MILLIONAIRE Tory Cabinet minister refers to police as " plebs " - Police fabricate evidence

neo202020 said:
I suspect that Andrew Mitchell thinks he would be sacked if he did that - that's why he hasn't done it.

I think the word "pleb" is far more toxic than not telling the truth about what happened in this case, as evidenced by all the media coverage and even the title of this thread itself. It speaks to a stereotype of elitist Tories which rings true for many people and that's why he's so keen to avoid admitting it, even though he blatantly did say it.
Click to expand...

How on earth is lying about it to avoid being sacked and as a result, creating a media storm which lasts two weeks and gives the impression the party is exactly as prejudiced and arrogant as people think it is, better than admitting you made an error, apologising and moving on?

Okay hindsight is a wonderful thing and he potentially didn't know that lying about it would have prompted the furore to continue as long as it has (thought he should really have known), but now it has become this toxic, resignation seems like the honourable thing to do, especially given the vital role he's been given in the party and the damage can only continue and increase while he continues to lie!
 
neo202020 said:
I think the word "pleb" is far more toxic than not telling the truth about what happened in this case
Click to expand...



I'd argue it's the other way around. As pointed out, if he really had said what he says that he said, and nothing else, then all he need do is apologise, citing "stress" or whatever. Everyone rolls their eyes, and the issue goes away until Election Time - it's not like everyone didn't suspect this anyway. But Cameron came out and agreed with Mitchell's story, meaning now Cameron can also be accused of lying if it turns out the police are right. Calling a policeman a pleb is not a resigning matter, lying in an official statement is.
 
Meridian said:
Calling a policeman a pleb is not a resigning matter, lying in an official statement is.
Click to expand...

I agree with you that that is how it should be but you just have to look at the media response and how everyone is so focused on the word "pleb" to see why Mitchell hasn't owned up to it despite clearly saying it.
 
Either he, or the police officers concerned, are lying. Thats the main issue now.Personally I believe the police here.Camerons just hoping it will all go away. He has a big advantage currently that it is party conference season, so parliament isn't sitting until 15th October and labour can't tear in to him at every opportunity in the house.He can avoid questions such as 'if Mitchell is not lying, then you are saying the police officers ARE lying, and action should be taken against them!' That would make him squirm.
I think Mitchell might get away with it, because he hasn't gone yet.
 
I think there are two issues here.

The first isn't about wealth and political allegiance. It is about the fact that an MP, who is paid by the Tax payer, who is elected by his Constituents, thinks he is above the ordinary population of the UK.

He and his ilk are not our Masters, they are the servants of the people - paid to represent them and he should be reminded of this fact.

The second issue is one of integrity. One of the parties is clearly not telling the truth. Now if it were a Police Officer lying in a report or falsifying statements there would be an outcry (as we have recently seen). So why is there any difference with Mitchell - he too is paid by the Public purse, he too holds a position of authority, he too is in the public eye and expected to behave with a degree of decorum.

I would dearly love the members of the public who were near to the gate to come forward since then we would have some independent evidence as to who was telling the truth. I suspect that if that happened Mr Cameron would be looking for a new Chief Whip :)
 
Andy90 said:
I think there are two issues here.

The first isn't about wealth and political allegiance. It is about the fact that an MP, who is paid by the Tax payer, who is elected by his Constituents, thinks he is above the ordinary population of the UK.

He and his ilk are not our Masters, they are the servants of the people - paid to represent them and he should be reminded of this fact.

The second issue is one of integrity. One of the parties is clearly not telling the truth. Now if it were a Police Officer lying in a report or falsifying statements there would be an outcry (as we have recently seen). So why is there any difference with Mitchell - he too is paid by the Public purse, he too holds a position of authority, he too is in the public eye and expected to behave with a degree of decorum.

I would dearly love the members of the public who were near to the gate to come forward since then we would have some independent evidence as to who was telling the truth. I suspect that if that happened Mr Cameron would be looking for a new Chief Whip :)
Click to expand...

The fact that there is no enquiry pretty much confirms in my opinion that the officers account is true.
 
neo202020 said:
I agree with you that that is how it should be but you just have to look at the media response and how everyone is so focused on the word "pleb" to see why Mitchell hasn't owned up to it despite clearly saying it.
Click to expand...



But here's the thing: if that had been Boris, he would have laughed it off, made a couple of jokes about Eton, and been on his merry way. Everyone knows the Party is full of toffs, everyone already suspected that they thought they were superior. The comment is what got the story into the papers, but it's not what is keeping it there. If Mitchell had told the truth, the whole truth etc, then the story would have died a day after it happened. But the papers smell another issue, one they can keep pecking at, until the "truth" does come out. First rule of ****-ups: admit everything in detail, say sorry, explain that it will never happen again. Works almost every time, unless the foul-up is truly bad. The press get bored and move on, because the whole story is now out. But as long as they suspect there more to come, they will keep biting. Hence why the argument over whose recollection is correct is now the story, now the word "pleb".
 
Last edited:
Lololol.

So much for the influential 1922 committee..

Bunch of plebs.

It would have been much better for them if he quit immediately, as opposed to waiting for everyone to exonerate him and then quiting over it..
 
Well Ed did waste almost 5 weeks rabbitting on about it.
He's still an MP, that won't change.
Overall change in govt, NIL.

Effective opposition, they managed to get a man to resign, when he didn't do that much in the first place, he was SJS, he was internal affairs, waste of time.
Wonder what the Eds will start whinging about now in an attempt to hide from actually making a policy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom