Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

On the side note of the gay marriage proposals, it would appear that Cameron's hard position has opened up a huge crack in the fabric of the Tory party.

[tonyh29]

I don't think that's really true.

I think that Mitchell's job was done for from the moment he lost his rag with the police at the gates, regardless of what he actually said.

It could be argued that 'plebgate' actually stayed the executioner's axe.

Hard to be exact on how it played out now but it looked like he had survived the initial losing of his rag, apologies had been accepted etc...

The policeman notes leak in the paper ,the twitter brigade and then the hypocrisy party seeing an opportunity to score points rather than outline policy ( which I believe it has been argued is their job at the end of the day ) saw his end

Without pleb I think he would still be in a job, the time it took for him to be forced out suggests this also , lets face it when Ed can score points on it you know it's time to go

[snowychap]

Hard to be exact on how it played out now but it looked like he had survived the initial losing of his rag, apologies had been accepted etc...

The policeman notes leak in the paper ,the twitter brigade and then the hypocrisy party seeing an opportunity to score points rather than outline policy ( which I believe it has been argued is their job at the end of the day ) saw his end

Without pleb I think he would still be in a job, the time it took for him to be forced out suggests this also , lets face it when Ed can score points on it you know it's time to go

That's how the largely 'pro party' story would have it, I think.

Most of the unpartisan commentariat had him as a dead man walking from the start (and so they should - it wasn't disputed that he lost his rag and fired a tirade at the rozzers and you can't have someone as a chief whip who just gets the arse as easily as that).

That he remained in his post was as a result of the opprobrium shoved his way (warranted or not) not in spite of it and the 'pleb' thing put Cameron in the invidious position of having to support the loss of temper of someone whom he'd have otherwise ditched in a second (probably didn't help that he'd recently put him in the job either).

[tonyh29]

I'm more than happy to see links from the time saying he should have been sacked there and then but I genuinely don't recall seeing them , it wasn't high on my radar at the time and tbh I only became aware of this story thanks to VT .. And as you can imagine from their source on here they were hardly balanced opinions

but as I read it at the time the police (and labour) asked Mitchell for clarification of what he said but didn't appear to be seeking his resignation ... Mitchell then apologised and that the officer concerned had accepted the apology and it was time to move on .. The Sun then got their possibly now fabricated account and the story rumbled on ,and on to the point Mitchell was detrimental to the party.... Indeed he may have become a pawn in westminster games with Boris using him to crank up some pressure on Cameron , but It's my belief that without the pleb word Mitchell most likely would have survived , heck we've seen far worse , I think I even gave one at the time in this thread :winkold:

I said at the time the bigger story for me was how the press got hold of a copy of the police report .... Maybe we have the answer now ??

[snowychap]

I'm more than happy to see links from the time saying he should have been sacked there and then but I genuinely don't recall seeing them , it wasn't high on my radar at the time and tbh I only became aware of this story thanks to VT .. And as you can imagine from their source on here they were hardly balanced opinions

Links from whom, from where, for why?

As I said, I wasn't talking about people calling for him to be sacked or for politicians opinions of the matter but from political commentators talking about his position (if the Daily Politics/This Week episodes are available then I think you can find all sorts of comments suggesting that the only thing likely to keep him in post was the weakness of Cameron).

but as I read it at the time the police (and labour) asked Mitchell for clarification of what he said but didn't appear to be seeking his resignation ...

Who cares what the police and Labour called for?

I'm not talking about people asking for him to resign, to run naked down Whitehall or anything else. What I said was that a lot of opinion (whatever that may be worth and it may be little) had him as a dead man walking from the moment he got off his bike and had a vociferous go at plod for being a jobsworth.

Mitchell then apologised and that the officer concerned had accepted the apology and it was time to move on ..

There was enormous criticism of Mitchell's 'draw a line under it' (that may not be verbatim) public 'apology' and how that was a dreadful excuse for an apology.

The Sun then got their possibly now fabricated account and the story rumbled on ,and on to the point Mitchell was detrimental to the party.... Indeed he may have become a pawn in westminster games with Boris using him to crank up some pressure on Cameron , but It's my belief that without the pleb word Mitchell most likely would have survived , heck we've seen far worse , I think I even gave one at the time in this thread :winkold:

And again that was the largely 'pro party' line about the whole thing - it wasn't a big story until it was made party political, guv.

It was a big story: he was the chief whip and, regardless of the actual words used, he was behaving like a chief whip sometimes behaves in private but doing that in public. That is not de rigeur.

