Leaked 'Plebgate' email claims Andrew Mitchell continually ignored Downing St bicycle rules

Officer sought guidance from higher up over government chief whip's repeated refusal to use side gate

by Simon_MacMichael   February 13, 2014  

Andrew Mitchell (CC licensed image by DFID - UK Department for International Development:Flickr)

Andrew Mitchell, the former government chief whip at the centre of the 2012 'Plebgate' row, is reported to have clashed repeatedly with police officers by insisting on riding his bike through the main gates of Downing Street, rather than using a pedestrian side gate as he was supposed to do.

The claim has been made in a leaked email sent by a police officer to his superiors at 00:46am on 19 September 2012 - the  very day of the incident in which Mr Mitchell was alleged to have sworn at officers and called them "plebs," something the Conservative MP for Sutton Coldfield has always denied, although he did admit being "disrespectful."

In the email, a copy of which was obtained by The Times [£], the unnamed officer sought guidance over whether Mr Mitchell should be told to use the pedestrian gate,as stipulated in Downing Street rules regarding safety and security, or whether officers should make an exception for him given his repeated insistence that he should be allowed to ride his bike through the main gate.

The officer wrote: "When he [Mr Mitchell] was initially denied this, he went on to say 'I am the Government Chief Whip and I will be leaving via these gates. I have been in and out of these gates three times today and I will be leaving this way, thank you.'"

Because it was "quite late and quiet" and in order not to create an embarrassing scene, Mr Mitchell was allowed to leave via the main gate on that occasion.

The officer noted: "This rule [to use the pedestrian side gate] was brought in for the safety of the cyclist, officers and tourist/visitors at the front of the street and presumably for the general security of The Street and people in it."

With Mr Mitchell's apparent insistence he should be allowed to break that rule in conflict with the duty of the police officers guarding the gates to enforce it, the officer - with no little prescience, given the way the row would escalate the following day - asked for guidance of what to do.

"Can you please confirm, as I'm sure this will keep happening unless people of much higher rank or of standing in the street/house/government than me have an input, how would you suggest we play this?

"Do we just stand our ground (but have the backing of yourself if something comes of it in the future!) as it was already explained to him that it was for his safety, and for the security of the street, but on this occasion it would most certainly have brought serious repercussions on the officers etc, who decided on this occasiono use their discretion, or do we allow him (only) to use the main gates for his arrivals and departures at all times, as he was adamant he WAS GOING THROUGH THOSE GATES and he's the 'Government Chief Whip!'"

The email concluded: "He may also need to be advised, that for his own safety at least, that he may need to get some lights for his bike if he is going to ride it during hours of darkness!"

It appears that the concerns raised in the police officer's email came too late for a decision to be made prior to the events that evening which made national headlines and led to Mr Mitchell resigning from his cabinet position the following month.

Tendering his resignation to Prime Minister David Cameron, he wrote: "The offending comment and the reason for my apology to the police was my parting remark 'I thought you guys were supposed to f*cking help us.'

"It was obviously wrong of me to use such bad language and I am very sorry about it and grateful to the police officer for accepting my apology."

There was a further twist in December 2012 when it emerged a police constable with the diplomatic protection force had been arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office in connection with his report of what had happened at the Downing Street gates on the evening in question, and two days later a Channel 4 Dispatches documentary raised doubts over the police version of events.

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe ordered an investigation, and during 2013, eight people, five of them police officers, were arrested and bailed in connection with the incident.

In November, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which had critcised the findings of an internal Metropolitan Police report into the episde, said it was launching its own investigation and later that month said that five members of the force's diplomatic protection group would face gross misconduct proceedings.

Separately, Metropolitan Police officer Keith Wallis was charged with misconduct in a public office after sending his MP an email in which he claimed to have witnessed the Downing Street incident. Last week, at Westminster Magistrates' Court, he admitted the offence and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment.

43 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

Ush wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

I mention this so that you understand the lengths they go to to ensure that when the gates are open they have a wider perimeter to stop vehicle bombs.

Good explanation, and I understand that you're not defending the actions of the officers that lied.

If Mitchell insisted on being driven everywhere in a car would he have the right to have the gates opened?

No actually. Those gates don't get opened everytime a minister or anyone else has a meeting at No10. Very few people get driven up that bit of road and when they do it's mostly for show. ie the PM Foreign Heads of State. Even the PM doesn't need to use it as their are other entrances he can come and go from. Basically it's for him to be seen leaving to go to PMQ s or major debates or to the Palace and for Foreign Heads of State to be seen arriving. Mostly everyone else has to walk (if they want to be seen going in to No10 if they don't there are all sorts of ways in from the departments in Whitehall that can be used and mostly they are). Like I say there isn't much point having a low gate and barrier to keep people 3 metres back and create a sterile area in front of the 3m high gate vehicle bomb gate if you have to keep opening it all the time. Hence the rule on most people entering being pedestrians. The obvious point being that it is a damn site easier to search a person for a bomb or a weapon or a substance that it is to properly search a vehicle. Ipso facto only DPG and vetted vehicles enter that road and then as few times as possible.

Like I say Plebgate and the bike thing are too different issues for me. I can absolutely see why the rule is that the vehicle gates stay shut unless planned and necessary openings are agreed. Mitchell may well have been been a pompous git wanting those gates opened when he could leave through the same gate as everyone else. (maybe he wanted to be seen cycling - who knows) The police were within their rights to refuse to open the gates just for him. He porbably shoil;d have said anything at all to the officers by way of his displeasure, but what the officers then did was absolutely disgraceful, illegal and very very worrying. Mitchell may well have been annoying but he has been very badly done by.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [505 posts]
13th February 2014 - 18:00

like this
Like (9)

I went to Downing Street in about 1978, there weren't any gates and no bombs went off.

posted by Sara_H [53 posts]
13th February 2014 - 21:40

like this
Like (7)

FWIW the Plod have fecked up and its tainted their reputation badly and each one them bent bastards needs dealing with robustly. But having followed this from the start (not too deeply I might add) and now having seen this article, well it just reinforces my view that Mitchell is a complete cock who seems to think being Chief Whip places him above the law and above the authority of Police officers that were directed to maintain security and safety around No10. Self-righteous and self-important twat. Cyclist or not.

He embarassed the government with his behaviour too. Thought he was too important to follow rules and use the side gate. Goverment ministers lead by example, but most of them are corrupt in one way or another.

posted by Critchio [103 posts]
13th February 2014 - 22:27

like this
Like (4)

oozaveared wrote:
What has this to do with cycling other than Andrew Mitchell has a bike.

BTW I think the Police officers have shamed themselves and brought disrepute on other blameless officers in the whole Plebgate Row.

But the gate across Downing Street is there for security to stop people (protesters, terrorists etc entering Downing Street. It ought to be opened as few times as is necessary. Walking your bike through a security gate is hardly the end of the world.

I have stood guard and in the military it is pretty simple. If you are the guard (most senior rank rule applies) then you are in charge of security and for enforcing the standing orders.

As it was put to me

"It doesn't matter whether Jesus F**ing Christ turns up with the angel Gabriel and the heavenly choir if he doesn't have a the right orders he doesn't go past you unless he's already struck you down with a lightning bolt.. and even then you'll be doing time in the glasshouse for it. dead or not."

Quoted because it's the most relevant post, the only person who comes out looking like a complete and utter twat is mr "don't you know who i am".

posted by northstar [1086 posts]
13th February 2014 - 22:52

like this
Like (4)

northstar wrote:
oozaveared wrote:
What has this to do with cycling other than Andrew Mitchell has a bike.

BTW I think the Police officers have shamed themselves and brought disrepute on other blameless officers in the whole Plebgate Row.

But the gate across Downing Street is there for security to stop people (protesters, terrorists etc entering Downing Street. It ought to be opened as few times as is necessary. Walking your bike through a security gate is hardly the end of the world.

I have stood guard and in the military it is pretty simple. If you are the guard (most senior rank rule applies) then you are in charge of security and for enforcing the standing orders.

As it was put to me

"It doesn't matter whether Jesus F**ing Christ turns up with the angel Gabriel and the heavenly choir if he doesn't have a the right orders he doesn't go past you unless he's already struck you down with a lightning bolt.. and even then you'll be doing time in the glasshouse for it. dead or not."

Quoted because it's the most relevant post, the only person who comes out looking like a complete and utter twat is mr "don't you know who i am".

However, in this case they knew exactly who he was but just decided to be utter jobsworths! A case of intoxicated with their own power I would say.

gb901's picture

posted by gb901 [145 posts]
13th February 2014 - 23:29

like this
Like (4)

oozaveared wrote:

No actually. Those gates don't get opened everytime a minister or anyone else has a meeting at No10. Very few people get driven up that bit of road and when they do it's mostly for show.

Thanks again for that information -- very educational. It's changed my perceptions of this substantially.

posted by Ush [379 posts]
14th February 2014 - 0:36

like this
Like (17)

Normally i'd agree with you but if them informing their superior officers of the events by email as it was revealed they did would suggest they were instructed to guide all arrivals / leavers to the pedestrian gate.

I wouldn't care if they asked / told me too leave by that gate, it's not a big issue, just some jumped up, self important idiot feels to have made it one.

There's a lot more to get annoyed about than this silly crap.

posted by northstar [1086 posts]
14th February 2014 - 0:40

like this
Like (4)

I wish that instead of Pleb-Gate they had called it Gate-Gate

Chris's picture

posted by Chris [104 posts]
14th February 2014 - 2:14

like this
Like (5)

stumps wrote:

I totally agree, those officers who lied are a disgrace. The officers at the gate are spot on, they didn't have to open the gates and Mitchell knew it but just wanted to press his alleged authority.

He is a small minded buearocrat and a bully (being chief whip requires that in a politician) - as the earlier email proves. But hey dont let the truth get in the way of having a pop at the Police, its never stopped people on here before has it, lol

No. Mitchell was stitched up by the police. Entirely. Not only were the 'notes' taken at the scene clearly falsified by more than one officer (because such a conversation couldn't possibly have happened in the time-scale evidenced by CCTV footage) but then an officer totally unconnected to the scene pretended to have been a witness in a letter to his local MP. He's now in jail.

Then police representatives later met Mitchell at his constituency office and, in a press conference immediately afterwards, completely lied about was had been said in the meeting ... again as evidenced by the audio recording of the meeting. They then made complete fools of the themselves (and the police force itself) when cross-examined by the parliamentary commission.

Oh, and the 'evidence' of the pretend witness was not actually discovered by the police themselves, despite a lengthy internal enquiry, but by a C4 reporter in a couple of days without anything like the resources or access to records that the police themselves had.

It has become patently obvious that the police forces' default position on pretty much any issue (on which they may be found at fault) ... is to lie, lie, lie ... and then to lie some more.

Starting from Hillsborough, Stumps, how many instances do you want to me to name where the police have lied, lied and lied to the press and the public in order to cover up their own mistakes?

I can't quite remember but aren't you also one of the policemen on this forum that have confirmed that, if some scally should be rude to one of your colleagues during the process of arrest, that they'd have absolutely no problem in drumming up several 'witnesses' to the "assault of a police officer".

My brother, a mild-mannered retired chemistry teacher, has been telling me for years that "the police in this country are out of control". Until recent events I used to dispute his view and argue in favour of the police. Not now though. Certainly not after 'Plebgate'.

posted by Joeinpoole [196 posts]
14th February 2014 - 3:38

like this
Like (8)

downfader wrote:
If there is a safety issue for cycling out of the gate then perhaps the Police should make the roads safer? Asking him to act like a pedestrian is a bit hypocritical considering the recent Met efforts on paths.

[[[[[ Yes, and perhaps the Uniformed Keepers of the Gates (to10 DownTurn Street) must warn the strolling Proles when a car is entering or exiting, but doing that for a geezer on a bike? Too much hard work----get off and walk, chum. But given A. Mitchell's alledged bad language and loss of cool, it's a wonder he wasn't breathalised.
P.R.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [271 posts]
14th February 2014 - 4:52

like this
Like (5)

The 'rule' which required Mitchell to use the pedestrian gate was not a rule. It was a convention which had grown up due to the Metropolitan Police's inability to understand that cyclists and pedestrians are not the same.
The Downing Street police officers objected to carrying out the strenuous task of opening the gate for cyclists, and tried to persuade them to use the pedestrian gate, Andrew Mitchell believed that they should do the job for which they were paid. It is just another example of the Met treating cyclists as second class citizens.

Grizzerly

posted by Grizzerly [115 posts]
14th February 2014 - 8:41

like this
Like (11)

"What has this to do with cycling..."

This is the knub of the argument that has been lost in the political hysteria.
Is a cyclist a pedestrian with a set of wheels or a person driving a vehicle?
It would seem that a human powered vehicle does not have the same regard as an engine powered vehicle.
This is fundamental to the way cyclists and their vehicles are treated.

posted by BertYardbrush [19 posts]
14th February 2014 - 9:58

like this
Like (13)

Jaysus...TF I live in Ireland....we don't have ANY corrupt politicians or gardai... Rolling On The Floor

The_Kaner
FREEEEEEEEDOM!

