On the evening of 19th September the chief whip Andrew Mitchell toddled out of No. 10, and trundled with his bike up to the security gates at the end of Downing Street. It is common ground that he asked to be let through. It is common ground that the policeman refused and asked him to use the side gate.
There the common ground ends. According a leaked police log which appeared in the papers a few days later, Mitchell lost it, big time. He, being a member of the uncaring cabal of semi aristocratic millionaires that runs the country, railed against the humble police men, who were merely doing their duty.
According to a police log leaked to the Telegraph five days later, he told the police to “learn your f****** place”; that they didn’t “run this f****** government”, and perhaps most damaging, that they were “f****** plebs”.
This account matched an email which had been sent to Mitchell’s Deputy from a “member of the public” who claimed to have witnessed the incident, recognised Mitchell (as you do) and reported the shocked faces of the gathered crowds.
Mitchell’s version is rather different. After muttering an exasperated expletive along the lines of “Oh f******g hell, I thought you guys were there to help us!”, Mitchell did what was asked, and meekly cycled off into the night, doubtless back to his enormous house in Versailles and/or Gstaad.
Mitchell, then, has been pilloried in the Press and by the Police Federation as the epitome of the Feudal Class which, to be fair, does have a strong grip of the Cabinet and High Office, swigging champers and chomping on foie gras as the poor starve, à la Les Miserables.
The Sun had a field day. The Police Federation launched its “Pleb” T-shirts and sweat shirts. They attended mob handed at his constituency to demand an explanation. And afterwards a bolshie cop railed at the intransigence of Mitchell, who had refused to give one at the meeting! Really?
Which is a bit unfortunate, really, as Mitchell’s party rep who attended the meeting recorded it. And he gave a very full and clear explanation of what his version of events was. Hmmmm…oh dear.
Last night’s excellent Channel 4 “Dispatches” investigation was fascinating and possibly revealing watching. It looks to me like Mitchell, possibly with the help of someone at the heart of government has decided to hit back with something that the lads and lasses in blue sometimes overlook. Namely, evidence.
Of course Downing Street and beyond are heavily covered by CCTV. Someone in the Cabinet Office has made this available to Channel 4 and their able and thorough reporters. Although it is not completely 100%, it rather appears that it supports Mitchell’s version of events. And there does not seem to be anyone outside Downing Street at the material time, let alone the shocked and appalled crowds. And that mystery member of the public who recognised Mitchell (although I am bound to say I could not have named him or picked him out of a line up of the other chinless wonders who have a vice like grip on power). Well, it seems he was not an ordinary member of the public at all. He is, in fact, a serving policeman. Oh dear…
And as we speak, a different member of the “No Longer Flying Squad” is already languishing in the cells, accused of not being particularly truthful. Something to do with untrue things….
I find it a bit odd that the Cabinet Office has made rather sensitive CCTV pictures and a possibly confidential email available to Channel 4. What is going on there? Has someone in the heart of government actually “pinged” that Mitchell has, in the time honoured, phrase, been “fitted up”? And found a really good strategy for getting that message out? Has “The Empire” struck back? It is very “The Thick of It”.
Now, nothing has been proved about anyone, one way or the other yet. It is a very interesting conundrum, however. If Mitchell’s version of events is true, he certainly mishandled the “spin” in a spectacular way, appearing evasive and unwilling to answer a straight question. Perhaps this is the problem with modern politicians, they feel they cannot admit a minor mistake, and thus come across as phoney and sneaky, playing with words.
But if it transpires that Mitchell’s version of events is essentially true, it means that members of the serving police force have conspired together to malign and effect the political assassination of a member of the government which they serve. That is not astonishing but it is deeply disturbing, and constitutionally deeply scary.
Since I have no idea of where the truth lies, I can only hope that it is untrue. I support the police and the job they do. It is not too long ago that I lined joined thousands of other along the route of the funeral of one of the fine, good, female Police Officers gunned down by a piece of filth in a Manchester suburb.
But for far too long now the Police Federation and the particularly sinister “ACPO2 have been acting as powerful lobbying groups, going beyond what I am comfortable with. And portraying the government’s ministers as arrogant toffs willing to denigrate ordinary police officers would be a useful political stick with which to beat the government when cuts are on the table.
As I say, I don’t know the truth of any of it. But according to “sources” the Prime Minister – “Flashman” to many of his own Backbenchers – is reported to be “furious”. The “toxic” allegations about high handed and rude toffs are extremely dangerous for the party.
I can’t say that the sight of the somewhat petulant Flashman would fill me with dread. He has the tendency to lose his temper, as he does in the Commons, but that is not strength, but a weakness.
I shall enjoy watching how this plays out. As I say, I have in no way pre-judged the issue. How can I?
But, of course, if I was Cameron, I would probably act with undue, unseemly and probable unwise haste. I believe the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police answers to the Home Secretary. Were I the PM, I would be asking the Home Secretary to invite the Commissioner to an interview with me at No. 10, at 8.30am. Whereupon what I believe is called in military circles “the interview without the coffee” would take place. No coffee, no biscuits, no chair indeed, no temper. I think certain things would be made…very clear.
©Sigillum
Edited by Anna: I too had started writing on this story yesterday, but then held it in abeyance, waiting for the Despatches programme to air. I fell asleep before Despatches aired! For what it is worth, I shall throw my tuppence worth in here too.
