Andrew Mitchell needs to resign.

[ColouringIn]

Honestly he does......calliing a serving police officer "a pleb".
What an utter twat of the highest order....spoilt rich scumbag.

Ugh. Xenia, please don't talk about 'the proletariat' like that. I'm no doubt one of them in your eyes and I find that bloody offensive.

'polite to those well below them'

ugh, ugh, ugh

Viva has put it perfectly. He revelaed his contempt for those working to support him, which is a very unpleasant thing. Also, Skippy (I think) Mitchell's job is not 'to shout at people', it's to get them on side - may sometimes involve pressure but shouldn't mean he just gets to shout at people all day!

Why should he resign? Because he should be setting an example and he's clearly crossed the line for something which really shouldn't have been an issue.

If he can't control his temper because of something petty like this, how do we trust he can operate at a senior level in running the country?

They should have opened the gate for him, he gave them some lip and then they went running to the media. I'm sure the police hear much worse every day.

Maybe they should have yes. But they didn't and the met are responsible for security. I'm sure a person of his authority would be able to escalate to a senior officer without too much difficulty.

And just because oiks abuse police every day doesn't mean he should be forgiven. If anything it makes it even worse that he holds in such contempt, the very thin blue line he expects to protect him.

Well I think it is generally regarded that the whips do work on threats and shouting.

And yes, the gate should be opened. Either it can be opened or it can't, they'd already opened it 3 times that day for him.

Absolutely niceguy. Politicians are under a duty to serve. They are not entitled to run around shouting 'do you know who I am f*iing pleb' etc. And if CEOs etc do that and get away with it, it's further proof of what a sad money-driven monoculture we live in.

Oh gosh, what fun.

I certainly was not suggesting rudeness was ever justified. Perhaps the proof might be in analysis of comments he has made to others. Has he muddled plebs with proles before? We need to know. It is so important for the good of the nation.

He certainly sounds like one of those full of his own importance but not that great at dealing with people jumped up nothings who would be a nightmare to be married to and constantly losing his temper. This is what happens when Cameron puts men not women in charge. We need at least 50% of the cabinet and leading roles at that to be female. Chief whip could be female too.

If he cannot cope with stress he needs to stay home and be a househusband and then he can simply take out his frustration on the loo when he wields the lavatory brush ready for his wife to check he did it properly when she gets back from her GP surgery.

Apparently boris is often sent through the smaller gate and never complains when directed that way.

I hope from now on there's some official policy that all cyclists have to use the smaller gate.

Telegraph diarist at the weekend recounted a story of introducing Mitchell to his (the diarist's) girlfriend when they were both at Oxford. Diarist explained that his girlfriend was doing teacher training at Homerton in London. Mitchell sneered 'and which secondary modern did you go to?'.

I've been through those gates a few times, btw, and while it'd be easier for a cyclist to ride through the main gates, it's not terribly inconvenient to wheel your bike through the side gate. Hardly the biggest issue of the day. Irritating if he was already on the bike a fairly minor issue. In fact quite good for politicians not to be treated like Lord High Almighty once in a while.

sorry, Cambridge, not Oxford.

I don't think cyclists should be told they are pedestrians. I doubt the police would be too impressed if he carried on cycling out the gate on the pavement.

I certainly wouldn't be.

Cyclists should not be lower status than motor vehicles.

Just remembered I met him a few weeks back, at a big do for international development (before he got the Chief Whip job). He seemed perfectly pleasant but it's easy to give that impression at a party where you don't have to do anything other than nod and smile.

I had more fun with his then junior minister, Alan Duncan, who got quite heated on the topic of Ed Balls winding up the Tories...

It is unfortunate that his Latin phrase wasn't sufficiently apposite for the specific kind of rudeness he was trying to convey - on the other hand, lovely use of the subjunctive. Well done Mr Mitchell

Well I think it is generally regarded that the whips do work on threats and shouting.

It's one thing to threaten an MP with a sanction for not towing the party line and/or voting as directed. It's totally another to abuse a member of the police for doing his job.

I dont hold mps or police up as moral beacons tbh. I am feeling a bit icky about the political point scoring in this. Its like they are flogging and flogging this story, desperate for the public to jump on board and be outraged. I dont think most of them are if twitter or emails to news channels are anything to go by. I know its very sensitive at the moment and i fear thats why the police fed are continuing with this TORY mp and also the Sun taking this up for our police force, after the dreadful week they had last week re Hillsborough. It seems to me a bit of a non story but the trial by media continues and the police fed or Sky news wont be satisfied until he has been sacked or resigns.

No he should not have said whichever variation of words your chosen newspaper says he said. Being rude is hardly crime of the century however.

If he does a good job for his constituents then an episode of obnoxiousness towards an obstructive policeman is of very little relevance.

I feel really weird siding with an arsehole like Mitchell but I think the officers were trying to get a rise and it worked.

Presumably that gate has been opened for him before, otherwise, how did he get in? He shouldn't have shouted and sworn. But it's not unheard of. He's grovelled, which is more than you usually get from a minister, and he's apologised to the officer concerned and she apparently has accepted his apology. That really ought to be the end of it.

The Met Police Federation are playing this like a fiddle because they oppose the cuts proposed by the Coalition. So do many people, but they don't usually get such sympathy from The Sun.

Federation chairman John Tully came over very badly about this on morning news bulletins. He sounded like a union leader despite prissily insisting the the police don't have unions because it's against the law.

Oh yeah, it is, and junior officers aren't allowed to talk to the press either but somehow the contents of their notebooks ended up on the front of The Sun.

When Tully called for an official inquiry on Sky News the emails and tweets were all groaning: 'Oh no, not another one. How much will that cost?'

Again, can't believe I'm sticking up for Mitchell, but this is clearly an attack on proposed cuts to public sector workers by their 'union'. Again, not something I'd normally disagree with. But lots of us are suffering Goverment cuts too and we don't get special treatment.

Doesn't matter - losing your temper is one thing (though however unreasonable I felt they were being, I don't think I'd ever feel safe in losing it with a police officer!), but it's the language you use when you lose it that counts.

If your recourse is to unacceptable language, the issue is no longer about your temper but about your attitudes. However cross you were, or however long your day, can you imagine yourself calling someone a black bastard, a paki, a stupid whore...?

He didn't call him a paki though?

When my two were younger, if I found one howling and rubbing her head and the other defiant and angry, the recount of what happened would often go:

'Well I said she shouldn't have put it there, and she put it there anyway and she called me an idiot..... and then I can't remember what happened' (ie, then I hit her).

I think Mitchell is essentially using what is now well-known in our house as the 'then I can't remember what happened' defence, and it's unconvincing.

No skippy my point is that some language is unforgiveable no matter how cross you are or how unreasonable you consider someone else.

The use of the word 'pleb' is so telling though. Just adds to the impression of government by an out-of-touch elite who regard everyone else with contempt. Whether he said it or not (and it's an odd word for police officers to make up) or whether there are ministers who respect state school educated non-millionaires, it's another nail in their coffin, after Nadine Dorries' summary of them as posh boys who don't know the price of a pint of milk, and Cameron's 'calm down dear'.

No steaming I can't imagine doing that.

But however much we dislike Mitchell and however much I'm sure the word 'pleb' does pour from his lips, the notes of two police officers on duty together while their union is fighting job cuts aren't exactly corroborative evidence.