Bolitics The New Condem Government

[chrisp65]

Lying Police vs Tory Bastard death match?

win win

[snowychap]

Interesting that one of the main thrusts of the Universal Jobmatch announcement (along with it apparently being a revolution in the already pretty flexible UK labour market) was about the possibilities for sanctioning.

[peterms]

Lying Police vs Tory Bastard death match?

There's apparently some differences of view within the Police Fed about using the more aggressive style of campaigning that we saw with them picketing the tory conference. Also some differences of view about Mitchell within the tory party. Messy all round.

[tonyh29]

WTF was Cameron thinking ?

David Cameron has known for almost three months that at least one member of his own élite protection unit may have fabricated parts of the Downing Street police log about the confrontation with Andrew Mitchell, The Independent understands. Weeks before the former Chief Whip fell on his sword, the Prime Minister was alerted to vital inconsistencies between CCTV footage of the altercation and a police officer's log of the incident leaked to the media.

The evidence was enough to persuade Mr Cameron to stand by Mr Mitchell despite the public clamour for his resignation.

But, crucially, the Prime Minister decided not to press the matter with the Metropolitan Police – fearing that it would poison relations with the elite group of policemen who guard senior politicians for the rest of their lives.

Yesterday a 23-year-old man, who is not a police officer or member of police staff, became the second person to be arrested.

The Independent has pieced together the chronology of events following the 19 September altercation in Downing Street – and Mr Cameron's significant behind-the-scenes role in the affair.

When Mr Cameron was first alerted to an email from a supposed member of the public who witnessed the now infamous "Plebgate" altercation he called in Mr Mitchell with the intention not of asking him to resign – but of sacking him on the spot.

But such were Mr Mitchell's denials that the incident had been anything like that described in the email or the accounts given by police that the Prime Minister agreed to stay the execution.

Instead, he agreed that Sue Gray, Downing Street's director of propriety and ethics, would work under the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, independently to examine the Downing Street and Foreign Office CCTV logs to see if they could substantiate the accounts of either Mr Mitchell or the policemen.

What Ms Gray and Sir Jeremy found when they watched the tapes not only appeared to back Mr Mitchell's version of events – but raised the prospect that the officers involved had embellished a key part of their account. Far from there being members of the public looking on "shocked" at the incident, the street outside the gates was almost deserted – with just a couple of individuals passing but not lingering.

The Independent understands Ms Gray and Sir Jeremy alerted Mr Cameron to what they had found – and he himself watched the tapes.

But a decision was taken by the Prime Minister not to pursue the matter with police commanders or make the CCTV footage public. Instead he agreed a compromise: he would back Mr Mitchell to stay in his job but would allow the discrepancies the footage revealed to go unchallenged.

"It was a hard decision to make but at that stage it appeared to be a sensible compromise," said one source. "There was enough bad blood as it was and it seemed better to try and calm things down rather than stir it up again."

The revelations raise questions for the Met Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe who backed the officers involved in the confrontation following the arrest.

"I don't think, in terms of what I've heard up to now, that it has really affected the original account of the officers at the scene," the Commissioner said during a radio interview on Tuesday. "Because of course this officer we've arrested wasn't any of those people involved originally. This is another officer who wasn't there at the time."

Scotland Yard has launched an inquiry with 30 officers looking into the leaks of the official police log to The Daily Telegraph and the possibility of a wider criminal conspiracy to bring down the former Chief Whip.

Keith Vaz, the chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, questioned whether the inquiry should be carried out by one of the police watchdogs. In his letter to Mr Hogan-Howe, he asked why the leaked log appeared to be in conflict with CCTV evidence. "As this is the Prime Minister's residence it is vital that the log book at No 10 should be as accurate as possible," he said. Scotland Yard did not dispute the authenticity of the leaked log yesterday.

The man arrested yesterday was held on suspicion of "intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an indictable offence on or around December 14" and bailed until January. Scotland Yard declined to go into further detail but 14 December was a day after new material on "Plebgate" was passed to the force, and one day before the arrest of an officer from the diplomatic protection group on suspicion of misconduct in public office.

That arrest related to the sending of an email to one of Mr Mitchell's deputies, purportedly from a member of the public, but who was in fact a serving Met police officer.

[peterms]

WTF was Cameron thinking ?

That's a really poor piece of journalism. Let's take a closer look.

David Cameron has known for almost three months that at least one member of his own élite protection unit may have fabricated parts of the Downing Street police log about the confrontation with Andrew Mitchell, The Independent understands.

It was known from the start that there were two different accounts, Mitchell's and that of the police. Only one could be true. Cameron knew this, as did everyone else. But does "one member of his own elite protection unit" mean the two people on duty, or the one recently arrested (which was not known at the time; that's rather the whole point of the recent revelation)? Is the journo trying deliberately to be vague?

