A heck of a lot of people on this forum were slating Mitchell and backing the police when this all kicked-off.



The same people now appear to be eating a rather large slice of humble pie.

Interesting that you continue to argue against Mitchell when all the evidence that is coming out makes it look more and more like a political conspiracy by a group of police officers who were in cahoots with the discredited Police Federation. This same Police Federation were running a hate campaign against this government because of budget cuts. Because the cuts have not caused crime to rise, as was histerically claimed by the Fed, has undermined their case and caused the hate campaign.



This same group, with their huge secret bank accounts, are now financing an action against an individual member of the public (Mitchell) for calling the officer a liar. This in itself is a very dangerous precedent

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.

Mitchell was riding his bike, a vehicle in law, he was within his rights to exit the main gates as he always had done. There is a lesser security risk exiting on bicycle than when a motor vehicle exits, to deny him that exit is plainly stupid and shows an agenda, it's pretty simple really.

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 ?

In December 2012:





















On Sunday 1 June 2014:

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Its quite clear to us all that you are happy for senior political figures to have loose tempers and to use the f-word when addressing police officers.



Nice.

Mr Elpers you need to calm down. The officer who dealt with the Right Honourable gentleman has never once lied (remember your sentence innocent until proven guilty). Indeed the CPS commented that he is the only one who has maintained his stance from the outset. I would suggest they know considerably more than any of us on here. Please enlighten us if you know more.

There has been NO disciplinary action taken against him as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He has been accused of lying which appears at this moment in time to be slanderous. As a result he is taking the Right Honourable gentleman to court. His court action is being funded out of Federation funds. That's funds which the members pay into. It's NOT public money. It is assigned by the members and approved by the members. It's not got anything to do with the general public or indeed you. Unless of course you are a paid up member of the Police Federation.

The Federation is there to protect the interests of its members. When one of its members have any issues at all then the Federation will help however they can. That is their role. And as such they are helping the officer in this case. They do it for all officers.

The rouge officers in this sorry saga have all been dealt with, certainly the Met officers. Sackings and jailings prove that. That's what the police do. If you step out of line you are dealt with.

Who hasn't had any disciplinary action taken? Answer the officer who dealt with the Right Honourable gentleman. Ask yourself why. Indeed the disciplinary hearings taken against the officers had the Right Honourable gentleman present. Something unheard of previously. So open and transparent procedures which were there to appease all.

Now in terms of swearing police officers hear it all the time. New ruling came in that they can not be caused offence by swearing. So no Section 5 public order offences when you swear at or within hearing of an officer. As a result the Right Honourable gentleman was correctly dealt with. The officer on the gate dealt with it all appropriately and the Right Honourable gentleman even apologised the following day I believe.

Rouge officers were dealt with. That is the facts of the case. What the Right Honourable gentleman ACTUALLY said has never been confirmed by him. For reasons only he can actually explain. It does make you wonder why. (Well maybe not you, but certainly the rest of us). I am sure we will find out once all the court cases have been heard.

I'm sure you won't agree, but those are the facts. Let's see how it all rides out from here.

It is not proven that Mitchell lost his temper. Nice indeed that you finally have stopped saying he swore at the police.



You avoid the issues once more. You also continue to answer if you have ever used the F word as an intensifier - and it is quite clear to us why!



This not about what I am happy about. It is about a member of the governemnt being regarded as innocent until proven guilty.



1. There is no proof that Mitchell said the things he was accused of.

2. There is proof that at least 4 police officers lied regarding this issue

3. There is proof that 4 officers have been dismissed and one of the jailed for 12 months

4. There is proof that three police federation officers gave a false impression on National TV

5. There is proof that two of these same police federation officers later lied to a parliamentary committee and are still to be dealt with for this.

6. There is proof that for over a year the police guards at the gates of Downing Street had been behaving in an obstructive manner serious enough for a member of the government to write to the Inspector in charge with a clear message that Ministers (including Mitchell) were to be allowed unfettered access to Downing Street and that if not it would go all the way to the Commissioner.

7. There is new circumstantial evidence that there was some form of conspiracy between police officers before the "phleb" incident



Now it is fair to say, and I have said it several times before, that we do not know if it was Mitchell or the PC that was lying. But it is clear one of them was. I have never said I believed Mitchell's denial. I have said he has the right to be treated as innocent until proven to be guilty.

Summary...



Mitchell admits that he swore when talking to the police.



MP's are ok to use the f-word when speaking to the police as long as they only use the word as an "intensifier", whatever that is.





Nice.

Don't we know it brother, don't we know it.



What we really want to know is, has he let you nosh him off yet?

After twenty odd pages of speculation, fantasy and childish insults, a rational, common sense post.

Thanks. It'll never catch on though!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

















Where's the (not so) noble Lord Elpers?

s...

Giving his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said: "For the reasons given I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb."



Outside court, the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would be "devastating" for Mr Mitchell's reputation.

Probably explains why Cameron hasn't wanted to touch him with a bargepole for two years, quite an expensive afternoon for old Thrasher.