Andrew Mitchell result

Yes.Because the judiciary can't go against the police when it's one person's word over another.
He may well have said it...... or maybe not.
There was so much lying going on from the police that it cast doubt on the fact that he may have said it.
Seven officers were disciplined, 2 of which were sacked and another went to prison.
If they had not lied, then everyone would have thought that he had certainly said it[which he well might have done.] What a fiasco all round.

Not really, but I'm pleased having read some of the comments by some of the protection squad he had around him. It shows that money does not always win.
It's good that a judge thinks the policeman was telling the truth.
I wonder where Mitchell is going to get the money.
By the way, is he going to be charged with perjury?

Now I'm just waiting for David Mellor to take the taxi driver to court.

I thought there was only one policeman that lied, the one who pretended to be a member of the public.

I just don't understand why he brought this case in the first place. He might have known he wouldn't necessarily get the benefit of the doubt a second time.

That'll larn 'im!

I must admit I am surprised.

Nobody comes out of this debacle covered in glory do they !

Police Officers have been sacked.

The Police Federation looked look like a bunch of mafia dons.

Andrew Mitchell admits to swearing at the police.

It is widely reported that the judge has said Mitchell did say the word 'Pleb'. This is not quite correct as I see it. His words were:-

" 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"

I don't understand how the judge has summed this up as he has done and I say that not in defense of Mitchell or a Conservative but looking at the evidence provided.

I would have said the same about an MP of any political persuasion.

Arrogance, I think, has been Mitchell's downfall.

I guess he thought he was untouchable

I think the judge said that because the policeman said he had never heard the word pleb until Mitchell said it.
I think I'd be upset if I was the policeman as the judge said that he is not the sort of man to have the wit and imagination to invent on the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet member said to him.

There is nothing worse than a snooty, arrogant Englishman/woman, and we seem to have more than our fair share in our members of Parliament.

I find it hard to believe that the policeman had never heard the word 'pleb' before. Very hard.

Of course they have ana and much worse, but and it is a big BUT for Mitchell and the Tory party he couldn't have chosen a worse description with all it's loaded connotations.

There you go, calling another policeman a liar.

Can we have a poll, then?

How many people had not heard of the word pleb until it was all over the newspapers?

Yes, but we have to remember that this is a policeman of little wit (a bit like Pooh, who had little brain).

I think what the judge said was incredibly rude and patronising to PC Rowland and only goes further to highlight how the 'upper echelons' view the rest of us. However I'm glad that he seems to have made a considered judgement unaffected by the media circus that has surrounded this case since the incident first happened.

As a proud member of the witless plebery I am surprised and relieved that Mr Mitchell lost his libel action. I gather that in a High Court ruling last year the massive legal fees will fall to be paid by Mr Mitchell's solicitors who acted on a no-win no-fee basis and messed up on the paperwork, so 'tt' for them. I'm not sure what will happen now regarding compensation or, indeed, any right of appeal by Mr Mitchell, but it has been a squalid reminder of how nasty some people can be. Interesting to see if Mr Mitchell's band of right-wing brothers close ranks around him or wash their hands and send him off to Godiva country.

Not sure I'd mind being thought witless if it meant a politician got his cummuppance as a result.

Poor Mr Mitchell he's only got four houses - have to sell one of them then you arrogant b*******d.

I gather that Andrew Mitchell is hoping to re-launch his political career after the next election including possible appointment as a minister of state. I can only hope that such an event will consign him to obscurity in the depths of outer space, perhaps with David Mellor as a companion. On the other hand it seems that the poor chap is having to sell one of his properties in order to pay-off his vast debts and has had to go back to work as an investment banker. Shame. Perhaps his right-wing brothers will be passing the hat round for him in the queue at the food-bank.

I have no idea who lied, neither has the judge , his verdict was his opinion not based on facts . Cannot forget how the police were believe after Hillsborough though

How sad that the judge pronounced that the PC was too dim to have made it up. Hmm.

I caught the tail end of a discussion on radio 4 this morning where someone was saying that we should take no notice of the bad manners and arrogance or ill-judged tweets of those in power and concentrate on whether they are good administrators. How I do disagree with that - I want decent people of integrity running the country and these sort of lapses of judgement are relevant in my view. If you can't be polite to a taxi man or a traffic policeman, how can you deal tactfully and maturely with the diplomacy required for good international relations?

I quite often look at member's interests on the parliament website. Andrew Mitchell received over £70,000 for 30 days work up to October. That was just looking at one week's returns.
Whatever he said, he hasn't felt bad enough not to do consultancy work for various companies. He has his MP's salary and expenses on top of that.

I would be interested to know, Mishap, how these people on radio 4 know who is a good administrator or not. MPs change from position to position all the time and do not often get a chance to find out much about the department they are supposed to be running. Except, of course, for IDS, and he should have changed years ago.

Papa, does he think his constituents are going to vote for him? Will they feel sorry for him? Surely they will want someone less tainted.
This should be a definite case for recall.

I think some of the police lied to back up a colleague who they knew to be honest, which was wrong if they did not hear the exchange.

However, I think the policeman in question is honest and telling the truth about what happened and what was said although it is a pity that the judge made a rather belittling comment about him in his summing up. I read somewhere at the time that members of Mitchell's (lowly ) staff said that they had been called 'plebs' and other derogatory terms over the years. He has a history of arrogance and calling people names as other witnesses have stated under oath including his protection staff. It displays a total lack of respect for anyone he considers 'beneath' him which is unfortunately all too true of a lot of politicians and ex-politicians.

Good post Sat 29-Nov-14 11:18:38, Mishap

I read that Andrew Mitchell, amongst many other things, is a Privy Councillor, Freeman of the City of London and Liveryman of the Vintners' Company. Will he have the decency to resign from these positions? I do hope so. As regards his constituency, lets hope that the electors of Sutton Coldfield have the wit to send him packing next year, to reflect on his conduct and spend some more time with his family. Perhaps a spot of anger management would also be a good idea, together with a slice or two of humble pie.

Is what Andrew Mitchell said about this PC, in the heat of the moment, really any worse than the remarks the judge has made about his lack of 'wit and imagination'?
A pyrrhic victory for the police indeed!