Andrew Mitchell has lost the libel case. Judge said he was satisfied that he'd used the word pleb. Apparently, the Judge said Mitchell's account was inconsistent with the CCTV footage, and he was too angry to remember exactly what he'd said, but PCRowland was too unimaginitive to make it up. Costs are going to be huge.
I am very surprised at this outcome. PC Rowland, in his first interview, stated that there were 'a lot of people, bystanders, tourists standing by the gate who heard the words' (I paraphrase) .. CCTV views later showed that there was not one person in the vicinity of the gates other than the policemen concerned and Mitchell. This smacks to me of a political verdict. Cameron has never expressed any support for Mitchell, this after appointing him to a senior role just a few days earlier, the police are under all kinds of pressure nationwide for various negligent acts and can ill afford any more findings of disrepute against them, Mitchell recorded an interview he had with the police federation representatives some time after the incident and said representatives on camera then lied about what was discussed during the interview and one policeman who stated that he was present at the gate during the incident was proved to be fast asleep in somewhere like Watford at the time . The latter has either been jailed and sacked from the force or at best seriously reprimanded. I have no special liking for Mitchell but irrespective of who and/or what he is, this verdict stinks and is a whitewash job on the officer concerned and the police as a whole
Andrew Mitchell has lost the libel case. Judge said he was satisfied that he'd used the word pleb. Apparently, the Judge said Mitchell's account was inconsistent with the CCTV footage, and he was too angry to remember exactly what he'd said, but PCRowland was too unimaginitive to make it up. Costs are going to be huge.
I am very surprised at this outcome. PC Rowland, in his first interview, stated that there were 'a lot of people, bystanders, tourists standing by the gate who heard the words' (I paraphrase) .. CCTV views later showed that there was not one person in the vicinity of the gates other than the policemen concerned and Mitchell. This smacks to me of a political verdict. Cameron has never expressed any support for Mitchell, this after appointing him to a senior role just a few days earlier, the police are under all kinds of pressure nationwide for various negligent acts and can ill afford any more findings of disrepute against them, Mitchell recorded an interview he had with the police federation representatives some time after the incident and said representatives on camera then lied about what was discussed during the interview and one policeman who stated that he was present at the gate during the incident was proved to be fast asleep in somewhere like Watford at the time . The latter has either been jailed and sacked from the force or at best seriously reprimanded. I have no special liking for Mitchell but irrespective of who and/or what he is, this verdict stinks and is a whitewash job on the officer concerned and the police as a whole
I'm not sure about it being a political verdict. The judge obviously thought that based on the evidence that he heard, on the balance of probability, Mitchell did say it. I wasn't in court to hear any of the evidence so I assume he has made the correct decision.
Andrew Mitchell has lost the libel case. Judge said he was satisfied that he'd used the word pleb. Apparently, the Judge said Mitchell's account was inconsistent with the CCTV footage, and he was too angry to remember exactly what he'd said, but PCRowland was too unimaginitive to make it up. Costs are going to be huge.
I am very surprised at this outcome. PC Rowland, in his first interview, stated that there were 'a lot of people, bystanders, tourists standing by the gate who heard the words' (I paraphrase) .. CCTV views later showed that there was not one person in the vicinity of the gates other than the policemen concerned and Mitchell.
Interestingly, the CCTV I'd seen prior to today had shown several people walking past while the contratemps was going on, despite the voiceover claiming the contrary at the time. Today after the case BBC News showed a bit of CCTV footage that I'd never seen before, where at least one member of the public stopped and walked back to see what was going on. It may not have been a big crowd just standing there, but it certainly wasn't deserted as those trying to discredit the police story had suggested.
I don't believe in second-guessing a judge who has heard all the evidence in a proper process, at least without some substantive reason to think he's wrong. The fact that some police lied doesn't mean Mitchell was telling the truth. But my main thought is what an absurd waste of time, money and energy the whole episode has been. All because some self-important individual wanted to go through one gate rather than the other.
Andrew Mitchell has lost the libel case. Judge said he was satisfied that he'd used the word pleb. Apparently, the Judge said Mitchell's account was inconsistent with the CCTV footage, and he was too angry to remember exactly what he'd sai varie, but PCRowland was too unimaginitive to make it up. Costs are going to be huge.
I am very surprised at this outcome. PC Rowland, in his first interview, stated that there were 'a lot of people, bystanders, tourists standing by the gate who heard the words' (I paraphrase) .. CCTV views later showed that there was not one person in the vicinity of the gates other than the policemen concerned and Mitchell.
Interestingly, the CCTV I'd seen prior to today had shown several people walking past while the contratemps was going on, despite the voiceover claiming the contrary at the time. Today after the case BBC News showed a bit of CCTV footage that I'd never seen before, where at least one member of the public stopped and walked back to see what was going on. It may not have been a big crowd just standing there, but it certainly wasn't deserted as those trying to discredit the police story had suggested.
