Mitchell flew close to the wind by swearing at or to cops. That may or may not be an offense in England. 2) Mitchell could have cleared the matter up much more quickly by repeating what he had said immediately: not 4 weeks later. 3) Cameron and elements within the Tory Party didn’t fall over themselves to support Mitchell. That leads me to think that he was less than popular with a lot of his colleagues. See Neil’s comment yesterday. 4) Sizable numbers of the police, particularly the Met, have been a bunch of lying, criminally inclined so and sos for rather a long time. What took you so long to work that out? David Davies who appears to be a mate of Mitchell seems to have got the message. 5) The sense of inviolability which the police appear to have certainly goes back to the 80s when they became the Tory Party’s best buds and little pets.

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      The essential point is not whether or not one feels sympathy for Mitchell but that the police have apparentlly (according to the IPCC) conspired to falsify evidence. If they are prepared to do that to a cabinet minister, however much you dislike or fail to sympathise with him, it is a truly frightening prospect for the rest of us.

      • Jambo25

        Whose arguing on that point? Not me.

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      “there have been persistent rumours almost certainly true” – how very Labour Party/Leftist! Repeat a rumour or lie often enough in the belief it will eventually be construed as the truth. It will not.

    • Robert Kaye

      “5) Who allowed the police to see themselves as being above the law? Much of it can be traced back to the ‘Blessed Mags’ and her crew, ”

      It was the Blessed Mags who passed the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to deal with the worst excesses of the police.

      • Jambo25

        And it was her and her pals who were in power when they were setting up road blocks, all over the North of England and along the South Yorks/Nottingham county boundary to harass perfectly innocent travelers like my wife and I. It was her and her pals who were in power when the Hillsborough cover-up was started. She saw the cops as her pets and now the Tories have been bitten back by them. Tough luck.

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          Ranting does not make something true.

          • Jambo25

            Facts,which I have given, do.

            • Nicholas chuzzlewit

              That would be the leftist definition of a fact i.e. “anything I say is a fact” rather than the evidence based definition preferred by the rest of the population.

    • Fergus Pickering

      What balls you talk. And such a lot of it.

    • HJ777

      I am as inclined to be critical of the police as anyone.

      However, what the police did in the 80s (and I was stopped in my car on the borders of Nottinghamshire and questioned on more than one occasion) trying to prevent Scargill’s flying pickets from intimidating law-abiding Nottinghamshire miners who just wanted to work, was entirely proper. Do you think that physical intimidation is acceptable?

      • Jambo25

        No, but I think there were other ways of dealing with it.

        • HJ777

          No doubt there were.

          But that is the method they chose. Can you suggest a better method? Remember tha tthey were faced with a large influx of people intending to break the law by physically intimidating others.

          If I had your address and the police knew I was on my way to physically assault you, would you expect the police to try to intercept me or would you prefer they did not?

    • ButcombeMan

      You are yet another clown who has missed the corruption in leaking the log and the letter from a serving plod who was not there.

      • Jambo25

        No I haven’t missed the corruption at all. I simply expect it from large sections of the police. My main concern is that Tories turned their heads away and didn’t see it until it got one of their own.

        Rather than expending all your indignation and anger on Mitchell, perhaps you should think about how the families of Harry Stanley , Jean Charles de Menezes and Ian Tomlinson feel. Perhaps you should think back to the way that the dead of Hillsborough were defamed (With some Tory help.). Maybe you should revisit some of the industrial disputes of the 80s where there were constant complaints of police ‘fitting up’ strikers.

  • AtMyDeskToday

    In everyday life in the UK now you encounter truculent, resentful authority who view the general public as a nuisance that interrupts their daily grind. The receptionist at the GP surgery who cannot offer you an appointment for 2 weeks, the airport security that treats you like you’re something sticking to his shoe, the traffic wardens and police that generally just want to teach you a lesson. It looks like this behaviour has now reached into the upper levels of society which were previously immune. Welcome, Andrew Mitchell, to the world of the common guy.
    If this incident does not end up in court then any claim by the Conservatives to making the UK a better place to live falls flat.

    • Bert

      Welcome to New Labour world where the customer / patient is not a valued person, just a meal ticket to the Union member / gravy train guzzler.

      • Jambo25

        Much as I hate Labour, this started far earlier, with La Thatch and friends, to whom we were no longer citizens with rights but merely customers with ‘market power’.

        • neotelemachus

          Meaningless lefty babble.

          • Jambo25

            Lokk at my longer posting about police behaviour during the 80s. That was long before New Labour and was given the blesiing of Thatcher and chums.

