MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30235009 ]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30235009[/url]
Weighing up the competing claims, the judge said PC Rowland was "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper".
Ouch!
Outside court, the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would be "devastating" for Mr Mitchell's reputation.
He had a reputation????
I wonder if we'll still somehow all end up paying his absolutely enormous legal bill?
🙂
Other lot asking for £200,000 up front as being approx 1/5th of their total bill. Then he needs to pay his own costs.
Ouch.
High risk and big stakes taking it to court, and its blown up in his face
Did you see that the police admitted that nobody could trace any documentation to support the whole 'bikes are not allowed to use the main gates' order in the first place? The whole 'rule' was a willo the wisp.
(Mr Justice Mitting)described the MP's behaviour as "childish" and found his version of events was inconsistent with the CCTV recording from that evening.He added that gaps and inconsistencies in PC Rowland's account did not demonstrate he fabricated his account, as Mr Mitchell's lawyers had claimed.
"For the reasons given 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."
Ouch indeed !
Mr Justice Mitting gave his verdict after listening to two weeks of evidence from 26 witnesses and considering volumes of documents concerning a 15-second exchange.
What a waste of time and money over absolutely bugger all.
What a waste of time and money over absolutely bugger all.
Not really, an unpleasant individual and serving politician has been outed as a raging snob and totally humiliated, so I'd say some good has come of it.
Indeed the instant justice of the hammer without recourse to appeal would have been better...and any replies to go unanswered 😉
Certainly ranks up there with Jonathan Aitkin's "simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" as a decision to go to court.
Drac/Cougar's going to ban him ? 😯instant justice of the hammer
was aimed at Cougars post
TBH it looks like everyone lied /fabricated or exaggerated the events to some degree still "justice" has been done
Interesting case given Police found guilty of various charges. All seems a high risk case given he admitted saying F***, so very possible he said pleb too - certainly that was the judges view.
What a waste of time and money over absolutely bugger all.
Well he lost his job over it. Also think of all the VAT and the money in the lawyers pockets 😯
I don't know what he thought was going to happen. From the news reports I've heard, the court hearings consisted of a procession of witnesses coming forward to testify that he was indeed a complete **** and that what he was accused of was pretty typical of him!
Couldn't have happened to a nicer fella.
binners - MemberFrom the news reports I've heard, the court hearings consisted of a procession of witnesses coming forward to testify that he was indeed a complete **** and that what he was accused of was pretty typical of him!
And that was just his friends!
I assume he just expected to Judge to side with him as he was a Tory and the other side was a Pleb!
Certainly ranks up there with Jonathan Aitkin's "simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play" as a decision to go to court.
+1
I think he was hoping that, in the light of all the other proceedings, News Group would roll over and settle.
How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory etc.
Chief whip is basically 'most unpleasant bullying arsehole' turned into an official role. To get that job in the conservative party you come up against some pretty stiff competition.
He really must be an exceptional bellend.
[img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT2y21zTHo-pCMxoiQH0O5DPPMG8j32kSkHsX3sfmJo0IL6BJ8lFQ [/img]
an unpleasant individual and serving politician has been outed as a raging snob
Sure. But last I checked there was no law against that, otherwise we wouldn't have a House of Lords.
He'd have been better letting it go. Suing a newspaper is a high risk strategy.
He's got pay the PC and the sun £150k each in the next 14 days as a down payment on their costs...
"What a waste of time and money over absolutely bugger all"Not really, an unpleasant individual and serving politician has been outed as a raging snob and totally humiliated, so I'd say some good has come of it.
Do you really need the decision of a court case to inform you that a public school educated Tory politician might be a "raging snob" ?
Wonder what PC Rowland will be doing tonight?
And that was just his friends!
The oddest bit is turns out he's mates with Bob Geldof.
What about the police who where found to have been lying / fabricating evidence ?
Easy to say now that Mitchell should have left the matter there, he would have emerged with some credibility.
EDIT :wasawas don't you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with this statement. FWIW I am going to a Hacked Off meeting in a couple of weeks.
He'd have been better letting it go. Suing a newspaper is a high risk strategy.
Other lot asking for £200,000 up front as being approx 1/5th of their total bill. Then he needs to pay his own costs.
I am sure his mate Sir Bob will help him out 😉
What about the police who where found to have been lying / fabricating evidence ?
the officer who sent the e-mail and said they were there when they were not went to prison - 12 mths iirc
His behaviour did not mean they were lying but the police have not covered themselves in glory - false description of the meeting for example
Who knew the establishment lied?
