Andrew Mitchell MP

[Flinders]

No, because my access wasn't being 'fettered', as I could get through the small gate faster anyway.

unˈfettered, adj.
Etymology: un- prefix1 8: compare Swedish ofjettrad.

a. Not confined or restrained by fetters. Chiefly in fig. use: Unrestrained, unrestricted (as unfettered press, etc.).
Source: OED

So he wasn't unfettered, he was being restricted to getting off the bike and using only the small gate not cycling through the main gate

His access in absolute terms was not fettered, as he had access through the small gate. His access through the large gate may have been fettered, but his access to and from Downing Street was not.
And I honestly can't see anyone with any common sense preferring to ride through the gates but having to wait longer for them to be opened over going straight through the small gate faster. Either way your feet touch the ground.

[thirdcrank]

Does anybody really suppose that the legal niceties weren't examined in close detail by several teams of lawyers, instructed by more clients than Andrew Mitchell? Had there been any real grounds for saying that the officer acted unlawfully or improperly, there would have been proceedings of some sort:

eg:-
Misconduct in a public office: imprisonment
Unlawful detention etc: civil damages
Abuse of authority: dismissal or other disciplinary sanction.

Anybody who doesn't believe me need only consider what happened to other police officers who were investigated in the aftermath.

These things need considering in the setting of the time when they occurred. eg At that time the Metropolitan Commissioner was fighting to save his own job and this added to his woes. Reports suggest that an incident room of some thirty officers was set up to investigate this, and I don't think any whitewash brushes were included in their kit.

[TonyR]

A few thoughts:
1. My understanding is that the Chief Whip is not a cabinet minister though is somebody who attends cabinet. There would be no justification for the position being a minister as they are responsible only for party discipline/management and have nothing to do with policy (other than advising on internal party aspects). So the note 11.2 obove would not have applied as it specifically states "Cabinet ministers" (and "also attending" does not make them a member of the cabinet).
2. "at any entry point" is not specific as it could be interpreted to refer to an "end" of the street rather than a specific gate.
3. It is unclear if Civil Servant 2 is authorised to set security policy. They may have written complaining but who knows if they have responsibility for actually setting policy.

So in my opinion (based on no special knowledge) is that the note 11.2 would not have applied to Mitchell and even so, he was permitted "unfettered access".

A few responses.

1. If you read what was written by Civil Servant 2 it says "members of cabinet" should be allowed unfettered access. The Chief Whip is a member of cabinet. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Wh ... ed_Kingdom

2. It doesn't really matter. If you are given unfettered access to a building it means you can use the front door and lift and not be restricted to the side door and back stairs. If he had unfettered access he should be allowed through the pedestrian gate, the side gate or the main gate as he wished.

3. I would have if they had no authority it would either not be included or it would have had a footnote to say that they had no authority or that the police had rejected the instructions because the author had no authority. The fact that they didn't and it was written as an instruction and reminder of an instruction tends to indicate they did have the authority.

[TonyR]

Civil Servant 2 wrote that ‘members of HM cabinet are entitled to unfettered access to Downing Street any time day or night and at any entry point’.

There is only one entry point into Downing Street at that position. Quoting from you does not state which gate should be used.
So the rule about the road gate still stands.
Is that keeping up?

No because unfettered means they can use any gate and there are several to choose from there. He could have chosen from the pedestrian gate, the side gate he went out through or the main gate and unfettered means its his choice not the restrictive choice of someone else. Unfettered means he could have chosen to pole vault over the fence if he wished.

From a security point of view only ministerial vehicles kept in a secure garage should be allowed down there as anything else is a bomb threat to Downing Street.
Even bikes can be so as it is possible to stop the seat post being blown out as it can be secured. Shown by the threads on here about stuck seat posts.

Well from experience I can tell you that Brommies belonging to a member of the public are quite welcome in and out of Downing Street so I'm sure bicycles owned by members of the cabinet are too.

[AlaninWales]

I dare say the highly paid legal team (as TC says) employed by AM were able to distinguish between the two different English words "access" and "egress". Apparently even the police officer was able to do so, despite the Judge's reported remark that he had not the wit to make up the exchange in question.

[Edwards]

No because unfettered means they can use any gate and there are several to choose from there. He could have chosen from the pedestrian gate, the side gate he went out through or the main gate and unfettered means its his choice not the restrictive choice of someone else. Unfettered means he could have chosen to pole vault over the fence if he wished.

Pole vaulting is getting stupid as that is not a authorised access point. Ps fence is not a gate.