I just don't know, as always the 'evidence' is very contradictory .. BUT .. to my knowledge, no 'member of the public' has ever come forward to confirm or refute any of the various stories .. and as to Judges not giving political verdicts ? .. sorry, anyone believing that that is so must also believe in Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden .. Judges are civil servants and want promotion and honours just like many other careerists and government time servers
I always thought it said something about the modern Tory party that Mitchell has admitted from the start that he had been 'effing and blinding' at the police in Downing Street but was so desperate to deny that he had used the word 'pleb'......
It was an unwise move by Mitchell to bring a libel case. If there was a political concern about the perceived status of the police if it went wrong for them, then maybe Mitchells friends in government should have tried to stop him, yes they may have we don't know. Mitchell then gambled with the case, the judge heard all the stuff and found Mitchell had not been libelled because he probably did say 'pleb'.
Mitchell, and Mellor bestride the Westminster/chattering classes stage puffed up with self importance, expecting others to be deferential and know their place. They reveal an attitude of the powerful towards the rest of us. Who knows what may be lurking regarding the powerful in the 'Elm House' affair? And of course we have royalty and titled people expecting deference and privileges all over the place, and feeling somewhat immune from the ordinariness of the lives of others.
There is a saying that power tends to corrupt, and I certainly agree with that. Mitchell gambled with his money and his status behind this case and now faces £2million costs. Good. Bollocks to him.
It would be even better if Mitchell tried his own personal kind of rehab by working for a year in a care home for EMI patients, or something similar, to gain a bit of personal humility. He put himself in the public eye, he had a thirst for power and public life, so I don't have sympathy for him, especially as he should have 'moved on' ages ago.
I don't believe in second-guessing a judge who has heard all the evidence in a proper process, at least without some substantive reason to think he's wrong. The fact that some police lied doesn't mean Mitchell was telling the truth. But my main thought is what an absurd waste of time, money and energy the whole episode has been. All because some self-important individual wanted to go through one gate rather than the other.
For the first time ever I find myself agreeing with you. This is the Torries at their worst just as Rochestergate last week was Labour at theirs. All very Jonathan Aitken.
Andrew Mitchell has lost the libel case. Judge said he was satisfied that he'd used the word pleb. Apparently, the Judge said Mitchell's account was inconsistent with the CCTV footage, and he was too angry to remember exactly what he'd sai varie, but PCRowland was too unimaginitive to make it up. Costs are going to be huge.
I am very surprised at this outcome. PC Rowland, in his first interview, stated that there were 'a lot of people, bystanders, tourists standing by the gate who heard the words' (I paraphrase) .. CCTV views later showed that there was not one person in the vicinity of the gates other than the policemen concerned and Mitchell.
Interestingly, the CCTV I'd seen prior to today had shown several people walking past while the contratemps was going on, despite the voiceover claiming the contrary at the time. Today after the case BBC News showed a bit of CCTV footage that I'd never seen before, where at least one member of the public stopped and walked back to see what was going on. It may not have been a big crowd just standing there, but it certainly wasn't deserted as those trying to discredit the police story had suggested.
I just don't know, as always the 'evidence' is very contradictory .. BUT .. to my knowledge, no 'member of the public' has ever come forward to confirm or refute any of the various stories .. and as to Judges not giving political verdicts ? .. sorry, anyone believing that that is so must also believe in Santa Claus and fairies at the bottom of the garden .. Judges are civil servants and want promotion and honours just like many other careerists and government time servers
Judges are public servants but NOT civil servants. The judiciary are always keen to point out that they aren't under political control in the way that civil servants are. I am not naive to think that judges in inquiries can't become involved in political matters e.g Widgery or perhaps Hutton. But this case makes no sense to the Tory party.They have been bashing the police as well as the rest of the public sector since the last election. I would have thought that the last thing that the party wants is to appear elitist and lose in court.
So one obnoxious Tory, one jobsworth of a plod (or more, switched off pretty soon after it all blew up...), through their lies and subsequent back tracking and arse covering have dragged this through the courts earning lots of lovely wonga in fees and expenses for a plethora of fat cat legal types, whilst the salivating gutter press always keen for bad news of any kind got their grubby rocks off and meanwhile the stupefyingly out of touch Westminster bubble made much merriment out of political point scoring in the house whilst they could of been doing something constructive like, say, sorting this fucking country out?
I don't believe in second-guessing a judge who has heard all the evidence in a proper process, at least without some substantive reason to think he's wrong. The fact that some police lied doesn't mean Mitchell was telling the truth. But my main thought is what an absurd waste of time, money and energy the whole episode has been. All because some self-important individual wanted to go through one gate rather than the other.
