ChatterBank1 min ago
Plebgate....shock Horror !...police Apologise
Well, nearly, but better than nothing I suppose :::
http://
Still no explanation why they lied though. Curiouser and curiouser.
http://
Still no explanation why they lied though. Curiouser and curiouser.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
jno, that perception, that policeman do everything ethically and 'right', is the bane of justice in some courts. The best lay benches of magistrates were in the East End of London; Stratford, West Ham etc and in Westminster, Horseferry Road. The first group was of working class people who had grown up in the same streets, as it were, as the policemen. . They did not judge on the uniform and were as quick to believe or disbelieve a policeman as they were defendants or anybody else. Westminster seemed to consist of a lot of people who were awfully upper class, m'dear. They treated policemen as they would servants, with similar results.
The worst lay benches were in respectable suburbs.
The great joy of appearing before a professional magistrate was that he or she had been in practice and knew , from experience, both what police and defendants were capable of. One , in one day, reported two officers for perjury. The police were frightened of him. And I saw another stop a case and acquit because he did not believe a word of what the constable said, and do so without hearing the rest of the evidence
The worst lay benches were in respectable suburbs.
The great joy of appearing before a professional magistrate was that he or she had been in practice and knew , from experience, both what police and defendants were capable of. One , in one day, reported two officers for perjury. The police were frightened of him. And I saw another stop a case and acquit because he did not believe a word of what the constable said, and do so without hearing the rest of the evidence
and yet I am a little puzzled still. // A transcript of a recording Mr Mitchell made shows that, while he admitted swearing, he denied using the word "pleb" or insulting the police. // Why the insistence that he did not use the word ''plebs'' but admitted that he swore at them, it would seem to me that in the heat of the moment one would surely not just use a swear word but would tend to use a sentence to emphasize it.
WR.
WR.
WR.
WR.
@Ron,
I think the Police side are missing a trick. Although the phrase he does admit to: - "I thought you're here to ***g help us?" does not include the 'p' word, his comment is still loaded with 'attitude'.
Treating them like insubordinate gatekeepers/doormen (i.e. like domestic servants) instead of what they are (constabularly/security staff) is what was insulting about the whole thing.
Somebody dressed it up by injecting the word 'pleb' into the reportage which followed and I think that was 'spin'; a mistake.
The only remaining point of pedantry I can drum up is that the pedestrian gate opens onto the pavement. In his mind, Mitchell was on a wheeled vehicle, which does not belong on the pavement; it belongs on the road, therefore he expected to be let out via the main gate. (i.e. the idea is to be seen by passing members of the public to follow the Highway Code and not be caught out by lurking press photographers)
I think the Police side are missing a trick. Although the phrase he does admit to: - "I thought you're here to ***g help us?" does not include the 'p' word, his comment is still loaded with 'attitude'.
Treating them like insubordinate gatekeepers/doormen (i.e. like domestic servants) instead of what they are (constabularly/security staff) is what was insulting about the whole thing.
Somebody dressed it up by injecting the word 'pleb' into the reportage which followed and I think that was 'spin'; a mistake.
The only remaining point of pedantry I can drum up is that the pedestrian gate opens onto the pavement. In his mind, Mitchell was on a wheeled vehicle, which does not belong on the pavement; it belongs on the road, therefore he expected to be let out via the main gate. (i.e. the idea is to be seen by passing members of the public to follow the Highway Code and not be caught out by lurking press photographers)
It doesn't seem to have occurred to anyone that the "lying" policemen could be a Tory Dirty Tricks plant to divert attention from Mitchell's whole toff attitude which typifies the present Government.
It's never as simple and straightforward as it seems when the "Establishment" is involved, regardless of the Party in power.
It's never as simple and straightforward as it seems when the "Establishment" is involved, regardless of the Party in power.
Canary42, as I understand it, the problem is the video footage that showed nobody around. Unfortunately, as FredPuli has pointed out, the police claimed there were. They had to because unless someone was there, heard the alleged words from Mitchell and was duly horrified, no offence was committed.
So it appears the police didn't just invent "plebs", they invented the whole offence.
So it appears the police didn't just invent "plebs", they invented the whole offence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.