The battle of #Plebgate continues, murkier than ever. Tom Newton-Dunn, the original recipient of the ‘Police Report’ that purported to show the words ‘Pleb’ and ‘Moron’ to have been used by Andrew Mitchell, has called the arrest of a Diplomatic Squad Officer ’chilling’ this morning. I am not so sure it is chilling. Elsewhere it is wailed that the arrest of ‘whistleblowers’ is disgraceful and a sign that we live in a police state – you are only a whistleblower when you are telling the truth, not when you are deliberately trying to manipulate public opinion! The Officer is accused of having given a ‘first hand’ account of the affair to an MP, validating the claims. It is now disputed that he was on duty at the time.Would we describe the act of a senior policeman giving a false account of an event to an MP harmless? Would we describe as ‘chilling’ the arrest of a senior policeman who gave a false account of say, the Hillsborough tragedy, to an MP? I suspect not.
However, #Plebgate is not Hillsborough, nobody died, but it is every bit as emotive to those involved. Partly because it has been skillfully handled by a surprising PR team. Jon Gaunt of ‘shock jock’ fame, and his journalist brother Jason, who has long connections with Fleet Street and The Sun. All credit to them, they have made a mark with their new business. It seems that large numbers of Police Federation divisions had signed up with this new enterprise, ‘The Gaunt Brothers’, for lessons in ‘how to handle the media’. As a consequence, there are now high volumes of #Plebgate mugs and t-shirts circulating. They may well become collectors items, reminders of how #Fedgate first started. The Gaunt Brothers ‘megaphone’ Twitter account has been uncharacteristically quiet for the past three days, no longer bragging of their role in #Plebgate.
Up and down the country, junior barristers will be practising their closing speech.
“Members of the jury, you will be aware that police officers are known to have lied to members of parliament; how likely do you think it is that they will have told you, ordinary members of the public, mere plebs if you like, the truth”?
That this PR battle for the hearts and minds of the taxpaying public over the issue of police salary and pensions, something I wholeheartedly supported, may end not just the credibility of police officers trusted ability to tell the truth, but surely the end of a career as a diplomatic protection squad officer, must rank as one of the worst PR exercises in living memory.
My sympathies lie with the rank and file police officers, who have not been well served in this matter.
I am indebted to ‘The Fat Councillor’ for the final word on the matter – couldn’t have summed it up better myself.
A Knights Templar
{ 65 comments }
“My sympathies lie with the rank and file police officers, who have not been well served in this matter.”
I do have some faint sympathy for them, yes. For the ACPO top brass and the blogging police officers so vociferous in leading the charge against ‘this disgraceful Tory government’, I have only one thing to say – if you plot to kill the king, you better kill the king.
You failed. Now god help you.
Good comment Julia. ‘Lions led by donkeys’ comes to mind.
“When you play the game of thrones, you win – or you die” (Queen Cersie Baratheon, Game of Thrones)
A woman after my own heart…
Think you’ll find she was well into incest too Julia…….
I have watched the CCTV footage now, courtesy of Channel 4 and, with respect, it is inconclusive. Mr. Mitchell MAY have said plenty to the police officer escorting him to the pedestrian gate, he certainly had time to utter a couple of choice sentences. He maintains that he did not and the police officers on duty at the gate maintain that he did. The CCTV is no help in that regard, as there is no sound. I thought that Channel 4 were somewhat disengenous to suggest that Mr. Mitchell did not have time to say the sentences which are attributed to him, in view of this fact. I also think it was not strictly correct to say that no members of the public were outside the gate at the material time, because I could clearly see people there.
What utterly defies belief, what has completely baffled me is the reported fact that, allegedly, a serving police officer (who has not revealed his profession has contacted his own MP, who happens to be the Deputy Chief Whip to Mr. Mitchell and has alleged that he was present and has witnessed the whole incident, thereby lending credence to the police officers version of events… AND HAS THEN, REPORTEDLY RETRACTED THIS POSITION WHEN THE CCTV REVEALS HE WAS NOT ACTUALLY THERE, LEADING TO HIS OWN ARREST!!
Ye Gods!!! How stupid could this guy possibly be? Even more baffling is the length of time that these events have taken to emerge. Surely the CCTV could have been examined and this manifest anomaly be brought to the attention of the authorities sooner than this? Mr. Mitchell has lost his job, resigning because he was buried under a ton of public approbrium, but… can it possibly be that he was telling the utter truth all along?
This incident will be used to beat the police over the head with. In a situation in which the police and the Government are at severe loggerheads, police officers do not need this – an apparent rogue police officer trying to make political capital for his own warped reasons.
‘…When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in battalions’.
William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
The officer’s log which was leaked to the press said that he saw a shocked reaction from the public outside the gate. The video shows that is very unlikely to be the case. The police man who claimed to be a member of the public outside the gate was not there at all. His email to the deputy chief whip used words almost identical to those in the police log and said that passers by were shocked by the altercation and may have filmed it.
The correspondence between these two accounts coupled with the fact that one of them was written by a person who falsely claimed to be present and video which does not support them shows at the very least that the log was seen by the email writer. More than that it is prima facie evidence that there may have been an intentional attempt to damage Mitchell. The Police Federation conducted an aggressive campaign to get Mitchell removed from office because of his alleged behaviour. This was part of their campaign to prevent changes to police conditions of service.
McKeever, Chairman of the Police Federation, has now announced an enquiry into his own organisation. The Federation investigating itself is of no use. Bernard Hogan-Howe has said there is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the police log of the incident when there is ample reason to question it.
