Chief Inspector called to give evidence to Parliamentary committee

Droitwich Advertiser: West Mercia Police Chief Constable David Shaw West Mercia Police Chief Constable David Shaw

13.35 UPDATE: David Cameron said former Tory chief whip Andrew Mitchell was owed an apology as the row between police and politicians over the 'plebgate' affair escalated.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said Inspector Ken MacKaill, of West Mercia Police, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton and Sergeant Chris Jones should have faced misconduct hearings for lying about what Mr Mitchell said in a private meeting about the row last year.

At Prime Minister's questions today, Mr Cameron said the conduct of the officers, who were representing the Police Federation, was "not acceptable".

He said Mr Mitchell was "owed an apology, the conduct of these officers was not acceptable" and "these things should be properly investigated".

The full story is below

THE "honesty and integrity" of police officers - including West Mercia Inspector Ken MacKaill - has been called into question by a police watchdog after an investigation into last year's 'plebgate' affair.

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) said Inspector Ken MacKaill, chairman of the West Mercia Police Police Federation, Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton of Warwickshire Police and Sergeant Chris Jones from the West Midlands force, should have faced misconduct hearings over comments about what chief whip Andrew Mitchell said in a private meeting about the incident.

Mr Mitchell was accused of calling officers in Downing Street 'plebs' after he was not allowed to use a gate to leave on his bicycle on September 19 last year.

The Police Federation trio met with the minister on October 12, shortly after the affair, in a bid to clear the air.

But immediately after the meeting, they addressed the media, claiming the former chief Tory whip refused to give an account of the incident.

However, a transcript shows Mr Mitchell apologised for swearing at the police officers but denied using the word "plebs" during the meeting.

He resigned on October 19 as the fallout continued.

West Mercia Police conducted an internal investigation into claims the three officers were trying to discredit Mr Mitchell but concluded there was no case to answer for misconduct, or gross misconduct.

But the IPCC investigation claims they should have faced action.

IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass said the evidence revealed "an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naive or poor professional judgment" among the federation representatives.

She said: "In the media and political climate of the day, I do not consider that the officers could have been in any doubt about the impact of their public statements on the pressure being brought on Mr Mitchell.

"As police officers, they had a responsibility to present a fair and accurate picture.

"Their motive seems plain: they were running a successful, high-profile, anti-cuts campaign and the account that he provided to them did not fit with their agenda."

Now, the West Mercia force's chief constable, David Shaw, has been summoned to give evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee on the issue.

In a joint statement with the Warwickshire and West Midlands forces, West Mercia Police defended its handling of the investigation.

It read: "Andrew Mitchell MP has never made a complaint to police. West Mercia, with the support of West Midlands and Warwickshire Police, recognising the public interest in this case, independently decided to investigate this incident and made a referral to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

"We asked for the matter to be independently investigated by the IPCC because we recognise the significant public interest in the matter, however this was declined.

"The IPCC have supervised this investigation throughout and have been invited to reconsider their position on more than one occasion.

"The decisions following this investigation were carefully considered, with the support of appropriate legal advice.

"Warwickshire, West Mercia and West Midlands Police have separately considered the findings of the investigation and all three forces agree on the outcome."

West Mercia police commissioner Bill Longmore expressed surprise about comments by IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass and said he was seeking an urgent meeting with Home Secretary Theresa May.

"Given the critical statement which the IPCC Deputy Chair has made in the last few hours, I am frankly surprised the IPCC did not resume conduct of the investigation - they certainly had the power to do so," he said.

 

Droitwich Advertiser: A diplomatic protection group police officer has been arrested in connection with the Andrew Mitchell ''Plebgate'' affair
Andrew Mitchell resigned over the affair

 

In a statement released after the IPCC published its findings, Mr Mitchell said he and his family had "waited in vain" for Mr MacKaill, Mr Hinton and Mr Jones to be held to account.

"It is a matter of deep concern that the police forces employing these officers have concluded that their conduct has not brought the police service into disrepute," he said.

"Most people will disagree. It is a decision which will undermine confidence in the ability of the police to investigate misconduct when the reputation of the police service as a whole is at stake.

"My family and I have waited nearly a year for these police officers to be held to account and for an apology from the Police Forces involved. It seems we have waited in vain."

The chairman of the Police Federation, Steven Williams, questioned the intervention by the IPCC.

"My concern is that by releasing her [Ms Glass'] personal view that she disagrees with the findings of the West Mercia investigation she displays a lack of independence," he wrote in a letter to Mrs May.

"This threatens to undermine the considered findings of the investigation in the eyes of the public, whereas in fact those investigating and deciding the case are the proper arbiters in this matter."

Eight people have been arrested over the original incident, in which Mr Mitchell was accused of calling officers guarding Downing Street "plebs" as he cycled through the main gates.

The incident was the subject of a separate Metropolitan Police investigation following claims officers conspired against the politician.

Giving evidence to MPs, Mrs May said: "The IPCC statement makes troubling reading. If it is indeed the case that warranted police officers behaved in the way Deborah Glass has described, that's not acceptable at all."

Asked if the chief constable of West Mercia Police should apologise to Mr Mitchell, Mrs May said: "I think that would be appropriate."

She added: "The police need the trust of the public. These sorts of incident will strike at the heart of that issue of trust."

Comments (48)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:29am Wed 16 Oct 13

skychip says...

A shame this couldn't have been sorted out a year ago and not wasted so much time and taxpayers money on the issue.
A shame this couldn't have been sorted out a year ago and not wasted so much time and taxpayers money on the issue. skychip

11:10am Wed 16 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

I am not suprised West mercia's" "internal investigation" found nothing wrong..That is the police investigating themselves and they are called
"Proffesional Standards". So west mercia police issued a statment on BBC news 24 saying they are "shocked" at the accusations bt the IPCC and Mrs May. sounds a bit twee that....
I am not suprised West mercia's" "internal investigation" found nothing wrong..That is the police investigating themselves and they are called "Proffesional Standards". So west mercia police issued a statment on BBC news 24 saying they are "shocked" at the accusations bt the IPCC and Mrs May. sounds a bit twee that.... canuck7

11:38am Wed 16 Oct 13

Jabbadad says...

IF Andrew Mitchell is found not Guilty, then many would need to apologise. However I have to ask if he was / is innocent why did he after such a short time resign as a minister. What we can be sure of is that the Tory Big Legal Guns will be involved in not just saving Andrew Mitchell, but more importantly for them to save face for the Party.
Andrew Mitchell has confessed to swearing at the Police Officers, something that if Mr & Mrs joe Public did we would have been charged and possibly arrested.
If also the [olice have fabricated evidence then this is also inexcusable.
We see big political names publicly criticising the police and defending Mitchell. Again in my opinion to save the Party not the man.
We hear the police criticised for supporting their officers, and if innocent yes they should. The politicians are doing exactly the same.
As to the CCTV films which were not published for some time, perhaps long enough for them to be adjusted if possible in favour of one or the other parties involved.
It really stinks and with no suprise politics are involved.
IF Andrew Mitchell is found not Guilty, then many would need to apologise. However I have to ask if he was / is innocent why did he after such a short time resign as a minister. What we can be sure of is that the Tory Big Legal Guns will be involved in not just saving Andrew Mitchell, but more importantly for them to save face for the Party. Andrew Mitchell has confessed to swearing at the Police Officers, something that if Mr & Mrs joe Public did we would have been charged and possibly arrested. If also the [olice have fabricated evidence then this is also inexcusable. We see big political names publicly criticising the police and defending Mitchell. Again in my opinion to save the Party not the man. We hear the police criticised for supporting their officers, and if innocent yes they should. The politicians are doing exactly the same. As to the CCTV films which were not published for some time, perhaps long enough for them to be adjusted if possible in favour of one or the other parties involved. It really stinks and with no suprise politics are involved. Jabbadad

12:02pm Wed 16 Oct 13

MikeA says...

Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances.

Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC.

Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law.

The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints.

The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.
Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances. Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC. Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law. The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints. The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity. MikeA

12:25pm Wed 16 Oct 13

Geoffery1966 says...

Local Policing in Malvern is no better than a joke, utter and total waste of time, they are only interested in easy convictions for motorists.
Real crime, they are never around when you want one
Local Policing in Malvern is no better than a joke, utter and total waste of time, they are only interested in easy convictions for motorists. Real crime, they are never around when you want one Geoffery1966

12:33pm Wed 16 Oct 13

Karl Hunderson says...

Geoffery1966 wrote:
Local Policing in Malvern is no better than a joke, utter and total waste of time, they are only interested in easy convictions for motorists.
Real crime, they are never around when you want one
From experience, I would have to disagree with you 100%
[quote][p][bold]Geoffery1966[/bold] wrote: Local Policing in Malvern is no better than a joke, utter and total waste of time, they are only interested in easy convictions for motorists. Real crime, they are never around when you want one[/p][/quote]From experience, I would have to disagree with you 100% Karl Hunderson

12:33pm Wed 16 Oct 13

bmoc55 says...

Let us hope that the "Stasie" type actions of the Politicsed police union and its agiprop activists will be exposed for the lies they have collaborated in.

Also, the Chief Constables who are refusing to openly investigate this travesty of the truth, will I hope be also found wanting
Let us hope that the "Stasie" type actions of the Politicsed police union and its agiprop activists will be exposed for the lies they have collaborated in. Also, the Chief Constables who are refusing to openly investigate this travesty of the truth, will I hope be also found wanting bmoc55

12:48pm Wed 16 Oct 13

Doogie 46 says...

It seems that the police have been falsifying their own records regarding their encounter with Mr Mitchell - surely this is at best a serious breach of police discipline, at worst a criminal offence.
It has been alleged that Mr Mitchell was unpopular (even within the Coservative party) and the police conspired to "bring him down" - not something they should be allowed to get away with doing to a politician of ANY party (or for that matter any member of the public)
It seems that the police have been falsifying their own records regarding their encounter with Mr Mitchell - surely this is at best a serious breach of police discipline, at worst a criminal offence. It has been alleged that Mr Mitchell was unpopular (even within the Coservative party) and the police conspired to "bring him down" - not something they should be allowed to get away with doing to a politician of ANY party (or for that matter any member of the public) Doogie 46

1:16pm Wed 16 Oct 13

RogerLFC says...

