Mumsnet Talk

Seems like someone at the Met lost sight of the truth in their anxiety to smear the former chief whip. Amongst other things, a little matter of 'several members of the public were present' shown to be a lie. Article. Appalling.

I saw the footage on C4 news last night briefly. I really don't know what the Met hoped to achieve with this. I think politicians have little credibility but still held some faith in the police- it is rapidly fading.

I'm not in the least surprised that the police would fit someone up. It's not as if they've never done it before, is it? I suppose I am slightly surprised that they would be so stupid as to do it to a senior member of the government, but then again, it's rarely a choice between becoming a police officer and being a chair of theoretical physics.

But he did still swear at a policeman, didn´t he?

So I don´t think it absolves him.

not surprised either. Use of word 'pleb' never sounded right either. It sounds like the sort of word someone would claim a toff would use but, actually, they never would.

so what if he swore?

you can tell from the footage that there's no altercation or heated argument. If he muttered 'for fuck's sake' or whatever under his breath because some thick jobsworth copper - who clearly knows exactly who he is - decided to act like a twat....it's not a big deal.

Certainly not something a person should lose their job over.

Not surprised either.

As the police themselves made it into a question of trust in the police pretty much at the outset, it seems that question has been answered and not in their favour now.

Also, it shows how gleeful "nasty party" bashers manipulate and even fabricate.

I really had the bit between My teeth when this first hot the headlines. I knew something stunk and I could see from a hundred miles that this had all the hallmarks of a total set up. Pleb? I mean really!!! I know it's nothing new the police fabricating evidence on the ordinary folks but was pretty stunned that they went for a serving cabinet minister.
It was also so obvious in its crassness and political spite. How did people really go for it?

chipstick, I think you're right, but I think Mitchell was stuffed because the Tories' political enemies saw it as a chance to make political capital, and unfortunately, he seems to be not at all well liked in his own party. Also, there seems to be some kind of bizarre unwritten rule that politicians must never be seen to be criticising the police, so he couldn't outright describe the police as "liars" (even though only a week earlier we'd had the shocking story of how the police systematically fabricated the evidence about Hillsborough.)

He resigned not because he swore (which he admitted all along and apologised for several times) but because he denied using the word pleb when a serving police officer insisted that he had. This made him seem a liar and his position untenable. He refused to admit the police version of events and everybody chose to believe an apparently corroborated police version over that of a Tory Cabinet Minister.

If it is proven that the officers have lied then I hope they have the proverbial book thrown at them. When officers lie, it throws our entire legal system into turmoil. If we cannot trust the police to be honest then who the hell can we trust?

No-one looks good in this. Mitchell was put out at not being allowed to use the main gate (quite rightly imo) and may have said something. The Police are now in a position of having to justify its actions and having members of its own force commenting via social media.

He didn't actually insult a policeman. He said something like: "I thought you were supposed to be on our fucking side" allegedly. (The police are part of the Executive.)

We don't live in a country where our politicians resign for swearing.

Why wasn't Mitchell allowed to use the main gate?

Police corruption - surely not!
Mitchell allegedly has a reputation that made him an easy target for this. If you are rude & unpleasant to people for long enough, eventually you get caught out. However, being framed for something, which you are going to lose your job for is wrong, wrong, wrong.

Police have 12 hours to write their notebook reports. They are allowed to confer with each other in doing so. Is this open to abuse? Of course it is.

Unfortunately this is not new. Having an interest in potential miscarriages of justice I have long been aware that some of our police cannot be trusted to be honest. The officers guarding Downing Street are in the DPG which means they are armed when on duty and are meant to be the elite. The fact that it seems they felt they could make these allegations with impunity despite the presence of CCTV cameras (which contradict at least some of their statements) says something about the culture within the Met.

LittleFrieda - As far as I can tell it is because the police officer felt like being a jobsworth. Mitchell and others regularly cycled through the main gate, including earlier that day. The rules had not changed but the policeman on duty decided that it was against the rules to cycle through the main gate.

Mitchell's account, I believe, is that he said, "I thought you lot were supposed to f***ing help us". I do not think that is a resigning matter. However, if he did call police officers plebs and use the other language attributed to him that is another matter.

Mitchell is still clearly a colossal knob.

It doesn't matter what Mitchell is, three Police officers alledgedly are still colluding to fit people up, this time they were caught out, they can join their mate who killed the man in the protests, out of a job where they abuse their position.

Yes I get that thanks, I just still have no time for Mitchell.

Okay you may have 'not time' for Mitchell, but if what is being said is true it looks like someone lost their job because people LIED about him, and set about knowingly and maliciously lying.

That is not fair, and it is not right.

I guess some people are going to think the police were justified in lying given the political colours of the other party involved, but I reckon we would all be utterly appalled if an off-duty policeman had fabricated evidence against any other member of the public.

I also think suggesting that because Andrew Mitchell is a knob/prick/Tory twat he deserves it and it's OK is exceedingly ignorant.

This is a massive fuck-up by the police, and the particular policeman in question, and I think the only correct outcome is that he loses his job, as fabricating evidence must be one of the most serious offences a policeman can commit.

I also think that Andrew Mitchell should be given another job in front line politics. Not because I'm a Tory (I'm not) but because any one of us would expect our job back (or suitable compensation) if we lost our jobs in similar circumstances.

The Metropolitan police fuck up yet again. People are surprised by this?

niceguy posts:

"If it is proven that the officers have lied then I hope they have the proverbial book thrown at them. When officers lie, it throws our entire legal system into turmoil. If we cannot trust the police to be honest then who the hell can we trust? "

No one

The Met have no credibility at all.
Mitchell is unpleasant at best.