"Mr Mitchell is therefore claiming that a police officer is lying in an official report – making a very serious allegation about that officer’s truthfulness. If the officer’s report is correct, then Mr Mitchell is not only failing to behave with the integrity that the Code of Conduct demands, he is also impugning the integrity of a police officer who has done nothing wrong."
That was the Police Federation line day after day after day. By not admitting their version of events in full Mitchell was accusing them of lying, that this undermined public confidence in the police, that this besmurched the reputation of the officers involved etc etc.
This really could not have gone more wrong for the Police Federation. If I was a member I would be appalled at what had been done in my name and might even consider voting in their next internal elections. Some resignations of their elected members from their positions would be a start. They have done rank and file police officers a great disservice.
What I have found over the years is that the police are like everyone else (shock). There are good and bad eggs amongst them. What I have also noted, however, is that where there is lying it tends to be endemic and cultural. A lot of this comes down to leadership and the old canteen culture.
This is what makes the attitude of the Chief Constables and those involved in the disciplinary process so concerning. They obviously thought that discipling Police Federation officers for lying was going to cause them a whole lot more trouble than it was worth. They were very wrong to think that way. It embeds a very dangerous culture.
I have a policeman friend who was based in Sutton Coldfield for a time. When I sent him a text asking if he'd been rude about government ministers, he sent back the following:
"Erm nope not that stupid, thing is I know Stu Hinton and Chris Jones. They should have known better. Policing and politics don't mix."
"I wouldn't like to be in their shoes. Now Theresa May has waded in not good for them."
It's hard to disagree with any of that. One thing to note about the Police Federation is that its representatives are pretty much by definition not that senior in the police force.
On the fuzz, I also think that Mitchell is right to be aggrieved that his mildly abusive comment, for which he apologised, was elevated into a scandalously abusive comment, and I also think that it's appalling that aspects of the incident seem to have been fabricated. I'd have thought that libel considerations were relevant?
That said, we shouldn't be especially inclined to blame either Cameron or Miliband for going on what the reports were at the time. We are fortunately not accustomed to the idea that the police will make stuff up (though maybe we are too ready to believe them), and both of them reacted as you'd expect the PM and LOTO to react if a senior Minister is accused of scandalous abuse. Now he's been cleared he's entitled to expect a job back in the next reshuffle.
"Which brings us to Ed Miliband. Mitchell has been good sport. Back in October the Labour Leader goaded David Cameron over the "double standard" that while someone "abusing police officers" in the street would be arrested, Mitchell was being protected. "While it’s a night in the cell for the yobs, it’s a night at the Carlton Club for the Chief Whip," he quipped.
If it now turns out that Mitchell is a wronged man, and is only guilty of the minor indiscretion of saying "I thought you lot were supposed to fucking help us" (his admitted remark) then he is entitled to feel aggrieved at what has happened to him. A quick return to the cabinet might not be on the cards, but speedy and earnest apologies should be. And Miliband should be first in line."
It's interesting to read the comments on that link. Clearly not the most neutral forum, but no one seems in the least bit concerned about the multiple police officers lying on several occasions. They are just about kicking the Tories. Sad, really.
We've seen that sentiment here too....fortunately it's very much a minority view...
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
Having been trained in an area where police lying, particularly amongst the CID, was so endemic it was adversely affecting the conviction rate, I moved to a small town in Fife.
In my first trial there I cross-examined a cop.
"Isn't it the case that my client did X?" (expecting the usual denial of anything remotely helpful)
"Yes sir." (astonished and slightly flummoxed) "Sorry?"
"Yes, he did do X and he also did Y and Z" (also helpful)
By this time I was disorientated. Lines of cross intended to trip the cop up disappeared in smoke. We were stuck with the facts which inevitably resulted in my client being convicted of most of the charge.
tim's interminable attempts to make Plebgate about David Cameron is the most heroic recasting of a narrative since Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead, and similarly making a farce out of a tragedy.
I'll leave you with a thought experiment. Imagine you're charged with a crime, and find yourself in court. The witness against you is a police officer. In the light of what we've learned about the behaviour of the "representative" body of police officers, and of their "leaders" in the constabularies; in the light of all that: how would you instruct your barrister to proceed?
By assuming that the jury would automatically give weight to the police officer's evidence?
I was once up on a charge in a Scottish Magistrate's Court, and while one police officer was present to identify me, the second was not. Apparently, even more than a decade ago, the word of two police officers was required, rather than just one. And so the case was dismissed.
tim's interminable attempts to make Plebgate about David Cameron is the most heroic recasting of a narrative since Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.
