By clearly and concisely explaining that the word ‘pleb’ is a massive red herring.

The facts not under dispute is that a senior minister, failed to follow an instruction from the police, and proceeded to swear at them. If Mr Mitchell wants to claim he was ‘stitched up’ with the police claiming he used disrespectful ‘toxic’ language then at some stage he needs to explain why he made it so damn easy by swearing at police, threatening them that it would be taking it further and not just doing what he was told like an normal member of the public.

The whole problem with the is that Mitchell had to resign because he was accused of acting as though he was better than the public and was disrespectful to the police, regardless of whether he said pleb or not, regardless of whether people were watching, regardless of anything else he is trying to argue now, he was, and doesn’t dispute, that he was acting in a manner that would like lead to the arrest of a member of the public and was disrespectful to the police.

The fact he is totally dismissing this, and now has the brassbollox to act as if he is the victim simply makes him appear exactly like the kind of person he is accusing the police of stitching him up to look like.

Read the answer above.


The fact that Cameron is desperately trying to ignore the whole debacle while the press are constantly whipping the story along, having taken both sides to date shows that he doesn't have quite so much control over his close friends in the media as he thinks he had, and that he doesn't seem to have any control over his own senior members who are doing the whipping along nicely themselves.

Unless that is, there is a third agenda and he really does want to indict the Met Police - unlikely given the party's previous but you never know.

I note you use the word "fact(s)" as though you actually know them. You have chosen to believe one side due I assume to your political bias. You fail to acknowledge that your so called "facts" are in fact only allegations made by 2 police officers against a Government Minister. That Mitchell swore is not disputed but he has stated that it was not so much in the face of the officers but muttered "I thought you guys were supposed to f****** help us" as he wheeled his bike into Whitehall. In the current era it would be difficult to claim this was an insult against public decency when the same word can be heard on our TVs most nights.

I do not think you are correct either to claim that Mitchell "failed to follow instructions from the police" as the CCTV footage shows he did go through the pedestrian gate.

You also fail to see that his resignation was brought to a head by the "toxic" email from a "member of the public" that was stated to have witnessed the event. That this "toxic" email has now been proven to be a total lie and "in fact" sent by a police colleague of the two boys in blue at the gate.

The Channel 4 News report has totally devastated the police account as has the CCTV footage. When you add to this the "fact" that someone from the police sent a copy of the police log to the press, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to smell an 'elementary' rat.

The police have plenty of 'form' with regard to lies and falsifying reports and have a 'motive' due to cut backs to police budgets yet you would deny him the chance to state his innocence.

Heaven help us if the press are gagged.

It is well reported that his lawyers are "trawling through more than 1000 articles and dozens of tweets" Maybe internet forums too! He plans to donate any damages to a hospice in his constituency.

This is the false argument you and others have been tricked into.

Whether he said pleb or not is absolutely irrelevant.

His behaviour wasn’t ok, these are facts not disputed, not by anyone, not even him, its why he apologised. He apologised for his behaviour because it was wrong, because it was disrespectful, because he knows he shouldn’t behave like that. Pleb isn’t some magic word, it didn’t make his behaviour any worse, it wasn’t the point which took his behaviour from acceptable to unacceptable,

Mitchell swore at police, he didn’t follow instruction and threatened that ‘this wouldn’t be the last of this’. He doesn’t dispute that version of events. That is what’s wrong. It isn’t a stitch up, he hasn’t been fitted up by the police, this isn’t a trick. This is what happened and nobody disputes this. Nobody tricked him into that, nobody forced him to do it, nobody made it up, he accepts that he did those things.

You say he isnt being given the chance to state his innocence, the reason for this is he accepts he isnt innocent.

Mitchells frankly ridiculous defence seems to be that a silent video proves that he didn’t say a particular word, and therefore a series of events he largely agrees happened, didn’t happen in the way he largely agrees. If Mr Mitchell thinks that swearing at police, threatening them, and not following their instructions is respectful, but calling them a pleb way beyond the bounds of acceptability, he may prove he isn’t an example of the ‘toxic’ image the tories accuse people of portraying of them, but he will also prove he is disrespectful of police officers, a whiner, generally quite stupid, and quite frankly so out of touch he might as well be setting up a branch of the bullingdon club in The Sudan.

Well it's not though is it. The reason the Police wouldn't let up was because he wouldn't admit to using the word pleb.

I think you have confused the police and the media, im not sure how because that isn’t an easy mistake to make.

No, Look at this link and the video embedded half way down. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 Ken Mackaill chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation. "Continued denial of facts recorded" - Ie, use of the word pleb. "Repeated denial of using the words reported in the officers notes" - Ie, the use of the word pleb. He had apologised and that had been accepted but because he wouldn't admit to saying pleb, the police wouldn't let it lie. Would you admit to something you didn't say? So him saying the word pleb is not irrelevant, rather the crux of the matter.

No, Look at this link and the video embedded half way down. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 Ken Mackaill chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation. "Continued denial of facts recorded" - Ie, use of the word pleb. "Repeated denial of using the words reported in the officers notes" - Ie, the use of the word pleb. He had apologised and that had been accepted but because he wouldn't admit to saying pleb, the police wouldn't let it lie. Would you admit to something you didn't say? So him saying the word pleb is not irrelevant, rather the crux of the matter.

...which could all be very easily sorted by an effective leader, probably sat around a table with a dvd player or laptop.

By the way - what link ?

Ajw71 wrote:No, Look at this link and the video embedded half way down. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 Ken Mackaill chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation. "Continued denial of facts recorded" - Ie, use of the word pleb. "Repeated denial of using the words reported in the officers notes" - Ie, the use of the word pleb. He had apologised and that had been accepted but because he wouldn't admit to saying pleb, the police wouldn't let it lie. Would you admit to something you didn't say? So him saying the word pleb is not irrelevant, rather the crux of the matter. It is only the crux of the matter for stupid people who are easily influenced or struggle to read. As for what I would have done, I would have done the most obvious thing. I would have denied using the words I didn’t used, but then also accepted it didn’t matter what words were attributed to me, what I had done was wrong and my attitude and actions were below the standards which a senior government minister should be expected to uphold and the officers involved had my unreserved apologies as well as stressing the great respect I had for the police service. I would not have bitched and moaned and complained of a stitch up because a slight difference in a version of events which reflected badly on me but which I and only I had caused. Mr Mitchells argument seems to akin to a murderer complaining of a stitch up because had been accused of stabbing someone when in reality he had shot them.

Ajw71 wrote:No, Look at this link and the video embedded half way down. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 Ken Mackaill chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation. "Continued denial of facts recorded" - Ie, use of the word pleb. "Repeated denial of using the words reported in the officers notes" - Ie, the use of the word pleb. He had apologised and that had been accepted but because he wouldn't admit to saying pleb, the police wouldn't let it lie. Would you admit to something you didn't say? So him saying the word pleb is not irrelevant, rather the crux of the matter. It is only the crux of the matter for stupid people who are easily influenced or struggle to read. As for what I would have done, I would have done the most obvious thing. I would have denied using the words I didn’t used, but then also accepted it didn’t matter what words were attributed to me, what I had done was wrong and my attitude and actions were below the standards which a senior government minister should be expected to uphold and the officers involved had my unreserved apologies as well as stressing the great respect I had for the police service. I would not have bitched and moaned and complained of a stitch up because a slight difference in a version of events which reflected badly on me but which I and only I had caused. Mr Mitchells argument seems to akin to a murderer complaining of a stitch up because had been accused of stabbing someone when in reality he had shot them.