Never thought for a moment it would turn out like this. My knee-jerk was to accept fully what the cops were saying about that Tory twit. But - hat eating time. Looks like the good Mr Mitchell is a hugely dignified and honourable fellow. He didn't jump and scream or become all petulant. He even resigned whilst it was being sorted. Blimey. And then, following the 'sorting it out' meeting he had with these three cops, one of them came out and spoke straight to the cameras and declared that Mitchell hadn't explained what he'd said and claimed his position was therefore untenable - he should resign. Mitchell should resign?! That bare-faced lying cop should be sacked.
What surprises me is so much fuss over the allegation of such a mild expletive, spoken (if it had been) to a couple of coppers in a secure area. Anyone who has watched "coppers with cameras" type TV programmes knows that they routinely get appalling abuse and threats and physical abuse from the public of all classes and no action is taken against the perpetrator.
I find it odd that so much press attention has been given to this Plebgate issue, which involved a very few policemen (who clearly had an agenda) and a very rich, very well connected Tory. Yet the endemic lying and falsification of the truth that would appear to have been rife throughout the Polices handling of the Hillsborough disaster apparently warrants little column space.
Why the press miles? Because this 'little lie' was carefully constructed to bring down a top politician. It wasn't a 'cover-up' as such (ok, it became one) but was a cynical ploy to destroy someone's career. I understand - from a cop who worked in Yorkie at the time - that the Hillsborough situation is a bit more complex. Yes, there may have been some 'covering up', but it was largely a way of bringing the whole situation to a close rather than a cynical attempt to avoid blame. Lessons have - and had - been learned.
''bringing the whole situation to a close'' sounds like sweeping the blame under a carpet whilst it was an horrible accident, the widespread alterations to numerous statements to divert attention away from the polices actions on the day certainly was cynical and calculated to support to belief that the supporters where entirely at fault ah well, dogs to walk and an empty beach is beaconing
Hmmmm, Downing St has a great big double gate (for cars) and a smaller single gate. (for pedestrians and cyclists) From what I've seen of the video, Mitchell fully expected the police officers to open the big gate for his bicycle. Sadly there's no record of the conversation that followed, so it's all conjecture over what was, or wasn't said. Everyone seems quick to blame the police and say they were the one's who were lying. I suppose you all think MP's don't tell lies? Remember Chris Huene ?? (yep the one that didn't lie either) Personally, I believe this is only in the press again as a diversionary tactic,, The governement's up to summat )
It's all very muddy and subtle. All I can say is that my last few interactions (not that many!) with the police have not been happy experiences. High-handed, lazy, sarcastic, dishonest, failing to act in the interests of statutory or natural justice, and failure of duty - seems where it is at. So nothing surprises me at all. Something has gone very wrong with the police 'service'.
The police do seem to react according to the type of person they are dealing with. So, with me, they are perfect.
Grimmy, do you believe those policemen are stationed on Downing St just to open the main gates for some jumped up t**t on a bicycle? ( specially one who can't be bothered to get off and push it through a side gate )
Not sure if those yellow globes mean you realise your statement completely misses the real issues or not?
Yer, right. Anyway - in my instances it's got nothing to do with failing attitude tests etc. , the chosen path was embarked upon before initial meeting, and then the rest ensued as a result of challenging that. Yes the police will lie to cover each other when they are firmly in the wrong, criminal even. Believe it.
The reason I have gorn full circle is that it looks as tho' there was more to it than a couple of officers lying to cover each other's backs. The 'jumped up t**t' used the main gates on a regular basis - the cops were clearly 'happy' to open it for him. Whatever happened on that day, for one reason or another the police on duty decided they wouldn't. Clearly our jut saw that as unreasonable and muttered - swore - under his breath at the perceived unreasonableness of this, and made his awkward way through the pedestrian gate instead. End of matter. Or, it should have been. What then seemingly transpired was a very deliberate - and temporarily successful - plan to damage the jut's career, for selfish political reasons. They didn't 'cover their backs'; what they did do was fabricate false evidence to order to damage a political career - that of someone on the 'other' side. And that leaves an extremely bad taste in the mouth as well as affecting the public's perception of the whole force. My 'dealings' with the police have been few and far-between (the odd car accident, problems with a neighbour, parking issues at my kid's school... heavy), but they have been exemplary in each case. So I resent that small bunch of twits selfishly damaging the force's reputation. They should be sacked imo (ironically, what they demanded of Mitchell...)
Forums
Facebook
Twitter
You Tube
Instagram
Shop