Plebgate Latest
PC Keith Wallis has pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office and offered his resignation from the force. He admits that he lied when writing to his MP to say he'd witnessed the altercation between Mitchell and the officer on the Downing Street gates.
www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/10/plebgate-row-police-officer-pleads-guilty
Sentencing adjourned until 6 Feb for reports. Judge has made clear all options, including a custodial sentence, remain open.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 01:05
|
Met Police reject PC's resignation.
... the Met said his superiors had the right to refuse
"The deputy commissioner has refused to accept PC Wallis's resignation ...
There has been controversy in past cases when officers have retired or resigned and avoided disciplinary hearings.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25850209
|
The PC deserves a slap. Probably a substantial slap. But I don;t really think he should lose his career and pension.
Even if Andrew Mitchel had called them plebs, I don't see why he should have lost his job either.
Bit more tolerance for mistakes in this world is required. Especially since we all make them.
|
What!?
The guy totally fabricated evidence. He's a disgrace to himself, his colleagues and the Police Service. Deserves all he gets.
|
You'd know better than me, I just can't get that excited over it.
If he'd said "I witnessed him (doing a bank job / mugging someone / other nasty thing)" then perhaps so.
But, "I heard him swear, which isn't actually against the law its just not very nice".
It all seems a little OTT. Stupid of him, but really, a career move?
|
|
Get away with lying and no-one is ever going to trust any police evidence again- and rightly so..
|
Even if there's mitigation (mental health issues have been implied) its difficult to see how he can remain an officer.
OTOH pension is deferred salary. It should only be removed in the most egregious circumstances such as losses to the employer through theft etc.
Now the witness has fessed up to telling lies where does the officer who was on duty at the time stand? If he's now thought to have made things up then surely he should be facing criminal charges as well.
If not then claims of Mitchell's innocence and cries for his return to office are premature.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 23 Jan 14 at 08:49
|
>> Even if there's mitigation (mental health issues have been implied) its difficult to see how
>> he can remain an officer.
He should not remain an officer, he has lied and committed a criminal offence. Whether he resigns first or is sacked doesn't really matter, other than the satisfaction of his employer sacking him.
His pension is his pension. He could if he wished outsource it before being sacked, so that's a side issue. The State can remove a pension from a State employee, but only for the most serious crimes, such as Treason etc..a cop who commits, say theft, will still get their pension entitlement up to the point they leave, because they paid in to it for all those years.
>> Now the witness has fessed up to telling lies where does the officer who was
>> on duty at the time stand?
Completely separate issue. Mitchell wasn't there, the original officer was. Mitchell pretended he'd been present and witnessed something, when he didn't. There's been no suggestion that the original officer colluded with Mitchell, or even knew whether he was there or not.
|
The Civil Service pension scheme also contains provision for removal in cases of treason or similar.
One of my former colleagues however has a brother in Scottish Ambulance Service for whom dismissal for gross misconduct could, or so he believed, lead to loss of pension. Not a theoretical issue as a GM charge was laid against him, allegedly as a result of trade union activity though he go off in the end.
I suspect in case of fraud pension could be attacked under asset seizure or after civil proceedings.
Mitchell is the former Chief Whip who swore. I cannot remember the name of the gate officer who made the allegation but I think it is in the public domain Unless the gate officer withdraws or is formally disproven then it seems to me that reports from fellow MPs of Mitchell's exoneration are premature.
|
>> Mitchell is the former Chief Whip who swore. I cannot remember the name of the
>> gate officer who made the allegation but I think it is in the public domain
>> Unless the gate officer withdraws or is formally disproven then it seems to me that
>> reports from fellow MPs of Mitchell's exoneration are premature.
Yes you're right, I'm mixing up my Mitchell's with my Wallis's..and 'yes' Mitchell isn't home and dry yet.
|
Jailed for a year so presumably 6 months in the slammer and six more tagged/parole.
Looks about right to me.
|
>> Jailed for a year so presumably 6 months in the slammer and six more tagged/parole.
>>
>>
>> Looks about right to me.
>>
Agreed
|
Two Metropolitan Police officers have been dismissed over the "Plebgate" row that led to Tory MP Andrew Mitchell resigning as chief whip.
PCs Keith Wallis and James Glanville were sacked for gross misconduct.
Wallis, 53, was jailed in January after admitting falsely claiming to have witnessed the original row between Mr Mitchell and police in September 2012.
