Andrew Mitchell

Yes, one was a woman. They were fairly rookie constables.

I thought there was only one officer?

Oh right. I didn't know that. That was naughty. Not enough to have him out of his job though. IMO

Yes that is certainly true movealot that the police don't seem to have fully investigated the leaking and that the police federation really made as much political capital out of it as they possibly could.
j05 are you winding us up again?
I don't think it matters whether man or woman. Point is that a professional public servant should respect police and not swear at them.
Of course not all those who swear at police get arrested - but it can happen. Policeman stops you and asks you to turn out your pockets. You argue back and swear at him/her. I would not advise any young person to do this, would you? If a teenaged son or grandson did that we would not be impressed and would think he had asked for it if he was taken to the station.

I don't think the Downing Street protection squad includes rookie constables, petallus.

Why would I be winding anyone up? I'm old fashioned enough to believe that one man swearing at another isn't that bad, policeman or not. But not to a woman. Not really.

And I am sick and tired of people accusing me of "winding up" other posters. I DON'T DELIBERATELY DO IT!!!

jings ...deep breath...shoulders back...chest out...and

Thank you soop. x

There's more than one way of winding people up. I actually get more wound up by pedantic, dogmatic, boring, overlong and pompous declarations than by your humerous posts JO

Ditto Nanado

Mamie good spot. I read 'constables'; the rookie bit came from my imagination.

I agree too, Nanado!

Although I'm not thinking of this thread in particular, I hasten to add.

Thank you!!!

Jess

Twice now you have asked me, 'why are you sticking up for Mitchell'.

I am sticking up for the right of anybody not to be subjected to possible false allegations. Because of the high profile of Mitchell he was relentlessly hounded by the media and the Police Federation used him as a stick in their war on police pay and conditions.

The e.mail sent by the police officer, who proported to be a member of the public and said he had witnessed what happened, was sent, I believe, initially to the Deputy Chief Whip. It now appears that officer and his e.mail have now been totally discredited. He was not a member of the public, he was not at the gates of Downing Street and cctv shows neither were any other members of the public, who he declared were as shocked as he was to witness what happened.

The police log book was obviously either leaked to, stolen, or copied and hence got into the hands of the press. This log book, if reported accurately?, also has been discredited as it too states there were members of the public at the gates.

The officers who are on duty at the gates of Downing Street are highly trained officers, they will also have fire arms training so hardly rookies.

I have stated he was wrong to swear at the officers. I personally do not think we will get to know if the word pleb was used. The mindless actions of the apparent 'rogue' officer has damaged any chance of that. A classic case of shooting yourself in the foot I say.

I say again, it cannot be the case that we simply 'pick and choose' if and when we uphold a persons right to have the truth told about them, irrespective of who they are.

I was amused a few days ago to hear one of AM's supporters say, in a rather pompous voice, 'we would never use the word pleb'.

Oh yeh! Eaton schoolboys don't call the rest of us plebs? Suppose they have never heard of the word oicks either

jess I admit to being a bit surprised at your approach. I would have thought as a scientist you would have applied logic and reason to this issue. The evidence is confused and now tainted. We do not know enough to make a judgement. Therefore the 'innocent until proved guilty' concept must surely apply?

POGS I think you put that rather well. I don't know what he said either, and I doubt we ever will but all the evidence has now been discredited as IMO have the police for not telling us what the CCTV showed.

Pogs - you put it beautifully.

I also wish the press would stop acting as a pack. What one prints they all pick up and follow blindly. Thank goodness one reporter proved to be a proper investigative reporter. We need more of his/her ilk.

Oh I see what you are getting at pogs - there are so many issues involved and the waters are muddied by both the press and the police federation.
I certainly agree that trial by journalist or union boss is not a good thing.
My view remains though, Nando that seeing as he admitted to losing his temper and swearing at a police officer he should have resigned forthwith. And Cameron should have requested that he do so, immediately.
Behaviour like this is just not acceptable in any government minister and I'm sure you will agree sets a terrible example to everyone else - it is ok to lose your temper and swear at public officials.
All the nonsense that followed seemed to me to be immaterial to that original point.

Well said, Jess - that was my point, too!

forthwith ah ha! You are displeased with him for not resigning immediately after swearing at a police officer. Is that it?

I thought all that was dealt with on a previous thread.

My understanding was that POG'S OP was about him being 'stitched up' by certain people over the pleb allegation.

I think I've been postimg on the wrong thread yet again Ana, have I?

Not sure, Nanado - who's forthwith?

Well, I don't trust politicians, and I don't trust the police. I don't trust the BBC and I don't trust the press. And it seems like I can't trust this forthwith person either . ad infinitum.....

...and I've never trusted bicycles either....