I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
Let me repeat, none.
(Cross posted at Patterico's.)
It seems to be a particularly American problem. It does exist in Europe and the UK, but only on a very small scale by comparison with the US.
If you want to laugh at incompetent lawyering you really should be following Trump's damages trial in New York. Even people who watch legal procedurals know some of the things the lawyer in this case does not.
He does apparently have some good lawyers on staff, but they are usually not the ones who spend time mouthing off in TV studios. That one of the latter is leading on this trial is surely an indication he sees it as a lost cause and not worth the effort, other than fundraising potential by whinging about it.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
But the two offences, such as they are, are not at all equal. Politician says a mean thing and a court finds that substantively true? That's really not that big a deal, people say stupid stuff all the time. So personally I find the outcome of the libel case pretty immaterial and the whole thing much clearer.
Police lying about the incident to help prove he did it? That's an outrageous abuse of their position. Lying about something that did happen is no defence of anything after all, and we especially do not want the police fabricating things like that.
Someone lying about witnessing something obviously has no idea if what they are saying is true or not, so cannot even claim a noble motivation of trying to make sure he was punished for saying mean things, since they did not truly know. Their motivation therefore was not actually in support of a statement that was true - they were just fortunate that was the case.
I absolutely have sympathy for Mitchell on the matter, because he might well be an offensive arsehole who's a dick to people, but being a dick is not a crime. Police officers committed crimes to prove he was a dick, and others lied about him to stick the knife in. They should have left speculation to the media and political opponents, the lies were not necessary.
Lying about things doesn't magically become ok because luckily the person did the thing you lied about. Not from the police - they have to be held to that standard, with absolutely no nuance or wiggle room on these things.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
I don't think that works at all. That's why if that happens the guilty person will be set free, because breaking the rules to punish them is unjustifiable and even if you know they did it they might now get away with it. In effect, we formally sympathise with guilty people with our rules by siding with them, even if guilty, if the police break their own rules.
Moreover, they weren't simply 'right to be angry', because if that's all that it was nothing was preventing them being angry about it to their heart's content. The problem was the action they took in response to that anger. They in essence engaged in a criminal conspiracy on the basis of nothing but hearsay.
Because remember, they didn't know it was true! They lied to get him sacked with no knowledge it was true. We lose sympathy for Mitchell because they were lucky it was?
I'll say no more on the subject, but personally I find it very straightforward to have sympathy with someone who faced being lied about by the police, even if they did make the statements in question.
Principally because I worry how many other people lied about by police don't get to prove that lie and face far more consequences.
Again, I am not in any sense justifying the behaviour of the police in the Mitchell case, nor of the notional police in the forcing a confession from a guilty man example.
All I am saying is it is perfectly possible to condemn the behaviour (because of the morality of it and wider impact on confidence in the justice system) whilst feeling limited personal sympathy for the individual.
Incidentally, if a confession is beaten from a guilty man, they do not necessarily "walk free". There is a risk they will (another reason for not doing it quite aside from, you know, basic humanity) but it's not uncommon for an appeal to fail because, notwithstanding extremely serious defects in a prosecution case, the unchallenged evidence is more than sufficient to convict.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important? It was being reported, so he was facing appropriate consequences for the claim of it happening anyway.
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
Judges can be wrong, and most of the witnesses were clearly lying.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
What did Mitchel do that merited losing his position? Be (allegedly) rude to some police who were being dicks? There but for the grace of God etc.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
Similar to all those postmasters eh? Lots of judges saw lots of ‘evidence’ there too…
Turns out some polling I posted here a few weeks ago about how toxic the Euro was to rejoiners might have been wrong. Wethink appear to have cocked up their calculations, and are correcting and reissuing 27 weeks of data
"Although not the issue raised by the original complaint, in examining the data in question the BPC President, Sir John Curtice, noticed an apparent discrepancy which resulted in too many respondents classified as saying they would vote to stay out if the euro were a condition."
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
What did Mitchel do that merited losing his position? Be (allegedly) rude to some police who were being dicks? There but for the grace of God etc.
That's a different matter, though. Take it up with David Cameron, who ditched him.
The reality is that ministered don't get ditched due to the gravity of their error but due to the damage it does to the PM/Government. Sad but true.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
Similar to all those postmasters eh? Lots of judges saw lots of ‘evidence’ there too…
No, because the crucial evidence - that the Horizon system was known by the Post Office to be badly flawed - was denied to the judges in those cases.
In the Mitchell case, the libel trial followed the disciplinary and criminal cases against officers. I appreciate you disagree with his conclusion, but you cannot say the judge was blind to the major credibility problems in the evidence of officers. He was not, and yet still he concluded Mitchell was not telling the truth.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
But the two offences, such as they are, are not at all equal. Politician says a mean thing and a court finds that substantively true? That's really not that big a deal, people say stupid stuff all the time. So personally I find the outcome of the libel case pretty immaterial and the whole thing much clearer.
Police lying about the incident to help prove he did it? That's an outrageous abuse of their position. Lying about something that did happen is no defence of anything after all, and we especially do not want the police fabricating things like that.
Someone lying about witnessing something obviously has no idea if what they are saying is true or not, so cannot even claim a noble motivation of trying to make sure he was punished for saying mean things, since they did not truly know. Their motivation therefore was not actually in support of a statement that was true - they were just fortunate that was the case.
I absolutely have sympathy for Mitchell on the matter, because he might well be an offensive arsehole who's a dick to people, but being a dick is not a crime. Police officers committed crimes to prove he was a dick, and others lied about him to stick the knife in. They should have left speculation to the media and political opponents, the lies were not necessary.
Lying about things doesn't magically become ok because luckily the person did the thing you lied about. Not from the police - they have to be held to that standard, with absolutely no nuance or wiggle room on these things.
This.
There is literally nothing to add.
The only thing I’d add is that since the events, Michell is one of few Tory MPs who doesn’t appear to be an absolute arsehole.
You might not agree with him politically, but he seems to have been a pretty diligent junior minister (genuinely committed to and knowledgeable about his brief) and MP.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
What did Mitchel do that merited losing his position? Be (allegedly) rude to some police who were being dicks? There but for the grace of God etc.
That's a different matter, though. Take it up with David Cameron, who ditched him.
The reality is that ministered don't get ditched due to the gravity of their error but due to the damage it does to the PM/Government. Sad but true.
Some police officers were lying. Some were telling the truth. And it's your contention that the judge was clever enough to be able to differentiate between the two.
The bit of polling that made me chuckle today was that Labour lead the Tories on all 5 of Sunaks pledges, even the boats. That probably should have given some pause for thought for their strategy team
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
What did Mitchel do that merited losing his position? Be (allegedly) rude to some police who were being dicks? There but for the grace of God etc.
That's a different matter, though. Take it up with David Cameron, who ditched him.
The reality is that ministered don't get ditched due to the gravity of their error but due to the damage it does to the PM/Government. Sad but true.
Some police officers were lying. Some were telling the truth. And it's your contention that the judge was clever enough to be able to differentiate between the two.
The way the whole matter kind of went away was interesting. Bit like when Tony Blair & Co. were caught selling peerages - it was decided that it wasn't in the public interest to proceed.
If more of the police officers in question had been found guilty of lying - perjury was possible for some of them - then every conviction they had given evidence on, in long careers, would have been up for being quashed.
The narrator, Eric Johnson, makes it clear that there is blame to go around for her death. And that multiple governments failed her.
As the death toll from opiods, especially fentanyl, soars, we need to think seriously about how to tackle this problem. I have seen very little serious discussion of it — and none from the three or four candidates most likely to win the presidency in November.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
What did Mitchel do that merited losing his position? Be (allegedly) rude to some police who were being dicks? There but for the grace of God etc.
That's a different matter, though. Take it up with David Cameron, who ditched him.
The reality is that ministered don't get ditched due to the gravity of their error but due to the damage it does to the PM/Government. Sad but true.
Some police officers were lying. Some were telling the truth. And it's your contention that the judge was clever enough to be able to differentiate between the two.
He had no option but to decide. There is no "maybe" in a civil case. He had to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether or not the allegation against Mitchell was true or not. He decided, on balance, it was true based on all the evidence.
Was he definitely right? No, not definitely at all - and nor did the judge himself claim to be absolutely certain. Am I more confident in that view, which would have been based on a comprehensive assessment of enormous amounts of evidence presented by claimant and defendant, than I am in reckonings posted on the bottom half of the internet? Yes.