Police said Mr Glanville was dismissed for passing information about the incident to the Sun newspaper.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26358662
|
>> Two Metropolitan Police officers have been dismissed over the "Plebgate" row that led to Tory
>> MP Andrew Mitchell resigning as chief whip.
>>
>> PCs Keith Wallis and James Glanville were sacked for gross misconduct.
...and quite right too.
What isn't right though:
"Mr Mitchell was present at the Met's disciplinary hearings which were held in private at New Scotland Yard".
|
>> >> Two Metropolitan Police officers have been dismissed over the "Plebgate" row that led to
>> Tory
>> >> MP Andrew Mitchell resigning as chief whip.
>> >>
>> >> PCs Keith Wallis and James Glanville were sacked for gross misconduct.
>>
>> ...and quite right too.
>>
>> What isn't right though:
>>
>> "Mr Mitchell was present at the Met's disciplinary hearings which were held in private at
>> New Scotland Yard".
>>
Especially as I understand, correct me if I'm wrong, Mitchell admitted swearing at the officers and although denying calling them 'plebs' has steadfastly refused, to this day, to state what he did say. Now what he did say may be perfectly acceptable and less an insult than 'plebs' but just what was it that he feels he cannot repeat it in public?
As I see these latest cases, certain officers are losing their jobs for leaking details to the media while Mitchell is using them as a dressing to make himself look the innocent victim, which he is far from being, IMHO.
Like yourself, westpig, very uncomfortable about him being allowed to sit in on internal disciplinary hearings; I take it that in future every complainant will be offered this courtesy? I think not, one rule for one......
Sorry, this smacks of the bad old days where the local squire sat by the bench to 'observe' that the 'correct' verdicts were reached and 'proper' sentences were handed down to the poachers on his land by his friend the Magistrate......
Last edited by: Cockle on Thu 27 Feb 14 at 15:36
|
I have no doubt that there will be some who choose not to believe me..but this is my knowledge and take on police discipline.
An enormous amount of police complaints are total rubbish..and when I say enormous, I mean very high 90's as a percentage.
There are of course 'wrong uns' in the police, who need weeding out..and occasionally there are out and out crooks..so ditto, they need prosecuting or sacking.
The trouble is, is all the politics, interference, political correctness and back covering that goes on in the middle.
It has long amazed me at how many police officers and police support staff are used up in a complaints system...yet a fair chunk of general crime that the public report is totally ignored because of resourcing difficulties.
I have always personally been very, very cautious of the complaints system, because frankly I didn't trust it...
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad there's a robust system to weed out the 'wrong un' or the 'crook'..but.. not glad there's a robust system with a shed load of resources that seems to think, 'if you are in our sights, we'll get you for something'...because, it's remarkably easy to be in someone's sights.
The modern way is to have leaflets at police station front desks and to teach kids at school how to complain about police..and let's face it everyone nowadays 'knows their rights'..so it can be no surprise the complaints figures have risen.
...and then of course there's the IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission) that seems to be on a mission recently, possibly/probably seeking more power.
The current system is not balanced and to some degree emasculates some police activity. That's not healthy. You shouldn't want your cops looking behind their backs all the time and failing to make decisions in case they get it wrong.. or acting as automatons, following a SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) that rarely really fits the scenario.
I'm not advocating going back to the 'good old days' ..just have a bit of middle ground.
|
Not making any related point whatsoever here, but I don't think the massive number of complaints is unique the the Police. Airlines, shops, restaurants, postmen, banks and everyone have to put up with people complaining much more vocally than they used to, quite often (I suspect) with some ulterior motive (free upgrades, meals, whatever).
I'm not for a moment suggested we should put up with bad service, but we have become a nation of whingers... and so often you hear people losing their temper over really quite trivial things. The problem is magnified in the public services as the public holds them accountable and they can't just brush off complaints without investigation, or shut someone up by giving them a discount off their next purchase.
Welcome to the 21st century...
Last edited by: smokie on Thu 27 Feb 14 at 16:16
|
>> squire sat by the bench to 'observe' that the 'correct' verdicts were reached and 'proper' sentences were handed down to the poachers on his land by his friend the Magistrate....
'Friend'? As often as not the squire WAS the magistrate. And there was a time when you could hang for poaching. Never mind the movie, but Henry Fielding's long novel Tom Jones is acerbic and revealing about the feudal system in its 18th century form.
