[Closed] police fudging the truth..

should not be allowed anywhere near the honest folk of the country

Good job they're guarding the MPs then, they are about as dishonest as you can get

It's not like it was a real lie
It was to shaft an M.P, they do it all the time

Police sort-of-cover-up shocker?!
In the UK?!
Whatever next?!

Unfortunately as they are drawn from the cross section of society they will have all the problems we have

We would all like a police force that has no one who tells lies like we would like it from our MP's, journalists and and the wider society

Most of wider society doesn't hold positions that have powers over the rest. The need for honesty in those that enforce and uphold the laws of the land is greater than that needed for the majority, and it is right to hold them to a higher standard.

Saying that they just reflect wider society is a cop out IMO.

How many policemen does it take to break a lightbulb?

None, because it fell down the stairs, your honour.

As I saw someone point out earlier, if they can do this to a (semmingly innocent) senior MP and chief government whip then imagine what they can do to 'some kid' on an inner city estate.

Police sort-of-cover-up shocker?!
In the UK?!
Whatever next?!

You think that's bad. Try this... [url= http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/home/ ]http://policespiesoutoflives.org.uk/home/[/url]

Mmmmmm fudge..........

MSP I dont disagree that they need to be held to higher standards and that it is not good to put it mildly.
To expect them to not act like the rest of means to be frequently disappointed by reality.

"Unfortunately as they are drawn from the cross section of society they will have all the problems we have"

I agree with MSP on this but also a bit unfortunate to say that the bad end of that cross section were all on duty in one place at the same time and had access to more of the bad end to fake a story about being a member of the public passing by and were backed up by more of the bad end of that cross section who happened to have conned the wider pool of officers into electing them to lead the police federation.

I am astounded that the fed leaders are not being kicked out of the force they were caught on camera telling flat out and out lies.

The rank and file police need to get them voted out of their roles as soon as possible.

a bit unfortunate to say that the bad end of that cross section were all on duty in one place at the same tim

Bad end, or politically motivated end? The two are rather different, shirley.

Pjm, get it right.
How many coppers does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they just kick the shit out of the room for being black. 😀

How many coppers does it take to change a lightbulb?
None, they just kick the shit out of the room for being black.

Heheh

lets not forget it was his own secretary (and bitter rival) that pushed the complaint higher up the ladder and cameron who hung him out to dry before any investigation

not many people involved come out smelling nicely

not many people involved come out smelling nicely

Pretty much no one, actually.

I am enjoying the outrage of the MP's at the actions of the police. While they were busy colluding with Sun journalists, fabricating scousers witness statements en masse, beating confessions out of anyone with an Oirish accent, kettling students, beating up protestors or shooting Brazilian people in the head, our elected representatives couldn't have cared less

I am enjoying the outrage of the MP's at the actions of the police. While they were busy colluding with Sun journalists, fabricating scousers witness statements en masse, beating confessions out of anyone with an Oirish accent, kettling students, beating up protestors or shooting Brazilian people in the head, our elected representatives couldn't have cared less

🙂

You reap what you sow..

A sad indication of affairs when the MP secretly records the meeting and then uses it to disprove the Police statements of the conversation made straight afterwards. Hard to believe the Police were so naive, sadly it's not hard to believe they were making stuff up.

@kimbers from my recollection Cameron stood by Mitchell for quite some time based upon his representations of innocence, seems quite clear to me now Mitchell never said the word "pleb"

seems quite clear to me now Mitchell never said the word "pleb"

He still was a Tory, so the means justified the end as far as I'm concerned.

Ha this is one level of BS but what about the Mark Duggan enquiry? "The gun dissapeared" said one copper today..

He still was a Tory, so the means justified the end as far as I'm concerned.

We get the politicians we deserve - and faced with an attitude like that, I think we get rather better than that 🙁

I really don't get the surprise from the Tories. They treat all public workers with utter contempt, like dog shit on the soles of their shoes. Yet they wonder why they don't get treated like the demi-gods they believe they are.....

[quote=pdw said]
We get the politicians we deserve - and face with an attitude like that, I think we get rather better than that

+1

I don't think the right to not be forced out of your job by politically-motivated lies counts as being treated as a "demi-god". That's just a bit of basic respect.

