Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jun 04, 2014 8:27 am  

In December 2012:

ajw71 wrote:

It was a stitch up so the police federation had ammunition to attack the Govt with as payback for cuts to policing.

him wrote:

lol, you have a poll to back that up?

Cronus wrote:

lol, you probably believe that as well

JerryChicken wrote:

The smokescreen and football supporter politics mentality has sucked you in good and proper hasn't it ?

On Sunday 1 June 2014:

The Sunday Times wrote:

One strong possibility, supported by their conduct in the wake of the Mitchell incident, is that they (the police) saw Conservative Ministers, with their planned cuts to police budgets, as enemies. Anything the police could do to drag them down - and there was no better way of doing so than portraying a senior minister as arrogant, foul mouthed and dismissive of the public servants there to protect him - would be meat and drink

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jun 04, 2014 10:59 am  

Poor old boys in blue, running a campaign, according to some, to try and discredit a Tory government minister.
Oh for the days of Maggie and Home Secretary Leon Brittan when their wage packets were full and as much overtime as they liked circa 84/85.
My heart bleeds for them, no really, it does.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jun 04, 2014 5:04 pm  

WIZEB wrote:

Poor old boys in blue, running a campaign, according to some, to try and discredit a Tory government minister.
Oh for the days of Maggie and Home Secretary Leon Brittan when their wage packets were full and as much overtime as they liked circa 84/85.
My heart bleeds for them, no really, it does.

They didn't need to discredit Mitchell, he did the job on himself by his own admission by losing his temper and swearing at a police officer over an innocuous request to walk a few yards and use a side gate - he showed a remarkable lack of self control and respect for the police - not the sort of personality you would want as chief whip of your party in government, he had to go and hasn't been invited back by his leader or the shadows who really pull the strings.

The most ridiculous part being that the word "pleb" (if used) would be the least foul part of the outburst that he admitted to.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 7:34 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

They didn't need to discredit Mitchell, he did the job on himself by his own admission by losing his temper and swearing at a police officer over an innocuous request to walk a few yards and use a side gate - he showed a remarkable lack of self control and respect for the police - not the sort of personality you would want as chief whip of your party in government, he had to go and hasn't been invited back by his leader or the shadows who really pull the strings.

The most ridiculous part being that the word "pleb" (if used) would be the least foul part of the outburst that he admitted to.

Oh trust me old boy, I aint putting it all down to a grand conspiracy theory.
More about how much it's continuing to cost the public purse trying to get to the truth (who really gives two fooks) about what one jumped up little t0sspot might of said, or not, to another bunch of t0sspots!

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 11:06 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

He isnt innocent in the matter by his own admission, if you find it interesting that I am not ignoring that as you seem happy to do then what can I say, Im sure he'll fund his own defence given that he has previously threatened lagal actions of his own.

He is innocent in the matter until proven guilty. This has been my position from the start. You persist in ignoring the facts in favour of the media storys which were spread by police several of whom have been proven to be liars with 4 sacked and one in prison. You have sided against Mitchell for reasons which I can only imagine are political.

1. He (Mitchell) was not charged with anything by the police
2. He has never said he swore at the police.
3. He admitted to using the f-word as an adjective and in a context that is now commonly used and excepted. He apologised for this and this apology was excepted. This was never the issue in the matter anyway.
4. He has consistently denied using the specific words (Pleb etc) spread by certain members of the police to the media.
5. He lost his job due to a high profile campaign by members of the police and the police federation which spread lies and half truths
6. There is now plenty of evidence to suggest he was 'fit' up

Yes he will fund his own defence and may have to sell his house to raise the money. What is of concern to many is that the deep pockets of the police federation are being used to fund a private action against Mitchell for alleged slander/libel. This slander/libel is using the word liar against a police officer.

Imagine you have wrongfully been accused by the police of saying or doing something. You know full well the accusation is not true and you know the police officer is lying. In this case it must be your right to say so. It cannot be right to be intimidated by threats of being taken to court and sued for libel privately by the officer and who is funded by a wealthy union. You know the officer lied and you quite rightly stated the officer was lying.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:25 pm  

1. He (Mitchell) was not charged with anything by the police
2. He has never said he swore at the police.
3. He admitted to using the f-word as an adjective and in a context that is now commonly used and excepted. He apologised for this and this apology was excepted. This was never the issue in the matter anyway

Everything else is irrelevant other than the facts above, his behaviour was not as expected by the Chief Whip of a party, especially one who had been in the job a matter of days, whether he left or was pushed is not known but Cameron accepted his resignation as he knew that the position was untenable, irrelevant of the subsequent revelations and news stories which have been led by PR from both sides.

He is still not employed in a position of control within the party and that in itself speaks volumes, I expect this to change when his party are re-elected though as these sort of things only count in five year cycles, you can go to jail as an MP and be welcomed back into the fold int he next term as if nothing happened.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:26 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

So do you think that his reaction to a simple request to use a gate three yards away was acceptable and that by his own admission using verbal abuse towards a police officer is justifiable ?