Two observations about the Mitchell case though. Police officers aren't supposed to take it to heart when citizens swear at them. It's supposed to be an occupational risk and water off a duck's back.
The other observation is that sprauncy young coppers can be almost unbelievably cheeky and uppity, annoying enough to make a saint swear obscenely at them. At least one, perhaps two of the ones in Downing Street should never have been sent there owing to their immaturity. I blame their immediate boss, whoever that is.
|
>> Police officers aren't supposed to take it to
>> heart when citizens swear at them. It's supposed to be an occupational risk and water
>> off a duck's back.
I used to work on the principle that swearing at me once got you a warning to cease. If you ignored it, you were going to have a police breakfast.
Stuck to that for over 30 years.
Time I left, some of the youngsters would take a remarkable amount of crap before they'd act. Used to annoy me..and it is/was a slippery slope.
What do the public pay you for FFS...they certainly don't pay you to stand there like a sap and take it..or shouldn't do.
|
I take your point Westpig of course. Letting rip in the heat of the moment is one thing, going overcentre and bawling oaths for five minutes is disturbing the peace (I think it's called technically) and asking for the hard bench in a smelly cell with a dirty blanket and the light on and fishy eyes ogling through the peephole every half hour. Yes, I have been there, and I had asked for it. Young men in drink can be a real pain.
But don't you think it possible the Downing St geezers were being a bit what the cops sometimes call 'pedantic'? It did have that look about it, the tiny video clip I mean. Mitchell may be awful although he has his defenders. But Downing St fuzz should understand that government ministers actually are important busy people who might take it badly when obstructed for no apparent reason.
Surely? Anyway the whole thing is embarrassing to all parties, and serves them damn well right.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 27 Feb 14 at 16:30
|
>> and asking for the hard bench in a smelly cell
>> with a dirty blanket and the light on and fishy eyes ogling through the peephole
>> every half hour.
Remarkably accurate AC...does one speak from experience?
>>
>> But don't you think it possible the Downing St geezers were being a bit what
>> the cops sometimes call 'pedantic'?
Possibly...but ...they are in an environment where a high percentage of people are 'important' ...and, it isn't sensible to open the damned great vehicle gates for a bicycle, because the gates are themselves part of the security set up, so keep them closed as much as possible.
It's not sensible for a security detachment to kowtow too much to your 'betters' otherwise you take your eye off the ball.
At that stage, I think Mitchell was being a pompous fool and they were right to make him walk around the pavement..
..after that it went to rat's excrement.
|
>> not sensible for a security detachment to kowtow too much to your 'betters'
Tsk. You know very well Wp that it's quite possible to accommodate a self-important pompous fellow without kowtowing at all. I learned very young that courtesy to the bourgeoisie can be accompanied by a stingingly sardonic grin, or facial rictus, and an air of patronising indifference... indeed that is the default expression of the Met when dealing with citizens...
:o}
|
|
Facial rictus...do you know, I think I still have it, when will it go?
|
>> Facial rictus...do you know, I think I still have it, when will it go?
>>
Never. I once worked with an ex-cop of the old school who was in his second career.
He couldn't help looking like a policeman, and everyone knew it.
We went into a rough pub in the East end once because it was handy for a bite, and the clientele froze the moment we were through the door.
|
>> rictus...do you know, I think I still have it, when will it go?
Never mind. It must have added a frisson to the dramatised Pinky and Perky readings to yr nipper or nippers when they were of that age.
I hope they're all right. These things can sink in and surface later.
:o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 28 Feb 14 at 00:29
|
>> Tsk. You know very well Wp that it's quite possible to accommodate a self-important pompous
>> fellow without kowtowing at all.
I know where you're coming from..but...still don't think they should have opened the main gate for him on his bicycle...so where does that leave them?
Mr Important wanted the main gate opened for him, because he's important. Everyone else in his circs went out the side gate.
Where's the middle ground? Where's the non kowtowing? In those circs it's all or nothing..open the gate, or not.
|
Well I dunno. Perhaps a new directive had been handed down to stop letting ministers on pushbikes (a deplorable if bon enfant mode of transport for a cabinet minister in my opinion) through the main gates and no one had bothered to tell them in advance. I would have gone meekly through the pleb gate I think, but who knows what I'd be like after a couple of years of Yes Minister....