He had previous form for being rude to officers of the state. Would have been much easier for him if he had behaved in a civil manner in the first place, or at least made apologies to the officers after his outburst.
Another great example, after Emily Thornberry's stupid Tweet, of the Westminster elite thinking they are better than the rest of us.
At least justice has been served.
he did apologise but denied saying pleb hence the court case
[i]EDIT :wasawas don't you think that there is something fundamentally wrong with this statement. FWIW I am going to a Hacked Off meeting in a couple of weeks.[/i]
Nope. He wasn't sure if he said it or not and the cop was too stupid to make it up. It was never going to end well.
IMO Hacked Off are worse than what they're trying to sort out. The laws they're championing would end the vast majority of 'proper' investigative journalism. I see them as the UKIP of this issue - you can kind of see the point they're making but the solution they've proposed is out of all proportion.
It really is dangerous riding your bike in London without a helmet then.
Who'd fancy being a judge in this case. Just look at the parties involved, and ask the question 'who is telling the truth here?'
a) A Tory politician
b) The Sun newspaper
c) The Metropolitan Police
d) None of the above
Hang on,
the judge said PC Rowland was "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper".
Isn't that [i]worse[/i] than calling someone a pleb? Poor sod, not only is he a pleb but he's a stupid, slow-witted pleb.
I agree Cougar - he's going to get a bit of ribbing at work tomorrow.
Isn't that worse than calling someone a pleb?
He wasn't in court because he was accused of insulting PC Rowland, he was in court to decide whether or not he had used the word pleb.
2 snobs have got their comeuppance in one week - result.
Chief whip is basically 'most unpleasant bullying arsehole' turned into an official role.
Indeed. You need to be a particular type of swine to get that job.
It hasn't been all roses for the police officer - the judge said that he didn't consider PC Rowland had the wit to make up the allegation. Ouch.
It was the judge that said that ernie!
It was the judge that said that ernie!
Yes I know. The judge had to decide whether he had used the word pleb, not whether he has insulted PC Rowland. The judge, no doubt a public school educated snob himself, decided that he had. Although he himself would presumably have called him a dim-witted pleb.
Although he himself would presumably have called him a dim-witted pleb.
He's have probably been a bit more polite eg "You sir, are a dim-witted pleb." and not sworn.
I can see a big expenses claim coming in...
Crazy to think the amount of press coverage and police resources ploughed into all this, when there is mounting evidence to suggest a nationwide network of child rapists and murderers within Westminster.
Crazy to think the amount of press coverage and police resources ploughed into all this
This court case hardly received any press coverage, and I don't know what police resources went into it, if any.
Obviously to the conspiracy theorists the reason that Andrew Michell decided to sue the Sun was because he wanted deflect attention away from the "nationwide network of child rapists and murderers within Westminster".
Poor sod, not only is he a pleb but he's a stupid, slow-witted pleb
That's why his job is standing by a gate and occasionally opening it, or refusing to open it, as the case may be.
with the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play another tory cabinet minister loses a libel case will they ever learn ?
Mitchell has already paid £300K in legal costs and now faces a further bill of £2m.
For an event in which there doesn't appear to be much evidence other than proven evidence of a concerted and coordinated smear campaign by the police union, this outcome seems pretty strange.
Up to £3 million. That's one hell of an expensive hissy fit! 😆
one mans word against anothers.
You try arguing in court a copper is lying and your version is true- its unlikely to end well with nothing, to corroborate it.
you will inevitable fail even if you are right as they will always get the benefit of the doubt.
Factor in that the accused job is to be a a paid lying bastard with history of being rude ...only hubris led to this IMHO.
Sure. But last I checked there was no law against that, otherwise we wouldn't have a House of Lords.
Yes, but this was a libel case, not a criminal trial.
What a waste of time the whole thing is/was. At the least at the end of it no one knows the truth bars those involved. Even the judge is hedging his bets.
FFS - he used, or may have used, the word pleb? Why is that any different to toff? Both used in a derogatory fashion but one is ok and the other isn't. In a society where 30,000 people, change obscenities including the referee is a w** every week, and that is ok, we get uptight about the silly word pleb.
Ditto John Terry - call a guy a c and you have to use a swear filter. Call him a fat c* or a French c* or a white c**** all ok, but heaven forbid that you preface that with a printable word like black.
Love to know who owns the rights to politically toxic and therefore unacceptable words?
What a waste of time the whole thing is/was. At the least at the end of it no one knows the truth bars those involved. Even the judge is hedging his bets.