I have just listened to PMQ's from the House Of Commons. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his views on the Andrew Mitchell meeting with the Federation Reps. He said the Police account of the meeting was 'untrue'. He said Andrew Mitchell was owed an apology and that the Police behaviour was unacceptable. When you stack those views up against the internal investigation which has declared that there is 'no case to answer' then I don't think it is unfair to state that the wheel has well and truly fallen off the wagon.
I have just listened to PMQ's from the House Of Commons. The Prime Minister, David Cameron, gave his views on the Andrew Mitchell meeting with the Federation Reps. He said the Police account of the meeting was 'untrue'. He said Andrew Mitchell was owed an apology and that the Police behaviour was unacceptable. When you stack those views up against the internal investigation which has declared that there is 'no case to answer' then I don't think it is unfair to state that the wheel has well and truly fallen off the wagon. RogerLFC

1:23pm Wed 16 Oct 13

MikeA says...

On the basis of the above article, the Officers should either be given Final warnings or Dismissed.

On the basis of the above article, it is that simple.


The only relevant text from the above article is:

“But immediately after the meeting, they addressed the media, claiming the former chief Tory whip refused to give an account of the incident.

However, a transcript shows Mr Mitchell apologised for swearing at the police officers but denied using the word "plebs" during the meeting.”

In other circumstances, this would amount to conspiracy and attempting to pervert the course of justice.

If the article is correct, then these Officers are unsuitable to be Police Officers.

It is that simple.
On the basis of the above article, the Officers should either be given Final warnings or Dismissed. On the basis of the above article, it is that simple. The only relevant text from the above article is: “But immediately after the meeting, they addressed the media, claiming the former chief Tory whip refused to give an account of the incident. However, a transcript shows Mr Mitchell apologised for swearing at the police officers but denied using the word "plebs" during the meeting.” In other circumstances, this would amount to conspiracy and attempting to pervert the course of justice. If the article is correct, then these Officers are unsuitable to be Police Officers. It is that simple. MikeA

1:41pm Wed 16 Oct 13

DAVID1875 says...

Totally agree with Canuck7 and MikeA. The laughably called "professional standards" department at West Mercia repeatedly turn down complaints about their officers from the public in a prejudicial and biased attempt to cover up their officers' shortfalls. The evidence of this is that significant numbers of appeals then made to the IPCC are then upheld by the IPCC in favour of the complainant. West Mercia Police have treated members of the public's complaints just as appallingly as they have investigated the Andrew Mitchell saga. And now we have 3 chief constables, including West Mercia's own David Shaw, continuing to attempt to cover up their officers' own dishonesty. The lack of trust in West Mercia Police , and other forces, goes all the way up to the top of the forces! West Mercia are now attempting to discredit the IPCC because the IPCC are telling the truth! And it is appalling that the PCCs of West Mercia and Warwickshire, messrs Longmore and Ball, are also trying to cover up the police's dishonesty and attacking the IPCC- perhaps the PCCs should be reminded they are paid to hold the police to account, not to help them cover up dishonesty!
Totally agree with Canuck7 and MikeA. The laughably called "professional standards" department at West Mercia repeatedly turn down complaints about their officers from the public in a prejudicial and biased attempt to cover up their officers' shortfalls. The evidence of this is that significant numbers of appeals then made to the IPCC are then upheld by the IPCC in favour of the complainant. West Mercia Police have treated members of the public's complaints just as appallingly as they have investigated the Andrew Mitchell saga. And now we have 3 chief constables, including West Mercia's own David Shaw, continuing to attempt to cover up their officers' own dishonesty. The lack of trust in West Mercia Police , and other forces, goes all the way up to the top of the forces! West Mercia are now attempting to discredit the IPCC because the IPCC are telling the truth! And it is appalling that the PCCs of West Mercia and Warwickshire, messrs Longmore and Ball, are also trying to cover up the police's dishonesty and attacking the IPCC- perhaps the PCCs should be reminded they are paid to hold the police to account, not to help them cover up dishonesty! DAVID1875

2:22pm Wed 16 Oct 13

Jabbadad says...

Camerons comments just say that the Tories wish to save the party not the man. Had the evidence have been against Mitchell Cameron would have dropped him like a hot potato.
And yes if guilty the police at any level should be charged accordingly.
Camerons comments just say that the Tories wish to save the party not the man. Had the evidence have been against Mitchell Cameron would have dropped him like a hot potato. And yes if guilty the police at any level should be charged accordingly. Jabbadad

2:29pm Wed 16 Oct 13

spider666 says...

How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.
How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us. spider666

2:39pm Wed 16 Oct 13

walkerno5 says...

"get over it children there's more important things going on around us."

More important than whether senior police officers give true accounts of their actions? Really?
"get over it children there's more important things going on around us." More important than whether senior police officers give true accounts of their actions? Really? walkerno5

3:54pm Wed 16 Oct 13

Doogie 46 says...

To the one or two who are trivialising this incident I would say that if it happened to you, as it easily could, if a Cabinet Minister can`t get them to admit wrongdoing then you would be sunk without trace.
To the one or two who are trivialising this incident I would say that if it happened to you, as it easily could, if a Cabinet Minister can`t get them to admit wrongdoing then you would be sunk without trace. Doogie 46

5:42pm Wed 16 Oct 13

DAVID1875 says...

Walkerno5 and Doogie46 are correct. This individual incident is important because it strikes at the very heart of whether or not the police are honest and can be trusted . Police Officers from The Met, West Mercia, Warwickshire and West Midlands Police at various stages have now all attempted to discredit and/or give false statements against a Cabinet Minister, so how often do police officers do this to ordinary members of the public?
Walkerno5 and Doogie46 are correct. This individual incident is important because it strikes at the very heart of whether or not the police are honest and can be trusted . Police Officers from The Met, West Mercia, Warwickshire and West Midlands Police at various stages have now all attempted to discredit and/or give false statements against a Cabinet Minister, so how often do police officers do this to ordinary members of the public? DAVID1875

5:53pm Wed 16 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

Sadlt to say, it seems things MUST be rotten to the core. definetly a case of MARK-3 verse 23-24. and you know what big book to find that in.
Sadlt to say, it seems things MUST be rotten to the core. definetly a case of MARK-3 verse 23-24. and you know what big book to find that in. canuck7

5:58pm Wed 16 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

DAVID1875 wrote:
Walkerno5 and Doogie46 are correct. This individual incident is important because it strikes at the very heart of whether or not the police are honest and can be trusted . Police Officers from The Met, West Mercia, Warwickshire and West Midlands Police at various stages have now all attempted to discredit and/or give false statements against a Cabinet Minister, so how often do police officers do this to ordinary members of the public?
Quite flippin often- i can tell you from experience!
[quote][p][bold]DAVID1875[/bold] wrote: Walkerno5 and Doogie46 are correct. This individual incident is important because it strikes at the very heart of whether or not the police are honest and can be trusted . Police Officers from The Met, West Mercia, Warwickshire and West Midlands Police at various stages have now all attempted to discredit and/or give false statements against a Cabinet Minister, so how often do police officers do this to ordinary members of the public?[/p][/quote]Quite flippin often- i can tell you from experience! canuck7

8:52pm Wed 16 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

spider666 wrote:
How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.
With respect spider- there is not more "important" things going on around us!!.
this i would say is VERY important cuz if the police are rountinely lying then human rights are literally being eroded away. if the guy in the uniform is the good guy any more but just an enforcer with a uniform then where is freedom? spider, i wonder if you have ever been wrongfully arrested and been openlt mocked in the van on the way to the station and thne in the charge room and whne you were locked up in the cells they turned you're house over which upset you're housemates cuz they searched their property illegally too and then when they found nothing and released you they had they gall to turn round and say- you are just being used as a pawn, in the wrong place at the wrong time...it happened to me.it could hppen to you or you're family.
[quote][p][bold]spider666[/bold] wrote: How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.[/p][/quote]With respect spider- there is not more "important" things going on around us!!. this i would say is VERY important cuz if the police are rountinely lying[ which some do od course] then human rights are literally being eroded away. if the guy in the uniform is the good guy any more but just an enforcer with a uniform then where is freedom? spider, i wonder if you have ever been wrongfully arrested and been openlt mocked in the van on the way to the station and thne in the charge room and whne you were locked up in the cells they turned you're house over which upset you're housemates cuz they searched their property illegally too and then when they found nothing and released you they had they gall to turn round and say- you are just being used as a pawn, in the wrong place at the wrong time...it happened to me.it could hppen to you or you're family. canuck7

9:08pm Wed 16 Oct 13

Keith B says...

If I'm ever called to sit on a jury and Inspector Ken MacKaill is giving evidence, is there any reason I should believe a word he says. The fact is that he can never again be a credible witness in Court - and therefore can not really be expected to carry out the duty's of a police officer. I would always be wondering if he came out of an interview with a suspect and was telling a completely different version of what happened to what actually did - as of course he has done with Andrew Mitchell. Any defence barrister will point out to a jury that this man is a proven liar.

He had no compunction about destroying the career of a Cabinet Minister - I don't think he should have a further career as a police officer.

Worse - Does this now call into question every case he worked on. Has he come out of an interview with a now convicted suspect and lied about what went on inside the room. Are there now going to be hundreds of appeals based on this mans proven ability to lie.

But even with absolute evidence proving Andrew Mitchells version of events, the investigating team (and his senior colleagues at West Mercia Police) seem to think that out and out lying by this officer and others in an attempt to bring down an elected member of the Government is nothing to be oncerned about - and remain of that view despite the intervention of Deborah Glass of the IPCC.