You may think our MPs are hateful bunch, but given the way they are treated, and I include your attitude in that, who the hell would do that job?

He still was a Tory, so the means justified the end as far as I'm concerned.

The end being to get a politician to resign for something he didn't do, the means being lots of police officers lying. ISTM your moral compass isn't working very well.

If they told some really, really big lies, maybe that would get Cameron out?

That seems acceptable to some of the Red Kens on here. Bizarre.

He still was a Tory, so the means justified the end as far as I'm concerned.

Good job Mitchell isn't a newspaper seller, then he'd be really ****ed.

These were Met officers, were they not? I was led to believe that anyone failing to pass the standards for entry to the police at county level were welcomed with open arms by the Met*. A force that happily hits a passer-by to the ground, contributing to his death, then lying about it are congenitally pre-disposed to lying about deliberately fitting up someone for political reasons.
*by someone who's a copper in London.

The end being to get a politician to resign for something he didn't do

Did he resign for calling the police "plebs" or did he resign for swearing at police officers and not showing them "respect", something which he admitted doing after initially lying and claiming that he hadn't ?

I'm not sure that calling police officers plebs is necessarily a 'resignable' offence, I think a very senior government politician swearing at police officers definitely is.

I remember an old saying.
I've met the MET, and I've the bruises to prove it.

The original lot were, CZ, but the ones who did the interview and lied about that (which is what's been investigated by the IPCC more recently and just hit the news) were from West Mids, West Mercia (Worcestershire+) and Warwickshire.

Are you sure about that, ernie?

In his first statement to reporters about the incident, on Monday morning, Mr Mitchell said that the incident had come at the end of a "long and extremely frustrating day".

He added: "I didn't show them the amount of respect I should have done."

He said the police officer involved had accepted his apology.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19707950

According to the transcript it also appears he did swear, but didn't swear [b]at[/b] the police officers - there being a significant difference. Or are you still working on the basis of what the police officers alleged he said?

[quote=ernie_lynch said] I think a very senior government politician swearing at police officers definitely is.

Swearing at, as in "You f'ing ....." or using a swear word when talking to them, "I thought you lot were supposed to f'ing help" ?

Personally I see a big difference between the two and don't rate the latter as cause for resignation.

Swearing at, as in "You f'ing ....." or using a swear word when talking to them, "I thought you lot were supposed to f'ing help" ?

Just swearing at police officers.

I got seriously wound up by a copper recently but despite that I had the commonsense not to swear at him. I expect a senior government politician to maintain that same basic level of behaviour.

Specially one from a party which puts so much emphasis on showing respect towards authority, and who so warmly applauds senior politicians when they declare to party faithful that swearing at police officers should result in arrest.

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/oct/04/boris-johnson-people-swearing-police-arrested?guni=Article:in%20body%20link ]Boris Johnson: people swearing at police should expect to be arrested[/url]

[i][b]The mayor – one of the party's most popular figures – was given a standing ovation at either end of his keynote speech as he highlighted his record in office and laid out his plans to avoid further riots.

In a swipe at the justice department, Johnson spoke out against guidance instructing police not to arrest people hurling abuse at them.

To applause, he told Tory delegates that officers needed backing in dealing with insults in order to set boundaries and ensure people to not go on to commit more serious offenses.[/i][/b]

If a 15 year old kid should be arrested for swearing at a copper then it is reasonable that the government Chief Whip should resign from his job for doing so. Specially the Chief Whip of a party which will not tolerate swearing at the police.

Tough, but fair, imo.

Except that there is no crime of swearing at a police officer . The nearest is section 5 of the public order act which depends upon someone being there who was likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress .

[quote=crankboy said]Except that there is no crime of swearing at a police officer . The nearest is section 5 of the public order act which depends upon someone being there who was likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress .

Perhaps the Downing St rozzers are a sensitive bunch ?

Didn't see this as it's on the previous page

aracer - Member

Are you sure about that, ernie?

Yes aracer I'm pretty sure that he initially denied swearing and then later admitted that he had sworn. In other words he very publicly lied before admitting the truth.

But let's get one thing absolutely straight, if there was a clear and calculated conspiracy by police officers to destroy the career of an elected politician, through misinformation and lies, then that is immeasurably more serious than using foul language at a copper. IMO.

