Its quite clear to us all that you are happy for senior political figures to have loose tempers and to use the f-word when addressing police officers.

Nice.

Mr Elpers you need to calm down. The officer who dealt with the Right Honourable gentleman has never once lied (remember your sentence innocent until proven guilty). Indeed the CPS commented that he is the only one who has maintained his stance from the outset. I would suggest they know considerably more than any of us on here. Please enlighten us if you know more.
There has been NO disciplinary action taken against him as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He has been accused of lying which appears at this moment in time to be slanderous. As a result he is taking the Right Honourable gentleman to court. His court action is being funded out of Federation funds. That's funds which the members pay into. It's NOT public money. It is assigned by the members and approved by the members. It's not got anything to do with the general public or indeed you. Unless of course you are a paid up member of the Police Federation.
The Federation is there to protect the interests of its members. When one of its members have any issues at all then the Federation will help however they can. That is their role. And as such they are helping the officer in this case. They do it for all officers.
The rouge officers in this sorry saga have all been dealt with, certainly the Met officers. Sackings and jailings prove that. That's what the police do. If you step out of line you are dealt with.
Who hasn't had any disciplinary action taken? Answer the officer who dealt with the Right Honourable gentleman. Ask yourself why. Indeed the disciplinary hearings taken against the officers had the Right Honourable gentleman present. Something unheard of previously. So open and transparent procedures which were there to appease all.
Now in terms of swearing police officers hear it all the time. New ruling came in that they can not be caused offence by swearing. So no Section 5 public order offences when you swear at or within hearing of an officer. As a result the Right Honourable gentleman was correctly dealt with. The officer on the gate dealt with it all appropriately and the Right Honourable gentleman even apologised the following day I believe.
Rouge officers were dealt with. That is the facts of the case. What the Right Honourable gentleman ACTUALLY said has never been confirmed by him. For reasons only he can actually explain. It does make you wonder why. (Well maybe not you, but certainly the rest of us). I am sure we will find out once all the court cases have been heard.
I'm sure you won't agree, but those are the facts. Let's see how it all rides out from here.

It is not proven that Mitchell lost his temper. Nice indeed that you finally have stopped saying he swore at the police.

You avoid the issues once more. You also continue to answer if you have ever used the F word as an intensifier - and it is quite clear to us why!

This not about what I am happy about. It is about a member of the governemnt being regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

1. There is no proof that Mitchell said the things he was accused of.
2. There is proof that at least 4 police officers lied regarding this issue
3. There is proof that 4 officers have been dismissed and one of the jailed for 12 months
4. There is proof that three police federation officers gave a false impression on National TV
5. There is proof that two of these same police federation officers later lied to a parliamentary committee and are still to be dealt with for this.
6. There is proof that for over a year the police guards at the gates of Downing Street had been behaving in an obstructive manner serious enough for a member of the government to write to the Inspector in charge with a clear message that Ministers (including Mitchell) were to be allowed unfettered access to Downing Street and that if not it would go all the way to the Commissioner.
7. There is new circumstantial evidence that there was some form of conspiracy between police officers before the "phleb" incident

Now it is fair to say, and I have said it several times before, that we do not know if it was Mitchell or the PC that was lying. But it is clear one of them was. I have never said I believed Mitchell's denial. I have said he has the right to be treated as innocent until proven to be guilty.

Summary...

Mitchell admits that he swore when talking to the police.

MP's are ok to use the f-word when speaking to the police as long as they only use the word as an "intensifier", whatever that is.


Nice.

Don't we know it brother, don't we know it.

What we really want to know is, has he let you nosh him off yet?

After twenty odd pages of speculation, fantasy and childish insults, a rational, common sense post.
Thanks. It'll never catch on though!

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha

Where's the (not so) noble Lord Elpers?

snigger...

Giving his ruling, Mr Justice Mitting said: "For the reasons given I am satisfied at least on the balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same including the politically toxic word pleb."

Outside court, the BBC's legal correspondent Clive Coleman said the ruling would be "devastating" for Mr Mitchell's reputation.

Probably explains why Cameron hasn't wanted to touch him with a bargepole for two years, quite an expensive afternoon for old Thrasher.