            • Nicholas chuzzlewit

              But utterly irrelevant to the present case. You will be citing the activities of those wicked Peelers next.

            • HJ777

              Oh come on. I lived not far from Nottingham at the time and was stopped in my car by police on more than one occasion to check that I wasn’t heading for a mining area.

              I didn’t mind and neither did local people because they were sick and tired of large numbers of Scargill’s henchmen invading the area trying to physically intimidate local mineworkers (who wanted to work) from going about their legal business.

              • Jambo25

                Well I fecking well minded being stopped and questioned as to what I was doing when I was merely driving to see in-laws (Solidly Tory voting in-laws as a matter of fact.) in Leicester. I objected to being treated like a criminal and questioned like one. It was possibly that I had a Scottish accent and they thought I was some kind of flying picket that made a few of them so bloody unpleasant.

                • HJ777

                  They couldn’t have known your accent when they stopped you.

                  I don’t have a Scottish accent or even a northern one, yet I was questioned just the same. The fact is that large numbers of people were heading into Nottinghamshire determined to physically intimidate people who wanted to go about their perfectly legal business. Were the police not supposed to try to prevent this?

                • Jambo25

                  Well I bloody well wasn’t. Just attempting to get to Leicester in time for dinner and I still don’t see why, even today, I was treated as a possible danger to the public when there was absolutely no indication that I was. I simply object to the kind of society where police set up road blocks and stop you on spec.

                  As for accents. Differences in accents might well have accounted for the fact that my wife and I seemed to be questioned in a fairly aggressive manner. I wonder what kind of questioning people with, say, Durham accents got going through that area.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Oh come. It started earlier than that. The police have always been inclined to lie in order to secure a conviction. All police do it.

          • Jambo25

            And on that we agree. It was certainly the case when a couple of cops from Black Horse Road cop shop offered to plant half bricks on a couple of thugs who gave me and a mate a doing back in 1970.

            • neotelemachus

              They obviously did a good job. You seem to have extensive brain damage.

        • HJ777

          Well, yes, everything is Margaret Thatcher’s fault, of course.

          It always is according to people like you.

          • Nicholas chuzzlewit

            Agreed. Had England tripped up against Poland last night some leftist idiot would by now have placed the blame squarely at the door of one M Thatcher.

          • Nicholas chuzzlewit

            Agreed. If England had tripped up against Poland last night some leftist moron would be placing the blame squarely at the feet of one M Thatcher.

            • HJ777

              It was her fault that England hadn’t already qualified.

              Obviously.

          • Jambo25

            Definition of “people like you”.

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Nail hit firmly and squarely on head!

  • David B

    Bottom line is a policeman should not be making political decisions when he is working for the public.

    On another note, does Ed Miliband remember what he said at the time

  • Hexhamgeezer

    Where are the Police Commissioners in all this?

    BTW yYou can also add to the charge sheet the Police’s willingness to allow Britain to go up in flames in 2011 to ‘prove’ their point on ‘the cuts’.

    A truly disgusting state of affairs is abroad and Cameron and May merely bleat pathetically every now and again. Too smug, too weak to even fight for their own, too comfortable, too detached.

    • DWWolds

      One of the Police Commissioners appeared on TV yesterday evening supporting his Chief Constable who was arguing that there was not enough evidence for any action to be taken against his officers who, on the face of it, simply lied. The Police Commissioner then went on to claim that it was the Independent Complaints Commission that had acted incorrectly.

  • Swiss Bob

    Amazing, not only are the Met institutionally bent but you can add the police from West Midlands, West Mercia and Warwickshire.

    And no one is being disciplined, no one is being prosecuted and this for fitting up a Govt minister.

    What chance do us plebs have with these goons?

    • Andy

      None whatsoever. That’s the problem. And that is why there should be a number of Police Officers getting appointments at the Old Bailey.

    • In2minds

      Forget it Swiss Bob, it’s not up to you or me, the important thing now is, what does Kier Starmer think.

      • Swiss Bob

        Kier Starmer think

        His record is hardly inspiring. The clue is in the name ‘Kier’.

      • Keith D

        He thinks FGM is perfectly legal,although its not.

        • Denis_Cooper

          Not FGM I think, just gender selective abortion.

          • Keith D

            The hypocrisy of the man is epic.

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      Yes and the same leftists defending the indefensible Police Federation today are the same people screaming for life imprisonment on Devil’s Island for anybody who had the temerity to work in a bank or any other activity that leftists disapprove of.