I mean if you choose to dice with death on a pushbike in Westminster when you could be wafting about in a Jag, or at least a Ford V6, you've got to expect a bit of contempt from the roughly raised. It comes with the territory. Not everyone can turn it into a benefit like the young mayor for example. I imagine he's given the fuzz many a clip round the ear, but I bet they still like him.
Perhaps I'm imagining things.
|
>>
>> I mean if you choose to dice with death on a pushbike in Westminster when
>> you could be wafting about in a Jag, or at least a Ford V6, you've
>> got to expect a bit of contempt from the roughly raised.
If it was me, I'd insist on the Jag...(and 1st class rail travel)....then all the gates would be opened and I wouldn't have to mix with plebs.
|
>> >> Tsk. You know very well Wp that it's quite possible to accommodate a self-important
>> pompous
>> >> fellow without kowtowing at all.
>>
>> I know where you're coming from..but...still don't think they should have opened the main gate
>> for him on his bicycle...so where does that leave them?
>>
>> Mr Important wanted the main gate opened for him, because he's important. Everyone else in
>> his circs went out the side gate.
>>
>> Where's the middle ground? Where's the non kowtowing? In those circs it's all or nothing..open
>> the gate, or not.
They didn't get sacked for not opening the gate. They got sacked for being complete A-holes. I am still baffled how they managed to take a position of the moral higher ground (Politician in power swears at police and makes a fool of himself) into bringing the force into disrepute because they were lying scheming scumbags.
|
>> baffled how they managed to take a position of the moral higher ground (Politician in power swears at police and makes a fool of himself) into bringing the force into disrepute because they were lying scheming scumbags.
All that's normal, only to be expected. What led to the trouble was the step-by-step escalation, one thing leading to another until it was all in the open and a hopeless tangle with the government and the fuzz rolling in the gutter and trying to strangle each other.
It could never have happened with Labour in power. Not since Denis Healey anyway...
:o}
|
Mitchell is an obnoxious tit: the BIB were stupid tits.
Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
Last edited by: Roger on Fri 28 Feb 14 at 00:15
|
>> Mitchell is an obnoxious tit:
He is.
>>the BIB were stupid tits.
Some were, but not all of them.
|
>> What isn't right though:
>> "Mr Mitchell was present at the Met's disciplinary hearings which were held in private at
>> New Scotland Yard".
I'm no clear which bit of the process was involved here. AIUI discipline is first of all administered by the employing force. That, I agree, is a private matter.
There is then a statutory right of appeal to a legally constituted appeal tribunal. That process might be seen as analogous a normal employee's right to take matters to the Employment Tribunal (ET). Such Police Appeal Tribunals would historically formed of a number of people, lay and with police experience, under an independent Chairman. Their procedures and hearings would be under the statutory oversight of the Council on Tribunals.
Such a hearing, and its modern equivalent, is a judicial rather than an administrative process and should rightly be open to public as is the ET.
|
A 3rd police officer has been sacked over press leaks about the "plebgate" affair.
PC Gillian Weatherley was dismissed for "gross misconduct", Scotland Yard said.
She was sacked for leaking information about the 2012 argument between police officers and MP Andrew Mitchell.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27222171
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 30 Apr 14 at 13:02
|
>> www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3170.html
IPCC/Investigating Chief Inspector cocked up original inquiry due (a) procedural irregularity (b) perceived bias of then IPCC Deputy Chair Deborah Glass.
Ball passed back to IPCC for reconsideration by a newly constituted team. Probably a pyrrhic victory for the officers as IPCC likely to come to same conclusion but this time in a procedurally correct fashion.
Ms Glass won't be involved as she's moved on and now Ombudsman for Australian State of Victoria.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 8 Oct 14 at 09:42
|
>> Full judgement here:
>>
>> www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3170.html
>>
What a can of worms.
The main thing for me is:
The police are not allowed to have a Union, so can only have a Federation.
When police officers are acting as Federation officers, they are also held to account as police officers and ultimately accountable to their police chiefs (who they could quite easily be in dispute with).
So as in this case, if they feel strongly about something as a Fed rep, they also have to look over their shoulders for the extensive police regulations/ misconduct proceedings and similar and act as a police officer.
Yet police officers are not usually allowed to brief the Press without authority from the police chief.
Now I know there's an allowance for that with the Federation and no usual interference by police chiefs etc..however, in this case when there's been a major difference of opinion .. disciplinary procedures are wished for ..yet they are acting on behalf of their members as Fed reps?