It really wasn't about the word 'pleb' even though the mainstream media ran hours and hours of crap about the word 'pleb'; he was done for whether he'd have said 'pleb, 'plod', 'pig', 'pratt' or whatever.

'Pleb' was a gift for the political rigmarole but, as I said before, I think it gave Mitchell some grace as Cameron had to spend time fighting the pleb stuff and the wider implications rather than being able to ditch someone immediately after their faux pas.

I said at the time the bigger story for me was how the press got hold of a copy of the police report .... Maybe we have the answer now ??

The bigger story than the chief whip gobbing off at the end of Downing Street (that he did so was confirmed by members of the public, the police, Mitchell himself, the Prime Minister and pretty much the whole of the Tory party, no?) was how a probably disgruntled member of the police force may have tried to make capital out of the matter?

[Eames]

Just heard Trenton Oldfield of Boat Race fame on 5Live. What a massive clearing in the woods. He had no clue of his own argument and when Nicky Campbell makes you look like a tit on the radio, you know you should probably give it up.

[tonyh29]

The bigger story than the chief whip gobbing off at the end of Downing Street (that he did so was confirmed by members of the public, the police, Mitchell himself, the Prime Minister

In fairly sure it has been established that no members of the public were present ??? Im unaware of any coming forward at least

Of course equally one could also say who gives a monkeys about what a political commentator says, I like Andrew Neil but lets face it he's no Stephen Fry when it comes to telling the public how to think , so like I say there was no real clamour for him to resign , unless of course we discount everyone whose opinion doesn't count which seems to be the view you are putting forward ..

If you don't think a police officer fabricating evidence and selling it to a tabloid is a big deal then that is your prerogative , personally I find it a little worrying ...

[peterms]

In fairly sure it has been established that no members of the public were present ??? Im unaware of any coming forward at least

That's not what the police log says. This is the police log from the one who was on duty; yesterday's story is not about the policeman/woman making this statement, who clearly was on duty.

...Whilst on duty at *** tonight (Wed 19th Sept) on a 1400-2200 hrs between the hours of 1800-2000 I had to deal with a man claiming to be the chief whip and who I later confirmed to be such and a Mr Andrew MITCHELL.

Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr MITCHELL refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates.

I explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was to use the side pedestrian gates and that I was happy to open those for him, but that no officer present would be opening the main gates as this was the policy we were directed to follow.

Mr MITCHELL refused. Repeatedly reiterating he was the chief whip. My exact explanation to Mr MITCHELL was "I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance".

After several refusals Mr MITCHELL got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him.

There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said: "Best you learn your f------ place...you don’t run this f------ government...You’re f------ plebs." The members of public looked visibly shocked and I was somewhat taken aback by the language used and the view expressed by a senior government official. I can not say if this statement was aimed at me individually, or the officers present or the police service as a whole.

I warned Mr MITCHELL that he should not swear, and if he continued to do so I would have no option but to arrest him under the Public Order Act, saying "Please don’t swear at me Sir. If you continue to I will have no option but to arrest you under the public order act".

Mr MITCHELL was then silent and left saying "you haven’t heard the last of this" as he cycled off.

I forward this to you as all officers were extremely polite to Mr MITCHELL, but such behaviour and verbal expressions could lead to the unfortunate situation of officers being left no option but to exercise their powers.

I write this for your information as Mr Mitchell’s last comments would appear to indicate that he is unhappy with my actions.

I have recorded this fully in my pocket book.

If you don't think a police officer fabricating evidence and selling it to a tabloid is a big deal then that is your prerogative , personally I find it a little worrying ...

It's a tough one, isn't it? A difference of view between members of two groups, one of whom must be lying, both of which groups have repeatedly been found to lie and pass on information to the media inappropriately, whether for money or for other forms of personal gain. If only there had been an estate agent or a banker present to give a definitive account.

Do you think yesterday's story implies that the officer on duty was lying? Why? Is it suggested that he/she approached this other officer to request that they give evidence in support, despite not being on duty? Is it thought this other officer gave evidence, or rather leaked the story? Is it about leaking, rather than suggesting the whole thing was invented?

[blandy]

... Is it about leaking, rather than suggesting the whole thing was invented?

Reading between the lines, it's about both leaking and possibly fabrication of some aspects of what was leaked. My paper seems to think that's the gist of it anyway.

The leaking thing - the Police Union has said the action against the officer is concerning because it's effectively punishing "whistleblowing" - in other words the rozzer leaked to the press that a Gov't whip behaved badly and now the rozzer is under investigation.