Mitchell knew the case would be decided on the balance of probability when he decided to sue...
Agreed, he should have known better.
But people end up convincing themselves that they did/didn't do things even when it is patently false. Perhaps he was just another example.
Still hardly news.
So right was done !
Re: Main gate rule. Its common sense managing risk. Think about it.
What a waste of time and money over absolutely bugger all.
Dunno, one take on it is that a politician who thought he was better than the people he works for has been reminded that he isn't. I think that is a benefit to society if it redresses the balance even a little bit.
I am amazed in this day and age no one understands these rules so let me help
you cannot use race in an insult or its racist. Not sure what is complicated there tbh Ergo french **** would not be ok nor white **** for they are still racist as you mention race/nationality. Its not that hard to grasp IMHO.
Who decided scoiety though these days I think twitter* decides what is and is not offensive. People who did not mean to be offensive apologise. See for example Gervais and his use of Mong for deciding to defend a word you use
As for pleb this will help you understand [ though you seem to know Latin/classics so I am not sure you need its meaning explaining to you]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-30191866
It had a pejorative use back then, said Edith Hall, professor of classics at King's College London.The word 'pleb' can be traced back to Roman times, but its use has died down in recent years
In 2012, after the Downing Street row emerged, she told BBC Radio 4 the word was "almost always used by the ruling classes who were the people that got to write things, say things and decide things about the great masses".
It was sensitive as some have accused the Tories of being toffs and ruling over the masses from a place of privileged and being out of touch with ordinary folk. I know imagine that.
Toff is also derogatory and perhaps we should look at its use but what would you describe the Bullingdon boys as ? Personally i never use it except to insult folk /suggest they are out of touch due to wealth
* I dont tweet to be clear nor use Twitter.
Im glad when speeders and this pleb are brought down.
What about the police who where found to have been lying / fabricating evidence ?
they're scumbags too? #whataboutery
FFS - he used, or may have used, the word pleb? Why is that any different to toff? Both used in a derogatory fashion but one is ok and the other isn't. In a society where 30,000 people, change obscenities including the referee is a w***** every week, and that is ok, we get uptight about the silly word pleb.
you've got it completely backwards. "we" (the people) didn't get uptight about whether he called the cop a pleb or not and launched legal proceedings - Mitchell did!
(PS if you really can't see the important difference between calling someone a pleb and a toff, maybe you should consider a career in opening gates and getting huffy with toffs).
binners - MemberWho'd fancy being a judge in this case. Just look at the parties involved, and ask the question 'who is telling the truth here?'
a) A Tory politician
b) The Sun newspaper
c) The Metropolitan Police
d) None of the above
Ans: d) None of the above. Zombie maggots all of them!
What I don't understand is why the police did not pull the Glock 17 or did the Rodney King on Andrew Mitchell? I mean that would be a far more exciting news ...
So next time please point/pull the Glock 17 at the other person or Rodney King the other person ...
FFS! Is that policeman such a big girl blouse? Oh ... he called me this ... oh he called me that ... mummy mummy that man called me a pleb.
As for the politician ... FFS! Can't he just use a better/stronger swear word American style? See you made me googled the word "pleb"! We are not Roman you know.
🙄
you've got it completely backwards. "we" (the people) didn't get uptight about whether he called the cop a pleb or not and launched legal proceedings - Mitchell did!
Funny you should say that
teamhurtmore - Member
Agreed, he should have known better. ...Still hardly news.
FFS! Is that policeman such a big girl blouse? Oh ... he called me this ... oh he called me that ... mummy mummy that man called me a pleb.
Really? So somebody can say any old crap to you that they think they can get away with by virtue of their position, and if you think it's out of order you're a big girl's blouse?
Of course my irony meter might be playing up here...
So somebody can say any old crap to you that they think they can get away with by virtue of their position
It is something the police do all the time.
MrSalmon - MemberReally? So somebody can say any old crap to you that they think they can get away with by virtue of their position, and if you think it's out of order you're a big girl's blouse?
I would just swear back at the other person to try out my language skills in swearing and if I was the policeman I would have one hand on Glock 17 (like a cowboy preparing to draw ... 😆 ... ) while I swear ...
Instead of wasting public money for handbag arguments. All of them should pay towards the court case ... 🙄
I thought the policeman just reported it to his boss - along the lines of 'look boss, this happened today, just so you know in case there's any backlash'. Recollection from when it happened?
thegreatape - MemberI thought the policeman just reported it to his boss - along the lines of 'look boss, this happened today, just so you know in case there's any backlash'. Recollection from when it happened?