The most worrying thing about the Mitchell affair is that the police have been prepared to lie so publicly. It is absolutely vital for the fabric of law and order in this country that a policeman's word carries substantial weight in court. Hillsborough and Plebgate whilst wildly different both undermine this effect and so perhaps some jurors may not believe a policeman in a court of law on some substantive case. Deliberate fabrications and so forth must be dealt with by a clear, clean, proper and due process that leads to sackings. If the police don't as seems to have been the case here, and was in Hillsborough they will completely undermine their own 'moral' authority. The effect of that is devastating.
Slightly useful, but I do view most of the teams as being now locked in to a certain level of performance. It makes more sense to focus on next year than this and time is short.
The extent to which the Government may have undersold Royal Mail's recent flotation pales into total insignificance compared with the cack-handed and wholly botched way in which Labour cost the British taxpayer tens of billions by the massive scale, timing of and inefficient manner in which Britain's gold reserves were sold on the cheap.
I'll leave you with a thought experiment. Imagine you're charged with a crime, and find yourself in court. The witness against you is a police officer. In the light of what we've learned about the behaviour of the "representative" body of police officers, and of their "leaders" in the constabularies; in the light of all that: how would you instruct your barrister to proceed?
By assuming that the jury would automatically give weight to the police officer's evidence?
I was once up on a charge in a Scottish Magistrate's Court, and while one police officer was present to identify me, the second was not. Apparently, even more than a decade ago, the word of two police officers was required, rather than just one. And so the case was dismissed.
That is the Scottish law of corroboration and it is under threat of being abolished by the current Scottish government following very unpopular (with Judges and lawyers alike) proposals by the Lord Justice Clerk. I very much hope it stays. It is a better protection than qualifying majorities on juries like you have in England.
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
After Hillsborough and Orgreave I think we are well aware. What is new is the sitting PM sitting on the evidence
Cam had some evidence but not all of it. Had he waded in to what was a supremely sensitive matter (in Tory Party detox terms) and been proven wrong he would have done a complete job on himself.
Mitchell might not have been the most popular cabinet member but if what was being alleged had been true it would have trebly damaged the Cons and hence the reaction from some other Tories also.
Even your man Nick Palmer gets the dynamic. Surprised you are maintaining your extreme line on this one.
tim's interminable attempts to make Plebgate about David Cameron is the most heroic recasting of a narrative since Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.
But nothing like as funny
It's not tim's best work. But you have to give him marks for consistency.
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
Richard, you're ultra partisan these days and increasingly liable to hyperbole.
Of course the Plebgate stuff is a serious concern. The fact no10 didn't act quickly is odd and worthy of discussion.
The fact that Tories cry foul about an electoral system that awarded them nearly 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote is seriously undermining to their cause. The only party with a serious grievance about the electoral system is the LDs IMO.
Европейский комиссар @MoodySlayerUK Leftist attitude to polls: If they support majority it is the will of the people. If they oppose, it is dangerous populism akin to fascism
Worth recalling that fields of astroturf were laid by those criticising Cameron for not promptly sacking Mitchell, and that many of the artificial ground staff are now lambasting him for not clearing Mitchell.
The media also need to have a look at themselves, although they won't. The reporting was the most one-sided since the frankly deranged attacks on Osborne for being on a yacht.
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
Richard, you're ultra partisan these days and increasingly liable to hyperbole.
Of course the Plebgate stuff is a serious concern. The fact no10 didn't act quickly is odd and worthy of discussion.
The fact that Tories cry foul about an electoral system that awarded them nearly 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote is seriously undermining to their cause. The only party with a serious grievance about the electoral system is the LDs IMO.
The Lib Dems could well hold the balance of power next parliament whilst receiving less votes than a party that doesn't win a single seat !
"Cam had some evidence but not all of it. Had he waded in to what was a supremely sensitive matter (in Tory Party detox terms)"
Now you're getting somewhere, at the root of this is Camerons paranoia about his poshness problem. He didn't dare get involved,despite the evidence he had because of his extreme sensitivity about the Pleb word in conjunction with how he perceives his background as playing with the voters.
The root of this increasingly fishy story would appear to be dodgy practices by iffy coppers.
The continuing effort to paint anyone else with blame, and the attempt to include 'poshness' is a sad joke.
You need some time off to look for a moral compass.
@Jonathan - You managed three paragraphs without responding to my point about serving police officers trying to underline the government. That rather supports my argument.
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
The retail sector are being hit with a particularly unfortunate inflation rate increase in business rates in the same way the government was for benefits a few years ago but the underlying problem is that our retail sector in our towns are under enormous competitive pressure from internet suppliers. If they are to have any chance in the long term we must wean the public sector off high business rates and regarding shops as cash cows. Cancelling this year's proposed increase would be a good start.
Town centre retail has important social and employment benefits and we are in danger of losing them.
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
Um. Assume you didn't read my post?
I wrote it before your post appeared, and I'm happy to exclude you from the lashing!
What made [Brown's] effort criminal was telling the market in advance of the size of the disposal - which created a false bottom in the market. Idiotic beyond words.