We need a trustworthy and effective police service. Misconduct by the police at Hilsborough has been covered up for a generation. Now that it has been partly exposed we must ensure that the truth comes out and that more recent questions about police conduct are not allowed to go unexamined.
http://malpoet.wordpress.com/2012/12/21/abolish-the-police-federation/
Sounds llike it should ne investigated by the IPCC. They always get the desired results in spite of the evidnece.
It is – report expected next week.
Surely a job for Investigative Journalist Mark Williams-Thomas. More Exposure.
As an aside Ms Raccoon might be interested to know that during the course of today’s Radio Five, someone was referring to the BBC report about Savilegate that is expected today, and it was mentioned by one interviewee that the editor of Newsnight might well have been justified in pulling the Savile report at the time because other sources are indicating there were people who were also at Duncroft who have reported there was no abuse going on……
Maybe this is not so much the beginning of the end, but rather, the end of the beginning.
The intervewee was Rod Liddle, I think
Another ‘Savile related’ arrest of a geriatric at 6.30am this morning, must have been worried he’d get up early to collect his pension and they’d miss him……
@ Another ‘Savile related’ arrest of a geriatric at 6.30am this morning @
… The dawn raids are ludicrous aren’t they. Quotes from neighbours are that he has been out of the country and only returned recently but was expecting trouble, so what’s the big drama? He wouldn’t have come back if he was actually worried about this Pantomime, but it still can’t be very pleasant.
I was reading that many Journalists have been being arrested like this recently too.
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/accused-least-46-journalists-arrested-uk-police-last-16-months
I notice all the other old Savile Row men that we were expecting to be re-arrested this month have now been re-bailed until February and March next year. I imagine the coppers are hoping the poor old sods might die first, and then the full majesty of the law can prevail.
Where is MWT these days? This must have sent him scrambling even further into the bushes.
@ Where is MWT these days? @
He’s in the Pollard Report – keeping the police and the meeja in perfect harmony…. ;-D
“On 25 November Mr Williams-Thomas told Mr Jones that Surrey Police had confirmed to him, off the record, that they had indeed investigated Savile.
That was a big step forward. Mr Jones immediately passed the news on to Mr Rippon.”
The following blog has some text of the email that was sent to John Randall:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2012/12/was-andrew-mitchell-framed/
I ask you, does the following sound like a statement from an actual human being? I suggest it does not.
“I was with my nephew and was hoping to catch a glance of a famous politician. Other tourists standing with us were also shocked and some were even inadvertently filming the incident … I, having a keen interest in politics and the Conservative party, knew it was Andrew Mitchell, MP for Sutton Coldfield….”
How do you ‘inadvertently’ film an event?!?
I suppose the tourists could have been eagerly awaiting the appearance of a senior politician, and immediately started recording when they saw Andrew Mitchell on his bike. They must have been politician-spotters, and were desperately excited to see the man who was not only Tory Chief Whip, but the MP for Sutton Coldfield as well. They just wanted to record him cycling, but inadvertently recorded him swearing at the police.
That must be the explanation.
LOL!
And just try filming the plod and watch them respond with a cheeky grin! much less at one of the most sensitve security locations in the country.
Cameron executed the cunt – it didn’t matter what for, the guy wanted him killed and he took his opportunity. Geez, when Mitchell becomes Lazarus, you know the fan’s covered in shit.
I would have thought that the Met., an organization previously so well-equipped in those dark arts usually found in the back room of a decent tailor, would have made a fairer fist of ‘fitting up’ Mr. Mitchell than they clearly have. On the other hand, the tactic worked; the party conference hi-jacked, the Chief Whip disgraced, the damage wrought in the polls probably irreversible and Cameron buggered either way – looking weak for getting rid of Mitchell or looking weak unless heads roll and guts are seen on the Downing Street carpet.
I watched the Channel 4 piece on this with some interest and I have to say that Mr. Michael Crick has rather gone up in my estimation – no wonder Newsnight got rid of him. But the matter of the knowledge of the CCTV footage was mentioned; apparently, this has been circulating ‘in government circles’ for some time. In which case, why was it necessary for Mitchell to go in the first place?
For it is clear that the footage discounts the ‘Police log’ by at least 90% and the ‘smoking e-mail’, reflecting (almost verbatim) that log, sent by a man who was apparently there with his ‘nephew’ (nice touch, but the pair are curiously absent from the video, which is unedited according to the auto-clock) rather over-eggs the pudding, which is starting to smell very, very bad.
This is a very serious matter, and not merely because it has backfired. If the plods have a view that the government dislikes them, then this episode hardly helps their case. We are all tired of swaggering thugs dressed up as paramilitaries, we are all tired of ‘political’ Chief Constables, of speeding (and very badly-driven) police cars killing people and we are particularly tired of hearing, ad nauseam, of ‘the police’s view of the law’.
J.A. Jolowicz likened discussing law with a policeman to “‘a hydrostatistician conversing with a plumber.”
But never forget that we draw our police recruits, essentially, from the criminal classes, so we should not be too surprised at what we find in dark corners…
To add to Julia’s pithy comment: “If you are planning to sell the bearskin, first remember to kill the bear…”
Oooh, I shall remember that one!!
It’s appropriate, isn’t it? It’s a Jewish saying, with roots in the Carpathians, from just before the pogroms…
It does all look a bit amateurish, which begs the question why is it taking so long to sort out?
Regardless of what Mitchell did or didn’t do, there was every opportunity for the officers to warn of or take action at the time.
It surely isn’t difficult to ask why the verbatim log was compiled, when, where, and who had opportunity to leak it.
As for the alleged witness report, how would anybody expect to get away with that.
The police have very little time on this.
