Is an apology enough ?

20 Dec 2012

Quote by Stevie_and_Kitty
I shall await your evidence that suggests that police are covering up other police officers, to stop them getting arrested and charged with crimes please. Could any claims be a possibility that members of the public sometimes make up allegations against the police? No perish the thought that could ever happen eh?

Jean Charles de Menezes
Hillsborough
Lance Corporal Mark Aspinall
Ian Tomlinson
Andrew Mitchell
...evidence
or may be I made it up
well no I didnt, as I'm not a copper!
Do these officers or the whole of the corrupt officers convicted equate to 1% of the police force Stevie do you reckon?
A few bad apples does not make a diseased apple tree. The police nowadays have to be so politically correct from the people up high in their ivory towers, and some of these people have never even been police officers. I cannot imagine what a police officer would have gone through at the G20 riots, but I can imagine a terrifying experience of being frightened beyond belief by armed thugs out to ' get ' the police. Still I am sure some people would like the police to have feather dusters instead of truncheons. :twisted:

20 Dec 2012

You are totally missing the point Star. The impact of lying and cover ups by even one Police Officer has the potential to cause incalculable damage to ordinary people. A small group of Police Officers covered up the cause of the deaths of 96 people for 23 years despite the best efforts of tens of thousands of people to put the record straight.
No one necessaril Police bashes but there is a considerable recent spate of a smnallk number of Police making things up as they go along and this has caused deaths, ruined careers and falesly imprisoned people. By any measure this is totally wrong.

31 Jan 2013

Quote by flower411
S
OOOOO I love a conspiracy theory

So does GnV by all accounts.

31 Jan 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
S
OOOOO I love a conspiracy theory

So does GnV by all accounts.
I do.
I thought there was more to this all along and it seems to be moving in that direction.

31 Jan 2013

Quote by Lilith
this is more about who he is not what he said :dry:

Of course it is, and quite rightly so! He is in a position of responsibility as an elected representative. AND, given his role within Cabinet, he is also in a position of influence and authority. He chose this as his career, so he must accept that he cannot - like us "common folk" - have public outbursts like this without consequence. His title includes the word "Honourable"... He should try harder to live up to that!
seems he was and looks like he did
its a shame the keepers of the law could not live up their sworn duties wink

31 Jan 2013

Quote by Lizaleanrob
seems he was and looks like he did
its a shame the keepers of the law could not live up their sworn duties

It will be a terrible day for the Police if this is proved against them Rob. I cannot even see the reason as to why this would have even happened. Yes he was a Minister but why would a Police officer lie and attempt him down? It is doubtful if the police officer even knew this Minister. It makes no real sense at all to me.

4 Feb 2013

Watching Dispatches now. Horrifying what the Police have done and the effect it has had on Andrew Mitchell's life.
If they can do this to a Politician, what hope you and I if the spotlight ever fell on us.
This is like watching something that happens in another country.

4 Feb 2013

Something is nagging my brain about all this. I reckon Mitchell probably did call the plod 'plebs' and I think plod probably tried to exploit it. Whatever the upshot, this whole episode is a media made molehill to mountain. For crying out loud who in real life would take that much offence at being called a pleb. At one time I used to here it being banded about all over the place and why should someone lose their freaking job for calling someone a pleb. I can't imagine it going through Mitchell's mind that the most offensive thing he could call him was a pleb. It is such a non story it defies belief. It's all just wordy bollox to keep us all from thinking about the more serious issues.

5 Feb 2013

Quote by Lost
Something is nagging my brain about all this. I reckon Mitchell probably did call the plod 'plebs' and I think plod probably tried to exploit it. Whatever the upshot, this whole episode is a media made molehill to mountain. For crying out loud who in real life would take that much offence at being called a pleb. At one time I used to here it being banded about all over the place and why should someone lose their freaking job for calling someone a pleb. I can't imagine it going through Mitchell's mind that the most offensive thing he could call him was a pleb. It is such a non story it defies belief. It's all just wordy bollox to keep us all from thinking about the more serious issues.

He didn't call them Plebs. After watching that programme, any impartial viewer could not have been left with any conclusion other than he was stitched up.
The word Pleb, when used by a wealthy Conservative has particularly nasty connotations when directed at us mere common people that is what the outrage was about and of course the allegation that he was systematically lying - which he wasn't.
Two very poweful parts of the programme were firstly he held up piles of emails and letters which were at best unpleasant but in most cases were hateful and obscene and all in reference to him being a lying, deceitful and thoroughly unpleasant person and those emails clearly had affected him. Remember that these attacks on him were as a result of him being accused of lying about what happened.
Another really powerful bit of the story is where senior Members of the Police Federation were invited to Mitchells office to, "clear the air." A group of four or five came along and Mitchell (paranoid at this time) recorded the meeting. He was asked outright what happened and he said what he has said all along that he was refused exit through the main gate and as he walked to the side gate with the Police officer he muttered "fucking frustrating" under his breath. He was asked did he say Pleb and he said no. After the meeting finished, the senior Member of the Police Federation group was interviewed outside Mitchells office and he said that they had given Mitchell every opportunity to explain himself, he had failed to do so and therefore in his opinion, Mitchell should resign. Unfortunately for the Police Federation, they did not know the meeting had been recorded and Mitchell subsequently passed the recording to the Police Internal Investigations Unit.
It was a disturbing programme especially as the CCTV footage was totally aligned with Mitchells version of events yet he has been hounded, humiliated and attacked - for no reason at all. Just a fabrication of Police stories.

5 Feb 2013

Did he not say he did not ' swear ' at the police and then admitted he did at a later stage?

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Did he not say he did not ' swear ' at the police and then admitted he did at a later stage?

I didn't see the program but from THs account, he did not swear at police and I don't recall him saying anything other than that throughout the whole sorry episode.
On that evidence, the PF official clearly lied and should also be taken to book (if not already done). They were clearly out to 'get' a scalp and fabricated evidence to achieve it.
Be very afraid, as TH says. Ordinary people stand very little chance of fighting the machine when they have a mind to 'get' you :sad:

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Did he not say he did not ' swear ' at the police and then admitted he did at a later stage?

He said that he muttered "how fucking annoying" under his breath as he walked alongside a police officer from the road to the side gate. He has always denied swearing AT the Police. The cctv footage whilst carrying no sound, showed a non confrontational event, without any kind of stand off at all. This aligns with what Mitchell said.
One of the Police offiders on duty that night has now been arrested as has the Police Federation spokesman who lied to journalists about what happened in the meeting.
No surprise at all in the programme to see the "PC Pleb" circus being orchestrated by troublemaking gobshite Jon Gaunt. I thought he had learned his lesson, seemingly not.

5 Feb 2013

IIRC Gaunt is the son of a policeman.....

5 Feb 2013

At the very least he used foul and abusive language not really befitting a man in his high office, in earshot of the general public. Not the crime of the century I admit, but with the MP found guilty yesterday of perverting the course of justice, and spent years lying through his teeth, it is certainly not beyond any MP to be an outright liar when it suits to save their own sorry necks.
For me Mitchell just looks like the kind of person who looks down his nose at the little man, he has the eyes for it. lol

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Not the crime of the century I admit, but with the MP found guilty yesterday of perverting the course of justice, and spent years lying through his teeth, it is certainly not beyond any MP to be an outright liar when it suits to save their own sorry necks.

Star; The guy in the news yesterday pleaded guilty, his trial hasn't even begun yet and has not been found guilty (foregone conclusion now though!). I agree with your sentiment though.

5 Feb 2013

Quote by star
At the very least he used foul and abusive language not really befitting a man in his high office, in earshot of the general public.

Bollox and you know it!
Besides, all the evidence points to the fact that there were no 'members of the public' present or within earshot at the time despite a lying, cheating Police Officer claiming to the contrary.

5 Feb 2013

Quote by star
At the very least he used foul and abusive language not really befitting a man in his high office, in earshot of the general public.

Quote by GnV
Bollox and you know it!
Besides, all the evidence points to the fact that there were no 'members of the public' present or within earshot at the time despite a lying, cheating Police Officer claiming to the contrary.

So GnV............did he swear or not? Did he use the ' fuck ' or ' fuckoff ' word at all?
Why do you believe this politician and yet have nothing but bad words about Blair? Do you not think they are all liars and thieves when it suits them to be? I reckon with your obvious political persuasions, had Mitchell have been a Labour MP, you would have wanted him hung drawn and quartered from the nearest rafters. rolleyes

You Tory supporter you. :rascal:

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
At the very least he used foul and abusive language not really befitting a man in his high office, in earshot of the general public.

Quote by GnV
Bollox and you know it!
Besides, all the evidence points to the fact that there were no 'members of the public' present or within earshot at the time despite a lying, cheating Police Officer claiming to the contrary.

So GnV............did he swear or not? Did he use the ' fuck ' or ' fuckoff ' word at all?
Why do you believe this politician and yet have nothing but bad words about Blair? Do you not think they are all liars and thieves when it suits them to be? I reckon with your obvious political persuasions, had Mitchell have been a Labour MP, you would have wanted him hung drawn and quartered from the nearest rafters. rolleyes

You Tory supporter you. :rascal:
Which question do you want answered star?
The one "in earshot of the general public"
Or
"Did he swear or not"
Stop changing the bleeding rules!
TH is right. We should call you - "The Wriggler"
@Admin
How easy is for a user to change his name these days?

5 Feb 2013

Well did he swear or not Gnv? One minute he seemed to deny this, and then he admitted he did. By his silence at the beginning and in the House, led many to believe he was a liar.
In my experience there are indeed a few police officers that are indeed Plebs ( possibly ), and the Police get sworn at every working day of their fact was there not something in the papers a while back that said that if a member of the public swore at a Police officer that they would now ignore it? I seem to recall something along those lines, see if Trev can come up with something. lol

The trouble is GnV we have so many media sources say one thing and then something else, it is difficult to know who to believe in this. It seems to me that he did swear but not at anyone in particular. rolleyes

Would that be a fair assessment?

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Well did he swear or not Gnv? One minute he seemed to deny this, and then he admitted he did. By his silence at the beginning and in the House, led many to believe he was a liar.
In my experience there are indeed a few police officers that are indeed Plebs ( possibly ), and the Police get sworn at every working day of their fact was there not something in the papers a while back that said that if a member of the public swore at a Police officer that they would now ignore it? I seem to recall something along those lines, see if Trev can come up with something.
The trouble is GnV we have so many media sources say one thing and then something else, it is difficult to know who to believe in this. It seems to me that he did swear but not at anyone in particular.
Would that be a fair assessment?

:thumbup:

5 Feb 2013

Quote by GnV
Well did he swear or not Gnv? One minute he seemed to deny this, and then he admitted he did. By his silence at the beginning and in the House, led many to believe he was a liar.
In my experience there are indeed a few police officers that are indeed Plebs ( possibly ), and the Police get sworn at every working day of their fact was there not something in the papers a while back that said that if a member of the public swore at a Police officer that they would now ignore it? I seem to recall something along those lines, see if Trev can come up with something.
The trouble is GnV we have so many media sources say one thing and then something else, it is difficult to know who to believe in this. It seems to me that he did swear but not at anyone in particular.
Would that be a fair assessment?

:thumbup:
Then hang him from the highest rafters. That is such an easy get out of jail card I did say ' fuckoff ' but not to anyone in particular. What he just happened to say it for no reason or straight after a Police officer asked him to get off his bike? :doh:
If it was as I believe it to be, straight after he was asked to get off his bike, then it would have certainly been aimed at that person. Because he may not have been looking straight at them, surely makes no difference surely?

5 Feb 2013

You've already been told by TH what he said star. Hardly a hanging offence and I reckon the PCs on duty at the gate call their charges far worse...

5 Feb 2013

Quote by GnV
You've already been told by TH what he said star. Hardly a hanging offence and I reckon the PCs on duty at the gate call their charges far worse...

Do two wrongs make a right then GnV?

5 Feb 2013

Quote by flower411
At the very least he used foul and abusive language not really befitting a man in his high office, in earshot of the general public.

Quote by GnV
Bollox and you know it!
Besides, all the evidence points to the fact that there were no 'members of the public' present or within earshot at the time despite a lying, cheating Police Officer claiming to the contrary.

So GnV............did he swear or not? Did he use the ' fuck ' or ' fuckoff ' word at all?
Why do you believe this politician and yet have nothing but bad words about Blair? Do you not think they are all liars and thieves when it suits them to be? I reckon with your obvious political persuasions, had Mitchell have been a Labour MP, you would have wanted him hung drawn and quartered from the nearest rafters. rolleyes

You Tory supporter you. :rascal:
One thing that has been evident on this forum is that GnV is pretty even handed with his abuse of politicians.
I don`t think I`ve really noticed a particular bias.
You are? Forgotten already.:giggle:
But as an aside... I think the mere mention of the name Tony Blair and Gordon Brown make the hairs on the back of his neck stand out, and hie eyes to go a tad bloodshot, and the veins in his neck bulge. There is enough evidence to indicate to even the dumbest person his dislike of those two in particular above all the others.

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
In fact was there not something in the papers a while back that said that if a member of the public swore at a Police officer that they would now ignore it? I seem to recall something along those lines, see if Trev can come up with something.

It's not as cut and dried as the police simply ignoring swearing:
1. If you were to walk up to an officer in the street and swear at him you could still be arrested.
2. If you were to walk up to an officer in the street and swear at him with someone other than the Police within sight or hearing that is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, you will still be arrested.
you were swearing at an officer during civil unrest you would not be arrested solely for swearing.
And for further clarification, it is not law, just issued to the Met Police only.
Can anyone tell I'm having a slow day at work :lol:

5 Feb 2013

Quote by Trevaunance
In fact was there not something in the papers a while back that said that if a member of the public swore at a Police officer that they would now ignore it? I seem to recall something along those lines, see if Trev can come up with something.

It's not as cut and dried as the police simply ignoring swearing:
1. If you were to walk up to an officer in the street and swear at him you could still be arrested.
2. If you were to walk up to an officer in the street and swear at him with someone other than the Police within sight or hearing that is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, you will still be arrested.
you were swearing at an officer during civil unrest you would not be arrested solely for swearing.
And for further clarification, it is not law, just issued to the Met Police only.
Can anyone tell I'm having a slow day at work :lol:
I have had a few of those Trev of late. wink

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple
Well did he swear or not Gnv? One minute he seemed to deny this, and then he admitted he did. By his silence at the beginning and in the House, led many to believe he was a liar.
In my experience there are indeed a few police officers that are indeed Plebs ( possibly ), and the Police get sworn at every working day of their fact was there not something in the papers a while back that said that if a member of the public swore at a Police officer that they would now ignore it? I seem to recall something along those lines, see if Trev can come up with something.
The trouble is GnV we have so many media sources say one thing and then something else, it is difficult to know who to believe in this. It seems to me that he did swear but not at anyone in particular.
Would that be a fair assessment?

:thumbup:
Then hang him from the highest rafters. That is such an easy get out of jail card I did say ' fuckoff ' but not to anyone in particular. What he just happened to say it for no reason or straight after a Police officer asked him to get off his bike? :doh:
If it was as I believe it to be, straight after he was asked to get off his bike, then it would have certainly been aimed at that person. Because he may not have been looking straight at them, surely makes no difference surely?
Allegedly he was told that he could not ride his bicycle through the main gate (something he always had done up to that evening). He said that that under his breath he muttered "how fucking annoying" but was unsure whether it was loud enough to be heard but accepts that this is what he said and that on reflection he should not have said it. There is some doubt whether the police officer even heard this judging from the cctv footage which showed nothing more than Mitchell riding to the main gate, dismounting and walking alongside a police officer to the side gate pushing his bicycle.
No hint of aggression, arguing or confrontation could be seen from the cctv footage yet it was an aggressive, foul mouthed confrontation that was alleged.

5 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot
Allegedly he was told that he could not ride his bicycle through the main gate (something he always had done up to that evening). He said that that under his breath he muttered "how fucking annoying" but was unsure whether it was loud enough to be heard but accepts that this is what he said and that on reflection he should not have said it. There is some doubt whether the police officer even heard this judging from the cctv footage which showed nothing more than Mitchell riding to the main gate, dismounting and walking alongside a police officer to the side gate pushing his bicycle.
No hint of aggression, arguing or confrontation could be seen from the cctv footage yet it was an aggressive, foul mouthed confrontation that was alleged.

So even you are unsure TH? The word I have highlighted shows that nobody seems to know either the truth or the lies that have been told by either party in this sorry tale.
He was unsure? Th he knew what he said in my opinion, and he said it loud enough to piss the Police officer off. I shall see what else comes out in any criminal proceedings in this matter, if it actually ever comes to court. He did swear at a police officer and maybe had he just kept his mouth shut none of this would have gone any further?

5 Feb 2013

Quote by starlightcouple

Allegedly he was told that he could not ride his bicycle through the main gate (something he always had done up to that evening). He said that that under his breath he muttered "how fucking annoying" but was unsure whether it was loud enough to be heard but accepts that this is what he said and that on reflection he should not have said it. There is some doubt whether the police officer even heard this judging from the cctv footage which showed nothing more than Mitchell riding to the main gate, dismounting and walking alongside a police officer to the side gate pushing his bicycle.
No hint of aggression, arguing or confrontation could be seen from the cctv footage yet it was an aggressive, foul mouthed confrontation that was alleged.

So even you are unsure TH? The word I have highlighted shows that nobody seems to know either the truth or the lies that have been told by either party in this sorry tale.
He was unsure? Th he knew what he said in my opinion, and he said it loud enough to piss the Police officer off. I shall see what else comes out in any criminal proceedings in this matter, if it actually ever comes to court. He did swear at a police officer and maybe had he just kept his mouth shut none of this would have gone any further?
Why don't you watch the programme instead of making things up.
I said allegedly - because I was re-iterating what i saw on TV
He (Mitchell) was unsure if it had been heard.
Watch the programme and decide for yourself from what you see and hear if you think that there was any confrontation, swearing or aggression from anyone. For a nuetral observer it was a very disturbing programme.

5 Feb 2013

Quote by Too Hot

Allegedly he was told that he could not ride his bicycle through the main gate (something he always had done up to that evening). He said that that under his breath he muttered "how fucking annoying" but was unsure whether it was loud enough to be heard but accepts that this is what he said and that on reflection he should not have said it. There is some doubt whether the police officer even heard this judging from the cctv footage which showed nothing more than Mitchell riding to the main gate, dismounting and walking alongside a police officer to the side gate pushing his bicycle.
No hint of aggression, arguing or confrontation could be seen from the cctv footage yet it was an aggressive, foul mouthed confrontation that was alleged.

So even you are unsure TH? The word I have highlighted shows that nobody seems to know either the truth or the lies that have been told by either party in this sorry tale.
He was unsure? Th he knew what he said in my opinion, and he said it loud enough to piss the Police officer off. I shall see what else comes out in any criminal proceedings in this matter, if it actually ever comes to court. He did swear at a police officer and maybe had he just kept his mouth shut none of this would have gone any further?
Why don't you watch the programme instead of making things up.
I said allegedly - because I was re-iterating what i saw on TV
He (Mitchell) was unsure if it had been heard.
Watch the programme and decide for yourself from what you see and hear if you think that there was any confrontation, swearing or aggression from anyone. For a nuetral observer it was a very disturbing programme.
I did watch it TH and cannot make my mind up. The worrying thing for me is why a Police officer would make anything up at all, and why a serving Minister would then deny saying anything and then change his mind to he did, but muttered it under his breath.
To be honest I care not whether he said it or not, but am worried that a Police officer could lie about it....allegedly.