I have to say also that our Chief Constable seems to be keeping his head down along with our increasingly reclusive and unfit for purpose Police and Crime Commissioner and his Tonto assistant who SHOULD be the people representing the public but who appear to have gone native representing the police.

So one has to ask, if I'm on that Jury hearing a case presented by a West Mercia officer, am I to believe any one of them as they, as an organisation, so clearly believe that lying is acceptable.

Those three policemen, elected to post by all the other policemen, have singlehandedly undermined the trust that the public have in the police.

And this is before we find out if the police in London will continue to cover up the original lies to set up Andrew Mitchell in the first place.

Most police do a great job .... they are undermined by these people trying to play politics.
If I'm ever called to sit on a jury and Inspector Ken MacKaill is giving evidence, is there any reason I should believe a word he says. The fact is that he can never again be a credible witness in Court - and therefore can not really be expected to carry out the duty's of a police officer. I would always be wondering if he came out of an interview with a suspect and was telling a completely different version of what happened to what actually did - as of course he has done with Andrew Mitchell. Any defence barrister will point out to a jury that this man is a proven liar. He had no compunction about destroying the career of a Cabinet Minister - I don't think he should have a further career as a police officer. Worse - Does this now call into question every case he worked on. Has he come out of an interview with a now convicted suspect and lied about what went on inside the room. Are there now going to be hundreds of appeals based on this mans proven ability to lie. But even with absolute evidence proving Andrew Mitchells version of events, the investigating team (and his senior colleagues at West Mercia Police) seem to think that out and out lying by this officer and others in an attempt to bring down an elected member of the Government is nothing to be oncerned about - and remain of that view despite the intervention of Deborah Glass of the IPCC. I have to say also that our Chief Constable seems to be keeping his head down along with our increasingly reclusive and unfit for purpose Police and Crime Commissioner and his Tonto assistant who SHOULD be the people representing the public but who appear to have gone native representing the police. So one has to ask, if I'm on that Jury hearing a case presented by a West Mercia officer, am I to believe any one of them as they, as an organisation, so clearly believe that lying is acceptable. Those three policemen, elected to post by all the other policemen, have singlehandedly undermined the trust that the public have in the police. And this is before we find out if the police in London will continue to cover up the original lies to set up Andrew Mitchell in the first place. Most police do a great job .... they are undermined by these people trying to play politics. Keith B

9:11pm Wed 16 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

MikeA wrote:
Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances.

Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC.

Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law.

The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints.

The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.
MikeA, you said "Except in serious incidents,the police are effectively above the law".. i disagree sir somewhat- i can tell you it is'nt always like that. i have made 2 separate complaints against the police over the past 2 years, in both cases i felt i was abused in more than one way. i took these complaints all the way to the IPCC and the complaints were upheld, the last case 4 years ago was serious enough to warrant a letter of apology from the police. here's my thoughts. political correctness can be a wonderful thing- meaning with all these rules and regs unlike years ago, cops who think they are untouchable can get a rude awakening,years ago it was much harder to make a complaint against the police,now it's a lot easier to be heard and for the axe to swing on bent cops. the average joe makes noises about being "stitched up" for payback if you amke a complaint, but if one is not breaking the law then one has nothing to worry about does one.fact is. most police HATE complaints made against them and the hassle etc and word does get round them that "he's a complainer", and yes they hate you for it- the bent ones,but so what?. what are they going to do.. make you "disappear" or plant heroin in you're house?.. unlikely unless you are unfortunate enough to be somone like the brave man Dr David Kelly. if if all this sounds way dramatic.,think about the fact that if we the public cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold truth and rightousness well what have we really got left.
[quote][p][bold]MikeA[/bold] wrote: Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances. Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC. Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law. The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints. The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.[/p][/quote]MikeA, you said "Except in serious incidents,the police are effectively above the law".. i disagree sir somewhat- i can tell you it is'nt always like that. i have made 2 separate complaints against the police over the past 2 years, in both cases i felt i was abused in more than one way. i took these complaints all the way to the IPCC and the complaints were upheld, the last case 4 years ago was serious enough to warrant a letter of apology from the police. here's my thoughts. political correctness can be a wonderful thing- meaning with all these rules and regs unlike years ago, cops who think they are untouchable can get a rude awakening,years ago it was much harder to make a complaint against the police,now it's a lot easier to be heard and for the axe to swing on bent cops. the average joe makes noises about being "stitched up" for payback if you amke a complaint, but if one is not breaking the law then one has nothing to worry about does one.fact is. most police HATE complaints made against them and the hassle etc and word does get round them that "he's a complainer", and yes they hate you for it- the bent ones,but so what?. what are they going to do.. make you "disappear" or plant heroin in you're house?.. unlikely unless you are unfortunate enough to be somone like the brave man Dr David Kelly. if if all this sounds way dramatic.,think about the fact that if we the public cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold truth and rightousness well what have we really got left. canuck7

10:31pm Wed 16 Oct 13

MikeA says...

canuck7 wrote:
MikeA wrote:
Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances.

Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC.

Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law.

The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints.

The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.
MikeA, you said "Except in serious incidents,the police are effectively above the law".. i disagree sir somewhat- i can tell you it is'nt always like that. i have made 2 separate complaints against the police over the past 2 years, in both cases i felt i was abused in more than one way. i took these complaints all the way to the IPCC and the complaints were upheld, the last case 4 years ago was serious enough to warrant a letter of apology from the police. here's my thoughts. political correctness can be a wonderful thing- meaning with all these rules and regs unlike years ago, cops who think they are untouchable can get a rude awakening,years ago it was much harder to make a complaint against the police,now it's a lot easier to be heard and for the axe to swing on bent cops. the average joe makes noises about being "stitched up" for payback if you amke a complaint, but if one is not breaking the law then one has nothing to worry about does one.fact is. most police HATE complaints made against them and the hassle etc and word does get round them that "he's a complainer", and yes they hate you for it- the bent ones,but so what?. what are they going to do.. make you "disappear" or plant heroin in you're house?.. unlikely unless you are unfortunate enough to be somone like the brave man Dr David Kelly. if if all this sounds way dramatic.,think about the fact that if we the public cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold truth and rightousness well what have we really got left.
Canuck7,

New rules were introduced November 2012 meaning that Chief Constables decide the majority of appeals (or their Police panels) behind closed doors.

I previously worked for the same organisation as Dr David Kelly but was even more unfortunate to have been at the centre of GCHQ when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered.

Not being as clever as the former Dr Kelly, it took me 29 years to see how my testimony made the state complicit in her murder. From the first evening of her murder, I always knew something was wrong.

It is only individuals that “uphold truth and righteousness”.
[quote][p][bold]canuck7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeA[/bold] wrote: Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances. Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC. Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law. The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints. The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.[/p][/quote]MikeA, you said "Except in serious incidents,the police are effectively above the law".. i disagree sir somewhat- i can tell you it is'nt always like that. i have made 2 separate complaints against the police over the past 2 years, in both cases i felt i was abused in more than one way. i took these complaints all the way to the IPCC and the complaints were upheld, the last case 4 years ago was serious enough to warrant a letter of apology from the police. here's my thoughts. political correctness can be a wonderful thing- meaning with all these rules and regs unlike years ago, cops who think they are untouchable can get a rude awakening,years ago it was much harder to make a complaint against the police,now it's a lot easier to be heard and for the axe to swing on bent cops. the average joe makes noises about being "stitched up" for payback if you amke a complaint, but if one is not breaking the law then one has nothing to worry about does one.fact is. most police HATE complaints made against them and the hassle etc and word does get round them that "he's a complainer", and yes they hate you for it- the bent ones,but so what?. what are they going to do.. make you "disappear" or plant heroin in you're house?.. unlikely unless you are unfortunate enough to be somone like the brave man Dr David Kelly. if if all this sounds way dramatic.,think about the fact that if we the public cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold truth and rightousness well what have we really got left.[/p][/quote]Canuck7, New rules were introduced November 2012 meaning that Chief Constables decide the majority of appeals (or their Police panels) behind closed doors. I previously worked for the same organisation as Dr David Kelly but was even more unfortunate to have been at the centre of GCHQ when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Not being as clever as the former Dr Kelly, it took me 29 years to see how my testimony made the state complicit in her murder. From the first evening of her murder, I always knew something was wrong. It is only individuals that “uphold truth and righteousness”. MikeA

11:22am Thu 17 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

MikeA wrote:
canuck7 wrote:
MikeA wrote:
Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances.

Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC.

Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law.

The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints.

The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.
MikeA, you said "Except in serious incidents,the police are effectively above the law".. i disagree sir somewhat- i can tell you it is'nt always like that. i have made 2 separate complaints against the police over the past 2 years, in both cases i felt i was abused in more than one way. i took these complaints all the way to the IPCC and the complaints were upheld, the last case 4 years ago was serious enough to warrant a letter of apology from the police. here's my thoughts. political correctness can be a wonderful thing- meaning with all these rules and regs unlike years ago, cops who think they are untouchable can get a rude awakening,years ago it was much harder to make a complaint against the police,now it's a lot easier to be heard and for the axe to swing on bent cops. the average joe makes noises about being "stitched up" for payback if you amke a complaint, but if one is not breaking the law then one has nothing to worry about does one.fact is. most police HATE complaints made against them and the hassle etc and word does get round them that "he's a complainer", and yes they hate you for it- the bent ones,but so what?. what are they going to do.. make you "disappear" or plant heroin in you're house?.. unlikely unless you are unfortunate enough to be somone like the brave man Dr David Kelly. if if all this sounds way dramatic.,think about the fact that if we the public cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold truth and rightousness well what have we really got left.
Canuck7,

New rules were introduced November 2012 meaning that Chief Constables decide the majority of appeals (or their Police panels) behind closed doors.

I previously worked for the same organisation as Dr David Kelly but was even more unfortunate to have been at the centre of GCHQ when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered.

