Andrew Mitchell and the police

[drew]

Drew,just look back at many of your posts...............moral high ground,smug,righteous.Just a few thoughts that come to mind.
Anyway,enough of that,I generally enjoy reading your posts even if I don't necessarily agree with them all.
I hope you and your family enjoy a good Christmas!
Best wishes from this old moral degenerate!

Cheers, and seasons greetings reciprocated.

 

[drew]

what!!!!!

so what jobs can and cant you cheek coppers in drew? we need a list. its like the old footballers are role models bumkum.

this bloke has had an altercation with another grown man. it may well turn out to be the case that the other man then assisted in a chain of events that got the other bloke out of a very vital and important job. now contrary to most of the people on here i think the latter is the one seriously out of order, not someone who swore at a policeman. if mitchell had been 8 years old then yes he deserves to be punished for swearing at a policeman. if he is an adult man then that reaction is hysterical.

Why would you punish an 8 year old for doing what you consider is perfectly acceptable to a grown man, doesn't make sense!

 

[Dave the OAP]

just arrested someone else over this ,

 

[drew]

Prima facie it appears that 2 officers lied on their report logs, they or others conspired to leak this to the press and another officer either independently or in collusion assisted in discrediting a cabinet minister by lying about witnessing it and not revealing his job.

On top of that the Police Federation appeared to take a very extreme position on this and in calling for the minister to be sacked.

If instead of a chippy toff being the apparent victim it had been, say, Clive Stafford Smith I wonder if so many would be so keen to brush this under the carpet.

Are you suggesting the two officers involved with the original incident lied about what was said or are there others? I didn't think there has been, so far, any conclusive evidence or suggestion, other from Mitchell, that what the two officers reported was said was a lie. Have seen the cctv and his description that it exonerates him but with no audio and the fact backs are to the camera you can't decide one way or another. The inquiry may of course prove otherwise.

 

[Buzzer]

Are you suggesting the two officers involved with the original incident lied about what was said or are there others? I didn't think there has been, so far, any conclusive evidence or suggestion, other from Mitchell, that what the two officers reported was said was a lie. Have seen the cctv and his description that it exonerates him but with no audio and the fact backs are to the camera you can't decide one way or another. The inquiry may of course prove otherwise.

I'm referring to the log that states that members of the public were visibly shocked at his language. I'm presuming that the officers wrote the log and the CCTV shows no witnesses. I may be missing something here but I can't see how they can stand by that statement based on the 3 CCTV cameras showing no groups of witnesses.

 

[The Spanish]

Why would you punish an 8 year old for doing what you consider is perfectly acceptable to a grown man, doesn't make sense!

of course it makes sense! if you caught your 8 year old smoking you wouldnt treat him like he was a bloke in his 4os would you. there are countless other less glib examples but the internets not big enough to put them all up.