Igor Bobic @igorbobic · 3h Romney says it’s Trump party and that if election was held today, Trump would win.
“You had a jury that said that Donald Trump had raped a woman, and yet I don’t think that seems to be moving the needle. There are a lot of things about today’s electorate I don’t understand.”
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
They are all presumably going to lose the Tory whip now under tough-man Sunak?
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
I will say one more thing actually.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important?
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
Again - they are not equated.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
What did Mitchel do that merited losing his position? Be (allegedly) rude to some police who were being dicks? There but for the grace of God etc.
That's a different matter, though. Take it up with David Cameron, who ditched him.
The reality is that ministered don't get ditched due to the gravity of their error but due to the damage it does to the PM/Government. Sad but true.
Some police officers were lying. Some were telling the truth. And it's your contention that the judge was clever enough to be able to differentiate between the two.
He had no option but to decide. There is no "maybe" in a civil case. He had to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether or not the allegation against Mitchell was true or not. He decided, on balance, it was true based on all the evidence.
Was he definitely right? No, not definitely at all - and nor did the judge himself claim to be absolutely certain. Am I more confident in that view, which would have been based on a comprehensive assessment of enormous amounts of evidence presented by claimant and defendant, than I am in reckonings posted on the bottom half of the internet? Yes.
I don't need to know the details to understand that the premise of some of that "enormous amount of evidence" was false.
You're making a strange point. If one factor in a calculation is wrong then the answer will be wrong no matter how many decimal places it may be presented with.
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
The big rebellion on the Jenrick Amendment. Sam Coates puts it like this
"The subject of the vote was whether or not they should toughen the legislation to block last minute injunctions from European judges," Sam explains. "All day ministers have been trying to claim they're going to do it my other means, they're going to tweak the Civil Service code or direct civil servants to do it.“
If the Civil Service don’t like that, what can they do about it?
Does it go to the Union, and if not settled between Union and bosses, into court?
You may not like the alt right position - and Braverman who I think is well placed to be next Tory leader was more right wing and anti ECHR today than ever - but when they say they don’t believe the government have toughened it up simply by tweaking civil service code, which probably isn’t tweaked yet, the rebels are not necessary wrong are they.
If the government today know this bill isn’t substantially changed from all ways it has failed before - best summed up all this time money and effort and we have a government who have actually given Rwandans asylum in this country, not sent any asylum seekers to Rwanda - then I think it points to May 2nd election.
It’s a bit like the horizon scandal, past the point of being able to say it’s not working, the big effort is put into the pretence it is working. Only different in that you don’t have to pretend for ever, just a few more months.
The Tories need planes in the sky before the election. That's the bottom line.
Do they though? My argument being how quickly would voters see that as a game changer?
You could have plenty of triumphant “they said we couldn’t do it - now we have smashed the gangs and turned the tide” rhetoric, making a laughing stock out of the Tories if voters are not on the same page as seeing the moment as a game changer.
Especially if the boats keep on coming all summer.
Subject matter experts reckon, after a quieter year last year, it’s going to be a long year and busy summer of channel crossings, based on how Europe filled up the previous year.
If Tories go into April campaigning with the promise planes will be up, and the promise and pretence still intact that doing this changes the game, and before that busy year of channel crossings picks up, that might be a stronger position to campaign on.
And to attack Labour over the next 5 years of channel crossings, that something that could have worked was scrapped by Starmer without being given a chance. It’s a stronger policy to the Conservative party if Starmer scraps it on May 6th, and all this summers and next summers channel crossings are on him.
I think the fact the government havn't meaningfully beefed this bill up proves they intend to campaign on just promise of it, because they are not just signaling to their own diehards they are not serious about having meaningful delivery on this to campaign on in election anytime this year, we should pick up on that signal too in terms of timing of the election.
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
My son in law has had a pulmonary embolism as confirmed by a CT scan and has been put on immediate medication and blood thinners
We are all relieved he went direct to hospital in a neighbours car, so no time was wasted waiting for an ambulance as it is potentially a life threatening event
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
Similar to all those postmasters eh? Lots of judges saw lots of ‘evidence’ there too…
Wait...what?!
