The more i read about his background the less sympathy i have and yes you are right about the arrogance as that's exactly what came across in his manner when i saw him interviewed. So arrogant that he ignored the wise advice of David Davies who is a close personal friend, to just say sorry and let go of it.
Mitchell had the time to draw salaries from no less than six directorships whilst a serving MP, sold his shares in a Wine merchants for £630k, owns a £2million property in London, a house in the Midlands, and a chalet in Val d'Isere........yet claimed 13 pence for Tippex and 45 pence for a stick of glue on his Parliamentary expenses!
If that's all he claimed expenses for isn't it a good thing? ;-)
If he's actually claimed legitimate expenses for a whole lot of other stuff, why draw attention to the tippex and glue?
This. People getting involved when they weren't even there, and had nothing to do with the incident whatsoever. Disgraceful behaviour that served not only to weaken the case of the officers present, but to tarnish of the reputation of the service entirely.
Not only that but the officer threatened to arrest Mitchell without having any case (the judge even said this).
This is actually a pretty common occurrence and if you are going to claim it isn't, then I'm afraid you'll be telling porkies too because I would expect a decent copper to own up to the fact that it IS a common thing and a pretty everyday abuse of powers.
You don't know very much about this incident and those that followed, do you?
One officer on duty was sacked for misconduct.
Another not on duty was jailed for misconduct because he manufactured evidence.
The police federation told blatant lies after they met with Mitchell.
Even the officer in question isn't exactly coming out of it showered in glory. He threatened to arrest someone on a public order offence with no cause whatsoever.
Does it matter if a public school millionaire Tory thinks of ordinary people as 'plebs' ?
Politically it certainly does........that's why they refer to it as 'toxic'
That's why we've had 2 years of the political class and establishment all rallying round him and denigrating the cops........
If it didn't matter why would all the top politicians (including a few labour ones) put so much effort into trying to persuade us that he was a decent chap and the cops were all lying so-and-so's
If it doesn't matter why does David Mellor doing a 'Do You Know Who I Am?' rant at a taxi driver make front page news
Why does a shadow cabinet minister resign because of her 'implied' snobbery towards a working class man.........
I'm afraid it does matter politically.........it shows up what the political class think of the people
Many people in this country are guilty of inverse snobbery, and exhibit contempt for well spoken, well educated high earners, generalising them as 'posh', 'up themselves' etc. They apply this mindset to politicians, dismissing them as all the same. Some politicians may very well be like that, but then you find people like that in all walks of life, not just in the Westminster bubble.
It doesn't surprise me that politicians would view such people unfavourably and would try to defend against false public perceptions of themselves. Much of the public are depressingly ill-informed and lack the nous to understand the implications of realpolitik. It would be hard to hold political office and not become cynical of the people you represent.
Oh dear. This has upset a few on the politics forum.
What a waste of time and money, as well as ruined careers, and all over such a trivial thing.
If I had a long and frustrating day, then swore at a police officer, I would be arrested.
He could have closed this down within hours by apologising and then moving on with his life and career.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to talk to people - policemen, taxi drivers and others in such a way.
Then again, it takes a special kind of arrogance to be a tory politician.
If I had a long and frustrating day, then swore at a police officer, I would be arrested..
No you would not. This is complete bull (or at least you should not).
Swearing at a police officer is not a criminal offence. If a police officer arrested you for that alone, you would have a case for false imprisonment.
The reason the police officer had to manufacture a load of passers by, was because he threatened Mitchell with arrest. And without passers by who might have been shocked and distressed, there was no public order offence.
The fact that swearing at a police officer is not a crime is confirmed by the below case - where an individual had his conviction quashed. Same kind of nonsense - the police making up a crowd that wasn't there.
I've said this before but any interaction with the police should be filmed. If you can't film it, then surreptitiously make sure your phone is audio recording the incident. Never trust them to treat you fairly if you are a suspect. Ever.
No you would not. This is complete bull (or at least you should not).
Swearing at a police officer is not a criminal offence. If a police officer arrested you for that alone, you would have a case for false imprisonment.
The reason the police officer had to manufacture a load of passers by, was because he threatened Mitchell with arrest. And without passers by who might have been shocked and distressed, there was no public order offence.
The fact that swearing at a police officer is not a crime is confirmed by the below case - where an individual had his conviction quashed. Same kind of nonsense - the police making up a crowd that wasn't there.