Weeks before the former Chief Whip fell on his sword, the Prime Minister was alerted to vital inconsistencies between CCTV footage of the altercation and a police officer's log of the incident leaked to the media.

What "vital inconsistencies"? The footage sheds no light on what was said. It supports the police account that there were "several" members of the public there (seven - count them). Mitchell's recent claim that the police stated there were "crowds" is a straight lie, which hardly enhances his credibility.

The evidence was enough to persuade Mr Cameron to stand by Mr Mitchell despite the public clamour for his resignation.

No. The strength of Mitchell's denial reportedly persuaded Cameron to have the matter investigated. Of course he would have been extremely reluctant to sack someone appointed only days before. It was a matter of political judgement, assessing the likely damage of either course of action, that underpinned his view.

But, crucially, the Prime Minister decided not to press the matter with the Metropolitan Police – fearing that it would poison relations with the elite group of policemen who guard senior politicians for the rest of their lives.

The point is that it would further erode relations with the police as a whole, and further undermine already low morale, for the PM effectively to call them liars. That's the issue, not personal relations with a tiny group within the police.

... he agreed that Sue Gray, Downing Street's director of propriety and ethics, would work under the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, independently to examine the Downing Street and Foreign Office CCTV logs to see if they could substantiate the accounts of either Mr Mitchell or the policemen.

Which they did, and found the tapes to be inconclusive.

What Ms Gray and Sir Jeremy found when they watched the tapes not only appeared to back Mr Mitchell's version of events – but raised the prospect that the officers involved had embellished a key part of their account. Far from there being members of the public looking on "shocked" at the incident, the street outside the gates was almost deserted – with just a couple of individuals passing but not lingering.

No. They found the tapes to be inconclusive. That is the point. The "just a couple of individuals" is actually seven passers-by. "Not lingering" fails to mention the person who is clearly shown to double back, and stand in front of the gates looking in to the street, exactly where Mitchell and the police would have been. Why does this story mislead on such crucial points? It reads like a briefing given by Mitchell, not journalism.

But a decision was taken by the Prime Minister not to pursue the matter with police commanders or make the CCTV footage public. Instead he agreed a compromise: he would back Mr Mitchell to stay in his job but would allow the discrepancies the footage revealed to go unchallenged.

"Discrepancies" again. The discrepancy the tape revealed is with the e-mails sent by the third party, because they don't show someone with his nephew watching the whole thing. The original investigation therefore discounted these e-mails. What Heywood seemingly failed to do was ask himself how the e-mails could have reflected the police log so closely if the writer had not been present, and if the log had not at that point been made public.

Mitchell's approach, which this article uncritically follows, is to hope to run together in people's minds the e-mails and the police log, trying to suggest without actually saying so that if one is false then the other must be as well. You would hope that a journalist, of all people, would be capable of a little more critical thought than this. I imagine most 11-year-olds would get it.

Cameron simply tried to eat his cake and have it, hoping to keep his chief whip, not explicitly accuse the police of lying, and hope the whole thing blew over. It failed because the police chose to force the issue, so that keeping Mitchell in place became equivalent to calling the police liars (you're not meant to say so, even when they lie). And part of the reason for this approach failing was Mitchell refusing to state clearly exactly what he said - presumably acting on advice from the Downing Street people who were trying to handle this. The fudge that was later adopted was to say Mitchell resigned because he swore at the police.

[drat01]

Peter that is one of the best summing up of this sorry tale I have seen. Excellent

[tonyh29]

i may be wrong without double checking the CCTV but the bloke milling about was walking up and down like one does when they are waiting for someone ... I didn't think they were paying any attention to the other side of the gate and apart from a brief glance wasn't even looking through the gate

[tonyh29]

Peter that is one of the best summing up of this sorry tale I have seen. Excellent

a far better summary would have been

if a fake witness hadn't made a fake statement about fake allegations , there wouldn't have been a tale

[drat01]

a far better summary would have been

if a fake witness hadn't made a fake statement about fake allegations , there wouldn't have been a tale

If Tory MP who is quite an obnoxious git did not swear at the Police none of this would have happened ? :-)

[colhint]

If Tory MP who is quite an obnoxious git did not swear at the Police none of this would have happened ? :-)

This sums it up perfectly to me. An MP swearing at a policeman. Its wrong. Swear in private if you like, but not to his face. I used to expect standards of politicians, thats gone a long time ago. There are places where it is wrong to swear, in a classroom, in church etc. But MP's have to deserve this honourable tag they get. They shouldn't swear at anyone.