And do you therefore think that his boss should reinstate him and why do you think he hasnt so far ?

There you go again. Accepting fully the discredited police version. The police had been instructed in writing to allow Ministers and Mitchell in particular unfettered access to Downing Street. It is on record that certain officers had consistently and for no reason other than political been difficult and obstructive at the gates to Tory ministers for over a year.

You fail to see that it was the officer's behaviour that was unacceptable and had causeed a letter of complaint to be sent to the Inspector in charge with a warning that if these obstructions were repeated the matter would go all the way up to the Commissioner. We are talking hear about elected members of the government working long hours and being obstructed by gate guards on shorter shifts, with little else to do but open and shut the gates for most of the time.

It is becoming clear that certain officers at the gate had targeted Mitchell in the hope he would lose his well known temper and they had a plan to exploit this. From the VT it is clear there is no losing of temper - the 45 seconds of confronation does not show the body language of temper.

Mitchell has not admitted verbal abuse towards police officers. Why do you persist in this lie. He has admitted to muttering as he walked to the pedestrian gate no more than "...I thought you people were supposed to be here to F.....g help us" (quote may not be extact but from memory) This cannot in todays world be misconstrued as abusing the police even apart from the prejudiced sceptic PC keyboard generals.

The F word is defined these days as "Adv. f.....g - intensifier, very colloquial; "what took you so f.....g long?"

Even leftie LiberalDems will on occassions use the f word as an intensifier I am sure, and if not you will have had good cause to us the word as slang when describing the sexual scandals of your MP's, leaders etc

It is quite obvious that the Prime Minister cannot reinstate Mitchell while ever court cases etc are hanging over his head. Once these are finally cleared up without further evidence or charges against Mitchell then of course he will rejoin the government. And at that time there will also be apologies expected from most of the Labour front benches for overlooking justice and jumping to conclusions in the rush to exploit a political advantage in such a shameful way.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 12:57 pm  

Test it this afternoon - walk up to a police officer in your locality and use the F-word during your conversation and see if they ask you to moderate your language, especially if you are taking a stance that opposes something that they are trying to tell you to do or explain to you, then let us know if they find it acceptable for you to use that word in any sort of context that they can clearly hear - he didn't mutter it under his breath so that they couldn't hear, they reported him as using the word and he admitted that he did.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:31 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Everything else is irrelevant other than the facts above, his behaviour was not as expected by the Chief Whip of a party, especially one who had been in the job a matter of days, whether he left or was pushed is not known but Cameron accepted his resignation as he knew that the position was untenable, irrelevant of the subsequent revelations and news stories which have been led by PR from both sides.

He is still not employed in a position of control within the party and that in itself speaks volumes, I expect this to change when his party are re-elected though as these sort of things only count in five year cycles, you can go to jail as an MP and be welcomed back into the fold int he next term as if nothing happened.

You missed the all important fact (my point 4) that Mitchell has consistently denied using the word 'Pleb' which is what the police via the media alleged and without which there would have been no matter to bring about a resignation.

Why was his behaviour "not as expected by the Chief Whip" ? How pompous to suggest he cannot react in a human way to provocation and deliberate obstruction. The public like politicians to be human with human weaknesses (witness why Nigel Farge is so well like by the public) He did not lose his temper, he did not abuse the police but he used an intensifier that is used by the majority of the population, on our TV's most nights, in our literature.

Come down from your high horse. Have you never used the F word as an intensifier?

His resignation/sacking came after the great media hysteria and a great many lies. The final straw was the Police Federation officers statement on the 6 o'clock news that Mitchell regarding their meeting with him. This we know know to be lies. This was on top of an email from the supposed member of the public which verified the leaked police log. We now know this to also be a pack of lies. However at the time Mitchell and the PM had to make a decision which was understandable given all the detail in the public domain was negative to Mitchell.

Quite why you stubbornly remain blind to what could well be a very important case of injustice is remarkable.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jun 05, 2014 1:42 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Test it this afternoon - walk up to a police officer in your locality and use the F-word during your conversation and see if they ask you to moderate your language, especially if you are taking a stance that opposes something that they are trying to tell you to do or explain to you, then let us know if they find it acceptable for you to use that word in any sort of context that they can clearly hear - he didn't mutter it under his breath so that they couldn't hear, they reported him as using the word and he admitted that he did.

The Pope recently made some new saints. I didn't notice Saint Jerry amonst those. I have used the F word in front of (but not at) a police officer more than once and so did he! The police hear this word used every Saturday night without offence. You would have to arrest half the population otherwise. Yet you still argue this point and ignore all the evidence against the police just to avoid admitting you could have been wrong in you initial judgement that Mitchell was guilty.

The police did not object to Mitchell using this word as an intensifier so why do you? Have you ever used this word in the same context? I ask again?