Swearing is not an offence at all, unless accompanied by circumstances relating to a Public Order offence. It has long been the policy in most cases that swearing at a Police Officer wont be prosecuted, because of what the Judge said here, so I'm not sure how this one got through to court.
If there are people around "likely" to be harassed, alarmed or distressed, then a prosecution can take place. I'm sure it was likely people were around Downing Street, and often there is, but some people will say these incidents take place where there is no one around, and that such people are made up. Oh! You did that.
Why on earth did he even ask Police officers to open the main gate for him anyway?
By the time they had messed about opening the main gate for him he could have been out the side gate and away.
Those 15 seconds are going to cost him £2Million. Stupid man.
It's his own fault for dragging this out when he knew damn fine that he had said it.
Probably because it shows that even though he can easily, EASILY afford it, he chose to claim it on his expenses.
No matter how much money you earn, the employer should really pay for the equipment you need to do the job they ask of you, including stationary. It is a bit petty to use this as a stick to beat the guy with, as much as I dislike him.
Not only that but the officer threatened to arrest Mitchell without having any case (the judge even said this).
This is actually a pretty common occurrence and if you are going to claim it isn't, then I'm afraid you'll be telling porkies too because I would expect a decent copper to own up to the fact that it IS a common thing and a pretty everyday abuse of powers.
It's not as common an occurrence as it once was, but yes it does happen. As for abuse of powers, I disagree, it's more to do with a misunderstanding of the law. A few years ago it was clarified, and it doesn't happen anywhere near as much now.
People can be arrested for swearing at police officers, if the circumstance dictates it. If somebody is throwing out a round of f's and c's at a police officer in the middle of a busy shopping centre, an arrest will more often than not be justified. The other issue in this case is that as well as the offence not being made out, there wouldn't have been any necessity for arrest either.
Another not on duty was jailed for misconduct because he manufactured evidence.
The police federation told blatant lies after they met with Mitchell.
Even the officer in question isn't exactly coming out of it showered in glory. He threatened to arrest someone on a public order offence with no cause whatsoever.
Aside from the last one, none of those were PC Rowland.
None of those are particularly relevant to this civil case, even the threat of arrest, although it was mentioned, it didn't change much.
Hence why I said what I said, in reply to the post I replied too.
Swearing is not an offence at all, unless accompanied by circumstances relating to a Public Order offence. It has long been the policy in most cases that swearing at a Police Officer wont be prosecuted, because of what the Judge said here, so I'm not sure how this one got through to court.
If there are people around "likely" to be harassed, alarmed or distressed, then a prosecution can take place. I'm sure it was likely people were around Downing Street, and often there is, but some people will say these incidents take place where there is no one around, and that such people are made up. Oh! You did that.
The judge has said there were no grounds for arrest.
Yes, I did imply the people were made up. Given the officer was absolutely certain there were people around yet couldn't say where they were standing, what race they were, what gender they were, about how many they were; I'm going to say it is my opinion they were fictitious. Because a Section 4 is the easiest thing for the police to abuse. And they do it regularly. If you are claiming they don't, well you're a liar too.
I don't see anything wrong with calling somebody a "pleb". There are an awful lot of them about nowadays!
What I do object too is the Police Federation trying to make political capital out of it. Imagine how much worse this would have been if any of the parties had been colonial!
I don't see anything wrong with calling somebody a "pleb". There are an awful lot of them about nowadays!
What I do object too is the Police Federation trying to make political capital out of it. Imagine how much worse this would have been if any of the parties had been colonial!
The police federation's behaviour in this whole affair has explained perfectly why Theresa May has taken away its public funds.
I've said this before but any interaction with the police should be filmed. If you can't film it, then surreptitiously make sure your phone is audio recording the incident. Never trust them to treat you fairly if you are a suspect. Ever.
If he was innocent he should heve filmed himself not calling the cops plebs just in case?
The judge has said there were no grounds for arrest.
Yes, I did imply the people were made up. Given the officer was absolutely certain there were people around yet couldn't say where they were standing, what race they were, what gender they were, about how many they were; I'm going to say it is my opinion they were fictitious. Because a Section 4 is the easiest thing for the police to abuse. And they do it regularly. If you are claiming they don't, well you're a liar too.
Section 4 is incredibly difficult to abuse, and isn't relevant here.
Comments
If that's all he claimed expenses for isn't it a good thing? ;-)
If he's actually claimed legitimate expenses for a whole lot of other stuff, why draw attention to the tippex and glue?
