Thedelldays Posted 20 December, 2012 Author Share Posted 20 December, 2012 Why do you care? You never read any of the posts. I dont as no matter what (on these sorts) you just moan about the torys.....its like clockwork they could be the best ever government in modern history and you would still slate them you really are the liberal version of Dune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 10 January, 2014 Share Posted 10 January, 2014 The police do themselves no good on occassions and in the same week as the duggan outcome PC Wallis today Admits Misconduct in that he lied in the email How much tax payers money have the Met police/ police federation etc wasted in trying to support the likes of wallis etc over plebgate. The Met Police have again be tarnished and more than likely lost even more confidence from vast members of the public Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHAPEL END CHARLIE Posted 11 January, 2014 Share Posted 11 January, 2014 (edited) The police do themselves no good on occassions and in the same week as the duggan outcome PC Wallis today Admits Misconduct in that he lied in the email How much tax payers money have the Met police/ police federation etc wasted in trying to support the likes of wallis etc over plebgate. The Met Police have again be tarnished and more than likely lost even more confidence from vast members of the public I must admit that I've not traveled the world testing my hypothesis but I suspect that our police are among the most honest, helpful and uncorrupted to be found anywhere in the world. I have certainly found them so in my (infrequent) dealings with them. However methinks most of us are well aware that it is a fact of life that some coppers do lie on occasion. Like other similiar professions (dare I say the Army) the police are a 'tight knit' group that tend to close ranks and cover each others backs when threatened by outsiders. Now I can understand why that happens, without approving of it in any way. Following previous scandals the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 introduced the provision that formal interviews conducted under caution with suspects at the police station must be taped so that there are no grounds for dispute regarding what has actually been said. I say this has proved to be such a significant advance in our criminal justice system that now no one in their right mind would want to see it reversed. The day when that very same principle is extended so that all police officers are routinely equipped with modern lightweight video cameras so that their dealings with the general public outside 'on the street' are also recorded will be a good day for the cause of justice in this country. Surely no decent copper can have much to fear from such a development. A Tory MP said the other day that if something like 'plebgate' could happen to someone as powerful and influential as a member of the government then it could happen to absolutely any of us. Is there anyone on here who wants to disagree with that statement? . Edited 11 January, 2014 by CHAPEL END CHARLIE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 He said "pleb", according to this judgement. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-libel-case-legal-costs £1.5m bill for trying to save reputation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopGun Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 He said "pleb", according to this judgement. http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-libel-case-legal-costs £1.5m bill for trying to save reputation. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadoldgit Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 Looks like he will be joining the "plebs" once he has paid off his legal fees!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 Imo he probably didn't say "pleb" on the occasion in question but that the words attributed to him were a compilation of lots of minor incidents over a period of time when he'd treated the police on duty outside Downing Street like plebs. They grew to dislike him and the incident was the final straw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 (edited) Imo he probably didn't say "pleb" on the occasion in question but that the words attributed to him were a compilation of lots of minor incidents over a period of time when he'd treated the police on duty outside Downing Street like plebs. They grew to dislike him and the incident was the final straw. What Mitchell thinks of your and your opinion. Worth repeating, I thought Edited 28 November, 2014 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 (edited) He probably just an arrogant **** like Mellor. Chief whips are not generally Mother Theresa types. Edited 28 November, 2014 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 He obviously said it. If a copper was going to make up an insult he would choose something a bit more offensive. "****ing pig c*nt" or something. No way would anyone go through all that agro just to try and make out he said "pleb". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 Playing the Devil's Advocate card (for once), I assume a judge doesn't need 100% proof that he said "pleb" to be able to declare that that is indeed what was said? I've never quite understood how anyone can be found guilty when it comes down to one person's word against another. Surely such cases will always be inconclusive. Is a judge duty bound to come up with a verdict one way or the other in cases such as this or could he have delivered an inconclusive verdict if he'd wanted to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 ... when it comes down to one person's word against another.... A Policeman and a Politician - tough call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 A Policeman and a Politician - tough call. Yep, because the police have never been known to 'manipulate' evidence.... (I'm not for one minute suggesting they might have done in this case of course) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 He obviously said it. If a copper was going to make up an insult he would choose something a bit more offensive. "****ing pig c*nt" or something. No way would anyone go through all that agro just to try and make out he said "pleb". You see, that's the clever part. Make sure there is some verisimilitude and you can't go wrong. Playing the Devil's Advocate card (for once), I assume a judge doesn't need 100% proof that he said "pleb" to be able to declare that that is indeed what was said? I've never quite understood how anyone can be found guilty when it comes down to one person's word against another. Surely such cases will always be inconclusive. Is a judge duty bound to come up with a verdict one way or the other in cases such as this or could he have delivered an inconclusive verdict if he'd wanted to? "For the reasons given I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word 'pleb'." which is all that is needed in these cases. This should never have got this far but nobody comes out of it with a clean record. Someone leaked this alleged exchange and fabricated elements of the story, such as members of the public being present and being 'visibly shocked'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 (edited) I assume a judge doesn't need 100% proof that he said "pleb" to be able to declare that that is indeed what was said? ........... Is a judge duty bound to come up with a verdict one way or the other in cases such as this or could he have delivered an inconclusive verdict if he'd wanted to? As Whitey said its a civil case so judgement is given on balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. 50.1% to 49.9% is enough. The law doesn't allow a judge to say "ooh, I dont really know. Tricky isnt it?" (except in Scotland with their 'not proven' verdict). Edited 28 November, 2014 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 As Whitey said its a civil case so judgement is given on balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt. 50.1% to 49.9% is enough. The law doesn't allow a judge to say "ooh, I dont really know. Tricky isnt it?" (except in Scotland with their 'not proven' verdict). It would seem I agree with the Scots. There's a first time for everything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CB Saint Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 What a pillock, he should have let this lie as he had come away from this whole affair looking like the wronged party, but no, his ego wouldn't let him, and now he is back where he started only £1.5m lighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingdomCome Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 It would seem I agree with the Scots. There's a first time for everything It is a logical outcome for many situations. The "not proven" verdict, not the agreeing with Scots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hamilton Saint Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 "The real winners in this case, the public is likely to conclude, are the libel lawyers." Well, that is a surprise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 28 November, 2014 Share Posted 28 November, 2014 What a pillock, he should have let this lie as he had come away from this whole affair looking like the wronged party, but no, his ego wouldn't let him, and now he is back where he started only £1.5m lighter. Indded he is and he always was. He didn't need to spend a couple of million to prove it, but it strengthens his case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now