They need to be on the high ground, regardless of where they spend there working hours, and their unions need to be seen for what they are.
Old fashioned me, I know.
My impression is that it was said at the start of the C4 News that Mitchell asked for and got the CCTV episode that related to him as a Freedom of Information request. So he then presumably passed it to Crick.
The correct response is to appoint Mitchell Home Secretary with a free hand to sort out the police.
As other cases have shown [Tomlinson] the police have been remarkably slow to accept that they cannot get away with lying as they could in the past.
In retrospect I think we should have noticed that the media had failed to find any of the members of the public who supposedly witnessed and were shocked this affair.
This is what you get when the police are run by a private unaccountable company, they end up thinking their word is the law when it’s not.
Move along please, nothing to see here.
Anyone seen Tom Watson? Oooh, look, over there – shiny, shiny things!!
We all know that the upper echelons of the police ‘service’ (ACPO, Chief Constables etc) are utterly corrupt, using whatever mechanisms are available to them to further their own ends (e.g. News International, Hillsborough, mystery ‘resignations’ with pension etc).
It now seems that the Police Federation, the representatives of the lower orders of Plod, have learnt from the bosses and are similarly prepared to engineer ‘evidence’ to suit their needs.
Somewhere squeezed in between, there is probably a single, solitary copper trying to do a good job of upholding the law in a decent and honourable manner with no view to his personal aggrandisement. Not met him yet.
Corporate Stakeholders ladies and gentlemen, Stakeholder Communities….
My council is only a one third say in matters assigned to the council, the other two thirds are Irene and James Stuart Nevison, as one third share, the other to Barnfield Construction. Clearly the two corporate interests dwarf the one third share by the elected councillors.
The Nevisons are a front for Prince Charles.
Their we have the local political head with Lancashire County Council, now owned in its entirety by the Blues and Twos Credit Union, its assets and liabilities, beholden to the Constabulary.
We then have all local Stakeholders making up THE COMMUNITY, not as we mortals are want to believe our communities, made up of the largest employers and financial players in each designated community, in most cases this is the Asda and the Tesco, hence the constant rise in local rents which demolishes the competition in the town centres.
The Pcc’s must be moving to overall control and given the constabulary today controls Lancashire County Council, then the county council will move as the PCC’s dictate.
On that basis we do need to recognise the fact, through the police, the masonic orders and offshoots are undermining our institutions, the fact we are better informed with the Mitchell scenario as to the comfort of this corporate network within our institutions, we had better take note here.
The constabularies are oathed to the Queen, if the crown dissolves we will be left under a full fascist police dictatorship, anyone wish to argue that they are not already trained to such endeavours?
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2011/12/lancashire-county-council-owned-blues-twos-credit-union/
And what are Lancashire County Council readying for :
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2011/12/lancashire-schools-preperation-deceased-pupils/
It is like the Gestapo moving in and activating their system in readiness for the takeover by the SS
have we seen what was actually meant to be the first shot in a coup?
http://300wordtheses.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/plebgate-mischief-or-coup-detat.html
I thought all this had been resolved by Mr Mitchell having spoken to the Officers and apologising for his words. He obviously said something but the matter was finished there. The Officers were happy (if that is the right word) and the matter considered closed by those directly involved.
It’s a tragedy for the decent Police Officers who work hard and get blamed for colleagues wrong-doings. On the basis that some women make false allegations of rape we don’t condemn all women who allege rape. If this Officer is found to have lied then good riddance and let’s hope his replacement (if the government permit one) will do better.
On the information that the Police Federation had to hand, they had to be seen to stand up for their members. Especially as a lot of Police appear deeply unhappy with them. Every profession has its bad apples and i am looking forward to finding out why the Met. Commissioner is standing behind his Officers on this one.
Or is the only way to an honest police force by recruiting Politicians into the job?
@Robert Edwards….. You should have given the eulogy for the murdered Policewomen and reminded their families that they were recruited from the criminal classes.
I said ‘essentially’. That does not mean all, by any means. Of course it doesn’t.
“I knew I should have bought popcorn shares” will now ruin Xmas for many of us.
What has become of my country? It cannot fall much further.
This
There are two aspects to this:
Did Mitchell abuse the Officers on the gates?
Was it witnessed by a man who then emailed his MP?
In respect of the first question I think that he did. The CCTV is inconclusive, he had time to utter the abuse and there are people in the vicinity of the gate. There is no reason to believe that the Officer on the gate made a false report, or that the report of the incident leaked to the press isn’t the report submitted by the Officer.
In respect of the second question, the evidence suggests that it wasn’t. Even worse, it would appear that the sender of the email is a member of the same squad that guards the gates who wasn’t there at the time. It seems that he made an amateurish attempt to bring the incident to a wider audience.
This would seem to be the Commissioner’s position too.
The relationship between the Tories, the party of law and order, and the Police is at an all time low. It is worth asking why would any Officer put his career and livelihood at risk and the answer has to be found in the total lack of trust and confidence many members of the Police have in the Government after the constant cynical attacks on pay and conditions of service – not just those elements that affect the Officer’s salary and pension but the cutbacks that are dangerously reducing the ability of the Police to police.
The last serious attack on Police pay and conditions was in the 1990s, the Sheehy inquiry. Then the Police Federation mobilised sufficient response for the proposals to be dropped. Many of today’s senior Tories were Ministerial aides at the time who, in effect, got a bloody nose. I believe Cameron was closely connected to Kenneth Clarke, the Home Secretary who commissioned the Sheehy inquiry. They do say revenge is a dish best eaten cold!