Right, because nothing says, "buy" like seeing loads of an asset showing up onto the market from somewhere, but having no idea where it's coming from or how much more there will be...
tim's interminable attempts to make Plebgate about David Cameron is the most heroic recasting of a narrative since Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.
But nothing like as funny
It's not tim's best work. But you have to give him marks for consistency.
May be for effort. Not convinced about consistency - he's all over the place at the moment
They do, however, include some hard data to back up this cliché.
Do you think Rob Marchant is right about "the political turmoil in store for Labour over the next six months as it approaches its special conference"? I'd expect the union issue to be fudged into a harmless tweak of the status quo with nothing much changing.
I can't remember who posted it but at around the time the differences in account surfaced, someone posted along the lines of "Job done, who cares if [Mitchell] turns out to be innocent".
The unemployment rate is what the govt inherited, calm down dear, the population has grown. (Which is perhaps what you are inadvertently cheering, who knows anymore?)
But the number of people in work is up - higher receipts.
The number of people in the public sector is down which reduces future liabilities.
If they are to have any chance in the long term we must wean the public sector off high business rates and regarding shops as cash cows. Cancelling this year's proposed increase would be a good start.
Town centre retail has important social and employment benefits and we are in danger of losing them.
Fundamentally we need to revist business rates as a whole.
The way things are structured at the moment have two consequences: (1) internet suppliers have a structural advantage and (2) charity shops are better tenants than proper retail businesses that employ people rather than use volunteers.
I would say we should simply accept that business rates are a tax on business and move it to a different basis: perhaps revenue or gross profit?
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
I don't know if I count as a Labour supporter but I've specifically said how worrying this is.
What takes it from "very worrying" to "utterly terrifying" is that we're also giving law enforcement the power to secretly collect huge amounts of information about anyone they want to use it against, including ministers and judges. If a minister of the Crown can get stitched up like this just for being a bit of a dick about a bicycle, what happens when an elected government tries to do something that the people in charge of the security apparatus actually care about?
tim's interminable attempts to make Plebgate about David Cameron is the most heroic recasting of a narrative since Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.
But nothing like as funny
It's not tim's best work. But you have to give him marks for consistency.
May be for effort. Not convinced about consistency - he's all over the place at the moment
Says the bloke who was telling us that the Ruperts and Justins had got the Royal Mail farce spot on and is now telling us that it was a free market sale but one which had to be on the heap to get the preferred (unspecified) buyers
No: I've said consistently that I was surprised that they hadn't increased the price range (I think I threw out 350p as a good number). But as I've learnt more about the composition of the book, I can understand the call they made.
But since you like creating a false record of events to support your case, have you considered applying for a job in the Met?
I'm a bit worried about our police. They don't even have the competence to fit someone up properly. I think Ed should call for a judge-led enquiry. I bet the Yank Plod could do better.
tim's interminable attempts to make Plebgate about David Cameron is the most heroic recasting of a narrative since Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead.
But nothing like as funny
It's not tim's best work. But you have to give him marks for consistency.
May be for effort. Not convinced about consistency - he's all over the place at the moment
Says the bloke who was telling us that the Ruperts and Justins had got the Royal Mail farce spot on and is now telling us that it was a free market sale but one which had to be on the heap to get the preferred (unspecified) buyers
No: I've said consistently that I was surprised that they hadn't increased the price range (I think I threw out 350p as a good number). But as I've learnt more about the composition of the book, I can understand the call they made.
But since you like creating a false record of events to support your case, have you considered applying for a job in the Met?
I was thinking of posing as an Etonian twit PM and applying to the UK Border Force working on a baggage scanner.
"Sharp object"
where?
"that bag three months ago"
"150 ml bottle of liquid"
Which bag?
"The one I saw last year now you mention it"
Nah, stand up's not for you. This may be helpful though:
The unemployment rate is what the govt inherited, calm down dear, the population has grown. (Which is perhaps what you are inadvertently cheering, who knows anymore?)
But the number of people in work is up - higher receipts.
The number of people in the public sector is down which reduces future liabilities.
You've been saying that for years yet benefit spending rises, overall spending rises, deficit reduction is stalled at best, rising this year according to the OBR
At some point in a few years time you'll eventually realise that low pay,falling living standards and deliberately pumped up housing costs make deficit reduction more, not less, difficult.
Fundamentally we need to revist business rates as a whole.
The way things are structured at the moment have two consequences: (1) internet suppliers have a structural advantage and (2) charity shops are better tenants than proper retail businesses that employ people rather than use volunteers.
I would say we should simply accept that business rates are a tax on business and move it to a different basis: perhaps revenue or gross profit?
But we already have a tax on revenue (VAT) and gross profit (CT). The bottom line is that our businesses are too heavily taxed in too many different ways at the moment. It reduces their growth, employment and competitiveness.