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that because one group of judges made errors in the PO scandal, this means JJ and/or SNP is in a better position to decide on Mitchell's libel trial than AN other judge.
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
And people say they would prefer to be in Cambodia. I ask you.
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
They are all presumably going to lose the Tory whip now under tough-man Sunak?
Should do. If so good riddance to bad rubbish
Would be funny to see Braverman and Jenrick unable to stand for Tories at the GE
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
My son in law has had a pulmonary embolism as confirmed by a CT scan and has been put on immediate medication and blood thinners
We are all relieved he went direct to hospital in a neighbours car, so no time was wasted waiting for an ambulance as it is potentially a life threatening event
Blimmin' right it is sounds like he was seen within the "golden hour" and I'm very pleased to hear that.
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
Looking down the list of names, I'm struck by how many are household names (geeky politics house), but really, really shouldn't be.
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
Similar to all those postmasters eh? Lots of judges saw lots of ‘evidence’ there too…
Wait...what?!
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that because one group of judges made errors in the PO scandal, this means JJ and/or SNP is in a better position to decide on Mitchell's libel trial than AN other judge.
That's...bonkers.
The Horizon evidence was so tainted as to collapse the prosecution case.
The police officers giving evidence against Mitchell were already known to be associated with police officers who had lied about Mitchell in sworn statements.
In part, I think this is why the whole thing went away. It was getting close to a group of policeman being sent down for organised perjury. Which would have been very damaging to The System.
Brendan Clarke-Smith, who quit as deputy Tory chair to rebel over the Rwanda Bill, backed the Rwanda Bill
It's pathetic.
Nah, this is pathetic;
Lee Anderson tells @christopherhope on @GBNEWS he went into the ‘No’ lobby, but Labour MPs were sniggering and saying ‘he’s coming back to Labour’ and he couldn’t do it. He abstained., having resigned yesterday to vote for the amendments.
Just a gigantic waste of time. Introducing pointless amendments to an insane bill for a system that anyway won't work and then caving in at the end of it. A drunk pissing themselves while slumped in the corner of a room.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman Sir Bill Cash Miriam Cates Sir Simon Clarke Sarah Dines Sir James Duddridge Mark Francois Andrea Jenkyns Robert Jenrick David Jones Danny Kruger"
I think this type of gratuitous clickbait shaming using bodycam footage by the police is bad news. What is the public interest? And what if the conviction was eventually overturned? In any event the person in the video is likely to have some kind of extreme mental health problems and they are a gross invasion of her privacy, notwithstanding the seriousness of her convictions. These videos of her in her worst moments are now just going to hang over her for the rest of her life, destroying her reputation forever. It is a completely unnecessary form of punishment.
Yes:
But remember as well that people who are acquitted of sexual offences will have their names forever in the public domain as possible rapists.
I don't know what the answer is, by the way. And I understand your point.
But you are also being - to say the least - very sympathetic when you say that her offence is merely mental health related rather than simple wickedness. How do you know what her motivation was? And are you going to extend the same courtesy to rapists struggling with mental health issues?
I also think that police bodycam footage should be generally available, not least because it is important for public trust in the police.
I know I am going to appear as unhinged as our Cambodian tourist friend.
I don't want to minimise the impact of her crimes, but has anyone else considered the rush to justice that the police in this instance quite acceptably executed with vigor and relish, compared to their casuality when pursuing Northern taxi drivers.
You mean, because it minimized the seriousness of their earlier omissions?
Sure, I suspect that played a role.
But that doesn't excuse her. And it is a horrendous case, where someone went to extraordinary lengths to fit up innocent people.
Of course, the officer concerned was exonerated in a court of law. A bit of shame as I was looking forward to Dan Hodges' book on the subject, which presumably had to be abandoned when the wrong verdict was reached.
Hang on.
While Andrew Mitchell lost his civil libel case over the "pleb" comment, that does not take away from the fact that multiple police officers lied under oath.
Yes - he apparently said a naughty thing. Police officers then lied about it, and their representatives lied about what Mitchell said to them about it, in a successful effort to lose him his job. That really should have provoked more outrage.
In a sense. Certainly, it was appalling policing, and we know a lot more now about wider problems with the Met.
And yet Mitchell lost the libel trial. The finding was that the underlying, central allegation was substantively true. So, to the extent people lied about Mitchell, it was dishonestly to bolster the credibility of a statement that was, in fact, TRUE.