If every time a Union leader spoke a mistruth, misunderstanding or major difference of opinion at a Press conference and was likely to be disciplined or sacked by his/her employer there'd be an outcry.
...and Deborah Glass's impartiality took rather a hit.
|
Not an affair where anyone has come out well, no real victory of any kind.
Bottom line is some police officers and representatives shown up as less than honest.
Politicians not shown to be loyal, understanding or even particularly trustworthy.
Public opinion of and respect for both goes down another notch
All because of a jobsworth policeman and an arrogant politician.
|
>>All because of a jobsworth policeman and an arrogant politician.
A pretty concise and accurate summary.
Although I would probably add in the Public's love of outrage over a scandal as a contributory factor.
|
"Former Government chief whip Andrew Mitchell has lost his High Court libel action over the "Plebgate" incident.
Mr Justice Mitting ruled that on the balance of probabilities Mr Mitchell did use the "politically toxic" word pleb.
He added Mr Mitchell was not in any state at the time to measure his words or remember what he had said."
tinyurl.com/l3gz7kh
|
I experienced a feeling of joy when I heard the news a few minutes ago. The Beeb says it "will cost him millions".
Does that make me a wicked person?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30235009
|
Not at all Duncan, I felt the same.
Bromp, will you be able to give us a link to this one? I really do enjoy reading thse and this one should be good!
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 16:14
|
Its all rather silly, petty, and a little sad. It was an argument, for goodness sakes, how did it ever end up a national incident?
Rejoicing in such sadness seems a little "small", really.
|
Yes it does..
..but I've been on the end of rude and pompous authority as a lorry driver asking how long I had to wait to get tipped so I could stay within the law of my tachograph many times.
The police officer doesn't get paid enough to take that kind of rubbish, and it wasn't the first time he's done it either.
The taxi driver the other day with David Mellor likewise.
It's all too easy these days to not work and just claim benefits, so let's stand up for those who go out every day to do a job, for a 'liveable only' wage and treat them with the respect they deserve.
It's all we ask.
Pat
|
>>It's all we ask.
"We"? In this case, who is "we"?
>>It's all too easy these days to not work and just claim benefits, so let's stand up for those who go out every day to do a job, for a 'liveable only' wage and treat them with the respect they deserve.
Who? Respect just people who work for a "liveable only" wage?
Because I have met rich mean people and poor mean people, working mean people and non-working mean people etc. etc. In fact I've encountered good and bad in every walk of life I've ever been around.
There's even good and bad truck drivers.
In my experience people are just people. And there is pretty much no dividing line by job, wealth, strus*, class, ancestry, religion, caste, race or anything else which will also serve to separate the worthy from the unworthy.
*I don't know what this word means. As I was reviewing this note I found the word "strus". I cannot replace it with what I meant to type, since I've no idea what it was. But it must have been something, so I've left it in.
|
>> I found the word "strus". I cannot replace it with what I meant to type, since I've no idea what it was. But it must have been something, so I've left it in.
'Status' seems likely FMR.
I'm working on a fiction text set in Allende's Chile. The political angle is really very interesting but couched in roundabout literary language that has to be deciphered and vulgarised to suit the alleged modern young reader.
I often wonder if it would interest you, but generally decide that it wouldn't really. I like the text but it's giving me a lot of trouble for reasons too boring to give.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 16:57
|
>> Rejoicing in such sadness seems a little "small", really.
Yes FMR, quite right. Mitchell is a choleric fellow but he seems to have been done over by the police. I wouldn't know whether he really 'deserved' it. In my experience one can't rely on police officers to tell the truth under such circumstances, although they probably do sometimes..
If he's short of the money for the shysters no doubt his buddy Bob Geldof can lend him a couple of big ones to tide him over.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 16:25
|
>>his buddy Bob Geldof <<
Now who learned the 'liberal' use of language from whom there?
While I'm at it....
Am I the only one who found the use of the F Word more offensive than the use of the word 'plebs'?
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 16:26
|
I can;t say I was offended by the F word or by the word pleb. I wouldn't have been offended and tearful even if they had been aimed at me.
Stuff and nonsense the whole thing.
|
>> Am I the only one who found the use of the F Word more offensive than the use of the word 'plebs'?
How d'you feel about 'proles' Pat? That's the word I use when I'm pretending to be an arrogant middle-class carphound.