In the long run we need to reduce the size of the state. In the short run we need to identify the taxes doing the most harm and seek to reduce them within a very tight envelope. The ENI changes coming into force yesterday were a good use of limited funds.
If Business rates, for example, were frozen for several consecutive years their real term cost would reduce. It is appropriate that they pay something for the occupation of premises. They need services, depend on footpaths and roads for people to get to their shops, have rubbish collections and have the benefit of policing (hopefully honest ones). But the current rates are killing business and need to fall.
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
Um. Assume you didn't read my post?
I think Richard's point is that Labour supporters are intrinsically too partisan to care about anything except Labour winning and that this blinds them to all that is morally good and decent and that Tories are just generally much better people.
The Internet will destroy a lot of high st businesses unless there is a more level playing field on rates, city centre car parking, and whether internet businesses pay VAT and corporation tax in the UK. No amount of gimmicks will help if those structural advantages persist.
If they are to have any chance in the long term we must wean the public sector off high business rates and regarding shops as cash cows. Cancelling this year's proposed increase would be a good start.
Town centre retail has important social and employment benefits and we are in danger of losing them.
Fundamentally we need to revist business rates as a whole.
The way things are structured at the moment have two consequences: (1) internet suppliers have a structural advantage and (2) charity shops are better tenants than proper retail businesses that employ people rather than use volunteers.
I would say we should simply accept that business rates are a tax on business and move it to a different basis: perhaps revenue or gross profit?
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 250,000 fewer people now "Economically Inactive" due to long-term sickness than at the General Election. An 11.2% FALL (ONS, Table A01)
Miliband set out very clearly what changes he wants to achieve. We can judge him against that.
Yes, and I'm quite certain that we will judge that he hasn't achieved them. However, that wasn't quite the point; Rob Marchant seemed to be arguing that this is a really big potential danger for Labour, which I don't think it is; there will IMO be a fudge, much talk of fraternal harmony, accusations that Labour are still in hock to the unions from the Tories, and little interest either way from voters.
In other words, a non-story. You read it first here!
The most staggering thing about the Mitchell affair is that so many on the left - including, if I'm not mistaken, every single Labour supporter who posts here - seem to be completely unworried about the fact that serving police officers set about deiberately trying to undermine the democratically-elected government.
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
Comment from the Guardian. I really don't think the nastiest of Guido's right wing window lickers would descend this far:
"Part of me feels sorry for Andrew Mitchell; he has been very badly treated by certain members of the police and his party. Then I snap out of it and think he is a Tory lickspittle so fuck him!"
Nabavi complains about Labour's trade union scandal. It is not a scandal. The Labour party was formed by the Trades unions. It is therefore right that the Unions should have some say in the selection of MPs. The Tories treat trade unionists as an enemy-they are not. The enemies within are the money lenders, the bankers and the finance companies, these lobbyists to the Tory Party, make up the army of speculators, and tax avoiders who control the Tory party. Nabavi should criticize the scandal of increased homelessness, which is going to expand due to the spare bedroom room tax. ..As for the voting system giving Labour an advantage, well this is a recent welcome development. In the 1951 General Election Labour polled 48.7 per cent of the vote yet finished up with 26 fewer seats than the Tories. Labour polled 750,000 more votes than the Tories, we heard no protests from the Tory Party at that in balance which, then, favoured the Tories. The Tory party is made up of parasites who live off the backs of the poor.
Fundamentally we need to revist business rates as a whole.
The way things are structured at the moment have two consequences: (1) internet suppliers have a structural advantage and (2) charity shops are better tenants than proper retail businesses that employ people rather than use volunteers.
I would say we should simply accept that business rates are a tax on business and move it to a different basis: perhaps revenue or gross profit?
But we already have a tax on revenue (VAT) and gross profit (CT). The bottom line is that our businesses are too heavily taxed in too many different ways at the moment. It reduces their growth, employment and competitiveness.
In the long run we need to reduce the size of the state. In the short run we need to identify the taxes doing the most harm and seek to reduce them within a very tight envelope. The ENI changes coming into force yesterday were a good use of limited funds.
If Business rates, for example, were frozen for several consecutive years their real term cost would reduce. It is appropriate that they pay something for the occupation of premises. They need services, depend on footpaths and roads for people to get to their shops, have rubbish collections and have the benefit of policing (hopefully honest ones). But the current rates are killing business and need to fall.
I don't disagree with your overall argument.
The problem is that the current structure incentivises firms that are outside the tax net (e.g. Amazon) and gives them a structural advantage.
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 250,000 fewer people now "Economically Inactive" due to long-term sickness than at the General Election. An 11.2% FALL (ONS, Table A01)
More bad news eh ? Yet all the blob was shrieking at this unfair cruel approach..
I have a policeman friend who was based in Sutton Coldfield for a time. When I sent him a text asking if he'd been rude about government ministers, he sent back the following:
"Erm nope not that stupid, thing is I know Stu Hinton and Chris Jones. They should have known better. Policing and politics don't mix."
