Andrew Mitchell MP

[irc]

You have a point I suppose - politicians and police officers accusing each other of lying - the old saying about pots and kettles comes to mind.

I'm not aware of any profession which doesn't have a few bad apples. I try not to judge a whole group based on the actions of a few.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 58499.html

http://www.thelawyer.com/news/latest-ne ... 80.article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 927050.stm

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crim ... l.22181727

http://www.france24.com/en/20130621-bri ... ce-forrest

[pete75]

You have a point I suppose - politicians and police officers accusing each other of lying - the old saying about pots and kettles comes to mind.

I'm not aware of any profession which doesn't have a few bad apples. I try not to judge a whole group based on the actions of a few.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 58499.html

http://www.thelawyer.com/news/latest-ne ... 80.article

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/gla ... 927050.stm

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/crim ... l.22181727

http://www.france24.com/en/20130621-bri ... ce-forrest

And that in your eyes justifies the actions of those involved in the Mitchell case - in any case I was replying to a post which said about politicians " a profession who make their living by lying".
In view of what we now know about untrue statements made by hundreds of police officers over the Hillsborough disaster and the so called battle of Orgreave similar might be said about police officers. Think of Hillsborough - over 150 officers mad false statements and for 20 odd years afterwards not one of them publicly acknowledged that dishonesty. That doesn't suggest a few bad apples - rather it suggests a culture of twisting the truth to get a desired result.

[irc]

And that in your eyes justifies the actions of those involved in the Mitchell case .

I never said it justified anything. It shows that every profession has bad apples. The police included. It shows the police are no better or worse than other professions. Expect perfection from any organisation or group of people and I think you are going to be disappointed.

In view of what we now know about untrue statements made by hundreds of police officers over the Hillsborough disaster and the so called battle of Orgreave similar might be said about police officers. Think of Hillsborough - over 150 officers mad false statements and for 20 odd years afterwards not one of them publicly acknowledged that dishonesty. That doesn't suggest a few bad apples - rather it suggests a culture of twisting the truth to get a desired result.

I was under the impression that Hillsborough involved the accurate statements of 150 rank and file officers being altered by a few senior officers. Not 150 false statements. In any case I thought we were discussing today not old history.

[TonyR]

Mitchell and his cronies now claim this proves he was innocent all along. Frankly given the type, I don't believe him. I certainly don't believe that this was 'a stitch up' which would mean some kind of premeditation, ulterior motive (the only motive they have as far as I can tell, is his insulting them) and broad collaboration.

My opinion (which is worth little) is that he probably did call them plebs or something very like it, he probably did try to use his political 'rank' where it does not belong. They outed him and then realising that it would go nowhere without 'witnesses' another rather daftly pretended to be one. Neither conspiracy nor stitch up.

The Times has been reporting it was a stitch up organised following a similar confrontation the previous day:

“On the 18th September, 2012 Mr Mitchell had also insisted on being let out through the main gate. Following this [officer X] said to the other officers: ‘Right, we can stitch him up’.”
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 327068.ece

Meanwhile the transcript of the Mitchell-Police Federation meeting shows that the Police Federation was less than economical with the truth.

[skidd]

Might I suggest that if you don't like politicians an appropriate place to voice your disapproval of them would be the "All politicians are Bad" message boards. It is however entirely appropriate to discuss the police, society and authorities and their attitude to cycling, of which the Andrew Mitchell case appears not untypical. On my typical journey to work I will shoot perhaps 50% of the red lights (if it is safe to do so). I have been pursued twice by the police in the last two months. This would be hunky dory if plod got an equally impressive boner about pedestrians crossing on red, even better if they dealt with drivers who exceed the 40mph Speed limit for the 1500m road between Pontefract and the M62.

But this unlikely to happen whilst we have a large body of cyclists who are apologists for the institutionalized attitudes towards us. I prefer not to get semantic, nevertheless I had to pick words, immoral, evil, costly, antisocial, irrational and just plain wrong would do to begin describing general and many police's attitude towards cyclists.

We don't really need to know what was said. We do know that a cyclist was instructed to dismount and divert when a car passenger on exactly the same journey would have been waved through.

That is wrong, and the police maintain the wrongness.

And singing God save the Queen doesn't make it right.

[RickH]

...pedestrians crossing on red...