I should declare a vested interest. I served in the Met through the 80s and 90s. I was retired on an injury pension as a result of injuries received on duty.
“It is worth asking why would any Officer put his career and livelihood at risk”
Oh, I don’t know. Perhaps because he is stupid? His email is proof that he is sub-literate (standards must have dropped over the last 30 years, is all I can say). Perhaps because he thought he would get away with it. Because they are a law unto themselves. Because they call the public “civilians”, seemingly unaware that they themselves are civilians, because they certainly aren’t military, however much they like to tool up like stormtroopers at the least excuse. Perhaps he did it because he just hates Tories.
The Police in general, and the Met specialist ‘elite’ units in particular, seem to have an ingrained culture of dishonesty. They routinely fiddle their notebooks to cover their tracks and lie for each other. They lied about the Stephen Waldorf shooting. They lied about Harry Stanley. They lied about Jean-Charles de Menezes. They lied about Tomlinson. Going back further to when I was a young(ish) lad there was the organised corruption and collusion of the drugs squad et al back in the 70s. Just to be even handed and not limit matters to the Met, we shouldn’t forget the West Midlands serious crime unit, or Hillsborough, should we? In the latter case literally dozens of notebooks ‘modified’ by senior officers in order to cover up *at best* incompetence and at worst negligence. Just this once I’d like to see a dishonest policeman nailed to the wall, to encourage the others. It would be nice to see a senior officer with Sir Robert Mark’s integrity again too.
Personally I think the Police Federation shouldn’t take it onto themselves to reshuffle the Government, no matter how much the rank and file object to having smaller pensions in future. Get used to it. Everybody else is, so don’t expect we poor sods who pay your wages, the law-abiding members of the public, to make an exception for you lot.
Add the ignoble Leeds City Police in the 1970s to your list, as corrupt a bunch as you could ever hope not to meet – they tried to fit me up once, fortunately I was able to elude them, but many others were not so lucky.
By coincidence, one Jimmy Savile lived in their patch………spooky that.
“The Final Inspection”
The policeman stood and faced his God,
Which must always come to pass.
He hoped his shoes were shining.
Just as brightly as his brass.
“Step forward now, policeman.
How shall I deal with you?
Have you always turned the other cheek?
To My church have you been true?”
The policeman squared his shoulders and said,
“No, Lord, I guess I ain’t,
Because those of us who carry badges
can’t always be a saint.
I’ve had to work most Sundays,
and at times my talk was rough,
and sometimes I’ve been violent,
Because the streets are awfully tough.
But I never took a penny,
That wasn’t mine to keep….
Though I worked a lot of overtime
When the bills got just too steep.
And I never passed a cry for help,
Though at times I shook with fear.
And sometimes, God forgive me,
I’ve wept unmanly tears.
I know I don’t deserve a place
Among the people here.
They never wanted me around
Except to calm their fear.
If you’ve a place for me here,
Lord, It needn’t be so grand.
I never expected or had too much,
But if you don’t…..I’ll understand.
There was silence all around the throne
Where the saints had often trod.
As the policeman waited quietly,
For the judgment of his God.
“Step forward now, policeman,
You’ve borne your burdens well.
Come walk a beat on Heaven’s streets,
You’ve done your time in hell.”
This will be read at my funeral
I did my time in hell and paid the price.
There is no ingrained culture of dishonesty, just ordinary men and women doing a job that requires them to walk towards those things that others walk away from.
Stephen Waldorf – a case of mistaken identity. He was believed to be David Martin, an escaped armed robber who had previously shot a Police Officer. One of the Officers at the scene had previously arrested Martin when Martin had attempted to use firearms against Police
Harry Stanley – Police receive information about an armed man. Mr Stanley was identified from the description given by Police Officers who challenged him. The subsequent shooting has been subject to several inquiries.
Jean Charles de Menzies – The man was believed to be a suicide bomber en route to detonate a bomb. The Officers on the scene had been informed of this but still approached him in this belief putting their own lives at risk to protect others.
Tomlinson – this was indefensible. PC Harwood should never have been recruited with his history and one has to consider that his duty that day of remaining with the vehicle was his boss’ way of keeping him out of the way. Nevertheless I don’t recall Officers lying about this incident.
As to corruption in the 70s, this is well documented and history. Another time, another set of standards. Times have changed
When I was young I totally trusted the police and by and large if you were a law abiding citizen they left you alone and were there if you needed them. I lost that about 20 years ago when we witnessed an incident, the police involved blatantly lied and a charge was brought against a young man who had done nothing more than ask to finish his drink, there was trouble in another bar but nothing in ours and it was within licensing hours. His glass was knocked out of his hand and smashed on the floor, he was then charged with assault with a weapon. He was a decent respectable young man we knew slightly, engaged and waiting to emigrate to Australia so his life would have been ruined. All my husband, myself and two friends could think was it could have our sons, who drank there, and we would never have believed that the police would make up anything and would have assumed they had been in the wrong. Fortunately as we all made complaints and went as witnesses the case was thrown out. Since then I have never trusted the police: It is far worse now since the police seem to have been politicized and have been shown to lie time and again, from Hillsborough, the Stockwell shooting, Tomlinson and now likely Andrew Mitchell. I find it chilling that a Member of any Government could possibly, and it certainly looks that way to me, be fitted up and lied about in what appears to be collusion at best and a conspiracy at worst. What has happened to our country? it scares me.