      • FrenchNewsonlin

        One does not have to be a “leftist” to demand life imprisonment for the banksters. We are heading for Year Six of an ongoing global recession with no end in sight and many banks remain highly dubious institutions. They have failed to come clean about the vast amounts of toxic waste swilling around on their balance sheets and the taxpayer remains the milch cow par excellence to pay for all their mistakes. Now the EU/IMF are seriously advocating a 10% “tax” i.e. heist, on customer monies held on account in all banks across the EU … to bail them out again! Double life sentences as in the US, would be more appropriate.

        • Nicholas chuzzlewit

          My argument was not in favour or mitigation of those bank employees who were culpable in inflicting huge losses on the rest of us. It was an observation of the hypocrisy adopted by members of the left who condemn only when it suits their particular agenda. I cannot disagree materially with anything you have written save for the fact that it is totally irrelevant to the point I was making which concerned consistency and not reckless risk taking by banks.

          • FrenchNewsonlin

            Appreciated (and agree) with the point you were making, however the bankers remain a huge rankle for many, which was the reason for digressing from your argument. Apologies.

            • Nicholas chuzzlewit

              No problem. I have similar feelings on the subject and appreciate your gracious reponse.

  • swatnan

    It was just a chance encounter, and the police plotters thought they could take advantage of the situation and stich up Mitch. The Federation unfortunately took their reports of the incident at their word, not bothering to check them out. I believe the culprits were pretty low level officers and not in the senior ranks.

    • MSturdy

      How very unconvincing these apologists sound! Police who ‘plot’ to discredit people are untrustworthy liars and not fit to be police. The ‘unfortunate’ Federation supported the liars and it s leaders should pay a price above having totally undermined their defence of pay and conditions. Your ‘belief’ that this was low level is based on – what?

      • Andy

        How do we know that the Federation were not at the centre of this wicked and evil conspiracy ?

        • Shazza

          I wonder just how high this fit up went.

          • Andy

            Indeed. But it is clear it cannot be allowed to rest as is.

            • Shazza

              Agreed but we will have to wait and see whether anyone in the government has the cojones to follow it through or not.

              • Andy

                Well as the Home Secretary said yesterday she does not have the power to compel the Chief Constable to take action against the officers concerned. As to the rest we must wait for the DPP to come to a conclusion, although why this has taken 13 months God alone knows.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “calls now for reform of police disciplinary procedures”

    Fine, but first of all let’s have the prosecutions for misconduct in public office.

    Or is Dominic Grieve going to sit back while the CPS once again does nothing?

  • telemachus

    I think you are reading too much into this
    A Minister swore at police
    The Police in pique did wrong
    The West Midlands police compounded that wrong in mistaken solidarity
    End of

    • Robert Kaye

      If, as increasingly seems to be the case, the ‘wrong’ that the police did was to conspire to falsify evidence to frame an innocent person, and the police that their colleagues did was to lie out of solidarity, then that is far, far, worse than swearing at police. It goes to the heart of the rule of law. If a number of police officers collectively will conspire and lie against a Cabinet Minister, then they would do it against anyone. Countless cases proceed on the basis that police officers can be trusted to tell the truth. If that is shown to be false, we have a big problem. It is far from ‘End of’.

      • Denis_Cooper

        Which is why we need the criminal prosecutions, to make it clear to every police officer that they are not above the law.

      • Andy

        Exactly so. It is increasingly clear that Police Officers conspired and lied against a Minister of the Crown. Whatever you think of Mitchell he was no ordinary member of the public, and such behaviour against you or me would be bad enough, but against a Minister it is beyond belief and ALL those involved must face the full force of the law.

        • Fergus Pickering

          Nonsense. It would be just as bad if it were against you or me. Just more difficult to prove, that’s all. The police lied when they shot dead a harmless Argentinian. They lied over the Hillsborough affair. These cases were less bad only because they were lying to save their own skins. Here they were lying out of pure devilment. Jail, jail, jail!

          • The age of En_lie_tenment

            No it’s worse than devilment, this is part of a left-wing plot.

      • Holly

        Another case today involving a police officer who conned someone & altered their will…
        Far too many have been charged and taken to court over the past few years for breaking the law, which they are meant, and paid for by the taxpayer, to uphold.

        Yet it is the IPCC, May & Cameron who have ‘handled this all wrong’.

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Excellent comment but Telemachus is a leftist Troll and believes that if you make a totally unfounded assertion often enough it will somehow become the truth.

    • JohnFromDon

      NO, not end of at all, they falsified evidence and witness statements – much more than just doing “wrong”.

      • Holly

        And then came out to tell the awaiting media that Mitchell was still not being ‘co-operative’ and if he didn’t resign, Cameron should sack him.