AFAIK In this country there is nothing illegal about pedestrians crossing on red or even wandering around anywhere in the road unless it is specifically forbidden (motorways, "special Roads" & "no pedestrians" signed routes). It may not be sensible, but I don't think it is illegal.

Rick.

[skidd]

nothing illegal about pedestrians crossing on red

Nicely illustrates the point I am trying to make in that society and the police readily discriminate
against cyclists and don't even realise they are doing it. That is not just terrible for cyclists, it is detrimental to general welfare.

[pete75]

And that in your eyes justifies the actions of those involved in the Mitchell case .

I never said it justified anything. It shows that every profession has bad apples. The police included. It shows the police are no better or worse than other professions. Expect perfection from any organisation or group of people and I think you are going to be disappointed.

In view of what we now know about untrue statements made by hundreds of police officers over the Hillsborough disaster and the so called battle of Orgreave similar might be said about police officers. Think of Hillsborough - over 150 officers mad false statements and for 20 odd years afterwards not one of them publicly acknowledged that dishonesty. That doesn't suggest a few bad apples - rather it suggests a culture of twisting the truth to get a desired result.

I was under the impression that Hillsborough involved the accurate statements of 150 rank and file officers being altered by a few senior officers. Not 150 false statements. In any case I thought we were discussing today not old history.

The Hillsborough statements were signed by the officers purporting to have made them so they were well aware of the contents. Of course the culture which led to this dishonesty is relevant today. Some of the officers involved were until very recently in positions of leadership in various constabularies and their ethics or lack of them were bound to have influenced the organisations in which they worked.

No one expects perfection from any organisation but the difference between the Mitchell affair and the examples you quote from other jobs is that in the latter it was individual wrongdoing whereas in the former groups of officers colluded in falsification over the Downing St. events and then the meeting with the west midlands police federation.

[TonyR]

No one expects perfection from any organisation but the difference between the Mitchell affair and the examples you quote from other jobs is that in the latter it was individual wrongdoing whereas in the former groups of officers colluded in falsification over the Downing St. events and then the meeting with the west midlands police federation.

The problem I have with the "only a small number of bad apples" theory is, if those apples are so rare, how did so many manage to all turn up together in an elite Diplomatic Protection unit on the Downing St gate and how did the Police Federation manage to add to that by bringing three of them together to visit Mitchell in his constituency? You would expect if they were rare that in any random selection of officers you would have no more than one willing to go along with such a proposal, not seemingly all of them. I'm afraid the statistics seem to be saying bad apples are very common or that there is an institutional problem.

[Phil Fouracre]

Institutionalised, never! Do I remember correctly, the claim about institutionalised racism In the Met? Not that long ago.

[TonyR]

The transcript of the police meeting with AM makes very amusing reading given what we now know. Especially the importance they attach to police officers telling the truth before they go out in front of the cameras and .......[cont on p96]

[thirdcrank]

According to earlier media reports, the prosecution arising from this incident was due to be heard in the Crown Court today. While I was looking for news, I came across this older report in the Independent, which includes a complete version of the CPS's statement about its decisionaking.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64746.html

In terms of what prompted this thread - cyclists being required to use the pedestrians' gate - this bit of the CPS's statement deals with it:

Downing Street is a high-risk target that is guarded at all times by armed police officers and protected by two pairs of main security gates. A legal order made in 2008 because of the fear of terrorist attack means that no-one may use the street unless they are authorised or directed by a police officer. Officers were instructed only to open the main gates for motor vehicles and there was a publicised policy to that effect.

I presume that "publicised" implies more publicity than "published."

With regard to what I presume is the imminent trial, I'll quote this from the same CPS statement:

PC Keith Wallis now stands accused of a criminal offence and is entitled to a fair trial. Care should be taken that nothing is reported which may prejudice his trial.

[BeeKeeper]

I made the observation on why they would only open the gates for motor vehicle in an earlier post somewhere. Having had some responsibility for facilities over the years it is a no brainer to me. The principal is you never lower your defences more than is necessary.

[TonyR]

The principal is you never lower your defences more than is necessary.

So don't open the gates for motor vehicles then. Or are you saying travelling by bike is not necessary but by car is?

[meic]

Today, unusually, for once I agree with a Judge.