I just think it's wrong to claim that Mitchell had done nothing wrong, he had. And as Chief Whip of the Tory Party he was also guilty of hypocrisy and double standards.

I know it's wrong (to fit up a politician) but i just can't bring myself to care. Sorry 😳

Crankboy, coppers will nick you under section five, even if your in space so no one can hear you scream. 😀
Section five covers anything they feel like.

Perhaps the Downing St rozzers are a sensitive bunch ?

But they didn't arrest Mitchell under the public order act. Despite Tory Conference urging the police to do exactly that.

Dishonest coppers should be sacked. MP's who commit public order offences should be sacked. Most coppers do a great job with the utmost bravery under extreme provocation. Most contributors on here would be too scared to do their job.

Yes aracer I'm pretty sure that he initially denied swearing and then later admitted that he had sworn. In other words he very publicly lied before admitting the truth.

That's not my recollection - I believe that his initial denial was that "he did not use the words attributed to him" - which was true, if a bit unclear. On the other hand, given that it would have been clear to him at that point that he was being stitched up, I'm not surprised that he was cautious in what he said.

But let's get one thing absolutely straight, if there was a clear and calculated conspiracy by police officers to destroy the career of an elected politician, through misinformation and lies, then that is immeasurably more serious than using foul language at a copper. IMO.

Agreed. I reckon that the officers were originally deliberately winding him up, and when they succeeded in getting him to swear in frustration, they decided to run with it, believing that our press wouldn't bother to differentiate between exasperated use of the f word, and a prominent Tory calling honest, hard working officers plebs.

They were right, and whatever your political preference, that's a pretty sad state of affairs.

What complete nonsense.

What's just as worrying is the way the Police Federation - a private company - weighed in and escalated it.

These aren't 'rank and file' police though are they? They are either DPG or senior officers - both highly trusted groups who seem to feel lying is perfectly okay if it gets them what they want (a tory scalp during a labour dispute). Pathetic.

That's not my recollection

[url= http://www.****/news/article-2219075/PMQs-Andrew-Mitchell-DENIES-swearing-Ed-Miliband-tells-Chief-Whip-toast.html ]Under-fire Andrew Mitchell clings to his job and insists he did NOT swear at police as his deputy is talked out of quitting[/url]

(Daily Mail)

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/pmqs/9614895/Andrew-Mitchell-reignites-row-over-pleb-comments.html ]Andrew Mitchell has been accused of 'reigniting' the row over claims he called police 'plebs' after denying he also swore at them.[/url]

[i] His denial came as Ed Miliband launched a fierce attack during Prime Minister's Question Time over the altercation in which Mr Mitchell admits acting "inappropriately" towards officers who refused to let him cycle through the No 10 gates.

As the Labour leader accused him of using "abusive language" towards police during the encounter last month, Mr Mitchell is said to have muttered: "I didn't swear." [/i]

(Daily Telegraph)

Andrew Mitchell lied.

I'm pretty sure that he initially denied swearing and then later admitted that he had sworn. In other words he very publicly lied before admitting the truth.

Well that's not true then, is it? As per that article, his initial position was that he did swear. In a "debate" at some point after he was "said to have muttered" that he did not swear, something which as far as I recall, he has never said publicly at any other time.

I don't think that adds up to a "very public lie".

At a guess, I reckon he was saying "I didn't swear [i]at[/i] them" i.e. the distinction between "you f'ing plebs" and "you're supposed to be f'ing helping us" but who knows? The camera wasn't on him at the time at it's not like there any impartial observers in there, is it?

So he didn't actually at any point claim he hadn't not shown them respect as you claimed earlier? That wasn't a completely truthful statement was it - what's that you're muttering under your breath, ernie?

In a swipe at the justice department, Johnson spoke out against guidance instructing police not to arrest people hurling abuse at them.

Something which Mr Mitchell doesn't appear to have done. Do you still not get the difference between swearing and swearing at?

Going back to your original claim, he appears to have resigned because:

Over the last two days it has become clear to me that whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter I will not be able to fulfil my duties as we both would wish. Nor is it fair to continue to put my family and colleagues through this upsetting and damaging publicity.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20012435

...which you can undoubtedly lay at the feet of the police officers fabricating stuff.

