phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Agree although just as many willing to air their hatred of the police.
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
Ormston i agree its the fact that the Obill appear to have got an elected MP and a Cabinet member at that sacked has(or should be) a huge concern to all who believe in democracy---------shouldnt it ?
The meeting between the MP and the Police Feb pre him getting sacked is the one to see. It was recorded and the P Fed didnt know. Yet they walked out oou of that meeting and instantly in seconds on his door step lied and said he should go.
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
Don't think anything has been proven yet, has it?
I have no doubt - and know from very trusted people close to me - that the Old Bill have no compunction whatsoever about fitting people up, but 99.9% of the time their victims are common people who have no right of recourse and no ability to fight back.
In this case, if it turns out that that Old Bill did actually concoct the evidence against a government minister, then that is absolutely unprecedented, especially as this lot are supposed to be a bit higher up the food chain than your average local Constable given how close they are working to the centre of power.
The thought that the police would be so arrogant and corrupt as to manufacture evidence as brazenly and publicly against someone like Mitchell is actually very, very scary because if someone like him isn't safe then who the hell is?
What I said originally was based on what Mitchell was alleged to have said to the police, that is what the policemen themselves actually reported what he said, if you can't trust the police to tell the truth in this sort of case then what can you trust them on?
For his part, Mitchell should not have sworn at the Old Bill in the first place, if you or I told a Copper "You're supposed to be on our fucking side" then we'd be bang in trouble and so should he. What he really paid the price for was being an umitigated arsehole to many of his parliamentary colleagues, especially those in the Whips Office, so when the chance came to stick the knife in they took it.
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
First Jimmy Saville & now this, have the police outsourced all of their investigative work to television documentarys. How has this only come to light now?
Hmm, high level member of a Coalition Govt, who happen to be in the middle of some painful and some say necessary restructuring of the Police taken out by the Police Union Federation...
It's all about scoring points nowadays, no wonder no-one trusts the politicians and police anymore enough to bother voting.
Ormston i agree its the fact that the Obill appear to have got an elected MP and a Cabinet member at that sacked has(or should be) a huge concern to all who believe in democracy---------shouldnt it ?
The meeting between the MP and the Police Feb pre him getting sacked is the one to see. It was recorded and the P Fed didnt know. Yet they walked out oou of that meeting and instantly in seconds on his door step lied and said he should go.
If its true then its an absolute scandal of the highest order, it goes right to the heart of the integrity of the police force and is more like the sort of stuff that goes on in Putin's Russia than the United Kingdom.
If Mitchell knew the allegations were false and that the truth would eventually come out, why did he resign?
Why not make a stand and say "i'm in the right, this is a stitch up and i'm going nowhere"
Pressure. Press/Media machine went into overdrive, political opposition bed wetting and hounding into overdrive, his own party caught in the headlights "oh shite, how do we get out of this..?" into overdrive... The general hysteria that this country goes into at everything, it sells papers, furthers political careers and settles handy scores.
Took him longer than I thought but in the end, he went.
If Mitchell knew the allegations were false and that the truth would eventually come out, why did he resign?
Why not make a stand and say "i'm in the right, this is a stitch up and i'm going nowhere"
He got the tap on the shoulder from 'Call Me Dave' and once that happens then you are an impossible position, especially as Chief Whip as the rest of the MP's, the ones Mitchell is supposed to be in charge of, will know that he doesn't have the backing of the PM so they can do what the hell they like.
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
Mitchell's actions were utterly indefensible and everyone but Cameron knew it, you cannot have a senior member of the government swearing at police and insulting them by calling them "plebs" - its disgraceful behaviour.
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
Mitchell's actions were utterly indefensible and everyone but Cameron knew it, you cannot have a senior member of the government swearing at police and insulting them by calling them "plebs" - its disgraceful behaviour.
You were saying Ormiston?
Well done for going to Wikipedia and doing some research into the Defamation laws, I think I'll take my 15 years in journalism over your five minute web-search if you don't mind though.
Firstly, the facts in this case remain very much in doubt, it still has to be proven that the police manufactured evidence and that has not happened yet and may not even happen at all.
Secondly, just because something is not true does not make it defamatory or libellous, if it were then most 'glossy' magazines would never get published.
What's more, Mitchell DID swear at the police, he has admitted to saying to them "I though you were on our fucking side" so I think we have that one covered right off the bat, meaning that anything I wrote would be covered under 'fair comment' provisions within the law.
Thanks for your concern though, I am sure Mitchell will be in touch with my lawyers right after he has dealt with every mainstream national, provincial and local paper in the UK.
My sister is a serving police officer and she doesn't care if Mitchell called a fellow officer a pleb or not. She's not overly concerned that her side has maybe tried to stitch up a toff politician. She cares about protecting the old dear from being mugged by a crackhead. She cares about protecting our property from being stolen by heroin addicts. She's concerned for the woman who's been raped and the child molested. She does it to try and stop situations where she has to tell the parents of a 17yr old kid's last moments alive before he died of stab wounds.
I wish some would remember not all police are bastards.
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
Mitchell's actions were utterly indefensible and everyone but Cameron knew it, you cannot have a senior member of the government swearing at police and insulting them by calling them "plebs" - its disgraceful behaviour.
You were saying Ormiston?
Well done for going to Wikipedia and doing some research into the Defamation laws, I think I'll take my 15 years in journalism over your five minute web-search if you don't mind though.
Firstly, the facts in this case remain very much in doubt, it still has to be proven that the police manufactured evidence and that has not happened yet and may not even happen at all.
Secondly, just because something is not true does not make it defamatory or libellous, if it were then most 'glossy' magazines would never get published.
