It does now look possible that Andrew Mitchell may have been falsely accused of some of the things he is alleged to have said in September.
And it certainly looks on the basis of last night's Channel 4 investigation that there are questions for the police and Police Federation to answer.
But let's not ignore the fact that Andrew Mitchell agreed he swore at a police officer for a pretty silly reason, which, no doubt, was motivated by his belief that he had a right to have rules bent in his favour.
And let's also not ignore the fact that quite a lot of what has happened appears to have emanated from bitter internal Tory feuds, some of which, no doubt, Mitchell fuelled.
And then let's remember Mitchell gets a right of redress through the media.
And he may get his job back. Many got no such right. Many are the subject of abuse from the very government he served and his programme's of abuse he wanted to drive through parliament. In that context I liked this comment from Jim Grundy on Think Left, today:
Dear Andrew Mitchell
It must be terrible having your reputation damaged, being subject to lies, slanders and deliberately misleading statements that ultimately lead to the loss of your job.
Welcome to the world of hundreds of thousands of public sector workers, those demonised and sacked by your Government.
I think that fair comment.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I had the same thought myself: and also all those “skivers” and “scroungers” who have been villified by this same government and its predecessors. It isn’t nice when it happens to you, is it?
Oh Yes here we go………How many big speeches do you give on here about Justice and yet suddenly when it is about someone you don’t like (ie Tory or Toff) Justice can go fly because after all he is a wrong’ un. In future don’t lecture us about morality!
Frankly though you do the same to democracy, something you endorse as long as people agree with you (ie raise taxes). If they don’t then to you democracy can go hang because it undermines someone else’s democracy (as if they care!).
Hang on – I have said I sympathise
Arguing for consistency is about morality
You clearly don’t get it
I too am disappointed in your comment Richard. I’m a fan of all the good work you do and share and I have no particular interest in Andrew Mitchell except that I had noticed he made a good job of defending the government’s position , protecting overseas development aid when he was the minister in very difficult circumstances.
So his ‘crime’ is to have sworn in the presence of a police officer in frustration when they refused to open the gate for him as they had done on many other occasions.
Your use of the phrase ‘no doubt’ is interesting but sounds to me what some people call a straw man argument.
Peace.
One word answers the aid point: Rwanda
And let me reiterate that I am appalled if he has been framed
But I’m also appalled by the conduct of this government and its systematic abuse of the police, amongst others. Do that for long and you bring out the worst in people. Maybe he has
I think that’s possible
I think it a fair point to make
is it fair to link those points?
I thought so
Picking and choosing which victims to have sympathy for, is a very dangerous game. It’s what leads to “noble cause corruption” where the police cut corners to secure a prosecution, a la Birmingham Six, Hillsborough, Orgreave etc. The moment you start to believe that some victims are more deserving than others, you’re on a slippery slope. I’m very far from a Conservative supporter, but the implications of a Cabinet minister being stitched up by the police are enormous. Because if the police are willing to do this to a person of such power, just imagine what they’ll do to the powerless. Andrew Mitchell deserves your sympathy. Period. By being mealy mouthed you’re aping your critics who find excuses for Starbucks and Amazon.
See my comment just made on this issue
I am sorry if Mitchell has been framed
But he has a lot of apologising to do – he and all the rest in this government. It is they who are pushing people to limits of endurance. He’ll survive this. many of them won’t
Richard, Thanks for your reply but I think you’re trying to justify what was an undignified comment.
Tax Justice Network is surely about peoples’ dignity if it’s about anything. Your comment blames the victim, who in this case (very much appears to be) Andrew Mitchell. Blaming the victim is usually what’s done by the bad guys. eg Hillsborough.
Mitchell’s role over Rwanda is undoubtedly complicated but it is also certainly not clear cut. Rwanda has made huge economic and reconciliation strides under Kagame. Expecting a perfect democracy with the history of the region is unrealistic. I’m not naive about what’s going on in the Congo, but nor have I forgotten what the Hutu did to the Tutsi not very long ago.
On most issues, I disagree with the government, but on there determination to take on the Police Federation, I’ll stand up and cheer. Along with the POA, they’re most reactionary workers’ organisation in the country. The police have been caught lying too often to be deserving of unquestioning respect.
I suppose my real sense is one of disappointment in your comments. I don’t want you to play politics. Your main weapon is your honesty and integrity. Don’t play fast and loose.
My integrity comes from speaking truth to power
Mitchell was abusing his power
That did not in any way justify being abused by the police – as I think looks likely to have happened
But I am entirely within my rights to wonder why anyone might have been driven to think such n appropriate crib desirable
To not do so would be to avoid a vital issue on abuse – and I am quite convinced that this government is abusing ordinary people
I o no think it political to say that. I call it honesty. But of course you can disagree – and I’ll respect you if you do
Take-on the police federation ?
You surely don’t mean that toothless organisation that represents the police federation ?
What can they do, can they emulate RMT and strike ?
No.
Work to rule ?
No, that is up to individual officers to decline things like firearms training and similar for other finctions, such as civil unrest training etc. Which they can do as they are not part of the basic job.
No training = not allowed to do that particular job if needed.
After all….other jobs/careers are protected by emplyment law…not the police.
Outside the armed forces (and many in the police are ex-forces) there are not that many jobs where you can be required to work 12-hour night shifts for nearly a month…..in fact in ordinary jobs night-shift workers cannot work more than an allowed amount of hours…and not more than 48 hours a week anyway….
Have a happy Christmas…..80% of the remaining serving officers (up to, and including, inspector) will be working over this festive period. Those over inspector are rarely seen outside of 0800-1600 Mon-Fri.