[tonyh29]

or punch people either

It's one thing to say to a policeman " you F****** opening that gate you F****** moron " .. that would be worthy of any repercussions that follow

it's another thing to say "I thought you were supposed to F****** help us" , that isn't swearing AT a policeman in my opinion , it's more a show of exasperation

there is a big difference between the two

we live in an age where MP's can lie to enquiries , fiddle their expenses ,punch people in the street , start illegal wars , accept cash for influence and so forth and keep their jobs ..and yet it appears we won't allow them to utter a swear word ... what a strange world we live in sometimes

[blandy]

it's another thing to say "I thought you were supposed to F****** help us" , that isn't swearing AT a policeman in my opinion , it's more a show of exasperation

we live in an age where MP's can lie to enquiries , fiddle their expenses ,punch people in the street , start illegal wars , accept cash for influence and so forth and keep their jobs ..and yet it appears we won't allow them to utter a swear word ... what a strange world we live in sometimes

I agree completely. This was such a fuss about nothing.

To me it looks like a short tempered Whip got a bit arsey with a policeman who wouldn't let him do what he wanted, for a fairly petty reason. SO the whip swore in the presence of a plod.

That's the extent of his wrong doing on this issue.

Some policemen have (as happens) embellished/fabricated "evidence" to make the whip look worse than he actually was. That's quite wrong, and more of a story.

All the rest of it is political - if you're a tory then you defend and try and re-instate Mitchell. If you're an anti tory, then you try and make out that somehow Mitchell is still in the wrong and deserved to go for swearing at a copper.

What else is there specific to this incident?

Yes it reveals stuff about the police being dishonest, MPs being partisan, rude, aloof, perhaps. Cameron being pragmatic - changing with the mood - but we knew all that already

[snowychap]

it's another thing to say "I thought you were supposed to F****** help us" , that isn't swearing AT a policeman in my opinion , it's more a show of exasperation

It may have just been a show of exasperation but I'm not so sure: 'I thought you 'lot' were supposed to **** help us' from a senior politician would suggest something to me more like my original problem with the story and that's without the swearing and without worrying about which group the 'you lot' refers to. It seems to me not a cry for help from a distressed person or even someone being riled by a piece of jobsworthism (is that a word?) but a pejorative comment about (perhaps just a particular subset of) a group of people.

Indeed, I don't have much of a problem with the swearing (I don't in general anyway) - I still maintain that the attitude conveyed even just in the phrase that Mitchell admits using (and I wouldn't rule out him having said other things further 'under his breath') is that which I complained about originally.

Furthermore, I return to the timing of the incident and I think that shows some very poor political judgement from the man.

[snowychap]

we live in an age where MP's can lie to enquiries , fiddle their expenses ,punch people in the street , start illegal wars , accept cash for influence and so forth and keep their jobs ..and yet it appears we won't allow them to utter a swear word ... what a strange world we live in sometimes

I'm not so sure there has ever been an age where these things neither could nor did happen.

[peterms]

i may be wrong without double checking the CCTV but the bloke milling about was walking up and down like one does when they are waiting for someone ... I didn't think they were paying any attention to the other side of the gate and apart from a brief glance wasn't even looking through the gate

You might get a different view if you double check the CCTV, though. I don't think it supports what Crick was concluding (which again sounds very like parrotting Mitchell's line).

That's if you care very much about whether Mitchell was completely fitted up, of course...

And does it matter at all? It seems to matter a great deal to Mitchell and his supporters, and the police. Let's take a look.

In the Channel 4 coverage, first look at the section from 3.15 onwards (ignore Crick's commentary telling you what you should be seeing, turn the sound off and look at what you actually do see). Mr white shoes enters the scene, strolls north up Whitehall, stops near the centre of the gates, and turns his whole body to look into Downing Street. You can see from this still, with his backpack facing the road and his feet pointing towards the gates, that he's fully facing the gates, not just glancing in. He certainly seems to be paying attention.

He stands in that position from 3.24 to 3.33 on the Ch 4 film, then turns and slowly walks back the way he has come. At 3.42, he has reached the side gate. Two pedestrians are coming up behind him, overtaking him because he's walking so slowly. They are helpful in orienting the earlier scene, taken from inside Downing St.

If you now go back to 2.01 on the film, you see whiteshoes standing looking in. You can then see, between 2.01 and 2.13, that his movements exactly parallel the motion of Mitchell and the police towards the side gate. By 2.13, the two overtaking pedestrians have just about reached the side gate, but whiteshoes has taken longer to do so. Mitchell exits the gate at 2.17.

So he is standing at the gate, looking directly in, looking at where the exchange takes place, at the exact moment it must have taken place. As Mitchell and the police move towards the side gate, so does he, moving much slower than normal walking pace, but keeping directly in line with Mitchell and the police. It looks to me like what someone would do if they were watching closely what was happening, rather than someone wandering aimlessly.