"I wouldn't like to be in their shoes. Now Theresa May has waded in not good for them."
It's hard to disagree with any of that. One thing to note about the Police Federation is that its representatives are pretty much by definition not that senior in the police force.
Who was providing the Police Federation in the West Midlands with PR advice around that time? I believe it was former tabloid journalist and shock radio jock Jon Gaunt.
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 250,000 fewer people now "Economically Inactive" due to long-term sickness than at the General Election. An 11.2% FALL (ONS, Table A01)
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 250,000 fewer people now "Economically Inactive" due to long-term sickness than at the General Election. An 11.2% FALL (ONS, Table A01)
More bad news eh ? Yet all the blob was shrieking at this unfair cruel approach..
Are the dead considered to be no longer "Economically Inactive"? If so, at least 10,600 of the 250k must these folk. Great news!
'The Government’s own statistics reveal between 2010 and 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of losing their claim.'
Mr. G, regardless of whether Mitchell in general is an arse or not the issue is the police potentially stitching up a cabinet minister, which is clearly absolutely unacceptable.
Morris, I am willing to excuse them when it is useless politicians they are stitching up , that should be seen as a benefit to the country and rewarded.
So OK if they come after Eck then? Didnae think so!
Since he is not an erse and has nothing to hide , and he does not make a habit of cursing people out , he would have little to fear.
Patrick Wintour @patrickwintour 10m William Rucker, Lazards boss, received £5m in 2012. By underpricing Royal Mail he has lost taxpayers £1bn. One for Margaret Hodge ?
Re Andrew Mitchell, I've often said I lack confidence in the police.
What made this whole scandal so complicated and damaging to Mitchell and the Tories was that it only happened a few days after the murders of the two GMP police officers by Dale Cregan.
Now in hindsight, if that hadn't of happened, would Mitchell been more aggressive in his approach in dealing with this?
What takes it from "very worrying" to "utterly terrifying" is that we're also giving law enforcement the power to secretly collect huge amounts of information about anyone they want to use it against, including ministers and judges. If a minister of the Crown can get stitched up like this just for being a bit of a dick about a bicycle, what happens when an elected government tries to do something that the people in charge of the security apparatus actually care about?
That's a fair point, as long as we don't draw from it the conclusion that we can simply say 'OK, well we won't look for intelligence that might help us prevent terrorist attacks'.
Constant vigilance, democratic oversight, and a relentless focus on high ethical standards in public life are our best protection, which is why I think Jonathan was wrong to accuse me of hyperbole.
Mr. G, regardless of whether Mitchell in general is an arse or not the issue is the police potentially stitching up a cabinet minister, which is clearly absolutely unacceptable.
Morris, I am willing to excuse them when it is useless politicians they are stitching up , that should be seen as a benefit to the country and rewarded.
So OK if they come after Eck then? Didnae think so!
Since he is not an erse and has nothing to hide , and he does not make a habit of cursing people out , he would have little to fear.
All that taxpayers money wasted trying to hide the non-existent legal advice on an independent Scotland and the EU, it would be acceptable to infer he does have something to hide.
How much is the feel good factor resulting from England's World Cup qualification worth to the Tories in the polls, at least in the short term? 0.5% ....1.0% ....1.5% ? Of course, were England to win the tournament next July, well then you're really talking!
It sounds lik a mug punt but is the 33-1 on England any good Betfred is offering today. I'm not tempted at 25s but 33s...
It would not be good value at 1000-1. First good team they meet will hammer them , mediocre team at best.
Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC IPCC's Deborah Glass; Steve Williams, Police Fed Chair; & 3 West Mids chief constables will ALL appear at Home Affairs Cttee next Wednesday
CCHQ Press Office @RicHolden 250,000 fewer people now "Economically Inactive" due to long-term sickness than at the General Election. An 11.2% FALL (ONS, Table A01)
More bad news eh ? Yet all the blob was shrieking at this unfair cruel approach..
Are the dead considered to be no longer "Economically Inactive"? If so, at least 10,600 of the 250k must these folk. Great news!
'The Government’s own statistics reveal between 2010 and 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of losing their claim.'
But when push comes to shove, a few say ... "First they came for Mitchell but .. aw, he's only a godshite, so f*** him, let's blame Cameron instead."
I feel sorry for the good cops, tarred with the brush of a few idiots
"First they came for the mime artists but I was not a mime, so I said nothing. In retrospect, I should have thought it through a bit more."
In the free software community it goes, "First they came for the Linux users, and I didn't speak, because I couldn't get my audio drivers to work with 3.0.4".
How much is the feel good factor resulting from England's World Cup qualification worth to the Tories in the polls, at least in the short term? 0.5% ....1.0% ....1.5% ? Of course, were England to win the tournament next July, well then you're really talking!
It sounds lik a mug punt but is the 33-1 on England any good Betfred is offering today. I'm not tempted at 25s but 33s...
It would not be good value at 1000-1. First good team they meet will hammer them , mediocre team at best.
I assume you're going to lay your entire bank on England on Betfair then given you think the price is at least 40 times wrong ?
"Which brings us to Ed Miliband. Mitchell has been good sport. Back in October the Labour Leader goaded David Cameron over the "double standard" that while someone "abusing police officers" in the street would be arrested, Mitchell was being protected. "While it’s a night in the cell for the yobs, it’s a night at the Carlton Club for the Chief Whip," he quipped.
If it now turns out that Mitchell is a wronged man, and is only guilty of the minor indiscretion of saying "I thought you lot were supposed to fucking help us" (his admitted remark) then he is entitled to feel aggrieved at what has happened to him. A quick return to the cabinet might not be on the cards, but speedy and earnest apologies should be. And Miliband should be first in line."
It's interesting to read the comments on that link. Clearly not the most neutral forum, but no one seems in the least bit concerned about the multiple police officers lying on several occasions. They are just about kicking the Tories. Sad, really.
We've seen that sentiment here too....fortunately it's very much a minority view...
Shows how much people think the Tories need kicking , to be so unpopular that people support police lying rather than them. Says it all.
Nabavi complains about Labour's trade union scandal. It is not a scandal. The Labour party was formed by the Trades unions. It is therefore right that the Unions should have some say in the selection of MPs. The Tories treat trade unionists as an enemy-they are not. The enemies within are the money lenders, the bankers and the finance companies, these lobbyists to the Tory Party, make up the army of speculators, and tax avoiders who control the Tory party. Nabavi should criticize the scandal of increased homelessness, which is going to expand due to the spare bedroom room tax. ..As for the voting system giving Labour an advantage, well this is a recent welcome development. In the 1951 General Election Labour polled 48.7 per cent of the vote yet finished up with 26 fewer seats than the Tories. Labour polled 750,000 more votes than the Tories, we heard no protests from the Tory Party at that in balance which, then, favoured the Tories. The Tory party is made up of parasites who live off the backs of the poor.
A year ago the annual growth rate in regular pay briefly touched 2%, but now it has more than halved to 0.7%. With employment growing and unemployment falling you would expect that average earnings would start to grow more strongly, as workers would have more bargaining power.
How much is the feel good factor resulting from England's World Cup qualification worth to the Tories in the polls, at least in the short term? 0.5% ....1.0% ....1.5% ? Of course, were England to win the tournament next July, well then you're really talking!
It sounds lik a mug punt but is the 33-1 on England any good Betfred is offering today. I'm not tempted at 25s but 33s...
It would not be good value at 1000-1. First good team they meet will hammer them , mediocre team at best.
Mr. T, if you ever start to feel embarrassed or self-conscious about promoting your book, you could always apply balm to your soul by promoting mine instead
Comments
This really could not have gone more wrong for the Police Federation. If I was a member I would be appalled at what had been done in my name and might even consider voting in their next internal elections. Some resignations of their elected members from their positions would be a start. They have done rank and file police officers a great disservice.
What I have found over the years is that the police are like everyone else (shock). There are good and bad eggs amongst them. What I have also noted, however, is that where there is lying it tends to be endemic and cultural. A lot of this comes down to leadership and the old canteen culture.
This is what makes the attitude of the Chief Constables and those involved in the disciplinary process so concerning. They obviously thought that discipling Police Federation officers for lying was going to cause them a whole lot more trouble than it was worth. They were very wrong to think that way. It embeds a very dangerous culture.
http://www.itv.com/news/story/2013-10-16/prisoner-voting-rights-decision/
"Erm nope not that stupid, thing is I know Stu Hinton and Chris Jones. They should have known better. Policing and politics don't mix."
"I wouldn't like to be in their shoes. Now Theresa May has waded in not good for them."
It's hard to disagree with any of that. One thing to note about the Police Federation is that its representatives are pretty much by definition not that senior in the police force.
That said, we shouldn't be especially inclined to blame either Cameron or Miliband for going on what the reports were at the time. We are fortunately not accustomed to the idea that the police will make stuff up (though maybe we are too ready to believe them), and both of them reacted as you'd expect the PM and LOTO to react if a senior Minister is accused of scandalous abuse. Now he's been cleared he's entitled to expect a job back in the next reshuffle.
Could be good for UKIP if it plays out like I suspect...
If anything, that is even more alarming than the left's lack of concern about the fact that Labour strongholds get disproportionately too many MPs per registered voter, or the West Lothian scandal.
You'd have thought they'd make at least a token attempt to portray themselves as fair-minded democrats, but apparently not.
In my first trial there I cross-examined a cop.
"Isn't it the case that my client did X?" (expecting the usual denial of anything remotely helpful)
"Yes sir."
(astonished and slightly flummoxed) "Sorry?"
"Yes, he did do X and he also did Y and Z" (also helpful)
By this time I was disorientated. Lines of cross intended to trip the cop up disappeared in smoke. We were stuck with the facts which inevitably resulted in my client being convicted of most of the charge.
Different culture. Much better results all round.
It is not acceptable, remotely, for the police to (allegedly) engineer the downfall of a cabinet minister to suit their own political agenda.
Hillsborough and Plebgate whilst wildly different both undermine this effect and so perhaps some jurors may not believe a policeman in a court of law on some substantive case. Deliberate fabrications and so forth must be dealt with by a clear, clean, proper and due process that leads to sackings. If the police don't as seems to have been the case here, and was in Hillsborough they will completely undermine their own 'moral' authority.
The effect of that is devastating.
http://www.espn.co.uk/ferrari/motorsport/story/130395.html
Slightly useful, but I do view most of the teams as being now locked in to a certain level of performance. It makes more sense to focus on next year than this and time is short.
Cam had some evidence but not all of it. Had he waded in to what was a supremely sensitive matter (in Tory Party detox terms) and been proven wrong he would have done a complete job on himself.
Mitchell might not have been the most popular cabinet member but if what was being alleged had been true it would have trebly damaged the Cons and hence the reaction from some other Tories also.
Even your man Nick Palmer gets the dynamic. Surprised you are maintaining your extreme line on this one.
Of course the Plebgate stuff is a serious concern. The fact no10 didn't act quickly is odd and worthy of discussion.
The fact that Tories cry foul about an electoral system that awarded them nearly 50% of the seats on 37% of the vote is seriously undermining to their cause. The only party with a serious grievance about the electoral system is the LDs IMO.
Европейский комиссар @MoodySlayerUK
Leftist attitude to polls: If they support majority it is the will of the people. If they oppose, it is dangerous populism akin to fascism
The media also need to have a look at themselves, although they won't. The reporting was the most one-sided since the frankly deranged attacks on Osborne for being on a yacht.
The continuing effort to paint anyone else with blame, and the attempt to include 'poshness' is a sad joke.
You need some time off to look for a moral compass.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2013/10/16/with-labour’s-lead-narrowing-the-next-election-is-now-too-close-to-call/
They do, however, include some hard data to back up this cliché.
Obviously George's first priority has to be ensuring that I win my bet with Tim but if there is any spare money floating about I think this is a proper area of concern: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10379421/20000-jobs-at-risk-as-inflation-spike-pushes-up-business-rates.html
The retail sector are being hit with a particularly unfortunate inflation rate increase in business rates in the same way the government was for benefits a few years ago but the underlying problem is that our retail sector in our towns are under enormous competitive pressure from internet suppliers. If they are to have any chance in the long term we must wean the public sector off high business rates and regarding shops as cash cows. Cancelling this year's proposed increase would be a good start.
Town centre retail has important social and employment benefits and we are in danger of losing them.
Lewis Cypher @Gunna_burn
I wish Labour voters would make up their minds,either there aren't any jobs or we need immigration to do the jobs,which is it
George is not wrong
I might actually go and find that post.
The number of people in the public sector is down which reduces future liabilities.
The way things are structured at the moment have two consequences: (1) internet suppliers have a structural advantage and (2) charity shops are better tenants than proper retail businesses that employ people rather than use volunteers.
I would say we should simply accept that business rates are a tax on business and move it to a different basis: perhaps revenue or gross profit?
What takes it from "very worrying" to "utterly terrifying" is that we're also giving law enforcement the power to secretly collect huge amounts of information about anyone they want to use it against, including ministers and judges. If a minister of the Crown can get stitched up like this just for being a bit of a dick about a bicycle, what happens when an elected government tries to do something that the people in charge of the security apparatus actually care about?
But since you like creating a false record of events to support your case, have you considered applying for a job in the Met?
EDIT: I see this has already been discussed :-)
I'm a bit worried about our police. They don't even have the competence to fit someone up properly. I think Ed should call for a judge-led enquiry. I bet the Yank Plod could do better.
http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/doi/how_to_apply.html
You don't like good news - we get it...
Fundamentally we need to revist business rates as a whole.
The way things are structured at the moment have two consequences: (1) internet suppliers have a structural advantage and (2) charity shops are better tenants than proper retail businesses that employ people rather than use volunteers.
I would say we should simply accept that business rates are a tax on business and move it to a different basis: perhaps revenue or gross profit?
But we already have a tax on revenue (VAT) and gross profit (CT). The bottom line is that our businesses are too heavily taxed in too many different ways at the moment. It reduces their growth, employment and competitiveness.
In the long run we need to reduce the size of the state. In the short run we need to identify the taxes doing the most harm and seek to reduce them within a very tight envelope. The ENI changes coming into force yesterday were a good use of limited funds.