My thoughts exactly AB.
Mitchell definitely has one of those face's I'd like to slap, with that silly haircut, and riding around Westminster on a ladies bicycle with a frigging woven basket on the handlebars!
Mind you that's probably all he can afford after he's paid his costs.
so one copper said she lied and was trying to bring down an ELECTED government---thats ok it was only a Tory one-----democracy is only ok if Labour win. 3 others plod come out of an interview and lie but are caught on tape lying. another says he herd it all as he was walking past ,sends emails to the media who ALL believe him only to be proved he was actually at home.
and a Tory says PLEB ----------------really are you fecking lot serious ? where are the actual crimes here ?
I don't believe in second-guessing a judge who has heard all the evidence in a proper process, at least without some substantive reason to think he's wrong. The fact that some police lied doesn't mean Mitchell was telling the truth. But my main thought is what an absurd waste of time, money and energy the whole episode has been. All because some self-important individual wanted to go through one gate rather than the other.
For the first time ever I find myself agreeing with you. This is the Torries at their worst just as Rochestergate last week was Labour at theirs. All very Jonathan Aitken.
The parallel with Aitken is spot on. Sometimes people in high office assume that they are invincible and that the system will automatically back them up.
I don't believe in second-guessing a judge who has heard all the evidence in a proper process, at least without some substantive reason to think he's wrong. The fact that some police lied doesn't mean Mitchell was telling the truth. But my main thought is what an absurd waste of time, money and energy the whole episode has been. All because some self-important individual wanted to go through one gate rather than the other.
Entirely agree. No reason to think that the Judge got it wrong and the Court of Appeal almost never interfere in the factual findings of Judges who have sat through all the evidence. An absolutely ridiculous amount of time and money has been squandered on this absurd and trivial spat. It reflects extremely badly on Mitchell - who comes across as an arrogant bully - and the coppers who lied. Not a bag of laughs either for the officer involved, PC Rowland, but at least he has been vindicated, with the Judge concluding that he was a “rather old fashioned police officer.....not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination” to “invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him.”
Mitchell, and Mellor bestride the Westminster/chattering classes stage puffed up with self importance, expecting others to be deferential and know their place. They reveal an attitude of the powerful towards the rest of us. Who knows what may be lurking regarding the powerful in the 'Elm House' affair? And of course we have royalty and titled people expecting deference and privileges all over the place, and feeling somewhat immune from the ordinariness of the lives of others (Seth Plum).
This seems to sum the whole thing up very well. Also what sort of idiot is Mitchell risking so much on a pretty trivial affair. If he had stuck £5,000 in a Police Charity it would all have been forgotten very quickly.
I don't believe in second-guessing a judge who has heard all the evidence in a proper process, at least without some substantive reason to think he's wrong. The fact that some police lied doesn't mean Mitchell was telling the truth. But my main thought is what an absurd waste of time, money and energy the whole episode has been. All because some self-important individual wanted to go through one gate rather than the other.
My thoughts exactly AB.
Mitchell definitely has one of those face's I'd like to slap, with that silly haircut, and riding around Westminster on a ladies bicycle with a frigging woven basket on the handlebars!
Mind you that's probably all he can afford after he's paid his costs.
He sold the bike to Miranda Hart so she can use it on "Call the midwife"
The Plebgate saga was a “nonsense incident” that should never have cost Andrew Mitchell his job as Conservative chief whip, according to one of the four police officers on duty at Downing Street on the day of the incident.
Ian Richardson, now retired after 30 years’ service as a Metropolitan police constable, said the incident had taken on a momentum of its own, in part propelled by the political aims of the Police Federation, the police trade union. He said senior officers refused to listen to his pleas for a proper sense of perspective.
But here we are, with that. Mr Mitchell lost his sense of humour. Who hasn’t lost their sense of humour at work?”
I have no special liking for Mitchell but irrespective of who and/or what he is, this verdict stinks and is a whitewash job on the officer concerned and the police as a whole
It's pretty out of order to accuse a high court judge of corruption when you haven't even read his judgement.
If you knew anything about the subject you'd know that John Mitting has, in the past, given many verdicts against Government and the police.
The impression is that Mitting is more of a buffoon than he is corrupt .. one could argue that the verdict is anti-government, anti tory and pro union, in this case the police federation .. a body which stood to face even more scrutiny and was in danger of falling into even more disrepute had one of its members who the PF supported to the hilt, lost this case. .. Equally one could argue that the Sun newspaper/News International having taken a thrashing over the phone hacking affair and the closure of the News of the World, were due a break from the 'establishment' .. I wonder who Murdoch and family will support next year around general election time ? .. either way, or even neither way, I maintain that Mitting's decision is simply errant, vexatious, perverse and almost laughable.