The _Kaner's picture

posted by The _Kaner [375 posts]
14th February 2014 - 10:19

like this
Like (4)

Sara_H wrote:
I went to Downing Street in about 1978, there weren't any gates and no bombs went off.

Should have come back again in 1991 and you'd have watched the mortar attack by the IRA. And you would have seen the gates installed in 1989 based on inteliigence that PIRA were about to use a new tactic. Proxy Bombs or human bombs. PIRA didn't go in for suicide bombing but the next best thing was a proxy bomb.

Basically you kidnap a person's family and force them to drive a vehicle bomb to a destination. You tell them to just get out and walk away but in reality you remotely detonate it (them and all) as soon as it is in place.

PIRA used this kind of attack on 3 targets simultaneously in NI. They used waht they called collaborators people who worked for the UK Govt or armed forces. Strapped them into the vehicles and got them to driive to their destination. All three bombs were detonated.

At Coshquin checkpoint they used a Catholic man a cook who worked at Fort George. The device 450 kg was rigged with a timer as a back up but the main actuator was the courtesy light. Open the door and bang. The cook tried to get out and warn the soldiers at the checkpoint. He opened the door. The cook and five soldiers were killed

Same evening at Cloghoge another Catholic man that ran a filling station and who served the police and army at his garagewas the collaborator. This one had a ton of explosives in and was driven to the Cloghoge border checkpoint. Aparrently the man claims he was whispered a warning not to open the door but to get out of the window. He reached the checkpoint stopped climbed out the window. At which point he was challenged, warned the soldier of the of the bomb but it was then detonated remotely by the follow car. One soldier was killed.

In Omagh the same night the bomb failed to detonate.

There were several more attacks in NI one in Newtownbutler and another in Magherafelt.

They used the tactic again in 1993 in London but this time as a diversion. Two London cabbies were targeted One targeted at Downing St and the other at Scotland Yard. The cabbies managed to shout warnings and get people away so no casualties. The diversion was for the Bishopsgate Bomb. That one killed a journalist and injured 40 people and caused huge and expensive damage.

And that my friend is why there are 12 ft gates stopping vehicles going into Downing Street.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [505 posts]
14th February 2014 - 14:22

like this
Like (10)

BertYardbrush wrote:
"What has this to do with cycling..."

This is the knub of the argument that has been lost in the political hysteria.
Is a cyclist a pedestrian with a set of wheels or a person driving a vehicle?
It would seem that a human powered vehicle does not have the same regard as an engine powered vehicle.
This is fundamental to the way cyclists and their vehicles are treated.

So true, they class us as vehicles when they want to, but not when it would be to our advantage. We're some weird hybrid between pedestrians and mopeds... cycle on a pavement and they'll throw the book at you, yet wheel a bicycle across a pedestrian crossing and they'll claim you are a vehicle and not ellegible to protection using that crossing (There was a court ruling recently where a driver got off because they classed the cyclist pushing the bicycle across a crossing as a vehicle instead of a pedestrian and thus there was no mandatory requirement to stop)

posted by Paul_C [151 posts]
14th February 2014 - 14:54

like this
Like (2)

Joeinpoole - you are completely and utterly wrong. I was NOT one of the people who said we could drum up witnesses as you put it and i find that extremely offensive.

You seem to eagerly forget the numpty DID swear at Police, he admitted that, just because he could not go through a gate on his bike which started this whole sorry escapade off.

I always say if they lie and get caught TOUGH the Police does not need them and they deserve everything they get.

If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it. Gaius Julius Caesar.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2675 posts]
14th February 2014 - 14:56

like this
Like (2)

oozaveared wrote:
Ush wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

I mention this so that you understand the lengths they go to to ensure that when the gates are open they have a wider perimeter to stop vehicle bombs.

Good explanation, and I understand that you're not defending the actions of the officers that lied.

If Mitchell insisted on being driven everywhere in a car would he have the right to have the gates opened?

