What is going on within UK police?

[WeX]

Following on from the controversy about police fixing evidence at Hillsborough comes allegations they may have fabricated evidence to remove a law maker from office. What's going on with UK police?

 

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/minister+resigned+post+over+outburst+demands+inquiry+claims/7716854/story.html

 

UK minister who resigned post over outburst demands inquiry; new claims say evidence faked

 

Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. we are taught never to question the police, so are also prevented form questioning them by governments, such as the law preventing anyone from filming the police.

[dosxuk]

I was under the impression that the officer involved has been arrested, not for making up the incident, but for leaking the details to the press. This in turn has raised the question about whether he was actually able to have overheard the alleged comments when he submitted a complaint to another MP posing as a member of the public.

 

The police officers who were the target of Mitchell's diatribe haven't spoken publically about the event, but if they hadn't corroborated the evidence that was later supplied to the press, then this entire event wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

 

There has been no new evidence released to suggest that the incident didn't occur as reported, apart from Andrew Mitchell repeating his claim that he would never use such language.

 

As you clearly have little clue about the facts of this case you should perhaps reaquaint yourself.

 

This isn't a bad place to start

 

http://southtottenhamreview.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/plebgate-update/

 

OK, read that, it's not revealed any new facts to me. It doesn't present any proof that the incident as originally reported didn't happen, just that the way it was reported is now known to be suspicious, which I was already clear about.

 

So, here's a more detailed look at how I understand things, please feel free to correct me with your own opinions on these points in a reply. (I'd much prefer it if you didn't just post a "read this" reply, because it's very unlikely to tackle any of my points, but I fear that may be too much to hope for)

 

At the centre of this story, we have three parties. One, Andrew Mitchell, which if these allegations continue to be believed, has lost his career. His supporters and seniors will all want it to be false, because if he did what is alleged, it's a massive stain on the Tory party marketing spiel.

 

Secondly, we have, what we now know to be an off duty policeman, who works to protect MPs, who released confidential details of the incident to both the media and John Randall MP, but he did this in the context of a member of the public who overheard the incident, rather than as himself. He has now been suspended and arrested. He shouldn't have done this.

 

Finally, we have the three Police officers who were on duty at the time and were the target of the outburst. It has been said, then and still now, that the Met are happy with these officers, do not consider them to have done anything wrong, and they are not under suspicion of having done anything to inflame the situation. Notably they were not suspects in the release of the details to the MP or media.

 

As your link says, there are two main pieces of evidence in this case. The police log, which would presumably be completed by the on duty officers after the incident, or other officers interviewing those officers. Secondly, there's the email to John Randall, which we now know to be mainly based on the contents of the Police Log, and not as was assumed, a member of the public complaining.

 

So if we discount the second piece of evidence, which was the weaker piece to start with, we still have one still sat there and we basically know what it says as the Met have admitted the email appeared to be based on it. Therefore we can assume that the Police log contains a report of the word "Pleb" being used. I'm pretty confident that if the log didn't contain the word that caused the whole damn story, then that fact could have been leaked to the press by now.

 

However, your link says "it's obvious" that this evidence is somebody's invention, simply because of the wording used... Who then are they alleging to have fabricated these details? Was it the guy who leaked it to the press, in which case, why have the three on duty officers seemingly corroborated his report (if they had denied someone else's reports, surely this wouldn't have ended up in the log)? Or are we now suggesting that those three made the details up, despite their backing by the Met as not being suspected of any wrong doing in this case?

 

I have a feeling that somebody, somewhere is trying to turn a "unreliable witness" story into a "this event never happened - LOOK the Police are corrupt!!!!" story, and is currently hoping that more Police ineptness can be revealed so the other evidence for the incident can be forgotten about.

 

But, as that link says “hold fire, the facts are not yet known, if incorrect, it will come back to bite you” - until the Met publicly announce that someone has manipulated the Police Log and filled it with contents of their own invention, this story is not proven to be lies, and maybe we should all hold off on the "the Police are corrupt" and "all Tories are public-school-boy-toffs who hate the working classes" statements, because both are even more fabricated than any of the details about this incident, regardless of how much we or the press want to believe them.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Yes- your last comment about The Press seems to point to why a minor tiff has blown up.

[vinyl]

OK, read that, it's not revealed any new facts to me. It doesn't present any proof that the incident as originally reported didn't happen, just that the way it was reported is now known to be suspicious, which I was already clear about.

 

So, here's a more detailed look at how I understand things, please feel free to correct me with your own opinions on these points in a reply. (I'd much prefer it if you didn't just post a "read this" reply, because it's very unlikely to tackle any of my points, but I fear that may be too much to hope for)

 

At the centre of this story, we have three parties. One, Andrew Mitchell, which if these allegations continue to be believed, has lost his career. His supporters and seniors will all want it to be false, because if he did what is alleged, it's a massive stain on the Tory party marketing spiel.

 

Secondly, we have, what we now know to be an off duty policeman, who works to protect MPs, who released confidential details of the incident to both the media and John Randall MP, but he did this in the context of a member of the public who overheard the incident, rather than as himself. He has now been suspended and arrested. He shouldn't have done this.

 

Finally, we have the three Police officers who were on duty at the time and were the target of the outburst. It has been said, then and still now, that the Met are happy with these officers, do not consider them to have done anything wrong, and they are not under suspicion of having done anything to inflame the situation. Notably they were not suspects in the release of the details to the MP or media.

 

As your link says, there are two main pieces of evidence in this case. The police log, which would presumably be completed by the on duty officers after the incident, or other officers interviewing those officers. Secondly, there's the email to John Randall, which we now know to be mainly based on the contents of the Police Log, and not as was assumed, a member of the public complaining.

