Plebgate: Andrew Mitchell loses libel case

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 – Member

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

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 – Member

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?

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 – Member

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?

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 – Member

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!

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 **** 🙂

There’s hardly a finer sight than a Tory politician losing big in court 🙂

ENJOY

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 “you haven’t the last of this” 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 :

Boris Johnson: people swearing at police should expect to be arrested

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 :

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

A friend of the minister told the newspaper: “He does not dispute he lost it a bit.
It was in frustration at the episode and not aimed directly at the officers.

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 **** 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.