Read the answer above.


The fact that Cameron is desperately trying to ignore the whole debacle while the press are constantly whipping the story along, having taken both sides to date shows that he doesn't have quite so much control over his close friends in the media as he thinks he had, and that he doesn't seem to have any control over his own senior members who are doing the whipping along nicely themselves.

Unless that is, there is a third agenda and he really does want to indict the Met Police - unlikely given the party's previous but you never know.

I note you use the word "fact(s)" as though you actually know them. You have chosen to believe one side due I assume to your political bias. You fail to acknowledge that your so called "facts" are in fact only allegations made by 2 police officers against a Government Minister. That Mitchell swore is not disputed but he has stated that it was not so much in the face of the officers but muttered "I thought you guys were supposed to f****** help us" as he wheeled his bike into Whitehall. In the current era it would be difficult to claim this was an insult against public decency when the same word can be heard on our TVs most nights.

I do not think you are correct either to claim that Mitchell "failed to follow instructions from the police" as the CCTV footage shows he did go through the pedestrian gate.

You also fail to see that his resignation was brought to a head by the "toxic" email from a "member of the public" that was stated to have witnessed the event. That this "toxic" email has now been proven to be a total lie and "in fact" sent by a police colleague of the two boys in blue at the gate.

The Channel 4 News report has totally devastated the police account as has the CCTV footage. When you add to this the "fact" that someone from the police sent a copy of the police log to the press, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to smell an 'elementary' rat.

The police have plenty of 'form' with regard to lies and falsifying reports and have a 'motive' due to cut backs to police budgets yet you would deny him the chance to state his innocence.

Heaven help us if the press are gagged.

It is well reported that his lawyers are "trawling through more than 1000 articles and dozens of tweets" Maybe internet forums too! He plans to donate any damages to a hospice in his constituency.

This is the false argument you and others have been tricked into.

Whether he said pleb or not is absolutely irrelevant.

His behaviour wasn’t ok, these are facts not disputed, not by anyone, not even him, its why he apologised. He apologised for his behaviour because it was wrong, because it was disrespectful, because he knows he shouldn’t behave like that. Pleb isn’t some magic word, it didn’t make his behaviour any worse, it wasn’t the point which took his behaviour from acceptable to unacceptable,

Mitchell swore at police, he didn’t follow instruction and threatened that ‘this wouldn’t be the last of this’. He doesn’t dispute that version of events. That is what’s wrong. It isn’t a stitch up, he hasn’t been fitted up by the police, this isn’t a trick. This is what happened and nobody disputes this. Nobody tricked him into that, nobody forced him to do it, nobody made it up, he accepts that he did those things.

You say he isnt being given the chance to state his innocence, the reason for this is he accepts he isnt innocent.

Mitchells frankly ridiculous defence seems to be that a silent video proves that he didn’t say a particular word, and therefore a series of events he largely agrees happened, didn’t happen in the way he largely agrees. If Mr Mitchell thinks that swearing at police, threatening them, and not following their instructions is respectful, but calling them a pleb way beyond the bounds of acceptability, he may prove he isn’t an example of the ‘toxic’ image the tories accuse people of portraying of them, but he will also prove he is disrespectful of police officers, a whiner, generally quite stupid, and quite frankly so out of touch he might as well be setting up a branch of the bullingdon club in The Sudan.

Well it's not though is it. The reason the Police wouldn't let up was because he wouldn't admit to using the word pleb.

I think you have confused the police and the media, im not sure how because that isn’t an easy mistake to make.

No, Look at this link and the video embedded half way down. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 Ken Mackaill chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation. "Continued denial of facts recorded" - Ie, use of the word pleb. "Repeated denial of using the words reported in the officers notes" - Ie, the use of the word pleb. He had apologised and that had been accepted but because he wouldn't admit to saying pleb, the police wouldn't let it lie. Would you admit to something you didn't say? So him saying the word pleb is not irrelevant, rather the crux of the matter.

No, Look at this link and the video embedded half way down. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 Ken Mackaill chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation. "Continued denial of facts recorded" - Ie, use of the word pleb. "Repeated denial of using the words reported in the officers notes" - Ie, the use of the word pleb. He had apologised and that had been accepted but because he wouldn't admit to saying pleb, the police wouldn't let it lie. Would you admit to something you didn't say? So him saying the word pleb is not irrelevant, rather the crux of the matter.

...which could all be very easily sorted by an effective leader, probably sat around a table with a dvd player or laptop.

By the way - what link ?

?



You don't seem to get it. If you had denied using the words the police wouldn't have let up on you either.

Yes, because this obviously a great big stitch up by the police trying to get a tory isn’t it. All a big conspiracy from them,

Except there was no need for Mr Mitchell to behave as he admits he did, which was bad, and unnecessary, and uncalled for, and pointless and entirely of his own making, and entirely bad enough and made no worse because he was alleged to have said the word pleb. The police didnt cause that, they didnt engineer that, they arent responsible for that at all. In fact the police officers involved have said to their superiors that one of the reasons they made any report at all, was because Mitchell threatened to take it further (as he admits he threatened), it was he who thought that him swearing at the officers, was the officers fault, he thought that the officers asking him to follow the correct rules was beneath him and worthy of the police being reprimanded, he who threatened to use the political power he had to punish the police officers for asking him to follow the rules he was supposed to be following.

That’s the point you don’t seem to get, the acceptability of Mitchells behaviour isn’t dependent on whether or not he said pleb, any more than it is dependent on whether or not he said kakapoopoomeaniehead. The behaviour that he accepts was his, was bad enough and far below the minimum expected of a senior government minister.

Because there is a difference between muttering one swear word 'I thought you guys were supposed to f'ing' help us'

to

"Best you learn your f'ing place. You don't run this f'ing government. You're f'ing plebs"

One is more serious than the other.

Not really,

Not when you are admitting saying,

‘I thought you guys were supposed to be f@cking helping us and you haven’t heard the last of this’

That simply highlights the utter ridiculousness of the whole situation, people are focussing on whether or not he said the word 'pleb' and completely ignoring the fact he admits to threatening to use his political power to gain retribution on two police officers simply doing their jobs.

Of course there is a difference between saying 3 swear words and a direct insult - pleb, to just one.

Where did he threaten to use his political power to gain retribution? I think you are somewhat exaggerating.

Are we pretending that his saying ‘ you haven’t heard the last of this’ was an invitation to tea and petit fours?

If you want to ignore the fairly clearly implied threat within the statement ‘you haven’t heard the last of this’ then there really is no point going on as your tribal politics are clearly blinding you.