So… one regrettable, probably unnecessary incident 20 years ago and the entire police service is condemned out of hand. Note the collective term ‘police’ – as if they are all created out of the same mould, all with the same failings and character flaws, none to be trusted. Ever.
No advances in training since that date, no attempts to make the police more diverse and representative of the society from which it is drawn.
No admission that things may have changed, both in society, or in the police service itself.
No. They are all dishonest and corrupt.
Well well! In other words A.C.A.B. “All Coppers Are B*$%@~£”. Not a bigoted and narrow minded view at all!!
You heard it here first!!
As far as I can see things have got worse since then. It was not one policeman, they all colluded to lie about the incident and, as far as I know none protested, it is the dreadful consequences if they had been successful that worried me. The more amusing part of this incident was that the troublemakers who had been arrested in the public bar where the fight took place were put into the police van which was accidentally left unlocked! of course they all took off which did not improve the officers mood. I know there are good, decent officers but they really do need to get rid of the bad apples before any trust is restored. I want to be able to believe what they say is true and reliable, nothing I would like more.
They are not all bastards. But the ones who are do not get weeded out. And too many ‘good’ Policemen seem prepared to cover up for them out of misplaced solidarity.
I was told by serving police constables in the 1990′s that they were recruiting the wrong kind of persons to the service, my experience with the younger ones bears that fact out absolutely.
The police today are trained as if they were in the armed forces in Northern Ireland, they speak and breath military banta.
I have a friend who is a social worker in Swindon, her daughter joined the Met a couple of years ago. Two years in and the reality of the job has softened her idea of what a copper is, but after training they believed what they were trained to believe which was that they had all the power to do as they so fit, the force would back them up.
That is pure specialist armed forces MO, tried and tested in the Northern Irish troubles to match urban warfare in today’s cities and towns.
We might look for reasons why, but the simple fact is a constable only has the power of arrest for breech of the peace within common law, (common sense) if not under arrest, then they have no power to ask questions of you, never mind make demands. Today they act as nothing other than corporate goons collecting cash through the enforcement of statutes which are not the law.
There is no such power as a statutory arrest, but as their oath demands they must upkeep the queens peace, ergo in enforcing statutes the cat is out of the bag somewhat, the queen is not the monarch of the British realm, her realm is that of the corporate and its commercial statutes, to be otherwise, the simple fact is, and what we must face, the constabulary have been acting on their own whims for years outside the constitutional realm, and the queen has done nothing, therefore in not ensuring the upkeep of the realm, the queen would be in treason either way.
This is my understanding of the situation, if it is incorrect I would love to be better informed because whichever way I look at our situation, it comes back to all out treason sanctioned from the very top, with the rest seemingly ignorant of the fact until you remind them, then the whole power game dissolves and in my experience the coppers comply.
It is as though we have all forgotten our heritage, or we have been re-programmed to despise the very format which gave us our very free and cooperative society. An achievement only made possible in the fact we have been sold a lot of lies when it comes to the mandates of our political, judicial and royal office holders, and simply has to be the conclusion of the destruction of our society in the two world wars, it changed mindsets.
Our trust in our systems has been used against us and continues to be used in that manner, but more importantly our society has become sick with apathy and dependence. If we adults cannot remember we are the adults, then I am afraid like Germany, the elites will turn our children against us in order they can fully implement and activate their new world order on these Isles.
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/08/1829-principles-law-enforcement-adopted-british-commonwealth-constabularies/
“…but the simple fact is a constable only has the power of arrest for breech of the peace within common law, (common sense) if not under arrest, then they have no power to ask questions of you, never mind make demands.
There is no such power as a statutory arrest,”
In essence there are two “varieties” of law in the UK. Common Law and Statute Law. Common Law is, in effect, the law developed over years, common usage and precedent. For example murder is (or was) an offence against Common Law, Outraging Public Decency is an offence against Common Law. Statute Law is law passed by Parliament. The Theft Act, Misuse of Drugs Act, Criminal Damage Act, Offences Against The Persons Act are all examples of Statute Law. They have been passed by Parliament and are on the Statute Books. When the Police and Criminal Evidence Act “went live” in 1986 two powers of arrest (POA) were defined:
POA for an arrestable offence. An arrestable offence was one that carried, on first conviction, a term of imprisonment of five years or more. The POA applied to persons found committing, having committed, being about to commit or reasonably suspected thereof and could, under different circumstances be exercised by a member of the public, which of course includes a Police Officer (citizen arrest) or only a Police Officer (generally for the suspicion circumstances)
POA for a summonsable offence. These are the lesser level of offending, driving through a red traffic light, drunk and disorderly, etc. Here the POA can only be used in specific circumstances. If a person refuses their name and address, if the details they give cannot be verified, if the person needs to be taken into custody for his or her own safety, if the person needs to be taken into custody to protect others are the ones that I recall.
These are statutory powers of arrest. Statute passed in Parliament by Her Majesty’s Government as indicated in the Queen’s Speech at the annual opening of Parliament. I fail to see a “corporate or commercial statute” in this process.
The power of arrest to prevent a breach of the peace is a common law power. The Queens Peace being the normal state of society as it should be at any time, it necessarily follows that all offending is a breach of the peace. However not all breaches of the peace are offences against statute law. The most effective use of breach of the peace arrest is at domestic violence calls. He hits her, she calls Police but won’t attend court to give evidence to convict him – she just wants him to stop hitting her, in other words it is impossible to arrest him for an assault under the Offences Against The Persons Act (statute law and possibly an arrestable offence) . A polite request to him to leave the premises normally being met with a volley of verbal use he is then arrested to prevent a breach of the peace. A person so arrested has to be brought before the Magistrate at the first opportunity to show cause why he should not be bound over to keep the peace – ordinarily after a night in the cells he’s quite amenable to this. He accepts the bind over, signs the register and if he reappears in the duration of the bind over he is dealt with for this matter as well. If he refuses to be bound over he’s held in custody until he does accept the bind over.
