Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[I1L2T3]

Swearing is, generally, not criminal.

But perjury is.

 

Section 5 of the public order act says that insulting language is enough. You don't even have to swear to get a caution or even worse.

 

As for the perjury angle to the Mitchell case how that pans out is going to be very interesting.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

The 'insulting' bit is to be repealed shortly.

See http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201213/ldhansrd/text/130201-wms0001.htm re Public Order Act 1986 [statement in House of Lords, 1 February 2013].

But, yes, the perjury allegations against policemen are very grave.

Edited February 6, 2013 by Jeffrey Shaw

[I1L2T3]

So many so quick to condemn, so slow to retract.

 

There are still two separate accounts of the incident. The police log and Mitchell's account, which he changed from first denying swearing then admitting that he swore.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread we'll most likely never know the truth. You then have to decide which account is more believable.

 

As I stated earlier too it's best to focus on the common ground between the two accounts:

 

1. There was an altercation. Not in dispute.

2. Mitchell swore. Not in dispute.

3. Mitchell's behaviour was not acceptable. Apologised for by Mitchell.

 

Let's see how the investigation turns out.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

As I stated earlier in the thread we'll most likely never know the truth. You then have to decide which account is more believable.

If it comes to Court, there'll be an authoritative finding on that point.

[I1L2T3]

If it comes to Court, there'll be an authoritative finding on that point.

 

Hopefully. What if the police testify that he did say those things?

 

Do you believe them, given subsequent events?

 

Or do you believe an MP who changed his account of the event?

 

I'm convinced of the core facts that tally between the two accounts although I don't much like the Hobson's choice being vociferously promoted on here that requires us to only believe Mitchell.

[Obelix]

There are still two separate accounts of the incident. The police log and Mitchell's account, which he changed from first denying swearing then admitting that he swore.

 

As I stated earlier in the thread we'll most likely never know the truth. You then have to decide which account is more believable.

 

As I stated earlier too it's best to focus on the common ground between the two accounts:

 

1. There was an altercation. Not in dispute.

2. Mitchell swore. Not in dispute.

3. Mitchell's behaviour was not acceptable. Apologised for by Mitchell.

 

Let's see how the investigation turns out.

 

Yes. Nicely skirting the bit that causes you embarrassment - the police lied about the people outside the gate. Not in dispute - there is CCTV footage. Three police officers and a civilian arrest. Mitchell hasn't been.

[I1L2T3]

Yes. Nicely skirting the bit that causes you embarrassment - the police lied about the people outside the gate. Not in dispute - there is CCTV footage. Three police officers and a civilian arrest. Mitchell hasn't been.

 

I did mention 'given subsequent events' in my post.

 

Looking at the footage I can see 8 people. Two police inside the gate. Two (I presume security or police staff just outside), one person who clearly stops to look inside the gates as the incident happens, two who walk past and glance towards the incident, and Mitchell himself. Maybe the police could claim that in the heat of the moment they recorded the incident as best they could. They had after all had a highly unusual altercation with a senior member of the government who had then promised to follow things up (again admitted as far as I know by Mitchell). An unsettling experience I expect. Can you prove it was a deliberate lie?

[T 42]

Hopefully. What if the police testify that he did say those things?

 

Do you believe them, given subsequent events?

 

Or do you believe an MP who changed his account of the event?

 

I'm convinced of the core facts that tally between the two accounts although I don't much like the Hobson's choice being vociferously promoted on here that requires us to only believe Mitchell.

 

As Mitchell never changed his version of events that's hardly relevant. That was just another invention in the smear campaign.

 

---------- Post added 06-02-2013 at 19:34 ----------

 

I did mention 'given subsequent events' in my post.

 

Looking at the footage I can see 8 people. Two police inside the gate. Two (I presume security or police staff just outside), one person who clearly stops to look inside the gates as the incident happens, two who walk past and glance towards the incident, and Mitchell himself. Maybe the police could claim that in the heat of the moment they recorded the incident as best they could. They had after all had a highly unusual altercation with a senior member of the government who had then promised to follow things up (again admitted as far as I know by Mitchell). An unsettling experience I expect. Can you prove it was a deliberate lie?

 

I detect desperation setting in here.

[I1L2T3]

As Mitchell never changed his version of events that's hardly relevant. That was just another invention in the smear campaign.

 

 

September 21: Mitchell denies swearing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/21/tory-chief-whip-andrew-mitchell-police

 

September 22: Mitchell admits swearing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560271/Andrew-Mitchell-admits-swearing-in-spat-with-Downing-Street-police.html

 

October 17: Mitchell denies swearing: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3571093.ece

 

Yes I can see quite clearly that the story didn't change at all.

 

 

 

I detect desperation setting in here.

 

Not at at all. Just playing devils advocate really. You can look at the footage yourself and count the number of people present.

[T 42]

September 21: Mitchell denies swearing: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/21/tory-chief-whip-andrew-mitchell-police

 

September 22: Mitchell admits swearing: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9560271/Andrew-Mitchell-admits-swearing-in-spat-with-Downing-Street-police.html

 

October 17: Mitchell denies swearing: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3571093.ece

 

Yes I can see quite clearly that the story didn't change at all.

 

Not at at all. Just playing devils advocate really. You can look at the footage yourself and count the number of people present.

 

No He denied using the words the police attributed to him, but I'll leave you to delude yourself. I'm off out to the pub.

 

This is how unblinkered folks see events.

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-police-cctv-downing-street