What! The boss reported the incident? That boss should be fired instantly for trying to outdo the job worth. We don't pay him to waste tax payers money for handbag arguments ... 😡
I don't know 🙂 presumably someone in the police made sure it got out there, just not sure it was the dim witted PC Rowland!
thegreatape - MemberI don't know presumably someone in the police made sure it got out there, just not sure it was the dim witted PC Rowland!
What! I give up. 😯
The whole place is infested by handbag carrying macho big blouse one arm larger than the other monkey spanking job worth pretending to play with Glock 17. 🙄
Sigh......you're right though. Job's ****ed 🙂
There's hardly a finer sight than a Tory politician losing big in court 🙂
ENJOY
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
The whole place is infested by handbag carrying macho big blouse one arm larger than the other monkey spanking job worth pretending to play with Glock 17.
Come on! Not all of us here are like that... 😀
I thought the policeman just reported it to his boss - along the lines of 'look boss, this happened today, just so you know in case there's any backlash'. Recollection from when it happened?
That is correct. Mitchell informed the officer [i]"you haven't the last of this"[/i] so the officer quite understandably, and correctly, concluded that he should provide his boss with a report of the incidence, since the issue was apparently going to be taken further.
There is no evidence that the officer concerned was upset with Mitchell's impolite outburst/rant.
After all had the officer been that concerned he could have arrested Mitchell for swearing, a course of action which incidentally has the full support of top Tory politicians :
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/04/boris-johnson-people-swearing-police-arrested ]Boris Johnson: people swearing at police should expect to be arrested[/url]
Of course we all know that when top Tories call for those who swear at police officer to be arrested they mean plebs that swear at police officers, not posh toffs like themselves.
The question is should we ignore hypocrisy by politicians and just simply sweep it under the rug ? Many would suggest no.
Mitchell does not deny swearing at the police officer.
Mitchell does not deny swearing at the police officer.
I think he disputes at, but admits in front of. It is a small point. I really can't understand what motivated to take him this case on, I just don't see an upside that compensates for the downside. The more charitable would say he was fighting against police fit ups as a matter of principle (reminds me of his friend David Davies's self induced by election), the less would say it is hubris - probably a combination of both - but ill advised without doubt.
That said, he does appear to have uncommonly wide ranging support for his work as International Development Secretary and he deserves respect
for that whatever his other character flaws. We all have those, afterall.
I think he disputes at, but admits in front of.
He needs to sue a lot of media outlets in that case. It would be fairly easy to establish whether he has admitted to swearing at police officers or not. It has being widely reported that he has admitted to swearing at police officers. ITV for example :
[url= http://www.itv.com/news/2012-09-23/chief-whip-andrew-mitchell-did-swear-at-police/ ]Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell admits swearing at No 10 police officers[/url]
If ITV is lying then they should be sued.
That is ITV's interpretation rather than a quote, I think I remember him using the wording "in front of", albeit I am not sure I have seen him contrasting the two. It is of little consequence in the overall scheme of things and I am sure he will leave ITV in peace as I imagine he no longer has the taste for law suits
From your link Ernie
[i]A friend of the minister told the newspaper: "He does not dispute he lost it a bit.
It was in frustration at the episode [u]and not aimed directly at the officers[/u].[/i]
Which was exactly Meftys point
As it happens, although the full transcript hasn't been released, from the reports it appears that the judge didn't believe PC Rowlands claims to have seen passers by visibly shocked, nor to have said he would arrest Mitchell 'under the public order act' - so it appears that the copper was gilding the lilly a bit, its not particularly clear how this all effects the ongoing case against the Sun newspaper.
Ongoing case? Didn't he lose both today - his action against the Sun, and his defence of PC Rowlands action against him.
Mitchell apologised on 21 September, saying "I admit I did not treat the police with the respect they deserve", but he denied swearing or calling the officers "plebs".[16] However, he later admitted saying: "I thought you guys were supposed to ****ing help us."
Th elater being a direct quite from him
He swore at them and yet not at them
The case was against what the sun reported though, of course, they were reporting what the copper had said. This is why he was on trial but it was against the Sun.
I'm sorry but when top Tory toff Boris Johnson informed an enthusiastically applauding Tory Conference that people who swear at police officers should expect to be arrested he didn't say that it was fine to swear when talking to police officers, just not to aim at them.
Mitchell fully admits to not showing the police officers respect by swearing. Showing respect to police officers was precisely the point that Johnson was making in his conference speech. And the Tory delegates enthusiastically agreed with him.
The hypocrisy is plain to see.