Not being as clever as the former Dr Kelly, it took me 29 years to see how my testimony made the state complicit in her murder. From the first evening of her murder, I always knew something was wrong.

It is only individuals that “uphold truth and righteousness”.
MikeA, i stand corrected, i had no idea things had changed- as you say. that now explains why the original decision in this plegate matter was overturned, the penny did'nt drop with me. you obviously know a great deal more than me. i do know retired and active west mercia officers who's opinions on current state of affairs of policing do not bode at all well. so if now from 2012 top officers are able to effectively block all but the most "important" complaints,well it really is becoming {or already has} a po-leece state.
[quote][p][bold]MikeA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canuck7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]MikeA[/bold] wrote: Whereas Mr Andrew Mitchell has received considerable support from the IPCC, that would not be the case for ordinary citizens in such similar circumstances. Even a completely innocent citizen being subjected to Police smears and falsehoods, now has little rights of appeal to the IPCC. Except in serious incidents regarding death and injury, the Police are effectively above the law. The IPCC now has no involvement in the vast majority of complaints. The Police are now free to libel and slander ordinary citizens, and they do so with impunity.[/p][/quote]MikeA, you said "Except in serious incidents,the police are effectively above the law".. i disagree sir somewhat- i can tell you it is'nt always like that. i have made 2 separate complaints against the police over the past 2 years, in both cases i felt i was abused in more than one way. i took these complaints all the way to the IPCC and the complaints were upheld, the last case 4 years ago was serious enough to warrant a letter of apology from the police. here's my thoughts. political correctness can be a wonderful thing- meaning with all these rules and regs unlike years ago, cops who think they are untouchable can get a rude awakening,years ago it was much harder to make a complaint against the police,now it's a lot easier to be heard and for the axe to swing on bent cops. the average joe makes noises about being "stitched up" for payback if you amke a complaint, but if one is not breaking the law then one has nothing to worry about does one.fact is. most police HATE complaints made against them and the hassle etc and word does get round them that "he's a complainer", and yes they hate you for it- the bent ones,but so what?. what are they going to do.. make you "disappear" or plant heroin in you're house?.. unlikely unless you are unfortunate enough to be somone like the brave man Dr David Kelly. if if all this sounds way dramatic.,think about the fact that if we the public cannot trust those who are supposed to uphold truth and rightousness well what have we really got left.[/p][/quote]Canuck7, New rules were introduced November 2012 meaning that Chief Constables decide the majority of appeals (or their Police panels) behind closed doors. I previously worked for the same organisation as Dr David Kelly but was even more unfortunate to have been at the centre of GCHQ when WPC Yvonne Fletcher was murdered. Not being as clever as the former Dr Kelly, it took me 29 years to see how my testimony made the state complicit in her murder. From the first evening of her murder, I always knew something was wrong. It is only individuals that “uphold truth and righteousness”.[/p][/quote]MikeA, i stand corrected, i had no idea things had changed- as you say. that now explains why the original decision in this plegate matter was overturned, the penny did'nt drop with me. you obviously know a great deal more than me. i do know retired and active west mercia officers who's opinions on current state of affairs of policing do not bode at all well. so if now from 2012 top officers are able to effectively block all but the most "important" complaints,well it really is becoming {or already has} a po-leece state. canuck7

1:24pm Thu 17 Oct 13

Keith B says...

It seems to get worse. The original report on the matter, which found that Ken MacKaill had a case to answer, was changed by senior officers, who did not do the investigation, to draw the opposite conclusion.

There appears to be something terribly wrong with West Mercia Police. It is very close to corruption and shows an institution that believes it is above the law it is supposed to enforce. Either David Shaw gets hold of it or he has to go - along with Longmore, who will be removed at the next PCC election but who should have the grace to stand down on the grounds of inability to carry out the functions of the job.
It seems to get worse. The original report on the matter, which found that Ken MacKaill had a case to answer, was changed by senior officers, who did not do the investigation, to draw the opposite conclusion. There appears to be something terribly wrong with West Mercia Police. It is very close to corruption and shows an institution that believes it is above the law it is supposed to enforce. Either David Shaw gets hold of it or he has to go - along with Longmore, who will be removed at the next PCC election but who should have the grace to stand down on the grounds of inability to carry out the functions of the job. Keith B

8:00pm Thu 17 Oct 13

RogerLFC says...

canuck7 wrote:
spider666 wrote:
How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.
With respect spider- there is not more "important" things going on around us!!.
this i would say is VERY important cuz if the police are rountinely lying then human rights are literally being eroded away. if the guy in the uniform is the good guy any more but just an enforcer with a uniform then where is freedom? spider, i wonder if you have ever been wrongfully arrested and been openlt mocked in the van on the way to the station and thne in the charge room and whne you were locked up in the cells they turned you're house over which upset you're housemates cuz they searched their property illegally too and then when they found nothing and released you they had they gall to turn round and say- you are just being used as a pawn, in the wrong place at the wrong time...it happened to me.it could hppen to you or you're family.
Talking of 'mocking' you can quite regularly see tweets from the WM people (not The Official account) mocking and joking or having a laugh about people they are looking for or have arrested. This may be dressed up as engagement with the general Public using modern technology but it certainly indicates their mindset regarding the people they deal with ...
[quote][p][bold]canuck7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spider666[/bold] wrote: How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.[/p][/quote]With respect spider- there is not more "important" things going on around us!!. this i would say is VERY important cuz if the police are rountinely lying[ which some do od course] then human rights are literally being eroded away. if the guy in the uniform is the good guy any more but just an enforcer with a uniform then where is freedom? spider, i wonder if you have ever been wrongfully arrested and been openlt mocked in the van on the way to the station and thne in the charge room and whne you were locked up in the cells they turned you're house over which upset you're housemates cuz they searched their property illegally too and then when they found nothing and released you they had they gall to turn round and say- you are just being used as a pawn, in the wrong place at the wrong time...it happened to me.it could hppen to you or you're family.[/p][/quote]Talking of 'mocking' you can quite regularly see tweets from the WM people (not The Official account) mocking and joking or having a laugh about people they are looking for or have arrested. This may be dressed up as engagement with the general Public using modern technology but it certainly indicates their mindset regarding the people they deal with ... RogerLFC

8:59pm Thu 17 Oct 13

MikeA says...

RogerLFC wrote:
canuck7 wrote:
spider666 wrote:
How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.
With respect spider- there is not more "important" things going on around us!!.
this i would say is VERY important cuz if the police are rountinely lying then human rights are literally being eroded away. if the guy in the uniform is the good guy any more but just an enforcer with a uniform then where is freedom? spider, i wonder if you have ever been wrongfully arrested and been openlt mocked in the van on the way to the station and thne in the charge room and whne you were locked up in the cells they turned you're house over which upset you're housemates cuz they searched their property illegally too and then when they found nothing and released you they had they gall to turn round and say- you are just being used as a pawn, in the wrong place at the wrong time...it happened to me.it could hppen to you or you're family.
Talking of 'mocking' you can quite regularly see tweets from the WM people (not The Official account) mocking and joking or having a laugh about people they are looking for or have arrested. This may be dressed up as engagement with the general Public using modern technology but it certainly indicates their mindset regarding the people they deal with ...
Roger,

You should document your evidence and send it to the Chief Constable copied to the Worcester News.

Not only is this highly unprofessional but it potentially compromises investigations, etc.

Paste the alleged tweets into a word document and ask the simple question, are these tweets from your Officers?

Things are terribly bad if his Officers are doing this. It would expose them to blackmail and more problems for the Public.

Chief@westmercia.pnn
.police.uk

Senior Staff Officer:
alison.simpson@westm
ercia.pnn.police.uk
[quote][p][bold]RogerLFC[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]canuck7[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]spider666[/bold] wrote: How pathetic and annoying is all of this and to think it's no doubt going to cost thousands of pounds if not more.It's like little boys in the school playground having a squabble --get over it children there's more important things going on around us.[/p][/quote]With respect spider- there is not more "important" things going on around us!!. this i would say is VERY important cuz if the police are rountinely lying[ which some do od course] then human rights are literally being eroded away. if the guy in the uniform is the good guy any more but just an enforcer with a uniform then where is freedom? spider, i wonder if you have ever been wrongfully arrested and been openlt mocked in the van on the way to the station and thne in the charge room and whne you were locked up in the cells they turned you're house over which upset you're housemates cuz they searched their property illegally too and then when they found nothing and released you they had they gall to turn round and say- you are just being used as a pawn, in the wrong place at the wrong time...it happened to me.it could hppen to you or you're family.[/p][/quote]Talking of 'mocking' you can quite regularly see tweets from the WM people (not The Official account) mocking and joking or having a laugh about people they are looking for or have arrested. This may be dressed up as engagement with the general Public using modern technology but it certainly indicates their mindset regarding the people they deal with ...[/p][/quote]Roger, You should document your evidence and send it to the Chief Constable copied to the Worcester News. Not only is this highly unprofessional but it potentially compromises investigations, etc. Paste the alleged tweets into a word document and ask the simple question, are these tweets from your Officers? Things are terribly bad if his Officers are doing this. It would expose them to blackmail and more problems for the Public. Chief@westmercia.pnn .police.uk Senior Staff Officer: alison.simpson@westm ercia.pnn.police.uk MikeA

9:29am Fri 18 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

Sounds like an ideal suggestion alison.simpson. is there anything that can be done about the open mocking that go's on by CCTV control in pershore about the drink/drug addicts that conqregate in worcester city centre? i have several friends in retail wh ofind it upsetting how these addicts are regulaly refered to over the "shopwatch radio system as "idiots"??. this system is of course is use daily by many shops all over the city. and of members of the public can often overhear comments being said by these said radio's blaring in shops. but maybe its as a local sergant told me as regards me being named again and mocked openly over the system by cctv control AND certain local officers recently,- he said- where's the proof?
Sounds like an ideal suggestion alison.simpson. is there anything that can be done about the open mocking that go's on by CCTV control in pershore about the drink/drug addicts that conqregate in worcester city centre? i have several friends in retail wh ofind it upsetting how these addicts are regulaly refered to over the "shopwatch radio system as "idiots"??. this system is of course is use daily by many shops all over the city. and of members of the public can often overhear comments being said by these said radio's blaring in shops. but maybe its as a local sergant told me as regards me being named again and mocked openly over the system by cctv control AND certain local officers recently,- he said- where's the proof? canuck7

11:48pm Fri 18 Oct 13

taffyboio says...

If the police report published by the sun is accurate ( not contested by Mitchell) They should have nicked Mitchell at the gates, he would be in court by now and been forced to give his account. If he wasn't a politician he would be nicked any ordinary person would have had their collar felt. Sickening that he is getting away with it- not only do politicians steal from the public purse but they are now being openly abusive. What we need is a independent political complaints commission to keep an eye on them. Mitchell has not given an account of a 45sec confrontation, why not? Saying over and over that you did not say 1 word "pleb" does not cut it. C'mon Mitchell tell us everything you said to the police officers. All this money being wasted because Mitchell won't tell us what he said - pathetic!
If the transcript of the meeting is read at no point does Mitchell tell the 3 fed officers what he said in the 45sec confrontation. So , the officers post meeting gave an accurate summary of the meeting. It is no wonder there was no case to answer. No one has lied as Mitchell has not provided an alternative version of events, Mitchell did not stand there silent for 45sec. It's also interesting that Michael portilo has heard Mitchell use the term 'plebs'. This is on complete contradiction to Mitchell claiming he had never used the word in his life!
If the police report published by the sun is accurate ( not contested by Mitchell) They should have nicked Mitchell at the gates, he would be in court by now and been forced to give his account. If he wasn't a politician he would be nicked any ordinary person would have had their collar felt. Sickening that he is getting away with it- not only do politicians steal from the public purse but they are now being openly abusive. What we need is a independent political complaints commission to keep an eye on them. Mitchell has not given an account of a 45sec confrontation, why not? Saying over and over that you did not say 1 word "pleb" does not cut it. C'mon Mitchell tell us everything you said to the police officers. All this money being wasted because Mitchell won't tell us what he said - pathetic! If the transcript of the meeting is read at no point does Mitchell tell the 3 fed officers what he said in the 45sec confrontation. So , the officers post meeting gave an accurate summary of the meeting. It is no wonder there was no case to answer. No one has lied as Mitchell has not provided an alternative version of events, Mitchell did not stand there silent for 45sec. It's also interesting that Michael portilo has heard Mitchell use the term 'plebs'. This is on complete contradiction to Mitchell claiming he had never used the word in his life! taffyboio

9:55am Sat 19 Oct 13

MikeA says...

taffyboio wrote:
If the police report published by the sun is accurate ( not contested by Mitchell) They should have nicked Mitchell at the gates, he would be in court by now and been forced to give his account. If he wasn't a politician he would be nicked any ordinary person would have had their collar felt. Sickening that he is getting away with it- not only do politicians steal from the public purse but they are now being openly abusive. What we need is a independent political complaints commission to keep an eye on them. Mitchell has not given an account of a 45sec confrontation, why not? Saying over and over that you did not say 1 word "pleb" does not cut it. C'mon Mitchell tell us everything you said to the police officers. All this money being wasted because Mitchell won't tell us what he said - pathetic!
If the transcript of the meeting is read at no point does Mitchell tell the 3 fed officers what he said in the 45sec confrontation. So , the officers post meeting gave an accurate summary of the meeting. It is no wonder there was no case to answer. No one has lied as Mitchell has not provided an alternative version of events, Mitchell did not stand there silent for 45sec. It's also interesting that Michael portilo has heard Mitchell use the term 'plebs'. This is on complete contradiction to Mitchell claiming he had never used the word in his life!
As posted online by the BBC on 29 March 2013:

“Ex-cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell has said he is suing the Sun over claims he swore and called police officers plebs.

Mr Mitchell has repeatedly denied the claims, first reported in the Sun, but he later resigned as chief whip.

His lawyer confirmed a libel writ had been issued, while a source said he wanted to address "the campaign of vilification by the Sun against him".”
[quote][p][bold]taffyboio[/bold] wrote: If the police report published by the sun is accurate ( not contested by Mitchell) They should have nicked Mitchell at the gates, he would be in court by now and been forced to give his account. If he wasn't a politician he would be nicked any ordinary person would have had their collar felt. Sickening that he is getting away with it- not only do politicians steal from the public purse but they are now being openly abusive. What we need is a independent political complaints commission to keep an eye on them. Mitchell has not given an account of a 45sec confrontation, why not? Saying over and over that you did not say 1 word "pleb" does not cut it. C'mon Mitchell tell us everything you said to the police officers. All this money being wasted because Mitchell won't tell us what he said - pathetic! If the transcript of the meeting is read at no point does Mitchell tell the 3 fed officers what he said in the 45sec confrontation. So , the officers post meeting gave an accurate summary of the meeting. It is no wonder there was no case to answer. No one has lied as Mitchell has not provided an alternative version of events, Mitchell did not stand there silent for 45sec. It's also interesting that Michael portilo has heard Mitchell use the term 'plebs'. This is on complete contradiction to Mitchell claiming he had never used the word in his life![/p][/quote]As posted online by the BBC on 29 March 2013: “Ex-cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell has said he is suing the Sun over claims he swore and called police officers plebs. Mr Mitchell has repeatedly denied the claims, first reported in the Sun, but he later resigned as chief whip. His lawyer confirmed a libel writ had been issued, while a source said he wanted to address "the campaign of vilification by the Sun against him".” MikeA

10:09am Sat 19 Oct 13

Jabbadad says...

Well he if he only swore is that okay ? ,and if THAT'S ALL why did he resign? And I read where he doesen't ever address the 45seconds conforntation at the gates.
This could be a political oportunistic chance to put the Police in their place for having the audacity to investigate the cheating over fraudulent expense claims.
POLITCALLY IT STINKS.
Well he if he only swore is that okay ? ,and if THAT'S ALL why did he resign? And I read where he doesen't ever address the 45seconds conforntation at the gates. This could be a political oportunistic chance to put the Police in their place for having the audacity to investigate the cheating over fraudulent expense claims. POLITCALLY IT STINKS. Jabbadad

11:42am Sat 19 Oct 13

taffyboio says...

How can Mitchell sue the sun when he confirms that he swore at the officers, he's just puffing out his chest. Mitchell is the problem here along with the rest of the politicians who think they are above the law. Time after time there is some scandal involving a politician I'm just sick and tired of it.
How can Mitchell sue the sun when he confirms that he swore at the officers, he's just puffing out his chest. Mitchell is the problem here along with the rest of the politicians who think they are above the law. Time after time there is some scandal involving a politician I'm just sick and tired of it. taffyboio

1:04pm Sat 19 Oct 13

Keith B says...

Some of you need to put your political prejudices aside and think that if this could happen to any senior member of the Government of whatever side, it could happen to you too. And this one is a bit too close to home, as this happens to be a local policemen who might one day be questioning you and then making up what had been said in the interview. That his own force, his Chief Constable and our elected PCC seem to find that acceptable is even more worrying as it appears endemic within the organisation.
Some of you need to put your political prejudices aside and think that if this could happen to any senior member of the Government of whatever side, it could happen to you too. And this one is a bit too close to home, as this happens to be a local policemen who might one day be questioning you and then making up what had been said in the interview. That his own force, his Chief Constable and our elected PCC seem to find that acceptable is even more worrying as it appears endemic within the organisation. Keith B

1:43pm Sat 19 Oct 13

Jabbadad says...

keithB, this is more about politics than the police, and me thinks that as a serious political commentator in these pages you should clean your glasses and see the manouvering by the Tories and how the game is starting to play out. Even the press are saying that perhaps the politicians are seeing this as a chance to squash the police federation who they have a real dislike for, and also see them as a union so also need bashing on that cause alone.
Well I for one certainly would sooner trust a policeman than a politician local or national..
keithB, this is more about politics than the police, and me thinks that as a serious political commentator in these pages you should clean your glasses and see the manouvering by the Tories and how the game is starting to play out. Even the press are saying that perhaps the politicians are seeing this as a chance to squash the police federation who they have a real dislike for, and also see them as a union so also need bashing on that cause alone. Well I for one certainly would sooner trust a policeman than a politician local or national.. Jabbadad

7:34pm Sat 19 Oct 13

MikeA says...

Keith B & Jabbadad,

You are both equally right.

But the Chief Constable and the Officers must still be accountable.

Police Officers are either on duty, liable at any time to place themselves on duty, or about to go on duty.

We pay them to live by their Code of Conduct.

If they can’t comply then they must go.
Keith B & Jabbadad, You are both equally right. But the Chief Constable and the Officers must still be accountable. Police Officers are either on duty, liable at any time to place themselves on duty, or about to go on duty. We pay them to live by their Code of Conduct. If they can’t comply then they must go. MikeA

12:03pm Sun 20 Oct 13

DAVID1875 says...