That's why it's such a weird case, and also why I don't feel any more sympathy for him than for anyone else in an unsavoury affair.
Wait.
So the police should be allowed to just make up shit if "the underlying, central allegation was substantively true"?
That is not in any way what I said.
The police should be condemned for lying (indeed one went to prison). While the thing people were angry with Mitchell about... well, they were right to be angry, because it was true.
Consider a case where the police force a confession from a GUILTY man. You can perfectly well condemn the police, whilst feeling little sympathy for the man.
If the incident is as I recall, the police were being ducks in not opening the gate for Mitchel to cycle through. That caused the altercation. Did he use the word ‘plebs’? I have no idea.
Well, fortunately for you, the judge in the libel trial, who was appraised the full evidence presented after the various criminal and disciplinary cases, DID have an idea. He was satisfied the allegation was substantively true.
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
IMV (and IANAL) the judge got it wrong. Any evidence coming from the police side was tainted. *Ten* officers and one civilian are believed to have been involved in the mess, and the officers are alleged to have said "right, we can stitch him up". Anything coming from the police was tainted.
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It's fine you disagree with the judge, but I suspect that, of the three of us, he is best acquainted with all the relevant evidence as to what happened.
Similar to all those postmasters eh? Lots of judges saw lots of ‘evidence’ there too…
Lots of the judges didn't get he chance. Lots of subbies pled guilty ab initio, or even within the PO system.
Brendan Clarke-Smith, who quit as deputy Tory chair to rebel over the Rwanda Bill, backed the Rwanda Bill
It's pathetic.
Nah, this is pathetic;
Lee Anderson tells @christopherhope on @GBNEWS he went into the ‘No’ lobby, but Labour MPs were sniggering and saying ‘he’s coming back to Labour’ and he couldn’t do it. He abstained., having resigned yesterday to vote for the amendments.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
He's going to "address the country". On a Thursday morning? Shows us poor bloody workers who he thinks "the country" is.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
He's going to "address the country". On a Thursday morning? Shows us poor bloody workers who he thinks "the country" is.
To be played all day and tomorrow night on the broadcast media news
Drum roll... Lee Anderson after all that did NOT vote against the Rwanda Bill. He sat out third reading.
As a piece of interpretative art, Lee Anderson's embodiment of the Rwanda bill is almost perfect, shouty, needlessly unpleasant, impractical and ultimately pointless.
If Lee Anderson had been committed to vellum tonight, in the style of the Solvite wallpaper paste man, would we have been able to tell the difference.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its supposed purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
More and more talk about the possibility of a second Trump presidency but precious little on what the UK would do in such a scenario. I hope the civil service is being allowed to properly think through/wargame what we'll do should this happen.
Firstly what we might call the Blair approach - being as close as possible so as to exert maximum influence - needs to be disregarded immediately. More sensible would be trying to co-ordinate a common approach with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If Trump cannot be trusted with intelligence information then the 5 Eyes will have to become the 4 Eyes however much of a lesser entity that would be. I don't how much substance there is to the northern forum but I believe we now have defence commitments involving the Scandanavian countries. Whether we can get them (plus the Dutch?) under one roof I don't know.
Forget the Empire and the EU, the cornerstone of British foreign policy since Churchill has been making sure the US was committed to Europe. Having a President who doesn't believe in that would be quite a shock.
I'm getting drawn into a drama on BBC4. It's an old Screen Two from the early 90s, featuring lots of old British actors when they were slightly less old. Set in the 1950s. Gosh, the BBC used to be good, didn't it? Been watching for some time trying to work out what's odd about it, apart from the width of the picture and the clothes. Then it hit me. I'm not being hectored.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
"Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning"
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Despite the morally dubious nature of the Rwanda plan I think that, if actually implemented, it would have a significant effect on crossings. However, I don’t see it as a vote-winner, because the voting public don’t do gratefulness - they look to the future, and because I can’t believe Starmer would actually put ending it in the Manifesto, if it had already started.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Later Summer statement if he wants the money in people's pockets before a November election.
Didn't the Princess of Wales have very bad stomach trouble and was sent to bed for weeks prior to her giving birth each time. No idea what that means or if it's related.