I know it's wrong (to fit up a politician) but i just can't bring myself to care.

Can you not bring yourself to care about policemen lying? Because whatever the ins and outs of what Andrew Mitchell said, I think all of us who are bothered agree it's the police lying (in public statements where they called for action to be taken based on their lies rather than just muttering under their breath) which is actually the issue here.

[img] [/img]

So basically the chronology of this story is as follows:

1. Economy breaks, new government elected and inherits debt of around £700B, much of which has accrued due to 6 years of excessive spending in the public sector.
2. New government comes in and commits to reducing the debt by reducing funding for public services including the police - but tells us it is possible to maintain services by transforming them / driving efficiencies in ways of working.
3. Police union tells everyone this will result in an unprecedented crime wave - claims the government's opposition swiftly repeat to anyone who will listen
4. Time passes, crime continues to fall, cuts continue, desired crime wave fails to materialise.
5. Members of the Met's team assigned to downing street are reported to have discussed "making an example" of a specific minister 3 months before plebgate.
6. "plebgate" is reported to have happened. Minister denies specific claims of what he said and is tried in the court of public opinion.
7. Police fabricate evidence and use it to stoke the fire.
8. Members of the opposition and police union stoke the fire and use it to prove that all ministers are toffs and nasty.
9. Embattled minister meets different police to explain exactly what happened.
10. These same police leave the building and immediately (and consistently) lie about what was said. Police union and government opposition party call for resignation. Public agrees, minister forced to resign.
11. Minister produces recording to contradict police.
12. Channel 4 obtain CCTV that shows plebgate didn't happen and police who claimed to be there weren't there, questions arise over log books. C4 also prove a key public witness wasn't there and is also a policeman.
13. Head of the met police holds private briefings, fails to keep notes and breaks his own rules.
14. 100 police spend the next year pretending to investigate original conspiracy.
15. Different force investigates what has happened and even with audio recording proving colleagues lied decides there's no case to answer.
16. Police Union and the Police forces involved continue to tell us there's no issue.

If this was a banana state no-one would bat an eye lid at this disgraceful episode, but this is britain, and when the police conspire against elected officials they effectively conspire against democracy and the electorate.

It's clear that a lot of heads need to roll on this but for starters the head of the police union, various newspaper editors, the BBC and Ed Millimuppet and chums all owe public apologies to a man that has clearly been stitched up and as it increasingly seems was telling the truth the whole time. The court of public opinion / us also need to reflect on our role in this shambles.

Pathetic.

[quote=andymc06 said]Pathetic.

I know, unfortunately it's looking like it's true.

Be thankful people are prepared to risk their lives so you can sleep safe in your bed.

Pathetic.

Almost as insightful as your previous contribution - do you have any more gems to add to this thread

Edit: oh I see you do. Policeman presumably, and apparently one who thinks the police can do whatever they like because they're so important. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

"What complete nonsense"
"pathetic"
Andy brevity is a virtue if it gets a point across not if it is confusing.
Which bits are nonsense and what is pathetic . I assume it is pathetic and makes no sense that police federation reps have told significant demonstrable lies but have held on to their police jobs and federation posts.

No. As I said (if you can read) dishonest police and mp's should be sacked. The idea that police planned to set up an mp with malicious evidence due to their own agenda is ridiculous. What disgusts me is the complete lack of appreciation of what it is police do for a living.. Please list your jobs when posting from now on, on this thread. I'm sure you have all risked your life for strangers.

OK, Andy, you start. No, wait, let me guess...

You're a policeman, right?

#Plant

[quote=andymc06 said]No. As I said (if you can read) dishonest police and mp's should be sacked. The idea that police planned to set up an mp with malicious evidence due to their own agenda is ridiculous.

Is it ? That's the way it's looking to me currently.

The idea that police planned to set up an mp with malicious evidence due to their own agenda is ridiculous.

Really? Why did they set up an MP with false evidence then?

Please list your jobs when posting from now on, on this thread. I'm sure you have all risked your life for strangers.

Tell you what, why don't you first explain why the job police do excuses some of them for deliberately telling lies to set somebody up?