As for the F word, I'm sorry to say I use it so liberally that people who know me well no longer hear it. Of course I have no conscious wish to cause offence, but offence as an abstract idea subtends all e***** and blinding.
Naturally I am capable of restraint when meeting new people or nuns, elderly maiden ladies and so on, but I'm afraid all the innocent children in my immediate orbit are well used to it. Of course as young ladies or young ladies to be they are discouraged from using it themselves, and never do (anyway in my hearing). I often pat the cat on the head saying affectionately: 'e***** cat...' It doesn't seem to mind.
|
|
In the context of "superior ruling over us", entitled, "do you know who I am?" elitism - "plebs" is far, far, worse than the F-Bomb
|
Mitchell was involved in an aggressive tax saving affair including company shares. Worth £2M plus so he will survive.
I thought he was an idiot for suing: he deserves what he has got. Self inflicted pain..
Remember he had to prove that he did not call the constable a" pleb " and the only witness in his defence was: himself.
Moronic.
>Pat
anyone who swears at a policeman is a grade one idiot: asking for trouble.
Last edited by: madf on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 16:28
|
>>Remember he had to prove that he did not call the constable a" pleb " and the only witness in his defence was: himself.
It certainly would not appear to be a moment of "genius".
Frankly the bloke is a bit of a dick, IMO. But all this fascination with the argument and joy in the result is a little "off".
|
It's not ''off'', it's a good to see him not get away with it.
Why should he?
The we I refer to are the people who go to work day after day and see at the end of every week, they have 'just' covered their bills. Nothing to save for a rainy day, a pension, or retirement but in most cases are doing a job they love.
I thing the word you were looking for was 'status'.
Those people, like me, often feel we are despised and talked down to, called 'the great unwashed' and ridiculed.
It's high time people in the public eye realised the wages and perks that come with the job have far reaching consequences........quite rightly so.
Pat
|
>> it's a good to see him not get away with it.
It is "good" that he did not get away with it.
But to experience "joy" Mmm, well, perhaps not.
|
>>But to experience "joy" Mmm, well, perhaps not.<<
Perhaps you have to have experienced the humiliation of being talked down to, to experience that.
Pat
|
>>Perhaps you have to have experienced the humiliation of being talked down to, to experience that.
Your assumption being that I have not? But if you feel the joy in this case, then crack on, its just not the sort of thing that would work for me.
Mind you, if I was the copper I don't think I'd love this...
".... the judge said PC Rowland was "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper""
Or perhaps he doesn't have the wit or imagination to work it out.
|
>>>Or perhaps he doesn't have the wit or imagination to work it out. <<
Now there is a perfect example of 'talking down to'.
....and you either don't realise you are doing it or are too up yourself to realise it's not a nice, or clever, trait to have when others can see it.
Pat
|
>>Now there is a perfect example of 'talking down to'.
Oh for goodness sakes' Pat, can you see past those blinkers?
The comment was the judge's, not mine. I thought it was a bad thing to say, hence I said I thought the copper wouldn't be happy. I made the comment implying that the judge felt the guy wouldn't work it out. Its called "irony".
|
The judges comment wasn't about the coppers 'wit and wisdom to work it out' at all, that was your comment and the one I referred to.
I'm not blinkered, I just work and live in a different world to many on here but thankfully, I do know what irony means without Googling it, thank you.
Pat
|
>> and live in a different world
For once we are in total agreement.
|
>> Oh for goodness sakes' Pat, can you see past those blinkers?
Will be interesting to see the words mentioned in context. Did they for example repeat or re-express a self deprecating comment given in evidence by Toby Rowlands himself. or something in his barrister's submissions?
|
>>Will be interesting to see the words mentioned in context
I've only read it in the context of the BBC report.
However, if it'd been said about me I'd need to some serious context to make that sound better!
Essentially the judge seems to be saying that the copper is telling the truth because he's too dumb to make it up quickly.
I doubt its true in any case, but in any case what an appalling basis for a judgement!
|
>> >> it's a good to see him not get away with it.
>>
>> It is "good" that he did not get away with it.
>>
>> But to experience "joy" Mmm, well, perhaps not.
>>
Quiet satisfaction, perhaps?
|
>> Its all rather silly, petty, and a little sad. It was an argument, for goodness
>> sakes, how did it ever end up a national incident?