She suffered from a very severe form of morning sickness which led to hospitalisation on one occasion.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
Sometimes I think it's amazing the human species has managed to survive given how much women are made to suffer for having children.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
"Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning"
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Apparently it's OK because it will be repeated in the evening for the benefit of the majority of the population.
@PippaCrerar · 3m BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
2 days of disgraceful showboating by the conservative right
From their point of view though, they made their point it’s not beefed up enough to deliver on promise, versus government position it is. How long does the government now have to prove it is before the rebels de facto are proved right?
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
On the next GE I see no evidence it will be in May and expect it now in November- December
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Later Summer statement if he wants the money in people's pockets before a November election.
Possibly but I think even Starmer expects 2 more fiscal events before the election
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
"Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning"
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Sunak is intelligent but is quite possibly one of the worst politicians ever to hold high office, he's got no political sense at all. Why he persists with his daft promises is beyond me, he dug himself a bloody great hole, jumped in, and every time he has some potential out he insists on carrying on digging.
One small consolation, the general election campaign should be a right laugh, and go a long way to rehabilitate May's profile.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
"Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning"
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Sunak is intelligent but is quite possibly one of the worst politicians ever to hold high office, he's got no political sense at all. Why he persists with his daft promises is beyond me, he dug himself a bloody great hole, jumped in, and every time he has some potential out he insists on carrying on digging.
One small consolation, the general election campaign should be a right laugh, and go a long way to rehabilitate May's profile.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
"Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning"
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Apparently it's OK because it will be repeated in the evening for the benefit of the majority of the population.
If Sky are anything to go by all day on the hour, every hour
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
I am in favour of abolishing the Lords, but isn't its purpose to revise bad legislation? Or does Rishi favour abolition too?
"Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning"
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Sunak is intelligent but is quite possibly one of the worst politicians ever to hold high office, he's got no political sense at all. Why he persists with his daft promises is beyond me, he dug himself a bloody great hole, jumped in, and every time he has some potential out he insists on carrying on digging.
One small consolation, the general election campaign should be a right laugh, and go a long way to rehabilitate May's profile.
The Tories got rid of someone who was good at politics and replaced him with two leaders who were bad at it. Perhaps they'll go for the hat-trick before the election.
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
It's amazing that 1 in 5 people want this nonsense to continue. I suspect that even Sunak is anticipating a nice long holiday and putting it all behind him.
Comments
Were all the policemen involved nice people? No. Does that alter the truth of the central allegation about Mitchell's behaviour? No.
And recall he brought a libel case on it, knowing what he knew about what in fact happened.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/06/synthetic-opioids-may-be-behind-rise-of-fatal-overdoses-in-west-midlands
The problem is one of demand, there is always someone willing to supply.
https://nitter.net/innercitypress
He does apparently have some good lawyers on staff, but they are usually not the ones who spend time mouthing off in TV studios. That one of the latter is leading on this trial is surely an indication he sees it as a lost cause and not worth the effort, other than fundraising potential by whinging about it.
There is literally nothing to add.
All I am saying is it is perfectly possible to condemn the behaviour (because of the morality of it and wider impact on confidence in the justice system) whilst feeling limited personal sympathy for the individual.
Incidentally, if a confession is beaten from a guilty man, they do not necessarily "walk free". There is a risk they will (another reason for not doing it quite aside from, you know, basic humanity) but it's not uncommon for an appeal to fail because, notwithstanding extremely serious defects in a prosecution case, the unchallenged evidence is more than sufficient to convict.
I really do not understand why the two things are being equated. Seriously, he called some people f*cking plebs, that's not nice but how is that important? It was being reported, so he was facing appropriate consequences for the claim of it happening anyway.
Police officers LIED about him doing it (since they were not witness to it), then others lied about what he said in meetings with them.
Saying a bad thing vs police officers lying. I can see saying both are bad. But these are not equally bad.
So why no sympathy for the person lied about?
It's like the PO and Horizon. IMV any case where Horizon was used as evidence should be voided, as the system is so discredited. LIkewise these officers in this case.
I don't particularly like Mitchell: but if they can do it to him, they can do it to me. Or you.
It is not a contest between Mitchell or a policeman as to which is the bigger sh1t.