Errrr. I said dishonest police should be sacked. Didn't I. Hey Flashheart when have you ever saved someone life or risked yours in the line of duty? Please enlighten me #patheticonlinepersona

Hey Flashheart when have you ever saved someone life or risked yours in the line of duty?

Can you explain why that is relevant to this discussion?

To be fair some police have risked their lives for strangers but most have not . Many people who are not police have risked their lives for strangers.

If they were not setting him up for thier own agenda what were they doing ?

Nice conspiracy theory there

But you missed, out the odd riot 😉 , the parts where thrasher Mitchell who modeled himself as a real life Malcolm tucker,caught in a lie, had alienated so many of his colleagues that they were only too happy to escalate the complaint and our PM was far more interested in public relations than probity.
Theres no doubt that the press the police and the leak culture (in this case from within the Tory party) have once again shown to be at massive fault.
Its almost as though levenson didn't happen.

Still at least this time some rich guy only lost his job

John Charles de Menezes got executed

Spend some time in the real world instead of behind your middle-england coward's keyboards. You have no idea.

Saved a life?

Well, I helped rescue someone out of the water after an outboard motor had chopped the top of her skull off, and then stopped her runaway boat, but I fail to see the relevance here.

so, policeman, yes or no? I'm a no. You?

Andy I have no idea what you do for a living but its not material to the discussion. The MP in question didn't come out of things very well at the start but it really is starting to look like he might have telling the truth, or pretty much the truth, all along. And it really is starting to look like various police officers have spent time lying in an effort to get him sacked. That is profoundly worrying.

Spend some time in the real world instead of behind your middle-england coward's keyboards. You have no idea.

Are you going to explain at some point what all your posts have to do with this thread, or just keep randomly throwing them at it.

If you really must know, yes I have helped to save somebody's life - putting my own at risk in the process (you don't even think about that at the time). Not in the course of my duty - I just did it.

Andy I have no idea what you do for a living

Go on, take a wild guess.

One example. Many, many congrats. That sort of thing is common for many but not all cops. Look. I have said several times now. Dishonest cops and mp's should be sacked. But to make sweeping generalisations based on limited info is wrong. It appears people have lied after the event. To say they conspired before the event is ridiculous. No-one would have sufficient motive to do that.

Andy, policeman, yes or no?

Simple one word answer will suffice.

And then address the other points raised by others.

andymc06 - There has been ample evidence over the years that a lot of the members on this forum do appreciate most of what the police do, and have a fair grasp of what the darker side of policing is like. Even the more vocal critics tend to object to particular incidents or behaviour by cops who've done something wrong. I can only think of one [s]who[/s] who's online character believed all police officers are Nazis, and he's not posted for a while! This is a thread about a handful of officers who's actions merit a high level of scrutiny. Its not a blanket slagging of all police officers.

I can only speak from past experience, and whilst i certainly ain't no saintly hoilier than thou person who has never broken any [i]so called drug laws[/i] i have been around the dance music scene since before the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 of which they have attempted to prosecute me on two occasions back in the 90's, when that ultimately failed the police task force planted evidence against us, which if successful, would have led all of us involved a likely 5 yr+ sentence, thankfully one of our "collective" was the son of a prominent barrister who defended us with a humiliating victory against the police involved.

I know of only one decent police officer, and he will be the first to admit they close ranks round each other and protect their own - he avoids the police social scene and admits himself he's only in it for a job, personally i have absolutely no respect for them in the slightest and i wouldn't trust them as far as i could throw them.....and i could quite happily throw some of the local police officers pretty damn far if i really tried hard.

Yeah......not all police officers are lying barstewards but for those that are?, I say hang them out to dry, if you are in such a position of power then there is absolutely no excuse for lying, and lying is something they seem to do rather well.

Post a 😀 if you love the police and think they're all awesome.

😀

Police Federation Men are MASONS. Loads of Conservative MPs are MASONS. MASONS (with many notable exceptions)are mostly SHIT. This is a load of SHIT. What do you expect?

To say they conspired before the event is ridiculous. No-one would have sufficient motive to do that.

So what's your explanation?

As i have said several times - dishonest police and mp's should be sacked. Please pass this on to those forum members who cannot read. What a shock. A police officer defending ridiculous theories. I hope you are all safe pushing your pens tomorrow.