Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[alchresearch]

Can someone be arrested for swearing at another person who is not a Police officer?

 

Yes they can.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Good post uptowngirl. Many of the types that relish any excuse to have a pop at the police, really gave the police the benefit of the doubt here, purely to make a Tory minister look bad.

Maybe the ultimate fully-known outcome will prove to be a covert police-organised conspiracy against the Conservatives.

[Uptowngirl]

Maybe the ultimate fully-known outcome will prove to be a covert police-organised conspiracy against the Conservatives.

 

I doubt it is a full blown conspiracy by the police but I wouldn't rule out a full blown conspiracy by the police federation.

[Eater Sundae]

Good post uptowngirl. Many of the types that relish any excuse to have a pop at the police, really gave the police the benefit of the doubt here, purely to make a Tory minister look bad.

 

The problem is that we should be able to believe the police (and MPs for that matter). It is a key part of their job that they should be honest. When the police are not, it compromises our whole justice system. When individual police officers commit crimes using their position of trust as a shield, then it harms the whole of society. Any officer doing this should be dealt with severely IMO. The whole “... in a public office” type of crime must be enforced whenever it occurs.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Good post, that, Easter Sundae.

[Uptowngirl]

The problem is that we should be able to believe the police (and MPs for that matter). It is a key part of their job that they should be honest. When the police are not, it compromises our whole justice system. When individual police officers commit crimes using their position of trust as a shield, then it harms the whole of society. Any officer doing this should be dealt with severely IMO. The whole “... in a public office” type of crime must be enforced whenever it occurs.

 

I see that Mitchell has served notice on the Sun newspaper that he intends to sue them for libel over their reports on the incident. He is a rich man and can afford to do this. I suspect he will soon be a much richer man.

[Joseph Anton]

It isn't.

 

It is the word of a Member of the Diplomatic Protection Group, against the word of the Chief Whip.

 

The member of SO6 has a witness. The Chief Whip has been given a dressing down by the Prime Minister. Draw your own conclusions.

 

So now it is clear that the witness wasn't a witness but just a copper attempting to beef up the story. Both he and the member of S06 have been arrested. I think we can draw our own conclusions.

 

As Andrew Michell has now started suing for libel some on this thread and the forum probably should consider their position on this matter. The first few pages are a positive disgrace.

 

In view of the fact that Andrew Michell is now suing the Sun for printing similar libel to what is posted on here and most of the officers involved have been arrested, shouldn't this thread be retitled "Was the Chief Whip fitted up by the folk tasked with protecting Downing Street"?

Edited February 5, 2013 by Joseph Anton

[Joseph Anton]

4 police officers have so far been arrested including one of those on duty at the time of the incident and the police officer who sent bogus emails claiming to be a passer by who had witnessed the "outburst". 4 other police officers are suspended from duty whilst their conduct is being investigated.

 

It seems many were rather too quick to jump on the bandwagon of lies and leaked police reports. Andrew Mitchell has now informed the Sun that he intends to sue for their part in his fall from grace. Will others follow?

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/feb/04/andrew-mitchell-sue-sun-plebgate

 

Andrew Mitchell is set to sue the Sun for libel over its report that claimed he had called Downing Street police officers "plebs" during an argument as he left Number 10.

 

The Tory MP's lawyer has sent the Sun a "letter before action", the first stage in litigation, putting them on formal notice that he intends to sue over its scoop last September which revealed the row Mitchell had with police over taking his bicycle through the main gates.

 

The decision to sue the paper is part of Mitchell's fightback which may also involve actions against other newspapers, his lawyer Graham Atkins said.

 

"We are seeking damages, an apology, an undertaking that the words complained of are not repeated and costs," Atkins told the Guardian.

 

In a Dispatches documentary on Channel 4 screened on Monday night, Mitchell told of his frustration with Downing Street's handling of the "plebgate" furore, claiming he had been "stitched up" and that Cameron just wanted him to "lie low" rather than clear his name.

 

Mitchell, who was forced to resign in October after an intense backlash following claims he called police officers protecting the prime minister "plebs" after they refused to let him ride his bicycle out of the main gate at Downing Street.

 

"I think Downing Street wanted this to go away. They really wanted me to lie low and let them get on with running the country but I couldn't do that - I couldn't wake up every morning for the rest of my life knowing that I had been stitched up," said Mitchell.

 

He admits that he swore in the presence of police but has always denied he used the word "'pleb". The Sun and other newspapers reported that an official police report showed he branded the officers "plebs".

 

It wasn't until December that the "pleb" part of the story was challenged when CCTV footage threw into doubt the police log and an email purporting to be an eyewitness account of the event emerged, which may clear his name of some of the claims. An investigation was immediately launched by Scotland Yard and three police officers have been arrested in connection with the scandal.

 

Mitchell believes he would still be in government if footage of the exchanges had been released swiftly.

 

Of suggestions initial briefing notes were altered to include the word pleb, Mitchell told Channel 4: "I understand that two of the three poisonous phrases are in it, but whether there were two or three or one, whether it was done within one minute or an hour or three hours of the incident at the gate, it is wholly and totally untrue."

[I1L2T3]

You do know that arrest does not equal guilt.

 

And your link says three officers have been arrested, not four.

 

Andrew Mitchell should be more angry with his colleagues anyway. They stitched him up too, and with their help at the right times he could have perhaps survived the whole thing, just about.

 

Also, don't lose sight of the fact that he has admitted to swearing, has admitted to unacceptable behaviour, and lied as well having initially publicly claimed that he didn't swear only to later admit that he did.

 

The police are no angels. Neither is Mitchell.

[geared]

Perhaps he should have taken the advice and laid low.

 

The press would have moved on and an internal investigation could have brought the truth out and dealt with it there, rather than this massive public masquerade about something which no-one is really that interested in.

 

It seems very much like papers and politicians trying to take chunks out of each other on the public stage.

I mean who really cares if this guy swore at an officer?

It is such massive news that the story needs to drag on for over 6 damn months?!?!