Andrew Mitchell

This is my understanding. Please put me straight if I have got it wrong:

Police officers at scene filed original report. that Chief Whip was fffing and blinding and calling them plebs.
Mitchell says he had had hard day.
Someone leaks story (and wording) to press and, eventually, Mitchell resigns. He apologises and admits to using F word but not P word. Police officers who were on the receiving end accept apology.
Press of course make much of P word as it is evidently more newsworthy than the F word
Head of Met expresses his support for the police officers at the scene.
If anyone wants to see the words in the police report see this link, but I am not putting them here because some GN members would object.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Mitchell#Downing_Street_bicycle_incident

This week 2 arrests regarding the leaking of the story to the press - from someone who claimed to be at the scene, but it seems was not. One of 2 arrests was a police officer. The other a 23 year old. (helping with the email? )
And since then Mitchell is apparently saying he has "lost confidence in the head of the Met".
Is that where we are up to?
I don't think any member of any government should swear at policemen who were doing their jobs. Same way that head teachers, or NHS managers should not swear at policemen who are doing their jobs. Well paid public servants should not swear at policemen. Poor people often get arrested for swearing at policemen.
So pogs I don't think I am criticising at Mitchell for this behaviour because he is a Tory but because he was a well paid public servant.
I just wonder why are you sticking up for him?

Innocent until proven guilty.

Here, here!

Jess M

Why are you sticking up for him POGS?

I think there are very serious points raised which are tantamount to untruths being told actually. One, the police officer said he was a member of the public, untrue. Two, he said lots of onlookers were taken back by what was said, untrue, CCTV proves that point. 3,the police log book, if it has been accurately reported?, also said there were people there.

I get very worried how people can decry a person, political party, media outlet, etc., simply because they dislike them. That is no reason for choosing if, when or how you can elect to turn a blind eye to corruption or bad behaviour surely. I hope I would look at a story on balance and make an intelligent decision and that is all I am doing in this instance. That is standing up for truth and honesty, nothing more.

I am sick and tired of trial by media or political point scoring and I think as with McAlpine the media and all politicians should reflect how they behave, without evidence. They may be next!!!!

Do you know something I don't? Ah yes, the world is due to end tomorrow

We might not all make it there, though...

Thanks girls. I'm off now for the night but may speak to you tomorrow if we are all still here If not then I'll see you all in heaven

Nanado!

If course you were missed (((hug)))

illegitimi non carborundum ... and before the pedants jump on me...I do know its a spoof (and while the cat is away????)

I noticed too Moved but as I can't rely on my memory anymore........

Another though Nanado its nice that you missed me, I didn't think anyone had/would notice.

Nanado yes I went on a long holiday and had better things to do than go on GN!

With all due respect granny-a, your DH wasn't the Chief Whip!

May I interject with a note of personal (in a vicarious sort of way that is) experience of cycling into or out of Downing Street? When the Wonderful Man visited No.10 last year he did, of course (being a bit of an eco-warrior), go on his pushbike. Through the side gate. As requested. By a very nice police officer. He did not swear at said officer. Oh no, no, no. He said, "Certainly officer."

You're doubtless right, we could! And make less hash of it.

Nice to see you posting again moved! Well nice to see everyone posting but is it my imagination or did you lose touch with GN for ages?

We would make a good job of trials, running the NHS, local and national government - why not?

Yep. Why not? We're Grans!

he he he

JO I've read the original thread again and there's more than a hint of trial by GN

A couple of things which don't seem to be have addressed so far:

1 Apparently the main gate had always been opened for him previously so that was what he expected on that day.

2 Why was it left to channel 4 to find out that the CCTV showed that no one was near when it happened and therefore the email could not have been genuine? How come the Met didn't look at the CCTV straight away? I wonder if we would know any of this if C4 hadn't investigated. Sounds like another police cover up to me.

My very limited expereince of the police is that they are not always polite and courteous, especially if they think you are not able to answer back! There was the time they were very rude to my son for wearing a hood, the time a mounted policeman charged me when I had a pushchair for no good reason and the time a neighbour policeman's son stole a toy gun from my house and he took the 'bullets' in to check if they were real! He didn't even admit it to us when returning the gun. Yes, I have met good and pleasant ones but that is not the issue here.

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

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......

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.

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.

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.