If Business rates, for example, were frozen for several consecutive years their real term cost would reduce. It is appropriate that they pay something for the occupation of premises. They need services, depend on footpaths and roads for people to get to their shops, have rubbish collections and have the benefit of policing (hopefully honest ones). But the current rates are killing business and need to fall.
Btw I'm going to be at the Racing Post Trophy in Doncaster on the 26th with my brother and some mates. Any other PBers going ?
He is the thickest genius we've ever had on pbc.
McVey, Soubry, De Piero, Bell, Gove... the Daily Politics looks at the early TV careers of political figures bbc.in/172JdDf
250,000 fewer people now "Economically Inactive" due to long-term sickness than at the General Election. An 11.2% FALL (ONS, Table A01)
How badly could it knock our nascent recovery off course?
Will anyone in the US blink before they run out of money?
In other words, a non-story. You read it first here!
"Part of me feels sorry for Andrew Mitchell; he has been very badly treated by certain members of the police and his party. Then I snap out of it and think he is a Tory lickspittle so fuck him!"
..As for the voting system giving Labour an advantage, well this is a recent welcome development. In the 1951 General Election Labour polled 48.7 per cent of the vote yet finished up with 26 fewer seats than the Tories. Labour polled 750,000 more votes than the Tories, we heard no protests from the Tory Party at that in balance which, then, favoured the Tories. The Tory party is made up of parasites who live off the backs of the poor.
To their credit Totesport laid me a fair bet.
Amongst the shorter-priced contenders I would be inclined to back Brazil & Germany.
But we already have a tax on revenue (VAT) and gross profit (CT). The bottom line is that our businesses are too heavily taxed in too many different ways at the moment. It reduces their growth, employment and competitiveness.
In the long run we need to reduce the size of the state. In the short run we need to identify the taxes doing the most harm and seek to reduce them within a very tight envelope. The ENI changes coming into force yesterday were a good use of limited funds.
If Business rates, for example, were frozen for several consecutive years their real term cost would reduce. It is appropriate that they pay something for the occupation of premises. They need services, depend on footpaths and roads for people to get to their shops, have rubbish collections and have the benefit of policing (hopefully honest ones). But the current rates are killing business and need to fall.
I don't disagree with your overall argument.
The problem is that the current structure incentivises firms that are outside the tax net (e.g. Amazon) and gives them a structural advantage.
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/monday-diary-has-jon-gaunt-loved-the-police-federation-to-death-8430530.html
It seems as if the Gaunt Brothers PR company is no longer online.
EiT,
Well said
Some on the left like to quote ....
"First they came for the communists ... etc"
But when push comes to shove, a few say ... "First they came for Mitchell but .. aw, he's only a godshite, so f*** him, let's blame Cameron instead."
I feel sorry for the good cops, tarred with the brush of a few idiots
Stable is one point of view, a Balls type flat-lining despite all popular Ed's recent 'triumphs' is another.
Labour was in low 40s generally, with double digit leads.
The Tories were in early 30s, so the Labour share of the vote has fallen slightly, with a modest rise in the Tory share of the vote
http://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/k2896t9e4p/YG-Archives-Pol-Trackers-Voting-Trends-with-UKIP-151013.pdf
Are the dead considered to be no longer "Economically Inactive"? If so, at least 10,600 of the 250k must these folk. Great news!
'The Government’s own statistics reveal between 2010 and 2011, 10,600 sick and disabled people died within six weeks of losing their claim.'
http://tinyurl.com/py8oyw9
What made this whole scandal so complicated and damaging to Mitchell and the Tories was that it only happened a few days after the murders of the two GMP police officers by Dale Cregan.
Now in hindsight, if that hadn't of happened, would Mitchell been more aggressive in his approach in dealing with this?
Constant vigilance, democratic oversight, and a relentless focus on high ethical standards in public life are our best protection, which is why I think Jonathan was wrong to accuse me of hyperbole.
Danny Shaw @DannyShawBBC
IPCC's Deborah Glass; Steve Williams, Police Fed Chair; & 3 West Mids chief constables will ALL appear at Home Affairs Cttee next Wednesday
Andrew Mitchell has been wronged – and the Labour movement should defend him
http://labourlist.org/2013/10/andrew-mitchell-has-been-wronged-and-the-labour-movement-should-defend-him/
How many died in an equivalent period ?
The tips on Guemede and Ellis-Bextor look good (they are the faves),ditto Ashley Taylor Dawson as top male.
I'm regretting not backing Susanna Reid though.
Let's see the response.
A year ago the annual growth rate in regular pay briefly touched 2%, but now it has more than halved to 0.7%. With employment growing and unemployment falling you would expect that average earnings would start to grow more strongly, as workers would have more bargaining power.
I've not checked but did Scotland qualify?