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.

Mitchell has now agreed to pay the officer £80,000 in damages. Add all the costs, and that's one expensive apology.

Cameron is keeping well away from this after having backed his chief whip before and after the event, he should only be thankful that there is no effective opposition to point this out in The House and question once again his choice of those who surround him.

If only the police officers had done what they should have done, opened the gate and let him cycle through as always, no big deal and no security risk (when compared to letting cars through far less a risk in fact).

So if they had done their job like they were supposed to (instead of being F@@king plebs) none of this would have happened.

It's like this on the roads all the time, one rule for one lot and a different rule for others when they feel like applying them and if they can be bothered to even know the law.

Without wishing to argue, your point sounds a bit like girls wearing short skirts deserve to be raped, or security guards carrying cash deserve to be robbed. Mr Mitchell has been exposed as a fibber, snob and all round rotter. He'll probably end up in the House of Lords.

It's a good job he wasn't wearing a cycle helmet. God knows what might've happened.

So, despite Mitchell and all other relevant personnel being told not to exit or enter via the main gates, it was the rozzers' fault that he decided to take no heed of the instructions?

'Relevant'? Whom does that refer to exactly, you mean pedestrians, well as a bicycle is a vehicle in law he had every right to use the main gates to exit as a cyclist..i.e. he wasn't walking, or as it seems you are suggesting because he was on a biycle he should be treated differently to other MPs exiting by car or motorcycle which would present a far higher risk or can you not grasp that (as indeed the police can't)

As I said, one rule for one lot and another rule for the others..

He had indeed being allowed to exit the main gates on his bicycle in the past, the allegation that they continued to allow him to do so because he might bully the police officers is just laughable.

You do know different vehicles have different restrictions and rules placed on them don't you? Both in law and by organisations on private or public property.



You know why? Because a bike is different to a car.



If you don't believe me try taking your car on the train.

I tried to take my car on a train once and ended up in France ... never again!

Exactly. Wouldn't have happened if you'd been on a bike.

Well a train isn't the highway is it smart mouth nor is private property so your arguement is invalid. There are different restrictions of course (cycles aren't allowed on motorways for instance) but none that apply in law in this case, on the road/highway in question Mitchell was perfectly entitled to use his vehicle and egress via the main gates as other wheeled vehicles are, that he chose to use a bicycle makes jack all difference except to people like you and the police involved.

You obviously have a beef because I didn't think you were this obtuse or ignorant of the law/rules.

Its a fairly well established principle and point of law that ALL road users (including pedestrians) must obey the instructions of a police officer when using the public highways, that much is absolute.



So, your point was ?

As the police are pretty much in charge of who goes in an out of Downing Street, that's a pretty important difference.

Yeah I just hate cyclists. I hate them. They're all just so cycly and flourescent.



I'm suprised someone with such a certain and comprehensive knowledge of ballistics, the physics in rugby league impacts and the law of the road would forget a couple of basic issues in this case. Firstly, as Jerry pointed out, he was given an instruction by a police officer. And secondly Downing Street isnt a public road. You try taking your bike through the main gate. I'm pretty sure you'll get stopped by the police. But that's probably just because they hate cyclists too? Right?

I actually looked that up and surprisingly it is a public road under the domain of the Westminster Council, albeit one that is controlled by some vague reference to anti-terrorism in the same way the the police could temporarily shut down any old road that they fancy using such one-size-fits-all permissions. The buildings along the street are a designated site under Police Act so they have full control over them, but not the road itself, presumably because the PM wants the council to come and sweep it regularly rather than have to do it himself.



Still doesn't detract from the fact that any reasonable person would comply with an order given by a police officer at any time on any public highway unless that person is being particularly obtuse, arrogant and/or stupid.