This is where it would be helpful to see the film without the big blobs obscuring his face. Did he have any reaction to what was happening? Because from his movements, it certainly looks like he was closely watching what was going on, despite Crick's bizarre claims to the contrary.

[snowychap]

Back to policy and Duncan Smith has been quoted (by C4 here) as saying this about the Universal Jobmatch:

Your CV will do the work for you, even when you are sleeping...

Perhaps the requirement to do a minimum 35 hours per week searching or preparing for work will be easier for people than at first thought.

[peterms]

we live in an age where MP's can lie to enquiries , fiddle their expenses ,punch people in the street , start illegal wars , accept cash for influence and so forth and keep their jobs ..and yet it appears we won't allow them to utter a swear word ... what a strange world we live in sometimes

There are three different concerns (apart from giving a false account).

First, there's swearing. Frankly I don't give a flying **** about that, and all this nonsense about it being the reason he had to step down is just eyewash. I don't believe the police cared much about it either, though they might have been a little taken aback, and uncertain of how to respond.

Second, there's "pleb". That is significant because it is politically damaging. I don't suppose we will ever know whether it was really said or not. However, the perception that it may well have been said, and that Mitchell is part of a coterie of people who hold attitudes which mean that this word reflects their thinking, is what hurts them.

Third, there's the threat, "You haven't heard the last of this". That is actually the most significant thing, in terms of the relationship of Mitchell and the government with the police, rather than the general public. It is a threat to use his powerful position to punish the officers on duty for subjecting him to a trivial inconvenience, by taking it up at a higher level. It signals vindictiveness, spite, and petty bullying. It is that threat which made them record the incident in the first place - they were worried about what might happen.

As I understand it, he has not denied making this remark, or words to the same effect.

Perhaps it's that part which demands a bit more explanation. Does Mitchell, Cameron or anyone else think that you can have someone in high office who utters dark threats against junior staff who are following their instructions, like some feudal lord?

[tonyh29]

I'm not so sure there has ever been an age where these things neither could nor did happen.

all of those things have happened , have they not ?

[tonyh29]

You might get a different view if you double check the CCTV, though. I don't think it supports what Crick was concluding (which again sounds very like parrotting Mitchell's line).

That's if you care very much about whether Mitchell was completely fitted up, of course...

And does it matter at all? It seems to matter a great deal to Mitchell and his supporters, and the police. Let's take a look.

In the Channel 4 coverage, first look at the section from 3.15 onwards (ignore Crick's commentary telling you what you should be seeing, turn the sound off and look at what you actually do see). Mr white shoes enters the scene, strolls north up Whitehall, stops near the centre of the gates, and turns his whole body to look into Downing Street. You can see from this still, with his backpack facing the road and his feet pointing towards the gates, that he's fully facing the gates, not just glancing in. He certainly seems to be paying attention.

He stands in that position from 3.24 to 3.33 on the Ch 4 film, then turns and slowly walks back the way he has come. At 3.42, he has reached the side gate. Two pedestrians are coming up behind him, overtaking him because he's walking so slowly. They are helpful in orienting the earlier scene, taken from inside Downing St.

If you now go back to 2.01 on the film, you see whiteshoes standing looking in. You can then see, between 2.01 and 2.13, that his movements exactly parallel the motion of Mitchell and the police towards the side gate. By 2.13, the two overtaking pedestrians have just about reached the side gate, but whiteshoes has taken longer to do so. Mitchell exits the gate at 2.17.

So he is standing at the gate, looking directly in, looking at where the exchange takes place, at the exact moment it must have taken place. As Mitchell and the police move towards the side gate, so does he, moving much slower than normal walking pace, but keeping directly in line with Mitchell and the police. It looks to me like what someone would do if they were watching closely what was happening, rather than someone wandering aimlessly.

This is where it would be helpful to see the film without the big blobs obscuring his face. Did he have any reaction to what was happening? Because from his movements, it certainly looks like he was closely watching what was going on, despite Crick's bizarre claims to the contrary.

you've given this some thought haven't you :-)

trouble is , I kept seeing "Back and to the left " in my head as I read through your dissection ... damn you Stone :-)

[chrisp65]

If the sum total of all of this is that some tories with influence will realise that sometimes our 'brave police' can close ranks and tell lies - but be too lazy to do it competently, then some good will have come from it.

I've only had a very small number od occassions where I've either needed the police or been involved with the police. From my own small number of interactions, I have been far less than impressed. i'd go as far as to say, my total experience could be summed up as, lazy liars.

This doesn't mean all police, and they could be worse. But hopefully the tories will now be able to tell it a little more like it is. That might even have been the set up all along.