From the Gov't side Mitchell is saying "the Police log is not true" or words to that effect - as he has done all along. He has never revealed what he did say, but has admitted swearing at the Copper. There's no doubt from anyone, including himself, that he behaved like a prize wazzock.

Personally, I'm not sure anyone should lose their job for swearing or being rude to a Policeman, but he hasn't actually lost his employment, only his status as a whip. And that was in part due to him being massively unpopular with his own party MPs and having little or no support.

It clearly wasn't substantially invented, It happened.

Whether the Police leaked it (they did), whether the story was embellished is a side issue. The leaking seems OK to me. The embellishment not so. But Mitchell's a pillock and continues to be a pillock.

[peterms]

Reading between the lines, it's about both leaking and possibly fabrication of some aspects of what was leaked. My paper seems to think that's the gist of it anyway.

The Met Commissioner continues to uphold the original account. I suppose that given the profile of the issue and the implications for himself if he's seen to be backing something spurious, he's actually read the original log as well as having been briefed by senior officers who will have checked and double-checked with the officers on duty.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, has backed the police officers who were on duty during the Andrew Mitchell incident.

Mr Hogan-Howe said he had seen "nothing that causes me to doubt that original account".

Speaking on LBC, the Commissioner said he hoped the inquiry into the other officer - who was not on duty at the time - would be resolved in "a matter of days" - before Christmas.

The Commissioner said the investigation into the officer had not affected the original account of officers at the scene.

If what has been leaked misrepresented the original statement, it would be simple for the police to say so, and incredibly damaging for them if they allowed a false account of it to circulate for several months without bothering to say so.

[tonyh29]

That's not what the police log says. This is the police log from the one who was on duty; yesterday's story is not about the policeman/woman making this statement, who clearly was on duty.

It's a tough one, isn't it? A difference of view between members of two groups, one of whom must be lying, both of which groups have repeatedly been found to lie and pass on information to the media inappropriately, whether for money or for other forms of personal gain. If only there had been an estate agent or a banker present to give a definitive account.

Do you think yesterday's story implies that the officer on duty was lying? Why? Is it suggested that he/she approached this other officer to request that they give evidence in support, despite not being on duty? Is it thought this other officer gave evidence, or rather leaked the story? Is it about leaking, rather than suggesting the whole thing was invented?

Hard to say

the account coming out seems to be that the version linked to the press was fabricated , but it wasn't leaked by the policewomen on duty ... and yet by all accounts that is from her notebook

If only there had been an honest hard working person to hand then we would have known the truth

[peterms]

Live tweeting from the Queen's visit to the Cabinet meeting.

[tonyh29]

If what has been leaked misrepresented the original statement, it would be simple for the police to say so, and incredibly damaging for them if they allowed a false account of it to circulate for several months without bothering to say so.

isn't Mitchell also still standing by his original statement , despite it being incredibly damaging for him as well ?

I can understand the police have to back their man / woman but I hope for their sakes they are right

It seems Dispatches (ch 4) have been working for some time on an investigation into alleged discrepancies into the accounts of the incident ... what isn't clear is on what side these discrepancies are

[peterms]

If only there had been an honest hard working person to hand then we would have known the truth

Actually, a photo has just been released of a hard working family who witnessed the entire thing.

[peterms]

isn't Mitchell also still standing by his original statement , despite it being incredibly damaging for him as well ?

I can understand the police have to back their man / woman but I hope for their sakes they are right

It seems Dispatches (ch 4) have been working for some time on an investigation into alleged discrepancies into the accounts of the incident ... what isn't clear is on what side these discrepancies are

Yes he is, though he has always refused to state exactly what he claims he said, which makes it rather hard for people to accept his account.

If it somehow emerged that he'd said something like "**** plod" instead of "**** pleb" (since he accepts that he swore and was disrespectful, I assume we're only thinking about minor variations in what was said and possibly misheard), what difference would it make? It would lose a little of the exquisitely class-ridden obnoxiousness, and would still leave an exquisite personal obnoxiousness. Cameron could try to rehabilitate him into some job or other, but why? He reportedly has little respect among his own party's backbenchers, he's become a national figure of fun, he's like a cartoon character with a large bullseye on his back and a notice saying "kick me" hanging over his arse. Who would gain?

[snowychap]

In fairly sure it has been established that no members of the public were present ??? Im unaware of any coming forward at least

There were no members of the public at the gates at the end of Downing Street? At all?