What's more, Mitchell DID swear at the police, he has admitted to saying to them "I though you were on our fucking side" so I think we have that one covered right off the bat, meaning that anything I wrote would be covered under 'fair comment' provisions within the law.
Thanks for your concern though, I am sure Mitchell will be in touch with my lawyers right after he has dealt with every mainstream national, provincial and local paper in the UK.
Shame you didn't follow your own advice with your earlier posting where you pontificated about what was said as if it was gospel.
Still, your 15 years as a journalist (or 'in journalism') explains a lot.
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
Mitchell's actions were utterly indefensible and everyone but Cameron knew it, you cannot have a senior member of the government swearing at police and insulting them by calling them "plebs" - its disgraceful behaviour.
You were saying Ormiston?
In fairness it's based in the facts and evidence reasonably available at the time - given those, IMHO, his statements were fair
phew just read through this thread to make sure I hadn't commented originally. All through this episode, I thought it was a complete over reaction, now it turns out to be a load of bollocks. There are few people on here who were only too pleased to condem him because of his political party.
Yes, all the Tories on here would never dream of piling on to a Labour MP in a similar situation.....
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
So is that a "sorry Mr Mitchell for defaming you"?
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
Defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state.
Mitchell's actions were utterly indefensible and everyone but Cameron knew it, you cannot have a senior member of the government swearing at police and insulting them by calling them "plebs" - its disgraceful behaviour.
You were saying Ormiston?
Well done for going to Wikipedia and doing some research into the Defamation laws, I think I'll take my 15 years in journalism over your five minute web-search if you don't mind though.
Firstly, the facts in this case remain very much in doubt, it still has to be proven that the police manufactured evidence and that has not happened yet and may not even happen at all.
Two minutes actually.
And your 15 years experience will tell you Mitchell could sue you for defamation should he be so inclined...... and probably insist on an apology.
My sister is a serving police officer and she doesn't care if Mitchell called a fellow officer a pleb or not. She's not overly concerned that her side has maybe tried to stitch up a toff politician. She cares about protecting the old dear from being mugged by a crackhead. She cares about protecting our property from being stolen by heroin addicts. She's concerned for the woman who's been raped and the child molested. She does it to try and stop situations where she has to tell the parents of a 17yr old kid's last moments alive before he died of stab wounds.
I wish some would remember not all police are bastards.
Well said AuN. None of my family or friends are police officers, but I think that the overwhelming majority are as straight as a dye and do a top notch job in very difficult circumstances.
Slightly concerned that it is quoted in the paper thi smorning that 30 officers are working on the case. If an injustice has occurred then it should be investigated, but on an issue like this 30 seems an inappropriate use of resources
Comments
Of bigger concern is the Old Bill, if they did fabricate evidence then that is an absolute scandal, it shows utter contempt for their responsibilities and the position they hold.
The meeting between the MP and the Police Feb pre him getting sacked is the one to see. It was recorded and the P Fed didnt know. Yet they walked out oou of that meeting and instantly in seconds on his door step lied and said he should go.
I have no doubt - and know from very trusted people close to me - that the Old Bill have no compunction whatsoever about fitting people up, but 99.9% of the time their victims are common people who have no right of recourse and no ability to fight back.
In this case, if it turns out that that Old Bill did actually concoct the evidence against a government minister, then that is absolutely unprecedented, especially as this lot are supposed to be a bit higher up the food chain than your average local Constable given how close they are working to the centre of power.
The thought that the police would be so arrogant and corrupt as to manufacture evidence as brazenly and publicly against someone like Mitchell is actually very, very scary because if someone like him isn't safe then who the hell is?
What I said originally was based on what Mitchell was alleged to have said to the police, that is what the policemen themselves actually reported what he said, if you can't trust the police to tell the truth in this sort of case then what can you trust them on?
For his part, Mitchell should not have sworn at the Old Bill in the first place, if you or I told a Copper "You're supposed to be on our fucking side" then we'd be bang in trouble and so should he. What he really paid the price for was being an umitigated arsehole to many of his parliamentary colleagues, especially those in the Whips Office, so when the chance came to stick the knife in they took it.
By the way, you might want to learn a bit more about defamation since I did nothing of the sort since it would be covered under the 'fair and reasonable comment' section of the appropriate laws given the information in the public domain at the time.
UnionFederation...It's all about scoring points nowadays, no wonder no-one trusts the politicians and police anymore enough to bother voting.
Why not make a stand and say "i'm in the right, this is a stitch up and i'm going nowhere"
Took him longer than I thought but in the end, he went.
Firstly, the facts in this case remain very much in doubt, it still has to be proven that the police manufactured evidence and that has not happened yet and may not even happen at all.
Secondly, just because something is not true does not make it defamatory or libellous, if it were then most 'glossy' magazines would never get published.
What's more, Mitchell DID swear at the police, he has admitted to saying to them "I though you were on our fucking side" so I think we have that one covered right off the bat, meaning that anything I wrote would be covered under 'fair comment' provisions within the law.
Thanks for your concern though, I am sure Mitchell will be in touch with my lawyers right after he has dealt with every mainstream national, provincial and local paper in the UK.
She cares about protecting the old dear from being mugged by a crackhead. She cares about protecting our property from being stolen by heroin addicts. She's concerned for the woman who's been raped and the child molested. She does it to try and stop situations where she has to tell the parents of a 17yr old kid's last moments alive before he died of stab wounds.
I wish some would remember not all police are bastards.
Still, your 15 years as a journalist (or 'in journalism') explains a lot.
Keep digging and twisting though, it's fun!
And your 15 years experience will tell you Mitchell could sue you for defamation should he be so inclined...... and probably insist on an apology.
I'm just trying to save you the legal fees.