Judge finds in favour of a copper who had changed his account of events several times over the course of the scandal, none of which was corroborated by CCTV evidence or witness statements. And they wonder why people think the relationship between the courts and the coppers is cosy. Protecting their own as usual, can't believe anyone, including Mitchell, thought it would have gone down any other way.
No, I haven't, which is why I've refrained from commenting on it. It is impossible to have a valid view on the decision withourt having read it. I'm amazed that you feel qualified to call it "errant, vexatious, perverse and almost laughable" without having done so. Indeed these adjectives appear more applicable to your wholly uniformed opinion.
No, I haven't, which is why I've refrained from commenting on it. It is impossible to have a valid view on the decision withourt having read it. I'm amazed that you feel qualified to call it "errant, vexatious, perverse and almost laughable" without having done so. Indeed these adjectives appear more applicable to your wholly uniformed opinion.
mmm .. so you consider the judgment to be a good one without having read the case through, I consider it a bad judgement without having read the case through .. who's the pot and who's the kettle here ? .. and my opinion is formed by the background to the case, lying policemen, lying union officials, jailed and disciplined policemen, yet their mate is given the benefit of the doubt .. your opinion is formed how ? .. are you a relative or friend of the buffoon of a judge who delivered this 'verdict' or merely an argumentative twit?
Comments
This smacks to me of a political verdict. Cameron has never expressed any support for Mitchell, this after appointing him to a senior role just a few days earlier, the police are under all kinds of pressure nationwide for various negligent acts and can ill afford any more findings of disrepute against them, Mitchell recorded an interview he had with the police federation representatives some time after the incident and said representatives on camera then lied about what was discussed during the interview and one policeman who stated that he was present at the gate during the incident was proved to be fast asleep in somewhere like Watford at the time . The latter has either been jailed and sacked from the force or at best seriously reprimanded.
I have no special liking for Mitchell but irrespective of who and/or what he is, this verdict stinks and is a whitewash job on the officer concerned and the police as a whole
Agree with you about the second guessing and the utter waste of time and money the police complaint has generated on this one.
Mitchell, and Mellor bestride the Westminster/chattering classes stage puffed up with self importance, expecting others to be deferential and know their place. They reveal an attitude of the powerful towards the rest of us. Who knows what may be lurking regarding the powerful in the 'Elm House' affair? And of course we have royalty and titled people expecting deference and privileges all over the place, and feeling somewhat immune from the ordinariness of the lives of others.
There is a saying that power tends to corrupt, and I certainly agree with that. Mitchell gambled with his money and his status behind this case and now faces £2million costs. Good. Bollocks to him.
It would be even better if Mitchell tried his own personal kind of rehab by working for a year in a care home for EMI patients, or something similar, to gain a bit of personal humility. He put himself in the public eye, he had a thirst for power and public life, so I don't have sympathy for him, especially as he should have 'moved on' ages ago.
All very Jonathan Aitken.
Mitchell definitely has one of those face's I'd like to slap, with that silly haircut, and riding around Westminster on a ladies bicycle with a frigging woven basket on the handlebars!
Mind you that's probably all he can afford after he's paid his costs.
3 others plod come out of an interview and lie but are caught on tape lying.
another says he herd it all as he was walking past ,sends emails to the media who ALL believe him only to be proved he was actually at home.
and a Tory says PLEB ----------------really are you fecking lot serious ? where are the actual crimes here ?
This seems to sum the whole thing up very well. Also what sort of idiot is Mitchell risking so much on a pretty trivial affair. If he had stuck £5,000 in a Police Charity it would all have been forgotten very quickly.
The Plebgate saga was a “nonsense incident” that should never have cost Andrew Mitchell his job as Conservative chief whip, according to one of the four police officers on duty at Downing Street on the day of the incident.
Ian Richardson, now retired after 30 years’ service as a Metropolitan police constable, said the incident had taken on a momentum of its own, in part propelled by the political aims of the Police Federation, the police trade union. He said senior officers refused to listen to his pleas for a proper sense of perspective.
But here we are, with that. Mr Mitchell lost his sense of humour. Who hasn’t lost their sense of humour at work?”
The impression is that Mitting is more of a buffoon than he is corrupt .. one could argue that the verdict is anti-government, anti tory and pro union, in this case the police federation .. a body which stood to face even more scrutiny and was in danger of falling into even more disrepute had one of its members who the PF supported to the hilt, lost this case. .. Equally one could argue that the Sun newspaper/News International having taken a thrashing over the phone hacking affair and the closure of the News of the World, were due a break from the 'establishment' .. I wonder who Murdoch and family will support next year around general election time ? .. either way, or even neither way, I maintain that Mitting's decision is simply errant, vexatious, perverse and almost laughable.
The ICLR copy isn't available as yet, probably be online from early next week