Although Officers have no power to detain you for the sole purpose of asking questions it is held in Common Law that Officers have the right to approach anybody and ask them questions. If you chose not to co-operate with the Officer than that fact will be considered justification for the Officer’s level of suspicion to increase. At this point the exercise of statutory authority comes into play. So if you’re seen walking away from a known drug address and you refuse to stop to speak to a Police Officer at his request than he would be justified in exercising his statutory powers of stop and search. If you are driving a vehicle on a public road you can be stopped and questioned to establish your ownership of the vehicle and your licence status.
Your argument makes no sense at all.
One thing has occurred to me.
By statutory you might have meant obligatory. There is no obligatory power of arrest, all powers of arrest state that a Constable MAY arrest, none state WILL arrest. The exercise of authority is t the Officer’s discretion, a choice which will be subject to scrutiny long after the event, potentially by the highest courts in the land.
As a side note the Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 did contain an obligatory power of arrest for those found begging, I think that reflects the social climate with many soldiers who had fought in the Napoleonic Wars reduced to begging on their return to England and discharge from the army. That however is the only instance I know where a Police Officer could not use his discretion in exercising his authority.
The silver lining to this particular cloud is how stupid it makes Milimong look with his previous comments…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3R5aZ3BnOPE
Throughout yesterday I don’t think I heard a spokesperson for the Police Federation or a statement, regarding the third man. Imagine if the third man ie ‘member of the public/policeman’ turns out to be a moving light within the Police Federation.
Andrew Mitchell refers to the ‘alledged log book’, which implies the 442 words reproduced by The Telegraph & The Sun may not have come from the official police log book?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUFfDp58yTU
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4556040/Andrew-Mitchell-chief-whip-conservatives-gate-gate-police-log.html
Will The Sun hit back hard to defend its reputation and the credibility of its political editor Tom Newton Dunn?
On another note, I love the names and avatars some contributors come up with
Ich auch, Gildas. The dim contributor is unaware of ‘tells’ and the avatar is reliably substituted for a character with contrary attributes.
Thanks Roy.
I agree as you present is how people understand the law, yet a statute is a rule within a commercial contract, therefore for the rule to be binding one has to enter into a contract before the statute rules are binding. On that basis a statute is never the law, the rules set within the contract are exactly that, agreed rules which govern the contract.
The rules of contract are clear, an offer, a counter offer, leading to an agreement, from that point all statutes within the agreed contract are then binding as if the power of law, keywords…AS IF.
This is why the police demand your name with the commercial title Mr Mrs Miss etc, if you don’t offer the title yourself, they will as soon as you give your name, this shifts the game to one of commerce, a contract, to which anyone can enforce once the contract is gained.
It is a play which traps the spoken word to that of the written word, hence the need for signatures to cement the commercial contract giving the police the right to enforce a commercial contract, without the commercial signature they can only act within the law, as is their oathed mandate.
Once I understood this I used it, it works, the moment you explain you are not a legal entity and demand the constable present oath to show were he has the power to enforce a contract (statute), they bow out, many stating that because you know what you are talking about they let you be.
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/03/constables-power-arrest-statutes/
This includes all traffic offences, as for a copper top stop you in your car without a suspicion you have, or are about to breech the peace, is guilty of obstruction, the only power they have over the highways is to remove obstruction to ensure our rights to the highways as set by the Cornish Trojan King Dunvallo Molmutius in 500 BC, from whom we get Belenus and Brennius and the House of Judah.
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/04/british-rights-highway-molmutine-laws/
All statutes require a legal person to contract with, no legal person no contract, simple. You cannot sue a human only a legal entity can sue and be sued.
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/03/legal-person-nature/
The simple fact is what you have presented is a falsehood played over many years to the point the people believe a statute to be a law, when it is no such thing, however should you claim to be a legal person, then all statutes are indeed binding but not through law, through commercial contract, and the reason we have a shift from Great Britain to the corporate United Kingdom. Great Britain has a constitution with rights for the subjects of the realm to prevent commercial claims against you, the United Kingdom is a corporation with every soul tied to a legal entity and thus a commercial asset of the corporation UK.
You can then be fined for :
litter (when we pay for the council to pick up litter)
Parking (superseding under contract your rights to the highway)
Health & safety (when your rights to ply trade become superseded by commercial rules which unjustly enriches the corporate charitable trusts and big corporations through cost alone)
Taxes levied by corporate entities instead of from civil offices (council tax, corporation tax, stamp duty, inheritance tax,etc)
I believe you get the picture…
There are stark warning for police about false arrest, especially if it is on the say so of another, they are reminded, or where, that to arrest a person they must have the correct evidence because a false arrest will put them in the dock, they use the term peril.. The problem today is the fact the entire Judiciary play along with the game because the crown, in its commercial status, demands it.
I do hear you Roy but the truth when used in the manner I have presented puts the copper back on oath, only common law power exist to arrest a subject and they had better have the evidence to back up their arrest. In order to play the game you presented they have to lie and get the judiciary and solicitors to lie too. And as plebgate is showing…they are comfortable in this methodology, that is until they are caught.It is the way of all secret societies which moves one from open existence to one of subversive, you become it in all you do it becomes your nature.
The proof is in the pudding, as this is expanding in use as brave souls trust the information and use it.
Statutes require a signature to be enforced, and of course before you are fully processed after arrest you sign yourself off as a legal person, thus entering into a legal contract with whatever statutes they wish to levy against the fictitious person you fraudulently claim to be.
Example : assault is assault under common law, under statute it can expand to assault with menace, ABH, GBH etc. More cash for the corporate as to be imprisoned gives the same around 60K of our tax pounds to incarcerate in not a common law jail, but a Naval prison, and the law of the sea becomes exposed as the usurper of land law.
For the greatest proof they require a legal person to hit with statutes over law, we look to the issuance of speeding fines, but it is the case for all statutes that you are ordered, under false pretences to commit a fraud by filling out their forms in block capitals, the language of commerce and in all cases denotes the legal fictitious entity created by the crown at the registration of your birth, ovewr your Christian name which exists under canon law, the very requirement issued by the Bank for International Settlements in 1930.
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/06/demolish-speeding-fines-issuance-penalty-points/
That alone moves one from a Christian entity to an asset of corporate Babylon :
https://www.lifeinthemix.info/2012/08/modern-commercial-law-based-ancient-babylonian-codes/
Roy my good man, it works and as more and more people use it, the less the constabularies can act outside their mandate regardless of what the government may decree, to do so is to breech the oath of the office they hold with the populations consent.
I note that your references are to your own arguments. You are just wrong. I’m not continuing with this, I have to go and watch grass grow
@Belinus: I think you had better go and lie down, old chap…
I can assure you that Criminal (Statute based) law has no relationship to the law relating to Contracts. You are wrong about just about everything on your long list and whilst not wishing to get into a slanging match, I would have thought that if one was to promote one’s ideas about the legal system in England, one should have at least a basic grasp of the facts as they pertain to the subject.
Police Officers have powers at Common Law and by Statute (Act of Parliament). There used to be ‘arrestable offences’, ones which carried a ‘power of arrest’ (sometimes with an added stricture that the Arresting Officer had to be ‘a constable, in uniform’).
This was altered, in 2005, following the enactment (statute law again, mate) of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which fundamentally changed these powers:
The Act introduced changes to the powers of arrest utilised by both “constables” and “other persons” in England and Wales. The term arrestable offence ceased to have effect as, bar a few preserved exemptions, one power of arrest now applies to all offences when the arrest is made by a constable. Where the threshold of an arrestable offence was previously used to enable specific powers of search or powers to delay certain entitlements, these powers are preserved, but the threshold is changed to that of an indictable offence.
Subject to an overriding requirement that an arrest is reasonably required and that no less intrusive way of advancing the investigation is reasonably available, (the “Necessity Test”): the constable may arrest without a warrant anyone who is about to or is in the act of committing an offence, or anyone they have reasonable grounds to suspect of committing or being about to commit an offence. They may also arrest anyone they have reasonable grounds to believe is guilty of an offence they suspect has been committed. These powers to arrest only apply if one or more of the following reasons apply:
1. To enable the name of the person in question to be ascertained (in the case where the constable does not know, and cannot readily ascertain, the person’s name, or has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name given by the person as his name is his “real name”)
2. As reason 1 but in respect of the person’s address
3. To prevent the person in question:
* Causing physical injury to themselves or any other person
* Suffering physical injury
* Causing loss of or damage to property
* Committing an offence against public decency (but only where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person in question)
* Causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway
4. To protect a child or other vulnerable person from the person being arrested
5. To allow the prompt and effective investigation of the offence or of the conduct of the person being arrested
6. To prevent any prosecution for the offence from being hindered by the disappearance of the person being arrested
So theoretically, the police have the power, given the specific situation and circumstances, to detain a person for a great variety of reasons, none of which have to do with a contract…
Your patience is exemplary, Frankie……
Mine’s holding out pretty well, all things considered…
…and mine has just run out!
Quite understandable. I’m considering humane options.
Freeman On The Land innit ! You should see the letters they send to ACPO: ‘By reading this letter you have agreed to pay me the sum of £50,000.’
Thanks for your efforts chaps, I will let it lie at that, it is off the wall…
All the mealy-mouthed Mitchell idiot had to do was to tell us what he had said at the time instead of the weasel words we got from him about not saying the words that were attibuted to him. He brought his downfall upon himself.
If the Police have shafted the government then well done to them. It shows tthe tories that they are not the only ones that hold the power. There has never been much love lost between the cops and the tories.
@ There has never been much love lost between the cops and the tories. @
I thought the story was that the coppers were Maggie’s private army back in the Eighties?
With regards to Mitchell’s pervarications, I felt it was the fact that the Coalition had already allowed the pillorying of the senior officers at the Met about their associations with Murdoch, the fact that the Tories had ripped the scab off Hillsborough, the fact that the Tories had found the police response to the summer rioting hopelessly slow, the fact that the Tories had progressed the criminal process against the bad-tempered copper who pushed the newspaper-seller over…….. etc. etc….
I imagined Dave pulling Andrew aside and saying, “Look Andy, can’t we just let this slide? We do need these fellows at the end of the day you know”. And eventually Mitichell had had enough of dancing on tippy-toes and left.
- When this all flared up, didn’t Mitchell say that he used the word “plod” instead of “pleb”?
- Did he ever say that there were no by-standers present?
- Why did this video footage take so long to surface?
This looks like an attempted cover up.
@ This looks like an attempted cover up. @
Who by? Michael Crick?
Comments on this entry are closed.