As you have already shown your lack of understanding about security issues (FOI request) I will explain again.
An authorised access point does not state which gate (you have not shown a definitive statement showing which gate). As you say he can enter by any access point even the one used by the cleaners.

We will never see the security policy that would have been written years ago, at least when the troubles in Northern Ireland were a security problem ( when I was in the forces).

[TonyR]

As you have already shown your lack of understanding about security issues (FOI request) I will explain again.
An authorised access point does not state which gate (you have not shown a definitive statement showing which gate). As you say he can enter by any access point even the one used by the cleaners.

But it doesn't say authorised access point, it says unfettered access to Downing Street. Wanting the front door opened so you can come in and being told you have to go round the back and use the tradesman's entrance is not unfettered.

We will never see the security policy that would have been written years ago, at least when the troubles in Northern Ireland were a security problem ( when I was in the forces).

Would they have used the five techniques on Mitchell in your day then?

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
TonyR has put it beter than I have / could. (No joined up writing for over 30 years , and a not so good secondary education) So my last post was a bit back to front.

Very frustrating when your dog gets torn to shreds and you go to the dog warden and they say go to police and the police say go to dog warden

They could put up a sign barring certain use of those specific entrances / exits by specific vehicles and say no exception except with a note / pass from Num 10.

The written word can be interpreted in different ways by different people.
If he was allowed before and then denied, this is maybe where the frustration started.
thirdcrank I was trying to say that if A M was previously allowed, then he was not, whether jobsworth or just interpretation of the written policy whatever, this type of vagueness gets everyone goat.
Easy to say in hindsight keep cool, I get into trouble last when I admitted my petty silly crime and got a severe hidding
The last time I spoke with an EX police guy he said say nothing, I wish now I was not so honest.....................
Thats comes from my almost victorian parents who would cane you if you just opened you mouth........

[thirdcrank]

On the recent thread "Lowlifes and crims."

viewtopic.php?p=841988#p841988

NATURAL ANKLING

It does you credit that your reaction is empathy: I know how he feels, rather than schadenfreude: now he knows how I feel.

[Penfolds11]

Heard on the radio this morning, that it was Macmillan who brought in the system of ministerial cars so the "Mitchell Situation" wouldn't ever occur.

Why wasn't he "protected" from the police by using a ministerial car?

If he'd used the Cycle To Work scheme he'd have had a ministerial bike with (one hopes) the same rights.






Yes, I have seen the later posts about the gates not being opened for bikes on security grounds...

[thirdcrank]

This case drags on as the bills are totted up and argued over. The sums at issue are in eye-watering territory

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... newspapers

The "toxic" nature of the "P" word was that it implied a "them and us" attitude but a society divided by class has been exposed IMO. The system under which this case has been partially decided is available only to people with very deep pockets, or the backing of an organisation with the necessary funds. Unless everybody can use the system in practical terms, rather than theoretically, then it cannot serve any wider good.

There have been other issues raised which seem to have caused less comment but which also illustrate a divided society. eg This has largely centred on the word of one person against another. Historically, many people who I'll characterise here as plebs have not been believed when it was their word against that of a police officer. One of Andrew Mitchell's closest supporters David Davis, proposed that the police should be fitted with cameras to record evidence to prevent this type of situation in future. Fair enough, but why wait until an incident occurs which involves somebody of higher status than tends to be the case?

[reohn2]

The corruption and lies, by 'plebs' and the 'upper classes' knows no bounds it seems .

[Psamathe]

Certainly some of Mitchell's high bills are because he refused a pre-trial settlement with the Sun. I'm sure I read somewhere that the court considered the offered settlement reasonable (seeing as the Sun would have paid Mitchell money and the court then found against Mitchell).

So he had the (probably many) opportunities to "win" and without the costs he is now becoming liable for (having then "lost"). So, in my opinion, nobody to blame but himself.

Ian

[TonyR]

Certainly some of Mitchell's high bills are because he refused a pre-trial settlement with the Sun. I'm sure I read somewhere that the court considered the offered settlement reasonable (seeing as the Sun would have paid Mitchell money and the court then found against Mitchell).

So he had the (probably many) opportunities to "win" and without the costs he is now becoming liable for (having then "lost"). So, in my opinion, nobody to blame but himself.

Ian

I understood the rejection was because it included no apology from the Sun and even the settlement terms were to be kept secret. As we often see in the cases, vindication is ranked higher by the aggrieved party than the money.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Point of principle.

Some still believe that it is a honour, integrity.