Andrew Mitchell

What I still find astonishing though is that he did use the f-word to a policeman - do we really think that that's OK and what would have happened to a young black man doing that? However, if its true about the email from the policeman, then I'm shocked - is the Met fit for purpose? And look at their record with rape!

Which is worse- the f-word or "pleb"? Or indeed the whole sordid affair? And, head in hands, can anybody be trusted any more?

I just feel that people in positions of power and responsibility should behave appropriately - in all the positions I have held /hold I have never sworn at anyone whilst in that particular role - I only swear at home and then it's usually MPs, the Met etc etc that cause that.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe has said that there is "more to this than meets the eye" and he hopes people would support his actions when they "hear the full story".

This looks like turning out to be VERY interesting

Gracesmum I think saying f---- to a police officer is an offence, which as an MP he should have known. On the other hand, saying 'pleb' ( or even 'plebs' which would have been correct ) probably isn't an offence. But it is politically very risky because using it shows an offensive attitude to us, the punters. So, given the amount of oaths floating around all the time, everywhere, I think using 'pleb/s' is more criminal.

Do we know for sure it was the eff word he used. Mind you, most people swear these days. It was the "plebs" thing that was the worst because it was insulting to the police, in an "I look down on him way".

Will we ever know what was said? They should let him back anyway. And open the gate for him on his bike.

Push bikes rule OK?

We don't use the F word but I think it is quite common in some circles and policemen presumably use it themselves quite often. I know one was very offensive to my son when he went to meet DH from a football match. He was wearing a hood and therefore must have been trouble!

I don't think in normal circumstances they would think twice about it, wouldn't want the paperwork involved in charging someone for the odd swear word. A bit like that footballer who complained that the ref had been unkind to heis colleague! There is certainly more to this than meets the eye.

I quite like the idea that an MP is fallible just like the rest of us. I have been known to lose my cool occassionally, why not an MP?

I've just read the report about this, and it appears that an email which backed up the police's version of events (and swear words) was actually sent by a serving police officer pretending to be a passing member of the public.

If it's true, I don't see that it negates the case against Mitchell - we're just back at square one with his word against theirs.

Yes, but if one of them lied........................

Although the others had it written up in their pocket books.

Mitchell did admit to saying 'f...ing' at the police officers which still shows a lack of respect. (Boris Johnson had previously said that swearing at the police should be an arrestable offence.)

If we are to believe other reports he'd argued with the police about the same thing the week before.

These officers are armed and protecting Downing Street - if a senior government minister doesn't show common courtesy to them, who will?

Andrew Mitchell did say he had used the 'f' word and apologised to the police officer. The police officer in turn accepted his apology, supposedly.

The media of all types made the word PLEB the main cause for concern. Indeed I watch Parliament sometimes and I could never get my head around the fact, if the PLEB word was so diabolical why did M.P.s use the word, frequently, in the House of Commons?. Why did the Police Federation blazen the word over everyting that moved? It just made the whole sorry episode childish as it ran on and on.

At the time of 'Plebgate' I was astonished how relentlessly he was targeted by the t.v., papers and yes by other M.P's. Especially as M.P's who had fiddled thousands of pounds kept their jobs, yet they shouted for his resignation, hypocrites.

YOu get arrested for ffffing at police offfffficers if your ffffface doesn't fffffit.
Plebs not good cos it smacks of public schoolboys thinking they are better than the rest of us.
Remember it was the week the Hillsborough report came out and police federation arguing about pay and conditions again.
I don't think it is lying that is the issue now. It's leaking but a supposed witness, who wasn't there and works for the met. Could be a deliberate political move or just stirring.

The latest revelation about the alleged forged report is of concern but does not really alter the facts about the incident.

He is still not disputing that he used the F word to the officer on duty; but he is disputing he said "pleb."

What planet does this man live on? He is supposed to be setting a good example . He was high up in the government and he swore at the policeman on duty trying to protect him. That is not acceptable!

Had he tripped and fallen, such a swear word might be forgiveable, but he swore very directly and foully at someone doing their job, just because he could not get his own way.

What was so important about taking his bike through the main gate when he could go out of side door he is only walking a few extra yards?

He sounds to me like an arrogant G*t who has little regard for ordinary working people!

Couldn't agree more Nelliemoser!!

No he shouldn't have said any of it. He'd had an intensively busy day and a policeman got a bit jobs worth with him, but he's an MP so should be above loosing his temper, using foul language and, as a public school toff, be above lowering himself in such a manner in front of an ordinary person.

However he did. He apologised properly to the policeman concerned who accepted that apology. The policeman didn't have to. As has been pointed put he could have made a lot more of it. But he accepted that Andrew Mitchell had lost his cool at the end of a bad day. In fact he may have done so as an acknowledgement that he may, also at the end of a hard day's policing, have been a bit obstreperous too?

What bothers me is that no one had bothered to check the validity of this witness who wasn't even there.

Well said, Nelliemoser. What was so wrong with being requested to push his bike through the side gate? If he had, all this could have been avoided.

Depends how he was requested.

That's a fair point Nfk.

I agree Andrew Mitchell should not have sworn at the officers.

Like him or dislike him, there is no way anybody has the right to tell lies and make someones life hell, surely.

I disagree. If a security guard or policeman tells you to do something rudely, or there is no excuse for rudeness in return. It is not up to a member of the public to question someone doing that kind of job. After all if you have a big security gate closed for the night at the end of DSt - every time you open it, its a reduction in security.
And what are the chances that it was rude?
"I'm sorry sir, I have to insist you use the side gate" will have been the approach, I expect. They are not going to put rough bouncer-type policemen outside Downing st are they?

Why are you sticking up for him pogs? There is no suggestion that anyone lied, just that someone leaked.

I think the inference is that the person who leaked wasn't there, but said they were, didn't overhear what was said, though he said he did and didn't hear what was said although he claimed to be quoting.

That's not just lying it's vindictive nastiness.

Mr Mitchell could well be a nasty piece of work or a true, good and honest person. I don't know him - or move in those esteemed circles - that's no longer the point.

Nfk and POGS I agree. One question which has never been asked is did Mr Mitchell ask for the main gates to be specifically opened just for him or did he simply attempt to cycle through gates that were already open?

If the former then I have no sympathy but if the latter is the case then it's a bit of a security guard with a jobsworth problem.

Nanado I assume the big security gates are there to stop "ram raider terrorists " coming through, so should be closed at all times unless being used by vehicles. If they have security rules and ignored them think what trouble they would be in.
From what I saw on the news of the cctv shots they seemed to be closed.

According to one paper this morning, it's moved on from what Mr Mitchell did. It's become much more important. Something to do with subverting the government and attempting to remove a politician from a post.

I think they really want to go after this rogue copper now and see him in court on BIG charges! [fschock]

You know what they're like - trial by media......

That sounds like he was tied up to a post, but YKWIM.