?







You don't seem to get it. If you had denied using the words the police wouldn't have let up on you either.

Yes, because this obviously a great big stitch up by the police trying to get a tory isn’t it. All a big conspiracy from them,



Except there was no need for Mr Mitchell to behave as he admits he did, which was bad, and unnecessary, and uncalled for, and pointless and entirely of his own making, and entirely bad enough and made no worse because he was alleged to have said the word pleb. The police didnt cause that, they didnt engineer that, they arent responsible for that at all. In fact the police officers involved have said to their superiors that one of the reasons they made any report at all, was because Mitchell threatened to take it further (as he admits he threatened), it was he who thought that him swearing at the officers, was the officers fault, he thought that the officers asking him to follow the correct rules was beneath him and worthy of the police being reprimanded, he who threatened to use the political power he had to punish the police officers for asking him to follow the rules he was supposed to be following.



That’s the point you don’t seem to get, the acceptability of Mitchells behaviour isn’t dependent on whether or not he said pleb, any more than it is dependent on whether or not he said kakapoopoomeaniehead. The behaviour that he accepts was his, was bad enough and far below the minimum expected of a senior government minister.

Because there is a difference between muttering one swear word 'I thought you guys were supposed to f'ing' help us'



to



"Best you learn your f'ing place. You don't run this f'ing government. You're f'ing plebs"



One is more serious than the other.

Not really,



Not when you are admitting saying,



‘I thought you guys were supposed to be f@cking helping us and you haven’t heard the last of this’



That simply highlights the utter ridiculousness of the whole situation, people are focussing on whether or not he said the word 'pleb' and completely ignoring the fact he admits to threatening to use his political power to gain retribution on two police officers simply doing their jobs.

Of course there is a difference between saying 3 swear words and a direct insult - pleb, to just one.



Where did he threaten to use his political power to gain retribution? I think you are somewhat exaggerating.

Are we pretending that his saying ‘ you haven’t heard the last of this’ was an invitation to tea and petit fours?



If you want to ignore the fairly clearly implied threat within the statement ‘you haven’t heard the last of this’ then there really is no point going on as your tribal politics are clearly blinding you.

Anyone could say that phrase, it doesn't mean he was looking to use political power to gain retribution - that is just made up rubbish.



The 'fairly clearly implied threat' - erm what?

The phrase 'Im the prime minister of the united kingdom and I will secretly have you murdered by MI5' could be said by anyone, it takes on a more sinister tone if it were the prime minister saying it.

Im not sure how you needed this explained to you, but that would be a threat, which was implied, fairly clearly. HTH

It is? Where exactly?



A quick search using the words "Andrew Mitchell to sue" throws up absolutley nothingg

Please tell me where Mitchell has said 'I'm a cabinet minister and I will be getting you sacked in the morning' or words to that effect?



Just didn't happen.

It was reported on the front page of The Sunday Times yesterday.

If you want to pretend saying 'you havent heard the last of this' isnt a threat then go ahead, you will look like a moron but crack on.



Meanwhile the rest of world see's the almost cartoonish image of someone uttering that threat.