 

So if we discount the second piece of evidence, which was the weaker piece to start with, we still have one still sat there and we basically know what it says as the Met have admitted the email appeared to be based on it. Therefore we can assume that the Police log contains a report of the word "Pleb" being used. I'm pretty confident that if the log didn't contain the word that caused the whole damn story, then that fact could have been leaked to the press by now.

 

However, your link says "it's obvious" that this evidence is somebody's invention, simply because of the wording used... Who then are they alleging to have fabricated these details? Was it the guy who leaked it to the press, in which case, why have the three on duty officers seemingly corroborated his report (if they had denied someone else's reports, surely this wouldn't have ended up in the log)? Or are we now suggesting that those three made the details up, despite their backing by the Met as not being suspected of any wrong doing in this case?

 

I have a feeling that somebody, somewhere is trying to turn a "unreliable witness" story into a "this event never happened - LOOK the Police are corrupt!!!!" story, and is currently hoping that more Police ineptness can be revealed so the other evidence for the incident can be forgotten about.

 

But, as that link says “hold fire, the facts are not yet known, if incorrect, it will come back to bite you” - until the Met publicly announce that someone has manipulated the Police Log and filled it with contents of their own invention, this story is not proven to be lies, and maybe we should all hold off on the "the Police are corrupt" and "all Tories are public-school-boy-toffs who hate the working classes" statements, because both are even more fabricated than any of the details about this incident, regardless of how much we or the press want to believe them.

 

You seem to have missed a few bits from your story which is odd because the media is now full of it.

First is the video CCTV evidence. The time in which the incident happened is very short and leaves no time for any such exchanges as alleged by the cops on duty to have occured. Neither does the body language of those involved suggest anything more than a disagreement and certainly not a heated exchange. Neither does the CCTV show the members of the public outside who were clearly upset at the exchanges.

Then we have the question of how the officer who sent the emailS came by the information as the emails predate the story hitting the news. Then of course there is the second man arrested for inciting others to commit criminal acts.

I'm sure there's more but as you clearly want to ignore the facts there seems little point mentioning them.

It seems the head of the Met has cut short his holiday to be updated on the case. I'm sure there is much more to come about this attempted stitch up.

[dosxuk]

You seem to have missed a few bits from your story which is odd because the media is now full of it.

First is the video CCTV evidence. The time in which the incident happened is very short and leaves no time for any such exchanges as alleged by the cops on duty to have occured. Neither does the body language of those involved suggest anything more than a disagreement and certainly not a heated exchange. Neither does the CCTV show the members of the public outside who were clearly upset at the exchanges.

 

It's quite possible for people to say distasteful / offensive things without appearing apocalyptically angry on video footage. And it's also very difficult for people to scale up their anger when talking to someone who is trained not to inflame the situation.

 

Then we have the question of how the officer who sent the emailS came by the information as the emails predate the story hitting the news.

 

Well since the details passed by the officer to the MP, and the media, appear to be based on the Police log, and the officer was one of their colleagues, I think most people can work out how he got the information.

 

Then of course there is the second man arrested for inciting others to commit criminal acts.

 

Is this the second man arrested on wednesday for offences he is alleged to have committed the previous friday, not a couple of months ago?

 

I'm sure there's more but as you clearly want to ignore the facts there seems little point mentioning them.

 

I'm not ignoring them, I just didn't realise you thought they were so crucial to the case so didn't include them in my discussion. There's probably thousands of factors involved, and I've got no intentions of working through all of them. If you want to fill me in on any more, please do so. And if something does change my opinion of what's happened, then I'll be happy to acknowledge you for that.

 

It seems the head of the Met has cut short his holiday to be updated on the case. I'm sure there is much more to come about this attempted stitch up.

 

I'm sure you're right, however I doubt this is the case, as currently being spun, of the Police making up the whole thing and Andrew Mitchell being guilty of nothing more of swearing in the vicinity of a police officer (something he has admitted to). I also doubt the stories of a large number of members of the public being shocked and outraged about his behaviour and language, as none of them have come forward. I'm sure the tabloids would pay out a bit of cash for an exclusive report from a verifiable witness.

 

As with most of these stories where it's one persons word against the other, the truth normally lies in the middle.

[percy filth]

The clincher for me is the fact that michel admits to swearing. As it is aparently an offence to swear at an officer and it isnt to call someone a pleb why would he admit swearing yet deny the pleb thing. It doesn't make sense.

But if he just swore and the pleb thing is made up it all makes sense. The policeman who lied about the witnessing of all this is just the confirmation of a fix up.

[ANGELFIRE1]

"What is going on within UK police?" - sad to say, but it looks like we have more bad apples than we thought we had in the Force.

 

Angel.

[skinz]

"What is going on within UK police?" - sad to say, but it looks like we have more bad apples than we thought we had in the Force.

 

Angel.

 

 

How many do you think out of 134,101 officers?

 

 

Pick a percentage.

[banjodeano]

The clincher for me is the fact that michel admits to swearing. As it is aparently an offence to swear at an officer and it isnt to call someone a pleb why would he admit swearing yet deny the pleb thing. It doesn't make sense.

But if he just swore and the pleb thing is made up it all makes sense. The policeman who lied about the witnessing of all this is just the confirmation of a fix up.

But....and its a big BUT....but why doesn't he say what he actually said...upto now he will not say what he said, just what he didnt say

[puisseguin]

But....and its a big BUT....but why doesn't he say what he actually said...upto now he will not say what he said, just what he didnt say

 

"In contrast, Mr Mitchell has claimed that after asking officers to open the main gates to Downing Street for his bicycle, and being refused, he did not swear directly at police. He simply said: ‘You guys are supposed to ****ing help us.’