Jaddabad, it is the police who have politicised this incident. Police are institutionally arrogant and believe they can do whatever they wish with the powers invested in them. For years they have also been inefficient and the Tories have rightly decided to reform them. The police hate being reminded they are there to serve the public - senior police officers run forces to suit themselves! For MacKail, Hinton and Jones to use the meeting with Mitchell for their own political ends as members of the Police Federation was disgraceful! No doubt those officers were trained up at public expense in order to catch criminals, not to carry out union duties and end up taking part in pathetic political stunts such as dressing up in PC Pleb T-Shirts! And these are serving police officers, acting like children. Now it appears the initial West Mercia investigation did find 3 officers guilty of misconduct but allegedly deputy CC Simon Chesterton directly intervened ordering that they not be, which is why the head of the IPCC was so angry, and rightly so! And if CC Shaw signed off the decision he is equally guilty of dishonesty.
Jaddabad, it is the police who have politicised this incident. Police are institutionally arrogant and believe they can do whatever they wish with the powers invested in them. For years they have also been inefficient and the Tories have rightly decided to reform them. The police hate being reminded they are there to serve the public - senior police officers run forces to suit themselves! For MacKail, Hinton and Jones to use the meeting with Mitchell for their own political ends as members of the Police Federation was disgraceful! No doubt those officers were trained up at public expense in order to catch criminals, not to carry out union duties and end up taking part in pathetic political stunts such as dressing up in PC Pleb T-Shirts! And these are serving police officers, acting like children. Now it appears the initial West Mercia investigation did find 3 officers guilty of misconduct but allegedly deputy CC Simon Chesterton directly intervened ordering that they not be, which is why the head of the IPCC was so angry, and rightly so! And if CC Shaw signed off the decision he is equally guilty of dishonesty. DAVID1875

12:05pm Sun 20 Oct 13

Keith B says...

Of course it's about politics - it's about politically motivated policemen trying to bring down a Cabinet Minister in order to make political trouble against the elected Government.

It's the sort of thing that happened in Germany in 1930's, in Argentina in 1970's and in United Kingdom in 2012.

It's then about an investigation made by West Mercia Police into this corruption that found that those policemen had a case to answer that was then over ruled by the Chief Constable, or others acting on his behalf, which then reported the opposite conclusion to that of the investigating officers.

It's also about a Police a Crime Commissioner who, as a former policeman, is supporting the Chief Constable instead of holding him to account. As is his un-elected assistant.

I'm sure David Shaw was an excellent police officer as he worked his way to the top, I'm sure he has done both brave and honorable things in a distinguished career - but in this instance he has fallen short of the standards expected of any policeman, let alone the Chief Officer.

So as in life generally, most things are political - but it's not Party politics, it's about the tug of war between the factions of the establishment. The attack was on a Government - not a single Party - and the majority of policemen will still vote Tory at the next general election because that is their instinct and habit.
Of course it's about politics - it's about politically motivated policemen trying to bring down a Cabinet Minister in order to make political trouble against the elected Government. It's the sort of thing that happened in Germany in 1930's, in Argentina in 1970's and in United Kingdom in 2012. It's then about an investigation made by West Mercia Police into this corruption that found that those policemen had a case to answer that was then over ruled by the Chief Constable, or others acting on his behalf, which then reported the opposite conclusion to that of the investigating officers. It's also about a Police a Crime Commissioner who, as a former policeman, is supporting the Chief Constable instead of holding him to account. As is his un-elected assistant. I'm sure David Shaw was an excellent police officer as he worked his way to the top, I'm sure he has done both brave and honorable things in a distinguished career - but in this instance he has fallen short of the standards expected of any policeman, let alone the Chief Officer. So as in life generally, most things are political - but it's not Party politics, it's about the tug of war between the factions of the establishment. The attack was on a Government - not a single Party - and the majority of policemen will still vote Tory at the next general election because that is their instinct and habit. Keith B

1:20pm Sun 20 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

After giving this plegate fiasco some serious thought last night, and with some of the comments on here as to what may actually taking place, here's my opinion on the matter. Andrew Mitchell MP probably did get a bit upset when the police would'nt let him through the gates at downing st with his pushbike. he said something to them in his annoyance which was "borderline.. i certainly do not believe and can not imagine he would have been stupid enough to call them "F- ing plebs. furthermore someone of his elk {MP?!], would'nt use such terminology especialy over such a trivial matter. whatever he told them off about, those annoyed officers decided to conspire against mitchell and make up something far more serious thsn he originally said. these officers never gave thought to the matter that the "WORD" of the police would doubted.they underestimated wildy what would go wrong. maybe it also explains whay Mitchell had the forsightedness to secretly tape one of the pledgate meetings he was in on with the police which of course now "proves" they are and were lying. so, at best, mitchell just annoyed some bent cops and it has escalated, and at worst, Mitchell has been used as a pawn by anti governemt police. interestingly, i notice a "widening" in a civil servant relationship between the police and government generally. it's like the police are actually seeking to be come THE Law unto themselves. police state, anyone?!
After giving this plegate fiasco some serious thought last night, and with some of the comments on here as to what may actually taking place, here's my opinion on the matter. Andrew Mitchell MP probably did get a bit upset when the police would'nt let him through the gates at downing st with his pushbike. he said something to them in his annoyance which was "borderline.. i certainly do not believe and can not imagine he would have been stupid enough to call them "F- ing plebs. furthermore someone of his elk {MP?!], would'nt use such terminology especialy over such a trivial matter. whatever he told them off about, those annoyed officers decided to conspire against mitchell and make up something far more serious thsn he originally said. these officers never gave thought to the matter that the "WORD" of the police would doubted.they underestimated wildy what would go wrong. maybe it also explains whay Mitchell had the forsightedness to secretly tape one of the pledgate meetings he was in on with the police which of course now "proves" they are and were lying. so, at best, mitchell just annoyed some bent cops and it has escalated, and at worst, Mitchell has been used as a pawn by anti governemt police. interestingly, i notice a "widening" in a civil servant relationship between the police and government generally. it's like the police are actually seeking to be come THE Law unto themselves. police state, anyone?! canuck7

2:44pm Sun 20 Oct 13

canuck7 says...

DAVID1875 wrote:
Jaddabad, it is the police who have politicised this incident. Police are institutionally arrogant and believe they can do whatever they wish with the powers invested in them. For years they have also been inefficient and the Tories have rightly decided to reform them. The police hate being reminded they are there to serve the public - senior police officers run forces to suit themselves! For MacKail, Hinton and Jones to use the meeting with Mitchell for their own political ends as members of the Police Federation was disgraceful! No doubt those officers were trained up at public expense in order to catch criminals, not to carry out union duties and end up taking part in pathetic political stunts such as dressing up in PC Pleb T-Shirts! And these are serving police officers, acting like children. Now it appears the initial West Mercia investigation did find 3 officers guilty of misconduct but allegedly deputy CC Simon Chesterton directly intervened ordering that they not be, which is why the head of the IPCC was so angry, and rightly so! And if CC Shaw signed off the decision he is equally guilty of dishonesty.
wow. i believe you . it is very bad if the police are that corrupt now.
[quote][p][bold]DAVID1875[/bold] wrote: Jaddabad, it is the police who have politicised this incident. Police are institutionally arrogant and believe they can do whatever they wish with the powers invested in them. For years they have also been inefficient and the Tories have rightly decided to reform them. The police hate being reminded they are there to serve the public - senior police officers run forces to suit themselves! For MacKail, Hinton and Jones to use the meeting with Mitchell for their own political ends as members of the Police Federation was disgraceful! No doubt those officers were trained up at public expense in order to catch criminals, not to carry out union duties and end up taking part in pathetic political stunts such as dressing up in PC Pleb T-Shirts! And these are serving police officers, acting like children. Now it appears the initial West Mercia investigation did find 3 officers guilty of misconduct but allegedly deputy CC Simon Chesterton directly intervened ordering that they not be, which is why the head of the IPCC was so angry, and rightly so! And if CC Shaw signed off the decision he is equally guilty of dishonesty.[/p][/quote]wow. i believe you . it is very bad if the police are that corrupt now. canuck7

4:52pm Sun 20 Oct 13

MikeA says...

Rather good article in The Sunday Times today regarding this issue. Main section page 23.

The three Police Federation Officers are explicitly accused of “lying” and should have been “disciplined for lying”.

No amount of legal technicalities or debate can now undo this mess.

The only thing that will now undo the damage is for Chief Constable David Shaw to go.

Anything less and “Britain will become a much more dangerous place.”
Rather good article in The Sunday Times today regarding this issue. Main section page 23. The three Police Federation Officers are explicitly accused of “lying” and should have been “disciplined for lying”. No amount of legal technicalities or debate can now undo this mess. The only thing that will now undo the damage is for Chief Constable David Shaw to go. Anything less and “Britain will become a much more dangerous place.” MikeA

9:30pm Sun 20 Oct 13

Jabbadad says...

david1875 and others, so are our politicians paid to serve us, and not as many of them do when filling their own pockets (and their sponsors ) both legally and as we have seen over the expenses issue which had been going on for years, ilegally?
So I repeat I would still sooner trust a Policeman than a Politician.
david1875 and others, so are our politicians paid to serve us, and not as many of them do when filling their own pockets (and their sponsors ) both legally and as we have seen over the expenses issue which had been going on for years, ilegally? So I repeat I would still sooner trust a Policeman than a Politician. Jabbadad

10:14pm Sun 20 Oct 13

Brummagem Bertie says...

Having read the transcript of the interview and watched the tape of the "press conference" afterwards I have to conclude that there is, indeed, a lot of mischievous misrepresentation going on, quite deliberately. Not by the police officers involved, nor those who investigated the incident, however, but by the IPCC, the (mainly) Tory press, Tory politicians and those with an axe to grind against the police, including some of the previous contributors.

In the interview Mitchell admits swearing at the police but denies using particular words and phrases. He stated that he made a full note of what was said a couple of days after the incident and states that his memory is clear and accurate and he is telling the truth. Despite several invitations from the officers he refuses to say exactly what was said in the incident and refuses to disclose what he put in his note. He is also at pains to point out, repeatedly, that what he is telling the officers is no more than what he has previously said publicly.

To that end, when the police officer states that Mr Mitchell has refused to elaborate on what happened, he is entirely correct. When they say that he did not tell them exactly what he said, despite being invited so to do, they are correct.

The view that the police officers were involved in some sort of conspiracy to get Mitchell to resign seems to conveniently ignore the fact that even on Mitchell's admission of the one sentence that he says he did utter, he should have resigned: if you think it is acceptable to swear at a police officer, even in the heat of the moment and having lost your temper because they asked you to do something you didn't want to, you are, I would suggest, unfit to be a cabinet minister.