No actually. Those gates don't get opened everytime a minister or anyone else has a meeting at No10. Very few people get driven up that bit of road and when they do it's mostly for show. ie the PM Foreign Heads of State. Even the PM doesn't need to use it as their are other entrances he can come and go from. Basically it's for him to be seen leaving to go to PMQ s or major debates or to the Palace and for Foreign Heads of State to be seen arriving. Mostly everyone else has to walk (if they want to be seen going in to No10 if they don't there are all sorts of ways in from the departments in Whitehall that can be used and mostly they are). Like I say there isn't much point having a low gate and barrier to keep people 3 metres back and create a sterile area in front of the 3m high gate vehicle bomb gate if you have to keep opening it all the time. Hence the rule on most people entering being pedestrians. The obvious point being that it is a damn site easier to search a person for a bomb or a weapon or a substance that it is to properly search a vehicle. Ipso facto only DPG and vetted vehicles enter that road and then as few times as possible.

Like I say Plebgate and the bike thing are too different issues for me. I can absolutely see why the rule is that the vehicle gates stay shut unless planned and necessary openings are agreed. Mitchell may well have been been a pompous git wanting those gates opened when he could leave through the same gate as everyone else. (maybe he wanted to be seen cycling - who knows) The police were within their rights to refuse to open the gates just for him. He porbably shoil;d have said anything at all to the officers by way of his displeasure, but what the officers then did was absolutely disgraceful, illegal and very very worrying. Mitchell may well have been annoying but he has been very badly done by.

Great post, thanks for explaining the detail. Reminds me of being on gate duty at an RAF station and being questioned why I hadn't saluted the driver whose ID I had just checked. I didn't even get to finish the sentence about any outside obervers then knowing he was an officer without him looking embarassed, telling me to shut up and speeding off onto camp.

If I could have, say, 6 bikes, would it stop me drooling over others that I don't have?

posted by notfastenough [2953 posts]
14th February 2014 - 15:35

like this
Like (5)

oovaveared. You beat me to the punch about the existence of the gates at Downing Street. Sadly many English folk are clueless to these measures. They consider them as an infringement to their rights as seems to come through from some on this thread. All they can think is why the hell can't a copper just have opened the gate and not been a jobsworth.

Back in Belfast after the Provos tried to blow up the High Court. A blast wall was built resulting in the loss of a traffic traffic lane on two sides of the building. The other two roads were sealed creating a sterile area on the other two. Result. A detour of nearly a mile through the one way system to get to east Belfast from the city centre.

A pain in the arse for all road users including pedestrians. Andrew Mitchell given his past should have know better and not been a pompous ass. The officers involved with the leaks an embarrassment to their force. And for those on duty. Well they were just doing their job. Imagine. I wonder how people here would react if somebody got them to 'bend' the rules in their job?

giff77's picture

posted by giff77 [1040 posts]
14th February 2014 - 15:45

like this
Like (3)

Stumps the the man is an elected politician who makes the law unlike your colleagues who are scum that think they are above the law. When police think they are better than the lawmakers you have a police state. You comments supporting these lying criminal officers do neither your or your service any credit

Paul W

posted by PaulVWatts [111 posts]
14th February 2014 - 16:04

like this
Like (8)

PaulVWatts wrote:
Stumps the the man is an elected politician who makes the law unlike your colleagues who are scum that think they are above the law. When police think they are better than the lawmakers you have a police state. You comments supporting these lying criminal officers do neither your or your service any credit

Stumps hasn't supported those crooks in any way. Ad hominem attacks are not OK.

posted by jacknorell [286 posts]
14th February 2014 - 16:26

like this
Like (3)

jacknorell wrote:
PaulVWatts wrote:
Stumps the the man is an elected politician who makes the law unlike your colleagues who are scum that think they are above the law. When police think they are better than the lawmakers you have a police state. You comments supporting these lying criminal officers do neither your or your service any credit

Stumps hasn't supported those crooks in any way. Ad hominem attacks are not OK.

Yes he has. Also stumps wrote:

"!He is a small minded buearocrat and a bully (being chief whip requires that in a politician) - as the earlier email proves. But hey dont let the truth get in the way of having a pop at the Police, its never stopped people on here before has it, lol"

If you make Ad hominem attacks then surely you should expect them back.

Paul W

posted by PaulVWatts [111 posts]
14th February 2014 - 16:46

like this
Like (6)

PaulVWatts wrote:
jacknorell wrote:
PaulVWatts wrote:
Stumps the the man is an elected politician who makes the law unlike your colleagues who are scum that think they are above the law. When police think they are better than the lawmakers you have a police state. You comments supporting these lying criminal officers do neither your or your service any credit

Stumps hasn't supported those crooks in any way. Ad hominem attacks are not OK.