There are two issues. Firstly, was Mitchell's conduct sufficient to lose him his Cabinet job. Secondly, was the conduct of police sufficient to lose them their jobs (or in one case go to prison). It is perfectly possible for the answer to both questions to be "yes".
I can't keep up with this ship of fools.
"Although not the issue raised by the original complaint, in examining the data in question the BPC President, Sir John Curtice, noticed an apparent discrepancy which resulted in too many respondents classified as saying they would vote to stay out if the euro were a condition."
https://x.com/wethinkpolling/status/1747649766891143500
The reality is that ministered don't get ditched due to the gravity of their error but due to the damage it does to the PM/Government. Sad but true.
@PippaCrerar
·
3m
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak's flagship Rwanda deportation bill passes its final Commons hurdle by 320 votes to 276, majority 44.
In the Mitchell case, the libel trial followed the disciplinary and criminal cases against officers. I appreciate you disagree with his conclusion, but you cannot say the judge was blind to the major credibility problems in the evidence of officers. He was not, and yet still he concluded Mitchell was not telling the truth.
You might not agree with him politically, but he seems to have been a pretty diligent junior minister (genuinely committed to and knowledgeable about his brief) and MP.
Champagne ones of course given its the tories.
https://x.com/benrileysmith/status/1747735419872030798?s=20
"Just **11 Tory MPs** ended up rebellion and voting against the Rwanda Bill at third reading
Suella Braverman
Sir Bill Cash
Miriam Cates
Sir Simon Clarke
Sarah Dines
Sir James Duddridge
Mark Francois
Andrea Jenkyns
Robert Jenrick
David Jones
Danny Kruger"
If more of the police officers in question had been found guilty of lying - perjury was possible for some of them - then every conviction they had given evidence on, in long careers, would have been up for being quashed.
Drum roll... Lee Anderson after all that did NOT vote against the Rwanda Bill. He sat out third reading.
(Looks at the rotting corpses)
No, not really...
Was he definitely right? No, not definitely at all - and nor did the judge himself claim to be absolutely certain. Am I more confident in that view, which would have been based on a comprehensive assessment of enormous amounts of evidence presented by claimant and defendant, than I am in reckonings posted on the bottom half of the internet? Yes.
@igorbobic
·
3h
Romney says it’s Trump party and that if election was held today, Trump would win.
“You had a jury that said that Donald Trump had raped a woman, and yet I don’t think that seems to be moving the needle. There are a lot of things about today’s electorate I don’t understand.”
@DominicPenna
Brendan Clarke-Smith, who quit as deputy Tory chair to rebel over the Rwanda Bill, backed the Rwanda Bill
Takes some bravery opening yourself up to robbery like that for the watch thieves.
https://twitter.com/CFC_Janty/status/1747716997670948969?t=QecWqt9W7E5ThMTy7bojHw&s=19
You're making a strange point. If one factor in a calculation is wrong then the answer will be wrong no matter how many decimal places it may be presented with.
I spent 2 weeks in hospital after the birth of my first. If you have a related blood condition, as I do, then there all sorts of things to monitor afterwards which cannot easily be done at home.
Anyway hope that it all goes well for her and for @Big_G_NorthWales's son in law.
Here - after the snow yesterday and some truly awful rain - we have been blessed with the most beautiful day with a sharp clear light. Frosty tonight but the sky is clear and the starry sky magnificent.
You could have plenty of triumphant “they said we couldn’t do it - now we have smashed the gangs and turned the tide” rhetoric, making a laughing stock out of the Tories if voters are not on the same page as seeing the moment as a game changer.
Especially if the boats keep on coming all summer.
Subject matter experts reckon, after a quieter year last year, it’s going to be a long year and busy summer of channel crossings, based on how Europe filled up the previous year.
If Tories go into April campaigning with the promise planes will be up, and the promise and pretence still intact that doing this changes the game, and before that busy year of channel crossings picks up, that might be a stronger position to campaign on.
And to attack Labour over the next 5 years of channel crossings, that something that could have worked was scrapped by Starmer without being given a chance. It’s a stronger policy to the Conservative party if Starmer scraps it on May 6th, and all this summers and next summers channel crossings are on him.
I think the fact the government havn't meaningfully beefed this bill up proves they intend to campaign on just promise of it, because they are not just signaling to their own diehards they are not serious about having meaningful delivery on this to campaign on in election anytime this year, we should pick up on that signal too in terms of timing of the election.
