Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

If a police officer fabricated evidence against you, your confidence in the police would probably be shaken too. Ask the families of the 96 Hillsborough victims if they have confidence in the police.

I've no doubt some police lie.

All politicians lie - it's part of the job and the make-up of the vermin who go in for the job.

The police aren't perfect by any means but they do have a critical role to play in our society.

Just Google "Met Police Lied":

If the police are lying about Plebgate, how can we trust them about anything else?

Met Police PC Michael Turner jailed for drink-drive lie

Police faked evidence and used dum-dum bullets to kill Mark Duggan

Met Police pay £15,000 settlement to teenage rape victim for 'shocking' failings which saw alleged attacker acquitted

Met police statement contradicted by video. Does it look like a cyclist "fell off" his bike?

With the exception of the Mark Duggan one, all are recent links.

No I wouldn't. I'm not one for knee jerk reactions to things like this no matter what party it is.

Yes you would, I don't know why you are trying to deny it since everyone on these boards know what you are like, as you ably demonstrate every day.

Yes you would, I don't know why you are trying to deny it since everyone on these boards know what you are like, as you ably demonstrate every day.

care to give an example, or like other questions you are incapable of answering will you simply ignore it and move on to more rantings?

Talk about shooting the messenger...........

If a crime has been committed by the off-duty officer I seriously don't know what it is. There could possibly be some grounds for a civil case. There could also obviously be a separate disciplinary issue for the Met to deal with. There are probably some serious internal discipline issues for the Tories to deal with as well.

 

As for the whole incident that triggered this whole episode that is still recorded in the police log books. And the officers are standing by their story. It's Mitchell against them.

 

One interesting snippet - the CCTV footage has been released by Mitchell himself. How did he get hold of it? Who helped him? Would you or I be able to do the same to clear our own names? The CCTV shows long shots that aren't very clear and it's nailed-on guaranteed that there will be multiple other CCTV cameras on that gate covering every possible angle - if we're being asked to believe the CCTV footage let's see all the other angles too.

 

Lastly the most disturbing thing about this is the establishment figures queuing up in the media to declare their loss of confidence in the police. That is highly irresponsible in the extreme.

I woudl suggest that the officer who lied about his presence is guilty of malfeasance in a public officer. If it went to trial, then perverting the course of justice would also probably come into play.

As for the CCTV all Mitchell would have to do is make a subject access request under the DPA to get a copy of the video. Since it was in a public place there is no problem with him showing it to all and sundry.

Just Google "Met Police Lied":

 

If the police are lying about Plebgate, how can we trust them about anything else?

 

 

Met Police PC Michael Turner jailed for drink-drive lie

 

Police faked evidence and used dum-dum bullets to kill Mark Duggan

 

Met Police pay £15,000 settlement to teenage rape victim for 'shocking' failings which saw alleged attacker acquitted

 

Met police statement contradicted by video. Does it look like a cyclist "fell off" his bike?

 

 

With the exception of the Mark Duggan one, all are recent links.

Did you read my post. I said they're not perfect.

That fact that they're not perfect doesn't take away the fact that they have a critical role to play upholding law and order. Like you I wish they were better at it.

---------- Post added 19-12-2012 at 12:19 ----------

If a police officer fabricated evidence against you, your confidence in the police would probably be shaken too. Ask the families of the 96 Hillsborough victims if they have confidence in the police.

This is where things go into a grey area. He basically repeated verbatim what was in the log book but claimed he was there. The central piece of evidence as described in the log book remains exactly the same. Note that the 'corroborating' statement wasn't supplied to the police but the off-duty officer's constituency MP.

Big question: did it get from there to the press?

---------- Post added 19-12-2012 at 12:22 ----------

I woudl suggest that the officer who lied about his presence is guilty of malfeasance in a public officer. If it went to trial, then perverting the course of justice would also probably come into play.

 

As for the CCTV all Mitchell would have to do is make a subject access request under the DPA to get a copy of the video. Since it was in a public place there is no problem with him showing it to all and sundry.

Misconduct in public office would be a possibility. On the CCTV I noted several people in the vicinity. Do you know for sure that the off-duty officer wasn't one of them? We need to know exactly where the officer claims he was in relation to the incident and whether he is in one of the other CCTV images that must be available.

I thought if you insulted a policeman in this day and age you get imprissoned as that bloke did when he wore that tshirt. Guess its a rule for one and a rule for the other.

It's always been a rule for one and a different rule foe another,if you have plenty of money and a good position in life you're made in this country,if you are of the working class you feel the full weight of authority without a doubt.

If a police officer fabricated evidence against you, your confidence in the police would probably be shaken too. Ask the families of the 96 Hillsborough victims if they have confidence in the police.

Conversly, consider the government sticking the boot into most of the UK populace. The will of public will never be broken simply because there are more of them.

Whatever happens, the minister should not have done what he did.

Conversly, consider the government sticking the boot into most of the UK populace. The will of public will never be broken simply because there are more of them.

 

Whatever happens, the minister should not have done what he did.

That is the bottom line. There is no escaping from that. he had to be squeaky clean in his role and by his own admission he wasn't.