Deborah Glass should resign, she is unfit to hold public office. It is unacceptable for someone in her position to pass public judgment condemning police officers for misconduct when they have not had the opportunity to defend themselves.

As for the odious Theresa May, watching her condemn the police was rather stomach churning, given the sterling defence she mounted of the Met when they shot dead a Brazilian "terror suspect".
Having read the transcript of the interview and watched the tape of the "press conference" afterwards I have to conclude that there is, indeed, a lot of mischievous misrepresentation going on, quite deliberately. Not by the police officers involved, nor those who investigated the incident, however, but by the IPCC, the (mainly) Tory press, Tory politicians and those with an axe to grind against the police, including some of the previous contributors. In the interview Mitchell admits swearing at the police but denies using particular words and phrases. He stated that he made a full note of what was said a couple of days after the incident and states that his memory is clear and accurate and he is telling the truth. Despite several invitations from the officers he refuses to say exactly what was said in the incident and refuses to disclose what he put in his note. He is also at pains to point out, repeatedly, that what he is telling the officers is no more than what he has previously said publicly. To that end, when the police officer states that Mr Mitchell has refused to elaborate on what happened, he is entirely correct. When they say that he did not tell them exactly what he said, despite being invited so to do, they are correct. The view that the police officers were involved in some sort of conspiracy to get Mitchell to resign seems to conveniently ignore the fact that even on Mitchell's admission of the one sentence that he says he did utter, he should have resigned: if you think it is acceptable to swear at a police officer, even in the heat of the moment and having lost your temper because they asked you to do something you didn't want to, you are, I would suggest, unfit to be a cabinet minister. Deborah Glass should resign, she is unfit to hold public office. It is unacceptable for someone in her position to pass public judgment condemning police officers for misconduct when they have not had the opportunity to defend themselves. As for the odious Theresa May, watching her condemn the police was rather stomach churning, given the sterling defence she mounted of the Met when they shot dead a Brazilian "terror suspect". Brummagem Bertie

5:24am Mon 21 Oct 13

DAVID1875 says...

Jaddabad, no one is saying politicians cannot be trusted, but that is the whole point-in this affair a politician can be trusted over the police which shows how low the reputation of the police has sunk! Brummagem Bertie, Deborah Glass has not said officers are guilty of misconduct but that they should face a misconduct panel. She is perfectly entitled to say this-she oversaw the investigation and found the conclusion unacceptable, and it appears a senior officer changed the conclusion that the investigating officer came to! Clearly you have no experience of the prejudicial police complaints system laughably refered to by police forces as professional standards investigations whereby repeatedly the public's complaints against officers are turned down - do you seriously believe police investigating themselves is acceptable?
Jaddabad, no one is saying politicians cannot be trusted, but that is the whole point-in this affair a politician can be trusted over the police which shows how low the reputation of the police has sunk! Brummagem Bertie, Deborah Glass has not said officers are guilty of misconduct but that they should face a misconduct panel. She is perfectly entitled to say this-she oversaw the investigation and found the conclusion unacceptable, and it appears a senior officer changed the conclusion that the investigating officer came to! Clearly you have no experience of the prejudicial police complaints system laughably refered to by police forces as professional standards investigations whereby repeatedly the public's complaints against officers are turned down - do you seriously believe police investigating themselves is acceptable? DAVID1875

7:49am Mon 21 Oct 13

MikeA says...

The Sunday Times reported that the senior officer, who wrote the initial report, Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, is privately unhappy that his recommendation for the three officers to be disciplined was overruled.
The Sunday Times reported that the senior officer, who wrote the initial report, Chief Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, is privately unhappy that his recommendation for the three officers to be disciplined was overruled. MikeA

8:20am Mon 21 Oct 13

Keith B says...

We get a tribal PARTY rant from Bertie about how everything from the invasion by the Romans to the rise of Hitler was the fault of the Tory's. (Actually the rise of Hitler was in part!) .... substitute Stalin or Mao.

This silly incident is about a battle between the legislative and executive parts of something that loosely described as the establishment. It isn't a left/centre/right clash but an attempt by the un-elected to control the elected of either faction.

As for his attack on Theresa May - doesn't the fact that she condems the police when she believes they have done wrong but supports them when she believes they are in the right shows that she is even handed rather than odious. I'm not a Tory and disagree with many of her decisions, but believe Ms May is doing pretty well in the impossible to please anyone job of Home Secretary.
We get a tribal PARTY rant from Bertie about how everything from the invasion by the Romans to the rise of Hitler was the fault of the Tory's. (Actually the rise of Hitler was in part!) .... substitute Stalin or Mao. This silly incident is about a battle between the legislative and executive parts of something that loosely described as the establishment. It isn't a left/centre/right clash but an attempt by the un-elected to control the elected of either faction. As for his attack on Theresa May - doesn't the fact that she condems the police when she believes they have done wrong but supports them when she believes they are in the right shows that she is even handed rather than odious. I'm not a Tory and disagree with many of her decisions, but believe Ms May is doing pretty well in the impossible to please anyone job of Home Secretary. Keith B

8:42am Mon 21 Oct 13

MikeA says...

Brummagem Bertie is wrong to criticise Ms Glass at the IPCC.

The IPCC previously pursued the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police through the High Court to convene a disciplinary panel regarding a death in custody and the conduct of PC David Walton.

The High Court directed the Chief Constable to convene a disciplinary panel.

Said disciplinary panel opened and closed. PC David Walton returned to duty.

I recall there being implications from the High Court papers that the transition process into custody may have contributed to this death in custody.

The point is, the IPCC spent a lot of money attempting to uncover the truth and apparently nothing was achieved.

Family and the general public were none the wiser whether this death in custody could have been avoided.

Ms Glass going public is both timely and cost effective.
Brummagem Bertie is wrong to criticise Ms Glass at the IPCC. The IPCC previously pursued the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police through the High Court to convene a disciplinary panel regarding a death in custody and the conduct of PC David Walton. The High Court directed the Chief Constable to convene a disciplinary panel. Said disciplinary panel opened and closed. PC David Walton returned to duty. I recall there being implications from the High Court papers that the transition process into custody may have contributed to this death in custody. The point is, the IPCC spent a lot of money attempting to uncover the truth and apparently nothing was achieved. Family and the general public were none the wiser whether this death in custody could have been avoided. Ms Glass going public is both timely and cost effective. MikeA

9:10pm Mon 21 Oct 13

RogerLFC says...

Brummagem Bertie wrote:
Having read the transcript of the interview and watched the tape of the "press conference" afterwards I have to conclude that there is, indeed, a lot of mischievous misrepresentation going on, quite deliberately. Not by the police officers involved, nor those who investigated the incident, however, but by the IPCC, the (mainly) Tory press, Tory politicians and those with an axe to grind against the police, including some of the previous contributors.

In the interview Mitchell admits swearing at the police but denies using particular words and phrases. He stated that he made a full note of what was said a couple of days after the incident and states that his memory is clear and accurate and he is telling the truth. Despite several invitations from the officers he refuses to say exactly what was said in the incident and refuses to disclose what he put in his note. He is also at pains to point out, repeatedly, that what he is telling the officers is no more than what he has previously said publicly.

To that end, when the police officer states that Mr Mitchell has refused to elaborate on what happened, he is entirely correct. When they say that he did not tell them exactly what he said, despite being invited so to do, they are correct.

The view that the police officers were involved in some sort of conspiracy to get Mitchell to resign seems to conveniently ignore the fact that even on Mitchell's admission of the one sentence that he says he did utter, he should have resigned: if you think it is acceptable to swear at a police officer, even in the heat of the moment and having lost your temper because they asked you to do something you didn't want to, you are, I would suggest, unfit to be a cabinet minister.

Deborah Glass should resign, she is unfit to hold public office. It is unacceptable for someone in her position to pass public judgment condemning police officers for misconduct when they have not had the opportunity to defend themselves.

As for the odious Theresa May, watching her condemn the police was rather stomach churning, given the sterling defence she mounted of the Met when they shot dead a Brazilian "terror suspect".
The transcript is quite damning really ...

http://www.ipcc.gov.
uk/sites/default/fil
es/Documents/investi
gation_commissioner_
reports/Transcript%2
0of%20meeting.pdf (cut and paste job if interested)

Mitchell gives what I would interpret as some sort of explanation.

'Because I don’t want to impugn, it is quite possible that there was a
mishearing or something. The incident was very brief I complied with the
officer and I picked up my bicycle but I did say under my breath but
audibly, in frustration, I thought you lot were supposed to f***ing help us
and it is for that I apologise and I am grateful to that officer for accepting my apology and I should never have said it and I will never do it again
and I think we all of us in our lives occasionally let go and that is when I
let go ...'

He then went on to add that he had previously been allowed out of the main gate a few times earlier that day but was denied on the last occasion when this incident happened (goalposts moved ~ maybe different Officer(s) on duty?). Having been pulled up he was 'given advice about his bicycle' and the Warks Fed rep replied 'I appreciate that you have gone beyond said what you said'.

So to come out to the camera's and issue a statement saying he basically offered no explanation is untrue.

Mitchell is MP for Sutton Coldfield which is West Mids territory I think so it may be questioned as to why a delegation of 3 Fed Reps met him over an incident that happened in London ~ when I think only the one West Mids Officer operates in his constituency and Mitchell's job was Chief Whip. Mitchell was a shadow Home Office Minister in 2004 tho (policing matters) so you can see how this meeting happened with what many consider was a wider agenda going on with the Police/Govt. ongoing battle going on. An unwise meeting i think.