>>
>> Rejoicing in such sadness seems a little "small", really.
Not at all, someone in his position should know when to mouth off and when to keep his gob shut, and when he gets it wrong should learn how to minimise the damage, that after all was mostly what his job was about.
Quite pleased to see him slapped. On the other foot, I am quite pleased to see the old bill involved get slapped as well for telling porkies.
No-one came out of this well.
|
>> No-one came out of this well.
>>
One aspect of this case seems not to have been commented on is words used in the statement by the judge.
The judge said ".... PC Toby Rowland, one of four officers on the gate, was ‘not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper’."
Perhaps it is me but the use of the words wit etc. smacks of looking down on the PC.
I just think better words should have been used.
|
>> One aspect of this case seems not to have been commented on is words used
>> in the statement by the judge.
It has here - see posts above starting with No FM2R's Thu 27 Nov 14 17:01.
Last edited by: Focusless on Fri 28 Nov 14 at 13:18
|
>> Bromp, will you be able to give us a link to this one?
It's not on the judiciary website yet. Suspect it will appear both there and on the more comprehensive BAILII once the judge has had time to tidy up an approve the transcript.
Probably on judiciary, which only puts up cases that are either legally significant or newsworthy, some time tomorrow.
|
How after 2 years this is still ongoing I have no idea. He had an argument with an officer and called him names and swore. I think it's irrelevant what he called the officer - he was wrong in arguing and swearing.
His defence has been he did swear etc but just didn't use the word pleb! So he admits he was in the wrong IMO.
And then to sue the paper... and hope to get £200k but with a risk of costing £2m. Even if he was in the right (I'm not sure he is), that's some risk.
I wonder if he'd been okay calling the officer scum or similar? The officer clearly can't have been a pleb because he wasn't from ancient Rome :-)
|
Now there's a thing rtj:)
Where I come from (Leicester) a pleb is slang for a disabled person.
Pat
|
But the plebs were the lower classes in ancient Rome. I remember that from history lessons. A friend at school liked to call others plebs :-)
Now if by Pleb he meant someone of low intelligence or stupid, then it's Mitchell who is the real pleb in all this.
So if this judge says he did say pleb, and officers got dismissed for lying about him saying pleb... what happens next?
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 27 Nov 14 at 17:52
|
>>and officers got dismissed for lying about him saying pleb.
Wasn't their lie around whether or not they heard it, rather than whether or not he said it?
He'd have been far better off letting it go. He could always have made some magnanimous and probably hypocritical speech about not wanting to take it further against people in the heat of the moment or something. It would all have gone away quickly enough.
But insisting that a Judge publicly decide was naive at best. And arrogant at worst.
|
>>And arrogant at worst.<<
We agree again!
Pat
|
We differ because you seem to feel it was class driven arrogance. Where as I feel that if it was indeed arrogance, it was driven by stupidity not class.
He has a record of arrogance in all directions, not simply toward the poor, hardworking, virtuous yet downtrodden masses.
Come to which, I've met a few who are arrogant to those they feel beneath them. In reality I think they are arrogant towards everybody around them, just their rationalisation or the accusing / excusing by others changes basis.
I think gits are just gits, and rarely gits in just one direction.
|
|
I remember starting this thread .He won't change will he.Punch up the nose will sort him,>:)
|
Schadenfreude? Very probably.
Just listened to a piece on BBC Radio 4, Today programme between John Humphreys, Clive Coleman the Beeb's crime correspondent and Neil Hamilton, who lost a libel case that he fought against Mohammed Fayed.
Clive Coleman made the point that libel lawyers don't have to do a bit of minicabbing at the weekends to make ends meet. Neil Hamilton said that his libel case cost him around £3,000,000 at 1999(?) prices. He went bankrupt. George Carman, counsel for Fayed, charged £150,000 as a brief fee and then £3,000 a day for as long as the case took.
The moral? Don't go to law unless you have Bernie Ecclestone's sort of money.
|
>> The moral? Don't go to law unless you have Bernie Ecclestone's sort of money.
The Moral? Don't go to law if you are not right and a knobhead.
|
It's not just the lawyers costs either.
While looking for copies of Mitting J's decision yesterday (not yet in public domain I think) I came across a decision in interlocutory proceedings about witnesses and evidence to be admitted:
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/3590.html
Quite illuminating though you probably need a legal geek's fascination with subject to read in full AND retain a will to live.