My son in law has had a pulmonary embolism as confirmed by a CT scan and has been put on immediate medication and blood thinners
We are all relieved he went direct to hospital in a neighbours car, so no time was wasted waiting for an ambulance as it is potentially a life threatening event
Forgive me if I have misunderstood, but you seem to be saying that because one group of judges made errors in the PO scandal, this means JJ and/or SNP is in a better position to decide on Mitchell's libel trial than AN other judge.
That's...bonkers.
Would be funny to see Braverman and Jenrick unable to stand for Tories at the GE
https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsAFCON2023/2023/515541.aspx
"VAR will be used in all 52 matches with 12 officials selected to monitor matches"
The police officers giving evidence against Mitchell were already known to be associated with police officers who had lied about Mitchell in sworn statements.
In part, I think this is why the whole thing went away. It was getting close to a group of policeman being sent down for organised perjury. Which would have been very damaging to The System.
Lee Anderson tells @christopherhope on @GBNEWS he went into the ‘No’ lobby, but Labour MPs were sniggering and saying ‘he’s coming back to Labour’ and he couldn’t do it. He abstained., having resigned yesterday to vote for the amendments.
https://twitter.com/forster_k/status/1747735648981717225
@IanDunt
·
2h
Just a gigantic waste of time. Introducing pointless amendments to an insane bill for a system that anyway won't work and then caving in at the end of it. A drunk pissing themselves while slumped in the corner of a room.
That in itself could matter in future leadership contests, Braverman v Badenoch for example.
How long does the government now have to prove It hasn’t been over optimistic and over promising under delivering on this one? That’s why I think the governments mere tinkering here points to General Election May 2nd.
NEW: Rishi Sunak is expected to address the country early on Thursday morning - and issue a direct call to the House of Lords not to meddle with his bill that has now been backed by elected MPs.
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
Lee Anderson did not vote and Brendan Clarke-Smith voted for the bill, having resigned as party deputy chairs to vote for amendments, which were lost
Sunak needs to move on from Rwanda and talk about economic recovery, tax cuts in March budget and an Autumn statement immediately before calling GE 24
Shows us poor bloody workers who he thinks "the country" is.
It’s like that iconic film scene, only the ‘rebels’ stand up one by one, and say with a squeaky voice:
“I’m not Spartacus!”
“I’m not Spartacus either!”
“Don’t look at me!”
“Well, I’m certainly not going to be the only Spartacus!”
“I’m not Spartacus!”
“What’s for tea?”
If Lee Anderson had been committed to vellum tonight, in the style of the Solvite wallpaper paste man, would we have been able to tell the difference.
https://youtu.be/4h5mErP1E6A?si=vwCZiMd-ImjwjRuc
Firstly what we might call the Blair approach - being as close as possible so as to exert maximum influence - needs to be disregarded immediately. More sensible would be trying to co-ordinate a common approach with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. If Trump cannot be trusted with intelligence information then the 5 Eyes will have to become the 4 Eyes however much of a lesser entity that would be. I don't how much substance there is to the northern forum but I believe we now have defence commitments involving the Scandanavian countries. Whether we can get them (plus the Dutch?) under one roof I don't know.
Forget the Empire and the EU, the cornerstone of British foreign policy since Churchill has been making sure the US was committed to Europe. Having a President who doesn't believe in that would be quite a shock.
Been watching for some time trying to work out what's odd about it, apart from the width of the picture and the clothes. Then it hit me. I'm not being hectored.
Utterly deluded.
A nation waits with baited breath, putting their school run and 'shove breakfast down before rushing to work on shit public transport' routine on hold, to hear the way forward on some rubber dinghies from France.
Edit: odd we were told about Charles in advance.
Rishi Sunak’s good night didn’t last long. The Times is reporting a new YouGov puts the Tories on 20% - 27 points behind Labour.
One small consolation, the general election campaign should be a right laugh, and go a long way to rehabilitate May's profile.
Lab 47% (+2)
Con 20% (-2)
Reform 12% (+2)
https://news.sky.com/story/tuesdays-national-newspaper-front-pages-12427754
(The link says Tuesday, but it works for Thursday!)