Oh, and the allegations that the previous allegations are, allegedly, wrong/fabricated/dreamt-up, are still just that…allegations.
Look at the footage of cctv handed-out…then look at the traffic in the bacjground….funny how a person is there one second, and gone the next.
I admit I am bemused why it has taken so long for this to be produced
Anyone explain that?
But time delay can explain traffic gaps
If Andrew Mitchell has been set up, then of course I have sympathy for him.
However, the fact remains that he was abusive and used foul language, which he has admitted, in the alleged presence of at least one member of the public. Similar actions at a football ground could have led to his arrest under s5 Public Order Act 1986.
The Police Federation have commented as follows:-
“It is important to note that we called for a full inquiry at the time of the original incident.
“This was declined by both New Scotland Yard and Downing Street.
“We welcome and agree with Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe’s comments that, despite any questions that have arisen, there is no reason to doubt the accounts of officers directly involved in the incident.”
Has anyone challenged Channel 4’s alleged CCTV footage? I know it is a very remote possibility, but it is not impossible to doctor video evidence!
Until the police enquiry, which will be most thorough, is complete it is best to reserve judgement.
I’m willing to reserve judgement on it all – bar the fact that he has been destroying public services, including the police service
Richard,
I dislike what he stands for. The contempt for ordinary people. The abuse of privilege. I imagine that he has trodden on many a toe.
This issue is close to my heart as my father was a former police officer and I have some sympathy with JohnM’s comments, because when we were growing up my siblings and I saw our father less often than other children saw their fathers.
I ask you who would want to me one of the first to arrive at the scene of the Harrods bombing in 1983? As they say a policeman’s lost is not a happy one.
Or perhaps the coppers who fitted up the miners at Orgreave, or the coppers who blamed the fans at Hillsborough for 23 years, or those who sent Stefan Kizsko to jail or the coppers who sent the Guildford 4 to prison, or the detectives who couldn’t be bothered to investigate the murder of Stephen Lawrence? I’m absolutely not saying that the police are all bad, but they certainly don’t deserve UNQUESTIONED support. The fact that the police have a difficult job to do, is not the same as saying they are not in need of reform. Examples of police bravery are myriad. But they play our inherent sympathy to try to avoid any change to their structures. The way the Police Federation played politics over Andrew Mitchell, with what looks like a false accusation, aint good.
Agreed. However the police are reflection of the society we live in. There are “bad apples” in all walks of life. Like the forces were used by the Tory government in the 1980s for political purposes.
The Tory Right are now lining up to bash the police before the enquiry has finished.
Of course video footage is never doctored?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/busted-msnbc-doctored-clip-from-romneyryan-rally/
Let’s await the outcome of the enquiry.
How do you justify on the one hand claiming, “the fact remains that he was abusive and used foul language”, and on the other “Until the police enquiry, which will be most thorough, is complete it is best to reserve judgement” ?
There is a world of difference between saying to someone ‘F*** you!’ and ‘I’m f****** angry!’
He’s admitted to being abusive and using foul language
Carol
As I stated above and Richard has confirmed Andrew Mitchell has admitted
being abusive and using foul language.
This may be of interest:-
http://www.footballforums.net/forums/showthread.php/133553-Can-you-be-arrested-for-swearing
and this:-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7918779/Woman-arrested-for-swearing-at-yobs.html
and Boris Johnson adopting a zero tolerance approach:-
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2011/10/04/boris-i-ll-bring-back-arrests-for-swearing-at
There are 30 officers working on this case, a team which I imagine is larger in size than many employed working on some child abduction, rape and murder cases. If the diplomatic protection officers at the scene have fabricated their accounts then quite rightly the law will be enforced and come down on them Iike a ton of bricks.
He used foul and abusive language towards a police officer, a couple of days after 2 unarmed police officers were murdered in a gun and grenade attack. He was right to resign or be sacked, and despite what appears to be a conspiracy by certain police officers to fabricate and embellish their version of events, that does not exonerate Andrew Mitchell.
Don’t you think that linking a completely unrelated and irrelevant tragedy to this, in order to demonise someone (who, I’m guessing, you’re not a fan of) is somewhat crass?
Of course, Andrew Mitchell should have been respectful to the officers. We should all be respectful to police officers and, indeed, anyone else who’s not given us good cause to be anything else. The fact that there had been that tragedy a couple of days previously has no bearing on it at all. To put it another way.. would it have been OK to be disrespectful to the police had the murders not happened?
Further, ‘foul and abusive language’ is not, in itself, something to get all high’n’mighty about. Most people swear, most people are exposed to swearing, and most people are not especially offended by it. What matters is the context. As someone else commented.. there’s a world of difference between a frustrated ‘oh for f*** sake’ and and aggressive ‘f*** you’. If the police lied about what he said then we should probably assume that he didn’t actually say anything particularly objectionable.. otherwise there’d have been no need to lie about it.
I agree with Lee. I think there’s an anti-Tory agenda that sees “their enemy as my friend.” But the thought that the PF can even consider conspiring to destroy the career of a Cabinet Minister is scary scary stuff.
Those who ignore that simple fact, in order to make crappy political points about Mitchell are missing the woods from the trees. The PF didn’t care which party Mitchell came from. They acted in a way, that they were confident they’d get away with fitting up a Cabinet Minister. Your political party might be next.
And anyway, we’ve all sworn inappropriately. It’s not per se a resigning matter. Although I’d love to see this Government resign en-mass because of their management of the economy, I want that to happen democratically.
I agree re the police
I happen to think this cannot be disconnected from what the Tories are doing