    • Swiss Bob

      The seal team rapid rebuttal unit are hard at work today.

    • Hexhamgeezer

      West Midlands Police are one of the most corrupt forces in the UK. Have been for years. When it comes to faking evidence and lying ask any football fans who have encountered them when they need to beef up their stats or screw overtime out of us.

    • Russell

      Oh the hypocrisy…Imagine if the victim was Ed Balls!!!!I think you would be singing a different tune.

      • Makroon

        But that would never happen, would it ?
        It might be worth looking into whether some of Labour’s sleazier hangers-on had a part in this.

        • The age of En_lie_tenment

          I understand that the Police Federation is affiliated to the Labour Party.

          I have been unable to discover if “donations” are made to Labour, does anyone know ?

          • Andy

            I do not believe it is so affiliated, nor would be allowed to be by law. However those Police Officers in West Mercia who lied about what Andrew Mitchell had said were either Labour Party stooges or supporters. Take your pick.

            • The age of En_lie_tenment

              Sorry, my mistake.

              It was the Police Union which was affiliated to the Labour Party.

              My pick is supporters, they are employed in the public sector with all that that entails.

    • Fergus Pickering

      No.tele, this is how it was. The police had a contretemps with Andrew Mitchell. They then falsified their notebooks and got other policemen to lie. They then made a second attempt to fit Mitchell up which only failed because he had the forethought to record what the lying illegitimate persons said. That is qute a lot of stuff and implicates at least seven officers. And you will see itvis nothing like the end of the story. Jail for the lot of them!

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Hear, hear!!

    • ButcombeMan

      “Did wrong” is conveniently mild though old chap.

      The wrongness was seriously criminal with serious penalties available, as a few of the culprits are shortly about to find out

  • Bert

    The police on the gates acted like plebs
    The Police Federation activits have acted like plebs
    The three Chief Constables have defended plebs
    These politicised f***ing plebs have brought down a cabinet minister fraudulently and must be brought to account.

    • telemachus

      You son are compounding Mitchells error

      • Bert

        Catch up pops. He didn’t actually make an error…doh!

        • Jambo25

          He did actually use foul language to the police which can be construed as a criminal offence.

          • neotelemachus

            Only by a complete idiot.

            • Jambo25

              It’s still, as far as I know, the law. Change the law if you don’t like it. I don’t live under English jurisdiction anyway.

              • Robert Kaye

                “It’s still, as far as I know, the law.”

                What law? Seems this says more about how much, or how little, you know about the law.

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  That would be absolutely nothing Robert.

                • Jambo25

                  I think the bit where I write “I don’t live under English jurisdiction” might cover that but it could come under Breach of the Peace or Disorderly Conduct in certain circumstances.

                  However, we are now arguing about technicalities. My main point was the naivete of people who haven’t noticed what the police have been like for a long, long time.

              • HenryWood

                “The law” covers a vast area. To which particular “law” are you constantly making reference?

              • Michele Keighley

                In which case your comments are of little interest to those that do. Kindly keep quiet.

                • Jambo25

                  And you will,no doubt, refrain from commenting on those things you are not expert on or directly touched by.

          • Bert

            I’m aghast.
            He actually used foul language?
            Against an officer of the law?
            Arrest that criminal now!

            • Jambo25

              It took him 4 weeks to admit it and whether you like it or not, can be taken as the basis of a criminal charge and fairly often is. If you don’t like it or think it’s silly change the law.

              • Fergus Pickering

                No uit can’t. Are you realy suggesting that what he said is criminal. The criminals are on the other side. Jail for them!

              • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                The essence of this story is the apparent willingness of the police (according to yesterday’s IPCC report) to conspire in the falsification of evidence against a British citizen. The fact that the citizen in question was a cabinet minister and swore, a fact that he has not denied, is of little consequence compared to the prospect that the Police force in Britain might collude to falsify evidence. You might like to focus a little more on the bigger picture here.

                • Jambo25

                  Oh whack a do. You’ve noticed that a lot of cops are less than honest. I never knew that.

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  Clearly.

                • Shazza

                  I doubt if they would have gone for a Labour minister!!!!!

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  That is a very safe assumption Shazz.

                • Christopher Lennon

                  who might have punched someone.

                • HenryWood

                  Nail hit squarely on head. Now, would you like to hit that effing Jambo25 on the head before he has me arrested for swearing? And give his mate Telemachus a quick one-two!

                • Jambo25

                  Nice to see such objecrive thought and comment.

