police fudging the truth..
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.Posted 4 years agoernie_lynchMember
That’s not my recollection
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.”
Andrew Mitchell lied.Posted 4 years ago
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 at 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?Posted 4 years ago
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.
…which you can undoubtedly lay at the feet of the police officers fabricating stuff.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agorobdixonMember
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.Posted 4 years ago
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?Posted 4 years agocrankboyMember
“What complete nonsense”Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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?Posted 4 years agokimbersSubscriber
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 executedPosted 4 years agospw3Member
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years ago
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.Posted 4 years agothegreatapeMember
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 onePosted 4 years ago
whowho’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.somafunkSubscriber
I can only speak from past experience, and whilst i certainly ain’t no saintly hoilier than thou person who has never broken any so called drug laws 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.Posted 4 years ago
The topic ‘police fudging the truth..’ is closed to new replies.