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.

Lol that's another fake account in the bin.

Hypocrite, media whore and all-round scumbag Louise Mensch isn't happy.



@LouiseMensch: No doubt in my mind that the #plebgate verdict is an appalling miscarriage of justice



Apparently, according to her, because 1 police officer lied about something then all of them must have lied about everything.



No wonder she couldn't hack a whole term in parliament.

I wonder what her employer has to say about her support for the man who was suing them?

I always find it odd when folk who protest their innocence and then are asked for a comment after they have been found guilty say things like ...

''I am disappointed.'' and ''I wan't to move on now as quickly as possible.''

I think if that was me I and I was innocent I would be saying ... ''This is wrong, I am innocent!''

Is it a Freudian admittance of guilt?

Also, I wouldn't be too impressed if the judge reckoned I didn't have the wit or imagination to fabricate the story.

It might leave me feeling like a bit of a pleb .....

A f*****g pleb?

Not at all, but that was not my point ... it was the irony of it all that struck me.

Well perhaps you lot are now entitled to laugh (or s) as a Judge has finally made a judgement.



However I hope you will recall that my consistent (and you could say noble) argument was based on the British principle that a man is innocent until proven guilty. (I never said he was innocent or guilty) Now a libel court has ruled against him I will accept the judgement and therefore I will declare my innings closed (but not out!).



But before you choke on your glee you might like to remember those many ignoble comments made against him on this forum that were based on nothing more than political prejudice which really is no laughing matter. Neither was the much more serious offences committed by various members of the police.

I love it when people really badly out themselves by logging in under the wrong user name.

Could have been worse - his legal team did it on a no win no fee basis!! That will be an interesting agenda point at the next partners meeting.



as the saying goes "You can always get out by paying" - Mitchell needs to pay up and retire from public life.



The Tories need less arrogant toffs not more odious individuals like this a true waste of a skin.

Don't forget that Cameron selected him personally to hold one of the highest positions in the cabinet, that of Chief Whip, and its not as if he didn't already know the nature of the bloke, he wasn't just a run of the mill MP.



Mitchell painted himself into a corner right from the off by denying that he used the word "pleb" which they all recognised from the start would be far worse than f-ing at a police officer, a bizarre situation that tells you everything you need to know about the almost unique British class system and how an innocuous word can define an attitude.



Once denied he could only have hoped that it would all go back in its box and if he'd just f-ed at a police officer it may have, but the stigma of Camerons cabinet of posh boys was just too good to have a pop at, he could still have apologised and said that he couldn't recall saying the pleb word several weeks later but by taking his stance then suing to "clear his name" was always going to be the only way out especially when Cameron "accepted his resignation" (or booted him into the long grass so as not to be tainted any longer).



There is only one question remaining now - is the cctv that covers the gates of Downing Street really so poor in quality that they have no other recordings other than those in the public domain?

Not exactly, they were working for nothing win or lose.

As I stated previously following the CPS report the Right Honourable Gentleman's story was not consistent. His version of events changed as opposed to PC Rowland who maintained his story throughout. It should be noted here that the issue in the high court did not involve the idiot jailed copper or the federation officers who royally gilded the Lilly.

PC Rowland made his notes at the scene immediately after the incident and that should have been the end of the matter. The Right Honourable gentleman should simply have apologised, explained it was the heat of the moment following a bad day. We all have them after all.

What has happened in the high court though has exposed him for the arrogant little man that he appears to be.

It's been a sorry tale from the off. It's cost several people their careers inc the Right Honourable gentleman and for what? A moment of utter petulance by a man who believes he is superior to those from a less privileged background. Karma can work in mysterious ways.