                • HenryWood

                  It is more objective comment than your non-reply to my simple question: Which “law” are you constantly referring to?

                • Jambo25

                  I don’t need to. I’ve thought the police are scuzz for years. I wasn’t all that surprised that the police tried to ‘fit-up’ Mitchell. The point is; neither should you.

            • Fergus Pickering

              But he didn’t. The remark ‘I thought you were supposed to effing help us’ can hardly be construed at searing at the police. Swearing in the presence of the effing police perhaps.

              • Jambo25

                Under law it could be construed as being against the law.

                • salieri

                  What law? Go on, do tell us it was s. 4 of the Living and Breathing Act 1997….

                • Jambo25

                  There appear to be laws against most things in this country. There are certainly laws against offensive and threatening behaviour. Have a look it’ll be there somewhere

          • Robert Kaye

            Swearing, even in the presence of police is not a crime (whether you think it should be is a different matter). No one has ever alleged that the swearing was directed at them – he is alleged to have said ‘you’re supposed to f***ing help us’. No way is that an offence.

            • Jambo25

              I’m not an English lawyer but I’m pretty sure that it could be construed as offensive behaviour or whatever it’s technically known as down south.

              • neotelemachus

                You are telemachus and I claim £5

              • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                We operate under the laws of England and Wales (not North and South) and this is not, I repeat not, an offence. We would need a separate court for just about every member of the population if it were.

                • Tom Tom

                  I do hope the A-G lets Conspiracy enter the charge sheet

              • Mark Myword

                Swearing at the police, or anyone else, is not an offence in either statute or common law. In certain circumstances, it might be taken to be ‘Disorderly Conduct’ – Public Order Act Section 5, in others it might be construed as a ‘Breach of the Peace’ under Common Law. In all cases the circumstances have to be considered: for example, was it a public place, how many people observed the conduct, were there any threats? Previous cases have already shown that the Police should be expected to have greater tolerance of disorderly behaviour directed towards them than, say, a vulnerable passer-by. In this case, one swear word, behind the gates of Downing Street, in an incident lasting 45 seconds could never be regarded as Disoderly Conduct, nor Breach of the Peace. This aspect of what happened is a red herring.

                • Baron

                  Mark, spot on except you’re describing England as she once was. Since then the country’s morphed into a police state, the law is what the police says it is because they make things up as they did here, got away with it.

                  What frightens Baron is if the police could stitch up a Government Minister, what can they do to you and him?

                  How did we get here, ha?

                • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                  You might like to run that question by one A L Blair.

                • The age of En_lie_tenment

                  The only thing I would like to run by AL Blair is a tank.

                  Since I have never driven a tank I may be somewhat inexpert and …

                • Jambo25

                  As you note yourself it can, under certain circumstances, be seen as Disorderly contact or Breach of the Peace. I’m not sure of the exact terminology as I don’t live under English jurisdiction. That really isn’t the point however which is: if the cops want to get you they can usaully find something.

          • ButcombeMan

            Actually no.

            Society has moved on.

            The case of Denzil Harvey (Justice Bean) would you might find, be instructive to deal with your ignorance and that of other commenatators.

            Of course that is but one instance where a Public Order Offence was overturned, another case might tutn on slightly differrent circumstances.but on the basis of that case, where Harvey was arguably provoked, (rather like Mitchell), you are wrong.

          • launcher

            I hate jam tarts, I prefer KFC.

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Desperate, absolutely desperate stuff but classic leftist behaviour. You keep repeating the same sorry line in the hope that if you say it often enough it will become true. It will not.

    • Nicholas chuzzlewit

      It will be interesting to see if the BBC expends as much time and energy pursuing a story whereby the IPCC is suggesting that members of the Police force/federation conspired to falsify evidence in order to bring down a cabinet minister as they expended in shoring up the reputation of a dead Marxist and his fatuous offspring. I wonder if the BBC realises that this is quite an important story and that if the Police are seemingly willing to stitch up a cabinet minister what chance do the rest of us have?

      • The age of En_lie_tenment

        You cannot comment on the reports of this imbroglio in the BBC, Guardian or “Independent”.

      • Erictheowl

        The Beeb seem currently to be bigging up the fact that three Chief Constables think it’s all pretty much okay, as they were involved in a dispute with the government. Don’t quite understand the logic here, but assume that if I get done for parking and say I am in a dispute with the traffic division, it’ll all be fine?

    • Leonard Pole

      The army should guard Downing Street as the police are not to be trusted, they would be not be politicized like the police personnel.

    • rubyduck

      Isn’t that a bit unfair to us plebs?

Close