Not only that but the officer threatened to arrest Mitchell without having any case (the judge even said this).
This is actually a pretty common occurrence and if you are going to claim it isn't, then I'm afraid you'll be telling porkies too because I would expect a decent copper to own up to the fact that it IS a common thing and a pretty everyday abuse of powers.
One officer on duty was sacked for misconduct.
Another not on duty was jailed for misconduct because he manufactured evidence.
The police federation told blatant lies after they met with Mitchell.
Even the officer in question isn't exactly coming out of it showered in glory. He threatened to arrest someone on a public order offence with no cause whatsoever.
Many people in this country are guilty of inverse snobbery, and exhibit contempt for well spoken, well educated high earners, generalising them as 'posh', 'up themselves' etc. They apply this mindset to politicians, dismissing them as all the same. Some politicians may very well be like that, but then you find people like that in all walks of life, not just in the Westminster bubble.
It doesn't surprise me that politicians would view such people unfavourably and would try to defend against false public perceptions of themselves. Much of the public are depressingly ill-informed and lack the nous to understand the implications of realpolitik. It would be hard to hold political office and not become cynical of the people you represent.
What a waste of time and money, as well as ruined careers, and all over such a trivial thing.
:kitty:
If I had a long and frustrating day, then swore at a police officer, I would be arrested.
He could have closed this down within hours by apologising and then moving on with his life and career.
It takes a special kind of arrogance to talk to people - policemen, taxi drivers and others in such a way.
Then again, it takes a special kind of arrogance to be a tory politician.
No you would not. This is complete bull (or at least you should not).
Swearing at a police officer is not a criminal offence. If a police officer arrested you for that alone, you would have a case for false imprisonment.
The reason the police officer had to manufacture a load of passers by, was because he threatened Mitchell with arrest. And without passers by who might have been shocked and distressed, there was no public order offence.
The fact that swearing at a police officer is not a crime is confirmed by the below case - where an individual had his conviction quashed. Same kind of nonsense - the police making up a crowd that wasn't there.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8902770/Swearing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html
Swearing is not an offence at all, unless accompanied by circumstances relating to a Public Order offence. It has long been the policy in most cases that swearing at a Police Officer wont be prosecuted, because of what the Judge said here, so I'm not sure how this one got through to court.
If there are people around "likely" to be harassed, alarmed or distressed, then a prosecution can take place. I'm sure it was likely people were around Downing Street, and often there is, but some people will say these incidents take place where there is no one around, and that such people are made up. Oh! You did that.
Probably because it shows that even though he can easily, EASILY afford it, he chose to claim it on his expenses.
It's his own fault for dragging this out when he knew damn fine that he had said it.
No matter how much money you earn, the employer should really pay for the equipment you need to do the job they ask of you, including stationary. It is a bit petty to use this as a stick to beat the guy with, as much as I dislike him.
It's not as common an occurrence as it once was, but yes it does happen. As for abuse of powers, I disagree, it's more to do with a misunderstanding of the law. A few years ago it was clarified, and it doesn't happen anywhere near as much now.
People can be arrested for swearing at police officers, if the circumstance dictates it. If somebody is throwing out a round of f's and c's at a police officer in the middle of a busy shopping centre, an arrest will more often than not be justified. The other issue in this case is that as well as the offence not being made out, there wouldn't have been any necessity for arrest either.
Aside from the last one, none of those were PC Rowland.
None of those are particularly relevant to this civil case, even the threat of arrest, although it was mentioned, it didn't change much.
Hence why I said what I said, in reply to the post I replied too.
The judge has said there were no grounds for arrest.
Yes, I did imply the people were made up. Given the officer was absolutely certain there were people around yet couldn't say where they were standing, what race they were, what gender they were, about how many they were; I'm going to say it is my opinion they were fictitious. Because a Section 4 is the easiest thing for the police to abuse. And they do it regularly. If you are claiming they don't, well you're a liar too.
What I do object too is the Police Federation trying to make political capital out of it. Imagine how much worse this would have been if any of the parties had been colonial!
The police federation's behaviour in this whole affair has explained perfectly why Theresa May has taken away its public funds.
If he was innocent he should heve filmed himself not calling the cops plebs just in case?
I'm actually thinking about thing other things.
The non crowd that was amassing at the front gate for example.
Section 4 is incredibly difficult to abuse, and isn't relevant here.
This was Section 5. ;-)
My bad. But the point remains.