Both sides instructed experts in phonetics to give evidence on whether, in time available, Mitchell could have uttered the words alleged, including the toxic 'pleb'. Both experts in this field were Professors and would probably have charge rates in excess of £1k per day. Further leave was given for experts on field of vision/trajectory evidence to cover whether PC Rowland could have seen the 'shocked members of the public' that Rowland says led to his giving Mitchell a warning. Another expert was to cover reconstructions of what exactly happened on the day.
Finally, decisions were sought on admissibility of evidence that Mitchell had 'previous' for arrogance etc with Police/Security. While some statements were excluded others were not.
With hindsight that might have been point at which Mitchell could have seen the writing on the wall.....
|
The justice system is not an exact science.
Guilty people can be found not guilty. Innocent people can be found guilty.
I have never served on a jury, but I am quite convinced that, at the risk of stating the B obvious, that if the jury like the defendant, or are sympathetic to the defendant, then there is a better chance of finding the defendant not guilty - contrary to the evidence. I am sure the reverse is equally true.
|
This was a libel case. Jury and justice were not involved... Guilty people have won lible cases when many knew they were lying to##ers...
Lord Boothby was a classic case of perjury winning a libel case..see tinyurl.com/32a63ug
A monumental Establishment cover up of sexual impropriety...
( which suggests the more recent case where all evidence was "lost" might have been one as well...)
|
Looks like he'll have to sell one of his houses to settle the bills. It's lucky he's a multi-millionaire I suppose :-)
So if he made so much money and is intelligent.... how did he get into this mess?
|
|
I agree with Roger (again.. I must sit down:-)
|
|
I have the impression the legal industry have played this for revenue. The justice in this case might have, in the absence of substantial evidence, thrown out the case at at an early stage. However, basing the judgement on an assessment of the policeman as, essentially, too dim to phrase an insult unaided, is very subjective and rather odd. Perchance Sir Edward John Mitting has a dislike of the Government. His decisions on immigration perhaps have taken him of the Home Office Xmas card list.
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sat 29 Nov 14 at 10:58
|
I don't think the legal industry had any need to to 'play it for revenue'. Both the federation for PC Rowland and Mitchell were determined litigants convinced right was on their side.
The court has little opportunity to throw out a civil case for lack of evidence, at least not in a case like this where all the participants are determined.
I'm curious about Miting J's description of Toby Rowland and await publication of the full transcript. It is though entirely possible that his own Counsel, with Rowland's agreement, expressed his case in those 'nutshell' terms.
|
If you want a quiet read for the weekend.....
www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/4014.html
|
>> I have the impression the legal industry have played this for revenue....
My logic goes like this:
There were no witnesses who heard what Mitchell said. So basically the judge was asked simply to decide:
1. Whether the policeman told teh truth that he was called a f pleb
or
2. Mitchell was telling the truth when he denied it.
It's a binary decision : Yes/No for both.
Mitchell was the only evidence in his case. So his entire case rested on his ability to prove he never ever swore or was rude to others. Cos, if he did, it was likely he would have used those words.
He was known for being rude and swearing.
So 0 chance of winning.
As Roger says: a knob.
|
|
The only true verdict in such a situation as this, is "not proven" which is a third possible verdict, open to more enlightened jurisdictions. No-one except the persons present know what was said. The chief whip may be certain he did not say what is alleged, but it's unprovable either way. As I said earlier, not a suitable case for a hearing, and a complete waste of everyones time. Mitchell has been badly advised, but hey, who in the legal "profession" would miss a fine pay-day?
|
This was NOT a trial. It was a libel action started by Mitchell.
"not proven" is for a trial. Irrelevant.
Last edited by: madf on Sat 29 Nov 14 at 13:40
|
>> The only true verdict in such a situation as this, is "not proven" which is
>> a third possible verdict, open to more enlightened jurisdictions. No-one except the persons present know
>> what was said.
If that principle were applied generally very few rape convictions would stick.
Reading the judgement from BAILII linked above it's apparent that PC Rowland's account was corroborated by his own actions as recorded by CCTV etc and the accounts and actions of others afterwards.
|
The police officer at the centre of the "plebgate" row has accepted £80,000 in damages from Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31729808
|
'ALL COPPERS ARE HANDSOME!'
(Will I be all right now? I'm just as bad-tempered as Mitchell but not nearly as rich).
|
Plebgate Latest - henry k