Yes he has. Also stumps wrote:

"!He is a small minded buearocrat and a bully (being chief whip requires that in a politician) - as the earlier email proves. But hey dont let the truth get in the way of having a pop at the Police, its never stopped people on here before has it, lol"

If you make Ad hominem attacks then surely you should expect them back.

You quoting him disparaging Mitchell does not equate to him supporting the lying police officers.

What evidence backs up your assertion that he does?

posted by jacknorell [286 posts]
14th February 2014 - 17:06

like this
Like (2)

So a senior politician is a pompous ar$e and some police officers are liars. Unfortunately it's not really news

Argon18 E-112 - Scott Spark 910 - Boardman Team Carbon - Planet X XLS

posted by colinth [183 posts]
14th February 2014 - 19:55

like this
Like (5)

stumps wrote:
Joeinpoole - you are completely and utterly wrong. I was NOT one of the people who said we could drum up witnesses as you put it and i find that extremely offensive.

You seem to eagerly forget the numpty DID swear at Police, he admitted that, just because he could not go through a gate on his bike which started this whole sorry escapade off.

I always say if they lie and get caught TOUGH the Police does not need them and they deserve everything they get.

I presume by 'numpty' you are referring to a politician elected by the people and appointed Minister of State by the Prime Minister? Funny how you you get so upset that someone might refer to a policeman as a 'pleb', even when you know they didn't, but you feel it is fine for you to call an elected official a 'numpty'.

Yes, he did use the f-word (once) in conversation with the police but that didn't "start this whole sorry escapade off". It was the two coppers who colluded with each other and completely invented the story of him calling them plebs that actually started it off.

Unless of course, in your little police-world, you think that if someone were to swear at police then the police are fully *entitled* to invent a story to stitch them up __ which is basically what you are inferring. That exactly confirms my suggestion that the police will invent 'evidence' or 'witnesses' in order to exact revenge on whoever they feel wronged by.

posted by Joeinpoole [196 posts]
14th February 2014 - 20:18

like this
Like (7)

Mitchell is just another pompous establishment, I am above petty laws meant for others who was slapped with wet fish and told to squeal deliverance style while being ridden by a fat faux hillbilly from Chelsea when at prep school...... Or, dam was that me? Cool

MY Bicycle: When I ride my bike I am free happy and strong, liberated from the usual nonsense of day to day life.
Solid dependable silent, my bike is my horse-my fighter jet-my island, & yes, my friend.
Together we shall conquer that mountain.

Cyclist's picture

posted by Cyclist [136 posts]
14th February 2014 - 20:19

like this
Like (1)

Prescience or preparatory set-up? I sent in an FoI request for a copy of these "rules" when it first happened and they weren't able to provide one. So do these rules actually exist or are they making them up? An opportunity for a bit of investigative journalism by road.cc?

posted by Tony [66 posts]
14th February 2014 - 20:43

like this
Like (5)

stumps wrote:
Joeinpoole - you are completely and utterly wrong. I was NOT one of the people who said we could drum up witnesses as you put it and i find that extremely offensive.

You seem to eagerly forget the numpty DID swear at Police, he admitted that, just because he could not go through a gate on his bike which started this whole sorry escapade off.

I always say if they lie and get caught TOUGH the Police does not need them and they deserve everything they get.

Only if they lie and get caught! That speaks volumes. Sadly many of the times there never found out!

gb901's picture

posted by gb901 [145 posts]
14th February 2014 - 22:14

like this
Like (5)

Sara_H wrote:
I went to Downing Street in about 1978, there weren't any gates and no bombs went off.

Agree wholeheartedly. The security industry is a self promoting entity which cannot be challenged. I do not want to live in a country that has a striking resembalance to a West Bank settlement.
I work in the water industry and the many millions being spent on security could have a substantial benefit if spent on the aged infrastructure it's trying to protect.
Grouse over.
Happy and Safe Cycling

posted by Posh [46 posts]
15th February 2014 - 13:13

like this
Like (2)

Oooooops

posted by Posh [46 posts]
15th February 2014 - 13:14

like this
Like (1)

Being a huge pretentious prat isn't a crime. What the officers did could be considered a number of crimes and "gross misconduct" and a dismissal/final warning is a favorable outcome for the police officers involved.

Lot's of people might think the critics writing here that 'Mitchell's personality should diminish his right to justice' are also opinionated/judgmental prats. Following their own logic those critics here should feel that it's fair game to fit them up for something they didn't do...

posted by Wrongfoot [23 posts]
16th February 2014 - 10:59

like this
Like (1)