Plebgate

I think that most reasonable and intelligent people would ‘predict’ that there is ‘very little chance of a subsequent scandal and inquiry’ because of what went before and for no other reason. I’d bet my bottom dollar that those main gates will be swinging backwards and forwards, opening and closing like my sphincter after a hard night on the curry. Swearing or no swearing.

Not too unintelligible for you ?

I can offer a translation service for those suffering, thru’ no fault of their own, from a restricted education.

I make a prediction that many people will pass through the Downing Street gates today, tomorrow and in the future. Few, if any, will swear at policemen and there is therefore very little chance of a subsequent scandal and inquiry about who said what. I think that is reasonable prediction. Most reasonable people would agree.
I also make a prediction that your response will descend into more unintelligible rubbish as, not for the first time, and not just with me, you have been out-thought and out-argued. The decent thing to do would be to bow out gracefully. Some hope…….

Re 49

Whatever else is wrong, there’s certainly nothing wrong with your imagination ! If I’m polite to the assistant in Tesco do you imagine it might improve my chances of winning the Lottery?

I await your ‘reasonable prediction’.

Re 8

I am in awe of your ability to predict the entirely unpredictable. So, if the alleged offender had been polite, none of this would have happened ? How you KNOW that, I’ll never know – hence the crystal ball comment.

You are of course right to be in awe. Bearing in mind that many people, including Mitchell himself, passed through this particular gate each and every day without being hassled by policemen or swearing at policemen, then I think my reasonable prediction of a possible outcome was on safe ground.
If you go through life without thinking of possible outcomes to various possible scenarios then you must lead a very odd life indeed.

John and Chas.

Plus me also, totally agree.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Re 44

Every policeman who has attempted or participated, whether jointly or severally to pervert the course of justice should be discharged without pension.

They have no future in the police force – their word no longer can be trusted.

When you sack the police officers, do you mean those who falsified evidence on the day as well as the 3 police federation officers who lied about what was said at a subsequent meeting with Mitchell, then lied to a Select Committee, plus the alleged officer who claimed to be a member of the public who witnessed the incident, plus the senior officers who, wrongly, changed the recommendations of an IPCC investigation into the incident????

In short. Yes. We live in a time in this country where responsibility for ones actions and accountability in public service have all but ceased to exist. If individuals are not prepared to fall on their swords then the job should be done for them.

Re 8

I am in awe of your ability to predict the entirely unpredictable. So, if the alleged offender had been polite, none of this would have happened ? How you KNOW that, I’ll never know – hence the crystal ball comment.

Others have commented – quite rightly, that the Police are there to serve the people who pay them. The trouble arises when the Police themselves do not believe that.

When you sack the police officers, do you mean those who falsified evidence on the day as well as the 3 police federation officers who lied about what was said at a subsequent meeting with Mitchell, then lied to a Select Committee, plus the alleged officer who claimed to be a member of the public who witnessed the incident, plus the senior officers who, wrongly, changed the recommendations of an IPCC investigation into the incident????

With that I wholly agree.

S’pose I should have worded it better, yes he is sacked, but so, by now so should the Police Officers.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

So what? You suggested sacking him, but he’s not in his job to be sacked!

He will be back, just like Mandleson, how many times did he get pushed and then come back? They all “P” in the same pot.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

I am not quite sure where the justice is in that but leaving that aside it may have escaped your attention that Mitchell DID lose his job!

Simple solution…………..Sack Mitchell AND the Police Officers, then move on, hoping it’s a lesson learned by all.Think of the money that would be saved.
Jim.
Lincoln .7

Whether or not he is not “Mr Nice Guy” is totally irrelevant. And it is clear from the history and from Dennis Fallon’s FOI request that there are no protocols for the use of the main gates and that being the case Mr Mitchell could reasonably have expected access as had been provided on previous occasions.

As for “the police officers using their position to take him down a peg or two”, that in itself says everything we need to know about some individuals in the police force and their flagrant abuse of their position. There is simply no excuse for what they did.

In response to your last paragraph, it’s an old saying but a true one “out of small acorns oak trees grow”. No one is trying to whitewash Mr Mitchell – simply to straighten a very twisted account.

Mitchell clearly not Mr Nice Guy, the police officers used their position to take hin down a peg, both sides totally wrong, if this had been a car accident it would have been a 50/50 on claims, but both sides still trying to point score the saga rumbles on.

Those who try to say that this is a major cause of loss of trust in the police, frankly a politician is small beer compared to lies and fraud regarding Hillsborough for instance, much is being made of this in an attempt to whitewash Mitchell, that won’t work either.

I said that I wouldn’t condone that.

And if you think that it is OK for a cabinet member to swear at anyone, far less a police officer then that is also a sad state of affairs.

So his resignation was justified. That’s what I thought.

No Derekf. That is not what I said. He was told to go, before the full story came out of what is basically police corruption. He did not use the word “pleb”, so he says. In which case evidence has been falsified. Please read my other post about the “witness” that never was. And the police federation offices who lied. Bad language to police office is wrong and that I don’t condone. But police offices are not boys, no member of the public was distressed by the incident – that was falsified evidence. And an incident that should have been sorted by grown men, and women, has degenerated into one of the worse cases of police malpractice and lose of public confidence in the police for many years.
If you think a man, any man, no matter how obnoxious, should loose their job based on falsified police evidence that that really is a sad state of affairs.