The second is the leaked statement from an officer actually on duty that says
After several refusals Mr MITCHELL got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him.Note the same ploddish capitalisation.
There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said: “Best you learn your f—— place…you don’t run this f—— government…You’re f—— plebs.” The members of public looked visibly shocked and I was somewhat taken aback by the language used and the view expressed by a senior government official. I can not say if this statement was aimed at me individually, or the officers present or the police service as a whole.
As BE points out below, this officer is lying. There were no members of the public at the gates - and certainly not a fictional Chinese man and his nephew.
14 comments:
The whole thing doesn't scan. Poor English and substandard in every way. This officer, should be sacked for undeniably wielding a pernicious and grinding axe.
So, not only were Plod trying to treat an MP & guvmint official the same way as they do the rest of us ..."You can wait, now matter how urgent or important, we're in charge & don't you ever forget it!"
But. They were doing a classic "fit-up" to make sure someone had a record....
After this, can any of them be trusted?
Thanks for the mention!
I hadn't read that email until now, it looks childishly obviously a police-written statement. Did the original investigation of the allegations have a copy?
"After this, can any of them be trusted?"
That's the scary question. Is there a culture of making stuff up? It seems to have been shockingly easy for these two to agree to collude. Were they friends?
I am interested to know whether Mr Mitchell recalled being threatened with arrest. As I understand it a Judge recently ruled that a policeman cannot arrest someone for swearing at him unless someone other than the policeman is offended or shocked by what is said. The Judge's reasonable justification being that no policeman truly has an attack of the vapours when they hear crude language.
With this in mind the events rather cascade out in logical sequence.
1. Policeman is offended by MP's crude and condescending remarks.
2. Policeman threatens MP with Section 5 arrest.
3. Policeman realises threatening to arrest cabinet members without due cause might affect pension.
4. Policeman covers self with imagined but plausible outraged bystanders.
5. Policeman embellishes what MP said to help justify threat of arrest.
6. Policeman and colleague agree pocket book statement.
7. policemen realises the shit is hitting the fan big style and contacts another colleague to supply the outraged witness bystander e-mail.
Why did the fake numpty include all that additional bollocks in the statement? If I'd seen something so heinous as to want to complain to my MP (I complain to my MP quite often) I wouldn't include nonsense about my nephew thinking it was BORIS. My email would have been a three liner. If you are going to make shit up at least do it convincingly.
(I complain to my MP quite often)
Ahh..So you're the one.
@BE.
The letter is an calculated attempt to hang a Section 5 public order offense on Mitchell. It contains a positive identification and lengthy evidence of alarm and distress inflicted on a member of the public.
The rest of the florid drivel is trying to dilute this clear intent.
"from Hong Kong" does not necessarily mean Chinese. Could be ex-pat WASP.
Clearly this email was deliberately written in the style of a person who would not have been raised the UK.
What gives it away is the word 'pushbike', an informal term for a bycycle, a word only used in Britain and virtually redundant.
Basic stuff.
Steve
Alas, such a duff fake email too: "PLEBES" indeed. Pitiful stuff, infantile. I fear this confirms my impression of the average plod's calibre, based on some personal experience but also on quite a long time spent teaching teenagers: the ones who were keen to join the police were never, ever the brightest in the class, to say the least.
This also raises the Q of "Section 5 of the Public Order Act"
Which has got to go .....
Section 4A would have been better....just sayin'
A conscientious fellow at Mr Worstall's gaff has located a Telegraph article about the Appeal Court ruling I mentioned above...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8903177/Judge-its-no-crime-to-swear-at-police-they-are-used-to-it.html
You can read the judgement, which is better.
IF there had been people near that WOULD have been offended or distressed by the language then the conviction would have held.
Their conviction was quashed not because the police were not/could not be offended, but because none of those present were likely to have been offended.
Section 4A would have been better !
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/daniel-harvey-v-dpp.pdf
Post a Comment