Friday, 28 November 2014

If Andrew Mitchell had stuck to his principles he would be the first ex-Cabinet Minister about to defect UKIP



'Plebgate' row: Timeline

What should Andrew Mitchell not have done, apart from not ride his bike, and used his ministerial car instead?

What went wrong for Andrew Mitchell? For Hitler, it was invading Poland.




at

15 comments:

  1. AK28 November 2014 at 15:48:00 GMT

    I think his 'fatal error' was being an arrogant dickhead in the first place.

    I cant see what 'principle' he was upholding. we can do without arseholes like him in governemnt

    ReplyDelete
  2. AB28 November 2014 at 15:48:00 GMT

    Mitchell made one enormous mistake. How the fuck could he have agreed to a non-jury trial? A jury with two or three black men on it would have seen him awarded massive damages. Damn that cunt of a judge.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Claire Khaw28 November 2014 at 15:50:00 GMT

    I was referring to the principle of not resigning if you don't think you have done anything worth resigning over.

    The principle of not resigning if you don't think you have done anything worth resigning over.

    Or Miliband when he sacked Thornberry?

    Or don't you see that either?

    I was invited to resign from the BNP for what I said on the Victoria Derbyshire Show. I declined to do so.

    http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/claire-khaw-expelled-from-bnp.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. Claire Khaw28 November 2014 at 15:56:00 GMT

    It was a FALSE ECONOMY agreeing to a judge-only trial, yes, indeed. Sally Bercow went wrong that way too.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AB28 November 2014 at 16:16:00 GMT

    Expensive for him... yet the cost simply verifies the rule for all of us, independent of power and influence we may have: If the State's servant of power (police) give evidence within the State's Court, then that officer's version will be accepted whether truthful or not. There was a case in Scotland a decade or so ago where a policewoman's fingerprints were verified as being at the scene of a murder incident. It would have been virtually impossible for her to have been there ... yet the fingerprints "proved" otherwise. A very difficult position for the police, courts, forensic evidence, CPS. The result? - rather than having proven that fingerprint collection or police were wrong... easy... the young officer was retired from police service with an undisclosed taxpayer pay-off. Crisis over. No police compromised. Fingerprint "evidence" saved.

    ReplyDelete
  6. NM28 November 2014 at 16:18:00 GMT

    Actually it has more to do with the evidential criteria being a lot less in civil cases.

    The Judge ruled on the basis of probabilities and ruled in favour of The Sun.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AB28 November 2014 at 16:19:00 GMT

    That Mitchell said "something like" Pleb... on probability. He never claimed he did not use bad language or that he never said anything like "pleb". He only claimed he didn't use "pleb" ... and one cops word saying he did was enough, huh? Even though a number of other cops have been sacked or sanctioned for colluding and conspiring against Mitchell... liars. every one of them.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JK28 November 2014 at 18:09:00 GMT

    It is absurd to settle the case on the basis of probabilities. In fact the entire situation is absurd. Not since Michael Meacher sued someone for claiming he wasn't working class has there been a more ridiculous case. The right thing to do would have been to throw it out as vexatious and a waste of public funds and administer the appropriate number of lashes to both parties . But of course the bloodsucking legal community wouldn't have received its fat fees.

    ReplyDelete
  9. NM28 November 2014 at 18:10:00 GMT

    Mitchell is cunt, he got what he deserved

    ReplyDelete
  10. AB28 November 2014 at 18:10:00 GMT

    Was it an ego trip (as Meacher's may have been)? Mitchell lost his career and humiliated as a result. If he deserved it then let all police officers lie based on their individual beliefs on who deserves it. No change there then.

    ReplyDelete
  11. JK28 November 2014 at 18:11:00 GMT

    Yes, we are now back in the situation where the police can lie and connive and back each other up with impunity. The question remains: if they can collude to destroy a member of the government, what can't they do to you and I?

    ReplyDelete
  12. RP28 November 2014 at 18:11:00 GMT

    Cops are scum. So are politicians. This is a real confusing case. I hate all of them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. NM28 November 2014 at 18:12:00 GMT

    It all boils down to who was the bigger cunt.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Claire Khaw1 December 2014 at 17:36:00 GMT

    If Mitchell had not resigned Cameron would have sacked him in the end.

    Members of the establishment no longer even stand up for each other.

    They have lost all their marbles and their marbles are rolling all over the floor, but they are still in charge.

    I actually find this scarier.

    ReplyDelete
  15. JK1 December 2014 at 17:37:00 GMT

    The real worry is that an unholy alliance of Plod and the Sun can now expect to get away with stitching up anyone they please, selling us whatever lies are convenient for their own purposes: insinuations of paedophilia, sexual impropriety, pointing a finger at the police in a " threatening manner"...This has been somehow overlooked in the overall farce.

    ReplyDelete