Of course equally one could also say who gives a monkeys about what a political commentator says, I like Andrew Neil but lets face it he's no Stephen Fry when it comes to telling the public how to think , so like I say there was no real clamour for him to resign , unless of course we discount everyone whose opinion doesn't count which seems to be the view you are putting forward ..

Sod Stephen Fry and all of these comments about outrage and twitter and so on.

I think you are intentionally trying to cloud the conversation on this, Tony, and I think you are purposely ignoring what I am saying.

I didn't say that people like Andrew Neil and others on his show or elsewhere were calling for Mitchell to resign but that a lot of people discussing the issue in a relatively disinterested manner (and who were discussing it in more depth than crapping on just about the word pleb) thought that his position became untenable quite soon after the incident. I didn't say that they were proferring an opinion on what Mitchell should do but on what they thought all the circumstances meant, i.e. they were commenting on what was happening and not what they wanted to happen.

Discount everyone's opinion whose doesn't count? Trying to ignore the party line 'opinions'? Yes. That goes for Labour and the Tories.

If you don't think a police officer fabricating evidence and selling it to a tabloid is a big deal then that is your prerogative , personally I find it a little worrying ...

It may be a big deal, it may not.

Edit: I think it's a separate story, though, that's for sure.

I don't think, in terms of politics (and that is what this thread is discussing), that it was a bigger story than the then chief whip's public lack of self control (especially considering the timing was rather unfortunate) and how that may have affected party discipline in one half of a coalition when it seems that that party's backbenchers aren't exactly standing shoulder to shoulder in support of the party leadership on issues.

Edited December 18, 2012 by snowychap

[peterms]

10.53am GMT

Bernard Hogan-Howe, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, has been talking about the arrest of an officer in relation to the "plebgate" row.

It's an ongoing criminal investigation, and also it's now supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. I hope people understand that. And I also hope people understand that there is more to this than meets the eye. I'm afraid I'm constrained in explaining that. I hope that when people hear the full story they will support what we've done.

He also said the arrest was prompted by the recent receipt of new information. "We've acted on it quickly," he said.

Here.

[tonyh29]

Oh wasn't suggesting there is any way back for him , it was more my initial comment that he may have survived without the "pleb" side of it that i'm interested in .. Blandy sorta agrees that he shouldn't have lost his job for swearing at plod which is where I was coming from ,

The swearing and actual incident whilst not ideal I think he could have survived , the us and them , out of touch and so forth was (imo) what ultimately cost him his job ... without doubt his actions stoked the fire , others then poured paraffin over him and lit the safety matches ... maybe goes back to my Who not What gripe , had it been Boris I imagine he would still be chief whip for example

[drat01]

As own goals go this up there with very your best :-)

Oh Tony what a massive mistake you have made (again). So there was me mentioning the old Free Vote thing and saying how Cameron is not leading either his party or parliament and you then try and quote a few Labour members as some sort of counter argument, when reality is they are saying just that. I will maintain and you have failed to show any evidence to the contrary that many within the Tory party still maintain a homophobic bias with their views on Gay marriage. If not why is the media littered with stories about dissension from within the party membership? As you say classic own goal, ut I suppose when you realise that it was you who scored it then maybe you will take a bit more time before you start to celebrate next time :-)

[snowychap]

Oh wasn't suggesting there is any way back for him , it was more my initial comment that he may have survived without the "pleb" side of it that i'm interested in .. Blandy sorta agrees that he shouldn't have lost his job for swearing at plod which is where I was coming from ,

The swearing and actual incident whilst not ideal I think he could have survived , the us and them , out of touch and so forth was (imo) what ultimately cost him his job ... without doubt his actions stoked the fire , others then poured paraffin over him and lit the safety matches ... maybe goes back to my Who not What gripe , had it been Boris I imagine he would still be chief whip for example

I disagree with you on what ultimately cost him his job but neither of us know and I think each of our opinions is perfectly valid.

My annoyance at the time was about the 'us and them' (and I specifically said I didn't think it was just a Tory thing but an all too common attitude of looking down on people doing 'lesser' jobs); my thoughts on the actual business of him remaining whip are more about how it was likely to have been played out (in my view, if he'd stayed).

The Boris point is rather moot as I think you'd have to be utterly struggling and bonkers as a party to put Boris in charge of internal party discipline.

For what it's worth, had the incident involved a cabinet member holding a different job then I think they may have continued in post as it would appear that Cameron has a record of largely supporting cabinet colleagues against external attacks.

Edit: I originally pressed 'report' by mistake instead of quote when selecting your post.