I am sure this will get interesting at the Select Committee on Wednesday when all the alleged dirty washing will be aired for our consumption. This includes a new witness reported on the @CommonsHomeAffs Twitter Account today. Ch Insp Jerry Reakes-Williams ~ who recommended misconduct Action should proceed.
[quote][p][bold]Brummagem Bertie[/bold] wrote: Having read the transcript of the interview and watched the tape of the "press conference" afterwards I have to conclude that there is, indeed, a lot of mischievous misrepresentation going on, quite deliberately. Not by the police officers involved, nor those who investigated the incident, however, but by the IPCC, the (mainly) Tory press, Tory politicians and those with an axe to grind against the police, including some of the previous contributors. In the interview Mitchell admits swearing at the police but denies using particular words and phrases. He stated that he made a full note of what was said a couple of days after the incident and states that his memory is clear and accurate and he is telling the truth. Despite several invitations from the officers he refuses to say exactly what was said in the incident and refuses to disclose what he put in his note. He is also at pains to point out, repeatedly, that what he is telling the officers is no more than what he has previously said publicly. To that end, when the police officer states that Mr Mitchell has refused to elaborate on what happened, he is entirely correct. When they say that he did not tell them exactly what he said, despite being invited so to do, they are correct. The view that the police officers were involved in some sort of conspiracy to get Mitchell to resign seems to conveniently ignore the fact that even on Mitchell's admission of the one sentence that he says he did utter, he should have resigned: if you think it is acceptable to swear at a police officer, even in the heat of the moment and having lost your temper because they asked you to do something you didn't want to, you are, I would suggest, unfit to be a cabinet minister. Deborah Glass should resign, she is unfit to hold public office. It is unacceptable for someone in her position to pass public judgment condemning police officers for misconduct when they have not had the opportunity to defend themselves. As for the odious Theresa May, watching her condemn the police was rather stomach churning, given the sterling defence she mounted of the Met when they shot dead a Brazilian "terror suspect".[/p][/quote]The transcript is quite damning really ... http://www.ipcc.gov. uk/sites/default/fil es/Documents/investi gation_commissioner_ reports/Transcript%2 0of%20meeting.pdf (cut and paste job if interested) Mitchell gives what I would interpret as some sort of explanation. 'Because I don’t want to impugn, it is quite possible that there was a mishearing or something. The incident was very brief I complied with the officer and I picked up my bicycle but I did say under my breath but audibly, in frustration, I thought you lot were supposed to f***ing help us and it is for that I apologise and I am grateful to that officer for accepting my apology and I should never have said it and I will never do it again and I think we all of us in our lives occasionally let go and that is when I let go ...' He then went on to add that he had previously been allowed out of the main gate a few times earlier that day but was denied on the last occasion when this incident happened (goalposts moved ~ maybe different Officer(s) on duty?). Having been pulled up he was 'given advice about his bicycle' and the Warks Fed rep replied 'I appreciate that you have gone beyond said what you said'. So to come out to the camera's and issue a statement saying he basically offered no explanation is untrue. Mitchell is MP for Sutton Coldfield which is West Mids territory I think so it may be questioned as to why a delegation of 3 Fed Reps met him over an incident that happened in London ~ when I think only the one West Mids Officer operates in his constituency and Mitchell's job was Chief Whip. Mitchell was a shadow Home Office Minister in 2004 tho (policing matters) so you can see how this meeting happened with what many consider was a wider agenda going on with the Police/Govt. ongoing battle going on. An unwise meeting i think. I am sure this will get interesting at the Select Committee on Wednesday when all the alleged dirty washing will be aired for our consumption. This includes a new witness reported on the @CommonsHomeAffs Twitter Account today. Ch Insp Jerry Reakes-Williams ~ who recommended misconduct Action should proceed. RogerLFC

1:15am Mon 28 Oct 13

Brummagem Bertie says...

Keith B wrote:
We get a tribal PARTY rant from Bertie about how everything from the invasion by the Romans to the rise of Hitler was the fault of the Tory's. (Actually the rise of Hitler was in part!) .... substitute Stalin or Mao.

This silly incident is about a battle between the legislative and executive parts of something that loosely described as the establishment. It isn't a left/centre/right clash but an attempt by the un-elected to control the elected of either faction.

As for his attack on Theresa May - doesn't the fact that she condems the police when she believes they have done wrong but supports them when she believes they are in the right shows that she is even handed rather than odious. I'm not a Tory and disagree with many of her decisions, but believe Ms May is doing pretty well in the impossible to please anyone job of Home Secretary.
What tribal PARTY would that be, Keith? And the rest of your first sentence shows that you have completely lost the plot on this issue. How you could expect anyone to take anything you say seriously after that is beyond me.

And no, Theresa isn't even handed at all. She is quite happy to defend the police when they murder an innocent foreign civilian but when one of her own is pulled up for swearing at an officer she cries foul. That is odious on any reasonable level.
[quote][p][bold]Keith B[/bold] wrote: We get a tribal PARTY rant from Bertie about how everything from the invasion by the Romans to the rise of Hitler was the fault of the Tory's. (Actually the rise of Hitler was in part!) .... substitute Stalin or Mao. This silly incident is about a battle between the legislative and executive parts of something that loosely described as the establishment. It isn't a left/centre/right clash but an attempt by the un-elected to control the elected of either faction. As for his attack on Theresa May - doesn't the fact that she condems the police when she believes they have done wrong but supports them when she believes they are in the right shows that she is even handed rather than odious. I'm not a Tory and disagree with many of her decisions, but believe Ms May is doing pretty well in the impossible to please anyone job of Home Secretary.[/p][/quote]What tribal PARTY would that be, Keith? And the rest of your first sentence shows that you have completely lost the plot on this issue. How you could expect anyone to take anything you say seriously after that is beyond me. And no, Theresa isn't even handed at all. She is quite happy to defend the police when they murder an innocent foreign civilian but when one of her own is pulled up for swearing at an officer she cries foul. That is odious on any reasonable level. Brummagem Bertie

1:31am Mon 28 Oct 13

Brummagem Bertie says...

MikeA wrote:
Brummagem Bertie is wrong to criticise Ms Glass at the IPCC.

The IPCC previously pursued the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police through the High Court to convene a disciplinary panel regarding a death in custody and the conduct of PC David Walton.

The High Court directed the Chief Constable to convene a disciplinary panel.

Said disciplinary panel opened and closed. PC David Walton returned to duty.

I recall there being implications from the High Court papers that the transition process into custody may have contributed to this death in custody.

The point is, the IPCC spent a lot of money attempting to uncover the truth and apparently nothing was achieved.

Family and the general public were none the wiser whether this death in custody could have been avoided.

Ms Glass going public is both timely and cost effective.
DAVID1875 said,

"Brummagem Bertie, Deborah Glass has not said officers are guilty of misconduct but that they should face a misconduct panel. She is perfectly entitled to say this-she oversaw the investigation and found the conclusion unacceptable, and it appears a senior officer changed the conclusion that the investigating officer came to! "

No David, completely wrong.

"IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass said the evidence revealed "an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naive or poor professional judgment" among the federation representatives.

She said: "In the media and political climate of the day, I do not consider that the officers could have been in any doubt about the impact of their public statements on the pressure being brought on Mr Mitchell.

"As police officers, they had a responsibility to present a fair and accurate picture.

"Their motive seems plain: they were running a successful, high-profile, anti-cuts campaign and the account that he provided to them did not fit with their agenda."

She has labelled them dishonest and lacking in integrity. She has said that they failed to present a fair and accurate picture because they were motivated by political considerations. Combine the above report with other public statements that she has made and she has, in legal parlance, prejuduced any right to a fair trial.

As for supervising the investigation, she was intially invited to conduct it and then repeatedly to take it over. She declined so to do, then threw her toys out of the pram big style because it didn't result in the outcome that she wanted.

You ask if it's acceptable for police to investigate themselves. No, it isn't. But Glass had the power and multiple opportunities to step in and prevent this. She chose not to. For that, and for her intemperate behaviour since, she is unfit to hold office. The sooner there is an independent, properly resourced Ombudsman the better, but don't hold your breath waiting for Theresa to set one up.
[quote][p][bold]MikeA[/bold] wrote: Brummagem Bertie is wrong to criticise Ms Glass at the IPCC. The IPCC previously pursued the Chief Constable of West Mercia Police through the High Court to convene a disciplinary panel regarding a death in custody and the conduct of PC David Walton. The High Court directed the Chief Constable to convene a disciplinary panel. Said disciplinary panel opened and closed. PC David Walton returned to duty. I recall there being implications from the High Court papers that the transition process into custody may have contributed to this death in custody. The point is, the IPCC spent a lot of money attempting to uncover the truth and apparently nothing was achieved. Family and the general public were none the wiser whether this death in custody could have been avoided. Ms Glass going public is both timely and cost effective.[/p][/quote]DAVID1875 said, "Brummagem Bertie, Deborah Glass has not said officers are guilty of misconduct but that they should face a misconduct panel. She is perfectly entitled to say this-she oversaw the investigation and found the conclusion unacceptable, and it appears a senior officer changed the conclusion that the investigating officer came to! " No David, completely wrong. "IPCC deputy chairwoman Deborah Glass said the evidence revealed "an issue of honesty and integrity, not merely naive or poor professional judgment" among the federation representatives. She said: "In the media and political climate of the day, I do not consider that the officers could have been in any doubt about the impact of their public statements on the pressure being brought on Mr Mitchell. "As police officers, they had a responsibility to present a fair and accurate picture. "Their motive seems plain: they were running a successful, high-profile, anti-cuts campaign and the account that he provided to them did not fit with their agenda." She has labelled them dishonest and lacking in integrity. She has said that they failed to present a fair and accurate picture because they were motivated by political considerations. Combine the above report with other public statements that she has made and she has, in legal parlance, prejuduced any right to a fair trial. As for supervising the investigation, she was intially invited to conduct it and then repeatedly to take it over. She declined so to do, then threw her toys out of the pram big style because it didn't result in the outcome that she wanted. You ask if it's acceptable for police to investigate themselves. No, it isn't. But Glass had the power and multiple opportunities to step in and prevent this. She chose not to. For that, and for her intemperate behaviour since, she is unfit to hold office. The sooner there is an independent, properly resourced Ombudsman the better, but don't hold your breath waiting for Theresa to set one up. Brummagem Bertie

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree