Andrew Mitchell MP

[thirdcrank]

The plot thickens. In contrast with your run-of-the-mill offence of impersonating a police officer. this has that "man bites dog" twist that the media love so much: according the the prime minister, it seems that a police officer has allegedly been impersonating a member of the public.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20795489

[7_lives_left]

TC's last link to the news item on the BBC says that there are thirty police officers looking at this. I take it that that is a lot of resources, yes? Will some senior police officer have decided to make sure someone looks at this or has someone else with a lot of clout told them to get on with it or else?

[thirdcrank]

Assuming that's an incident room with 30 police officers, that's a fair-sized inquiry. (Even if it includes the tea lady etc it's still a fair-sized team.) I've no idea who triggered it but I'd assume there's more to this than meets the eye.

The backdrop to all this seems to me to be that ever since the Thactcher administration, a lot of Tory politicians have wabnted to take on the police - Matthew Parris told me this in a letter - and my own impression, partly from what he said in that letter, is that they haven't really much idea how to do it. What we seem to have is a battle of spin, and this is what I was hinting at before. IMO, The former chief patrician (sorry chief whip) was in Hillsboro mode when these events occurred and he was caught out by the change of public mood when the police officers were murdered in Manchester. They've trotted out (should that be slid out?) Tory former Home Secretary, Kenneth Baker, to allege that the Police Federation is spinning against the govt., so I could be right. The Inspectorate of Constabulary has just reported that there is no nationally standardised code of practice for police professional standards in respect of things like hospitality and some similar issues. This was headlined in yesterday's Daily Telegraph on the lines "Theresa May to crackdown on police corruption."

The size of the inquiry raise the question of what suspcted offences they are investigating. The reports mention "Misconduct in a public office." This is a common law offence which was dreamt up by a judge a couple of centuries ago. Historically, I don't think it's been used much but the IPCC seems to have latched on to it. That's all since I retired so I'm not up-to-date. Afaik, the essence of the offence is that the holder of a public office - and constable is certainly a public office - abuses their position. Now, as I implied earlier, I can't see how a police officer pretending to be a member of the public can possibly fit into that, since by definition, they are not acting as an office holder. Incidentally, one of the various reports I've read says that the Met is not investigating a conspiracy (ie a joint plan by several people to break the law.)

Beyond that, there's the police discipline code. That's something else that's been changed since my day. We used to learn a lot of stuff almost by heart and mnemonics played a large part in police training. My contemporaries should remember BAD MEN FAIL. Each letter wass the initial of a discipline offence. That was before discrimination legislation because if MEN had been PEOPLE the code would have been a lot longer. Anyway, top of the list was B for Breach of confidence. This is really a back up for the criminal offences under the Official Secrets Act, if nothing quite fits the bill ( ) This was why I mentioned Assange some time ago. Leaking the details of an internal police report would normally be a breach of confidence, but there seems to be a suggestion that what was leaked was fabricated to discredit Andrw Mitchell so I'm not clear if that is protected - I just don't know.

Anyway, it looks as though it's set for a long run and it's not something that anybody seems to come out of well. It seems obvious to me that policing in this country is due for some fundamental changes, but it also seems obvious to me that that will only be truly successful if the legal system is changed as well. If the only strategy at the govt's disposal is to disgrace and demoralise the police service, we may all suffer from the collateral damage.

A long post to say I don't really know much more than anybody else.

[7_lives_left]

Thanks TC, that's an interesting read. I'll have a re-read of your earlier posts.

I asked by brother about this (He enjoyed you post when I pointed him to it). He made the following point: Andrew Mitchell has been using weasel words, " I did not use the words attributed to me" and "I did not call him a pleb". Those are very weak denials. Mitchell admits that he swore. He doesn't deny that the jist of what he was reported to have said in the leaked account by the policemen is accurate. A stronger denial would have been to say (me putting words into his mouth) "The words attributed to me are not even vaguely similar in meaning to what I said and have been fabricated." My brother's quip was he called him plebian, not a pleb Unfortunately Mr Mitchell seems reluctant to clarify what his exact phrasing was for our entertainment

Andrew Mitchell definitely wants his job back.

[SilverBadge]

The size of the inquiry raise the question of what suspcted offences they are investigating. The reports mention "Misconduct in a public office." This is a common law offence which was dreamt up by a judge a couple of centuries ago. Historically, I don't think it's been used much but the IPCC seems to have latched on to it. That's all since I retired so I'm not up-to-date. Afaik, the essence of the offence is that the holder of a public office - and constable is certainly a public office - abuses their position. Now, as I implied earlier, I can't see how a police officer pretending to be a member of the public can possibly fit into that, since by definition, they are not acting as an office holder. Incidentally, one of the various reports I've read says that the Met is not investigating a conspiracy (ie a joint plan by several people to break the law.)

Beyond that, there's the police discipline code. That's something else that's been changed since my day. We used to learn a lot of stuff almost by heart and mnemonics played a large part in police training. My contemporaries should remember BAD MEN FAIL. Each letter wass the initial of a discipline offence. That was before discrimination legislation because if MEN had been PEOPLE the code would have been a lot longer. Anyway, top of the list was B for Breach of confidence. This is really a back up for the criminal offences under the Official Secrets Act, if nothing quite fits the bill ( ) This was why I mentioned Assange some time ago. Leaking the details of an internal police report would normally be a breach of confidence, but there seems to be a suggestion that what was leaked was fabricated to discredit Andrw Mitchell so I'm not clear if that is protected - I just don't know.

The second arrest relates to inciting a crime - isn't that a sort of one-way conspiracy? Our pretend civilian has, it is alleged, been a false witness and has concealed his lack of impartiality. If an on-duty officer had been there and provided false testimony, I think that would be misconduct in public office. If an officer hadn't been there and provided false testimony, that would still be misconduct. If an officer had been there and gave testimony without declaring the personal interest, I think that should also be misconduct. To be able to combine all three factors and somehow claim that it is "not whilst in public office" is extreme sophistry that I hope fails. I realise he has written to an MP not the police but it appears designed to affect two different lines of enquiry.
There really shouldn't be such a thing as an "official leak" - either stuff is published/released officially, else it is leaked.
Mitchell's words are definitely weasel, very odd that he's been so patient over matters.

PS I'd be wary of calling police officers liars. Rightly or wongly, the Police Federation is usually quick to support its members who want to take legal action for defamation. They use excellent lawyers: Russell Jones and Walker as was, the company that does the CTC's personal injury stuff.

If it can be shown that what someone definitely said was definitely false, then calling that person a liar should not be defamation, however good their lawyers. If that isn't the case then I don't know what a ass looks like.
In case it isn't obvious, I am neither a policeman or a lawyer pretending to be a plain ordinary person.

[thirdcrank]

7_lives

Thanks for that.

Silver badge

I began too reply to a post, then it kept changing substantially, so I suppose you were still editing. I'll look again later.

===================================================
Silver Badge.

I thought the offence mentioned in the reports was assisting an offender, rather than incitement, although I'd not argue. FWIW, assisting an offender is usally something done after the alleged substantive offence eg helping to hide thir tracks, since anything done at the time would generally amount to committing that offence itself.
=======================================================

In the meantime, it's spinning so fast you could run a dynamo off it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20810331




I've covered the necessary elements of the offences as I see them. The fact that somebody may have done something others disapprove of isn't automatically a crime. Telling lies is a pretty good example: unless it constitutes a specific offence, it's "perfectly legal." Even when it is a crime, it's often very hard to prove, which is why so many businessmen in sharp suits thrive. Misleading an MP isn't, in itself, an offence (unless there's something tucked away in Parliamentary Privelege.) The "F" in the mnemonic is "Falsehood or prevarication" but that's applicable to things done as a police officer.

[Shootist]

The size of the inquiry raise the question of what suspcted offences they are investigating. The reports mention "Misconduct in a public office." This is a common law offence which was dreamt up by a judge a couple of centuries ago. Historically, I don't think it's been used much but the IPCC seems to have latched on to it. That's all since I retired so I'm not up-to-date. Afaik, the essence of the offence is that the holder of a public office - and constable is certainly a public office - abuses their position. Now, as I implied earlier, I can't see how a police officer pretending to be a member of the public can possibly fit into that, since by definition, they are not acting as an office holder. Incidentally, one of the various reports I've read says that the Met is not investigating a conspiracy (ie a joint plan by several people to break the law.)

The elements of the offence are as follows.
a public officer acting as such
wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
without reasonable excuse or justification

A police officer, unlike many other public office holders, is a police officer 24/7. In this particular case if the allegations are correct then the police officer has certainly misconducted himself to the required degree.

A google search shows the offence is not uncommonly charged, and I recall several police officers being jailed over the years for the offence, including one for playing bouncy bouncy whilst on duty.

Beyond that, there's the police discipline code.

If the officer has breached the police discipline code then if his actions in doing so were serious enough he will have pretty much fallen foul of the misconduct in public office law. The police discipline code will be inadequate for the more serious breaches.

Anyway, it looks as though it's set for a long run and it's not something that anybody seems to come out of well. It seems obvious to me that policing in this country is due for some fundamental changes, but it also seems obvious to me that that will only be truly successful if the legal system is changed as well. If the only strategy at the govt's disposal is to disgrace and demoralise the police service, we may all suffer from the collateral damage.

I hardly think that the government is disgracing the police. The police are managing that quite well without any help at all. Hillsborough, The Levinson Enquiry, Ian Tomlinson, many police shootings, the abuse of arrest powers, and an unmistakeable attitude of contempt towards anyone outside their circle.

But we must always differentiate between 'police officers' and 'the police'. It is the police as an entity that is failing, or has failed IMO. While there are many decent and gallant police officers as individuals, even the good ones are corrupted by the system, losing their way through the misdirection of senior officers who place their own self interest above the ideals of the job.

[thirdcrank]

shhotist

Welcome back. I look forward to the outcome of this with some interest but with with no pleasure. As far as police being on duty 24/7 I'll say yes and no. It all depends. If public officials were always facing jail if they told porky pies, I suspect Her Majesty's accommodation would be full of people who'd been caught out with lipstick on their collar etc. (Thinks: why did Two Jags not come into this? By some accounts, his "bouncy bouncy" as you describe it was on the floor of his office )

Anyway, if you can stretch "acting as such" to include "not acting as such" it wil be interesting to see what others think.

If you don't think it's a spinning war, fair enough. It's already gone beyond patricians vs plebs. I see from one of the headlines thiss morning that the Michell faction is gunning for Cameron so it's patricians vs patricians now.

[Shootist]

Here's an interesting viewpoint on the police disgracing themselves.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9761022/Have-the-men-in-blue-crossed-the-line.html

[thirdcrank]

If it's not clear from my postings, I'm now a daily Telegraph reader, and that's where a lot of the spinning is going on.

When I open that link, one of the links to other stories shows a pic of Thatcher. My analysis is this: she knew that if she was going to take on most of the UK population in one way or another, she would need a strong police force and she made sure she had one. One aspect of that was bumping up police pay, which she did by fully implementing the Edmund Davies proposals. Some people claiming to be in the know suggest that it was Thatcher's influence which kept the lid on Hillsborough. There are now moves to get the events of the minser's strike and Orgreave in particular re-investigated; she certainly had her finger in the pie there.

While the tories are definitely still in favour of a strong police force, they don't like the price of the current model. It costs £££. In tory ideology, the police service would have an officer class - largely made up of retired army officers, with a few captains of industry to ensure costs were kept down - and there'd be a Dixon of Dock Green, forelock touching body of sergeants and constables keeping everything in order, perhaps clipping a few juvenile ears in the process. Anything beyond, "Ello, 'ello, wot 'ave we 'ere?" would be dealt with by specials. I have a copy of the history of Leeds City Polce, and there's an account of some sort of industrial action up Dewsbury Road. The chief constable was mounted at the head of a small force of police, followed by a large body (thousands??) of specials, armed with truncheons. The military brought up the rear. The chief constable galloped a head, sword at the ready, and managed to close the factory gate before the arrival of the mob. (The mob of strikers that is, not the police.)

As for police officers getting into trouble, there was a period when Leeds City Police was under the spotlight. There was a cartoon in Punch showing a number of men with blankets over their heads being herded into a police station with one onlooker explaining to another "That's Leeds City Police helping with inquiries."

I'll reiterate that the police service is in need of restructuring, reorganisation, whatever. The govt., lacks the savvy and possibly the mandate to carry it through, so it will de done piecemeal, lurching from crisis to crisis, starting with "we're all in it together" cuts. It's now all a matter to see whether Thatcher was right about needing a strong police force. The world's best policeman - heavy rain - has been putting in some extended shifts just recently. OTOH, I see the IPCC is urging a change of approach to public order policing in the capital. An interesting summer lies ahead.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20821048

[Brian R Pateman]

If you don't think it's a spinning war, fair enough. It's already gone beyond patricians vs plebs. I see from one of the headlines this morning that the Michell faction is gunning for Cameron so it's patricians vs patricians now.

Good point.

I could never see the problem with the "pleb" remark if it was made. After all I would assume that the officers concerned in the original incident were not of the patrician or aristocratic class and were therefore of the plebeian class, as are most of us.

The following is from Wikipedia;

The plebs was the general body of free, land-owning Roman citizens (as distinguished from slaves and the capite censi) in Ancient Rome. It was the non-aristocratic class of Rome and consisted of freed people, shopkeepers, crafts people, skilled or unskilled workers, and farmers.[1] Members of the plebs were also distinct from the higher order of the patricians. A member of the plebs was known as a plebeian (pron.: /plɨˈbiːən/; Latin: plebeius). This term is used today to refer to one who is or appears to be of the middle or lower order; however, in Rome plebeians could become quite wealthy and influential.

The issue to my mind was Mitchell's use of the "F" word, which he has not denied. I do not think that it is acceptable to swear at anybody who is doing their job, no matter who they are, especially if the swearer is a member of the government. Not only should he know better but it shows a distressingly limited vocabulary.

[thirdcrank]

I'm only repeating myself from further up the thread, but IMO, had the two officers not been murdered in Manchester, this story would never have grown legs. The release of the independant Hillsboro report meant open season on slagging off the police, and the events in Manchester knocked it off the front page. Events move quickly in politics and a chief whip's job is to be abreast of events - dictating their course wherever possible. I'll take some convincing that that was not his ultimate sin. Without the murder of the two constables, this would have received less attention than Two Jags (allegedly) chinning the (alleged) egg thrower in front of the TV cameras.

[TonyR]

I've covered the necessary elements of the offences as I see them. The fact that somebody may have done something others disapprove of isn't automatically a crime. Telling lies is a pretty good example: unless it constitutes a specific offence, it's "perfectly legal." Even when it is a crime, it's often very hard to prove, which is why so many businessmen in sharp suits thrive. Misleading an MP isn't, in itself, an offence (unless there's something tucked away in Parliamentary Privelege.) The "F" in the mnemonic is "Falsehood or prevarication" but that's applicable to things done as a police officer.

It seems to me to be much more than that. Two police officers file reports of their encounter and for some odd reason both make up the existence of a crowd of spectators. Lo and behold one of those fictional spectators writes to his MP, who just happens to be in an influential position, confirming exactly the same words and curiously using exactly the same capitalisation of people's names. And it turns out he was not a spectator at all but a colleague of the two officers. Do you really think that was a complete coincidence and not a classic attempt at a fit-up? If there was no fit-up, why do you think they felt the need to report a crowd that didn't exist? Seems to me the only reason is as a set up for their colleagues e-mail. And if the police are conspiring to bring down a Government they don't like that is very serious indeed.

[meic]

I thought that the "pleb" comment was of great public interest as it helped to re-inforce a viewpoint about the nature of the present Conservative party.
I do see that as the most damaging aspect of this for Downing Street but not a matter for great criminal proceedings.

Legally, I see it as a mountain out of a molehill and if it had been a dispute between Police Officers and a pleb, this would have received zero attention from Police, Press and Politicians.

This has not altered my view of the Police, other than that I now think they are getting less deferential to their betters and acting as if they are in a slightly less class ridden society. Though this may have been a step too far and they are now getting reminded of who is in charge just as Mitchell promised.
Those of us born on the wrong side of the tracks know better than to alienate the Police from generations of experience. That doesnt mean that we dont appreciate them when needed but we are used to a bit of "rough justice" and "interpretation" of the facts.

[thirdcrank]

TonyR

My comments you quote were written in the light of what I'd got from the media. Police spkesmen / sources close to the inquiry / whatever were quoted as saying that the police on duty were not involved in the investigation and it wasn't an investigation of a conspiracy. 7_lives_left queried the size of the investigating team and I agreed it seemed large. The inference may be that there's no smoke without fire. I see that in the cuthroat world of politics, Michell's backers are now blaming Downing Street - code for Cameron and his lot for suppressing the CCTV which has been there all along.

I've no more access to the news than you have. I do know it can be twisted every which way.

==================================================

Edit in the light of meic's post.

Other former colleagues I've discussed this with tend to take the line that that a minor exchange with a businessman or the like, over something like a parking ticket, which ends with "You've not heard the end of this" is going to have the duty books out to get it all recorded for the possible arrival of department Y. (Why did you do that?) Various commentators seem to be hinting that the police went beyond that and mixed him a bottle. The intriguing question then is why they plumped for the word "pleb." He's reported to have admitted swearing so it's not a case of suggesting he said " all you @@@@@ coppers is just the @@@@ same. Fings never change!" On the contrary, if he has been verballed, they've picked a word the stereotypical bobby would never have heard before. Incidentally, anybody who thinks that it's inevitable he'd be portrayed as effing and blinding, remember, he wasn't arrested and if the officers had noted evidence - real or concocted - that might suggest he should have been, then the disciplnary offence under "N" neglect of duty beckons.

This has gone up a notch or several, and somebody has contrived for that to happen. The Police Federation certainly got on the band wagon, but I find it hard to imagine he was the victim of an ambush, in spite of allegations that the police were out to get a minister. "Right lads. Synchonise your watches and when the posh geezer is proceeding down the thoroughfare on his pedal bicycle, signal 'im to stop and hinform 'im in a hofficial manner, like wot 'eel 'ave to get orff 'is bike and walk like wot everybody else does. Hif 'es hinclined to get huppity, tell 'im you may 'ave to 'arsk 'im to accompany you... anyway, you lads know the score. And let me hadd, when you make up your books, say he called you "plebs." That's P-L-E-B-S. Don't arsk me wot it means, just do as I say."

Whatever started it, somebody gave it legs. In the tribal world of British politics, Cameron showed his support for his Chief Whip and was characterised as weak by the Opposition. Bojo kept his powder dry, commenting only on the lines that it was wrong to swear at the police. All went quiet for a while, on the surface at least, but suddenly it's popping out of every hole in the woodwork. Like a rabbit out of a hat, CCTV footage emerges which gives more idea of what happened but, bearing in mind even posters on here were asking about CCTV when this first blew up, voices-off are suggesting that Downing Street had been suppressing something that would have exonerated the badly-treated cyclist.