Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Plebgate: officers will not face disciplinary hearing despite criticism

Theresa May joins IPCC in criticising failure to discipline officers accused of lying about meeting with Andrew Mitchell


Sandra Laville, crime correspondent

theguardian.com, Tuesday 15 October 2013 16.20 BST


Three police officers whose "honesty and integrity" have been questioned by the police watchdog will not face disciplinary action over allegations that they lied to try and discredit Andrew Mitchell at the height of the Plebgate affair.

The officers, all Police Federation representatives, have been accused of misrepresenting what was said at a meeting they held last year with the then chief whip, following his altercation with two Downing Street diplomatic protection officers in which it was alleged he called them "fucking plebs".

But it emerged on Tuesday that an investigation by their own forces into the allegations found there was no case to answer for misconduct or gross misconduct, because their comments afterwards could at their strongest be seen as "ambiguous or misleading" but not deliberate lies.

The IPCC has said it disagrees with the findings, and called on Tuesday for all three officers to face misconduct panels, saying the evidence indicated "an issue of honesty and integrity".

Deborah Glass, deputy chair of the IPCC, said on Tuesday the officers should face disciplinary panels to decide whether they lied.

The home secretary, Theresa May, told the home affairs select committee it was "quite wrong" of West Mercia police not to take disciplinary proceedings against the three officers.

May said: "The IPCC statement makes troubling reading. If it is indeed the case that warranted police officers behaved in the way Deborah Glass has described, that's not acceptable at all."


http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/oct/15/plebgate-officers-disciplinary-hearing-ipcc-andrew-mitchell

The death-defying goats that don't give a dam! Animals scale Italian lake's near-vertical barrier to lick stones for their minerals

Just hold on a second about Mitchell, he knew what the rules were going up to that gate/entrance.

Usual Tory attitude Im above the law.

They say he'd been many times before. Doesnt excuse him for being ignorant.

Agree though cops shouldnt have told porkies if thats the case.

Mitchels fault though from evidence so far.

Well you called me a "pleb" on this bulletin board gf - does that excuse you for being "ignorant"? Or is it a case of rules for some and a different set of rules for you?

Entirely the fault of the officers on duty.

Andrew Mitchell, the Cabinet minister at the centre of the ‘Plebgate’ row, was ‘stitched up’ by police, an alleged whistleblower has said.

A senior officer has described in the Sunday Times how evidence was doctored against the former chief whip, who resigned from the government over the accusation he launched a foul-mouthed rant at police as he tried to cycle through the main gates at Downing Street last September.

In the newspaper article it references an account of the alleged conspiracy against Mr Mitchell, who claimed he did not use the word ‘plebs’ as seen in a leaked police log, adding he was the victim of a deliberate attempt to ‘toxify’ the Conservatives.

The whistleblower stated: “On September 18, 2012 Mr Mitchell had also insisted on being let out through the main gate. Following this one officer said to the other officers: ‘Right, we can stitch him up’.”

The word ‘plebs’ was added to the original police log of the conversation the former chief whip was said to have had with the officer who was guarding the gates on September 19, the whistleblower told the newspaper.

hmm mr sticky .... not trying to slant the facts to suit your political bias i hope .... in other words, stop talking bollocks

Manuel.

I am reporting you to the suitable authority for language offence or something similar.

----------

As I wrote before, calling somebody a pleb seems hardly a criminal offence and the description was frequently used when I was a student as a mild insult in banter.

Whether, or not the word pleb was used is not material.

What is material, as GF points out, is the attitude of Mitchell to an employee.

It appears knowingly offensive and abuse of his privileged position and Mitchell is a poor example to the plebs and not fit for office.

If he had apologised at the time, it could be accepted differently and I would hoped be dismissed without mark.



Falsification of evidence verbal of otherwise is not acceptable, especially by the police, if as I suspect in this case it is so, then prosecution may be the necessary action.

However, the evidence corroborating Mitchell claim may be insufficient.

Also, part of evidence concerning the words Mitchell actually used, should then be in the public domain, as well as any evidence of his demeanour at the time of the said offence.

=============

Fred 10 Alf 0.

Yep well said Stan.

Fact is Mitchell has a history of being a nasty barsteward, thats why he was recruited to the Tory Whip office.

Dont get me wrong I cant stand the police and have come up against their non flexible ways, BUT that doesnt mean they are wrong.

Just as in the forces, rules are rules and Mitchell felt he was above them.

He was lucky he didnt get a whack across the back of the head, I have.

It doesn't matter what Mitchell actually said as it is quite clear that the police have falsified evidence and attempted to pervert the course of justice. Mitchell was rude, but the police have acted illegally. It is a lot worse as the ones committing the offence are police.

Rules are rules Hays, this is a security issue, are you denying that.???????

Fred - you seem to be missing the point really and it's called double standards I think. Gf seems to think it is " ignorant" for a Tory minister to refer to a police officer as a pleb, but presumably then he doesn't think he is ignorant for referring to me as a pleb on a public bulletin board. It's the attitude of using the offensive remark - whether as an employer to an employee, or as one member of the public to another which infers 'I think I am a superior person to you'. Apart from that, the police have again been caught falsifying evidence and trying to get away with it.

DB.

You seem to me to be on a higher horse than plebs were allowed to ride.

But your opinion of the Mitchell case is similar to what I think I wrote.
======

But do you think yourself a pleb?

8-') Honest.

It's quite amazing really to think three police officers lied and Mitchell had to resign because of that. I wonder which political party the police officers are affiliated to?

Just seen your question Fred. Do I think I'm a pleb - no, but I admit I can be a pain in the arse! Do you think you are a pleb?

Fred hes not a pleb hes a second class 'B' lister PUNK as I said last night.

Cannot understand you unless you are playing him.....WINK..... taking the time replying to him.

I have him filtered.

Haystack nails it in #31101

Max....sorry mate I disagree, dont forget hes an MP and voted for by the people of his constituency.....what does his lout behaviour send to them as a message.

Dont forget MPs were once the pillars of social society within an electorate area.

I say both are as bad as each other.

Both parties should be dismissed immediatly.

YouGov ‏@YouGov 56m
Update: Labour lead at 5 - Latest YouGov/The Sun results 15th October - Con 34%, Lab 39%, LD 9%, UKIP 11%;

that jack straw, whom i have always rated, says that the absolute minimum the police should do is to apologise, speaks volumes

for the police to retain public support, which is certainly and deservedly far lower than it used to be, the few bad apples have to be very clearly and openly taken to task in whatever manner is appropriate .... for the police to carry out their own snail-pace investigation and then, when it is admitted that evidence was deliberately falsified, and then do nothing is appalling

for guys here to try to pass blame back to mitchell is pretty contemptible
he may or may not be an abrasive character, but then so are many here - including myself - but that in no way warrants let alone justifies the blatant attempt by certain sectors of the police force to damage mitchell's character for their own ends