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

Muffin` said:
What like the Tory's were extended that same courtesy? Give some people and inch and they'll go a mile on Tory bashing. Out of touch indeed.
Click to expand...

Why should they be?

To be perfectly honest, the second you field yourself as a political entity you've got it coming to you one way or another.

Labour may have went overboard with the politicisation of the matter, but again this is an issue of politics not that of instutional corruption or politicisation of the police bar the accusations of a minority.

Sure, generalisations are about both in politics but also real life with the 'polis' yet I just have a funny feeling this could be serious enough for some real damage to be done, intentionally or otherwise, to an important civic pillar.
 
estebanrey said:
As someone who has has seen a police officer lie in court against me, accept my apologies for not sharing your optimistic views on the duty bound police officer.

I've come to realise they are humans, and treat their jobs like we all do. If you can lie or cheat to make yourself look better or cover up a mistake they will do it without consideration.
Click to expand...

So that proves they're all like that does it?

Really...
 
estebanrey said:
Was that my claim?

No thought not.
Click to expand...

Yet it clearly forms part of your prejudice, doesn't it?

You took the actions of one, a minority, and conflated it onto the majority.

If you think they are all going to lie in court and politically assissinate Government Ministers then what on earth could I say to convince you otherwise?

This is a clearly a regretful situation, especially if it does clear Mr Mitchell, but it mustn't become a retalitory attack of the institution itself.

Not unless it is proven to be an organisational culture, which I doubt it will be to be honest.
 
Biohazard said:
You took the actions of one, a minority, and conflated it onto the majority.
Click to expand...

No I didn't.

Please quote where I said that all or most police officers were corrupt. You'll struggle because I didn't.

My personal view is there is more corruption (if by that you mean police officers deliberately bending the truth for personal or force gain) than the public is willing to admit. I have a problem with the general feeling I get from courts and the public automatically assuming a police officer's testimony is worth more than anyone else's.
 
Biohazard said:
Why should they be?
Labour may have went overboard with the politicisation of the matter, but ....
Click to expand...

Indeed.
Has Ed the duck made any statement tonight regarding this matter? I haven't watched the news, but they (labour) rolled on this for weeks to get rid of the chap, he was the most evil person in the UK, until he resigned and got replaced by the corpse of Jimmy Saville in the eyes of the press.
 
The government are shafting the police at every given opportunity. Pay, conditions and pensions mainly. As much as I dislike this government, I wouldn't support dirty tricks and uf wrongdoing has gone on then it should be answered to.

The entire force being dismissed as liars and fabricators though ?
 
estebanrey said:
No I didn't.

Please quote where I said that all or most police officers were corrupt. You'll struggle because I didn't.
Click to expand...

estebanrey said:
I've never trusted police accounts after having one lie in court against me.
Click to expand...

estebanrey said:
As someone who has has seen a police officer lie in court against me, accept my apologies for not sharing your optimistic views on the duty bound police officer.
Click to expand...

This is a clear insinuation that you do not agree with my ascertion that the vast majority of serving police officers are moral in their undertakings and follow the law.

If you took your personal experience as the main driver in your opinion towards this, then I would say that yes you have prejudiced a majority for the actions of a minority.
 
Last edited:
Biohazard said:
This is a clear insinuation that you do not agree with my ascertion that the vast majority of serving police officers are moral in their undertakings and follow the law.
Click to expand...

Then let me clarify.

I wasn't saying I believe in general, the majority of police are corrupt. I was saying I didn't share your confidence that this was an isolated incident and that far more police are willing to lie it it makes them look better or look less incompetent that most are willing to admit.

Me not agreeing this was an isolated incident doesn't equate to me suggesting it is the majority, it just means I don't think things like this as rare as the public would like to believe. The Hillsborough report which preceded this event is all the proof I need for that (another reason I was suspicious when this story came up, police look bad 'cause of Hillsbrough, a few days later they suddenly look like victims at the hand of a Minister).
 
estebanrey said:
Then let me clarify.

I wasn't saying I believe in general, the majority of police are corrupt. I was saying I didn't share your confidence that this was an isolated incident and that far more police are willing to lie it it makes them look better or look less incompetent that most are willing to admit.

Me not agreeing this was an isolated incident doesn't equate to me suggesting it is the majority, it just means I don't think things like this as rare as the public would like to believe.
Click to expand...

How many other police instigated minsterial resignations can you point to, of late?
 
estebanrey said:
The point of this question is what? Again I fear you're trying to steer me into something I've not said or trying to say.
Click to expand...

You fear it isn't an isolated incident, I'm trying to get to the point that it is quite a unique incident.

Unless this is just back to the "they aren't to be trusted" generalisation on the topic of evidence fabrication, again.
 
I was going to say Ed Millband has now made himself look like a fool but then I quickly realised he couldn't be anymore foolish then if he turned up for PMQ's in a Coco the clown the outfit riding a unicycle.
 
Biohazard said:
You fear it isn't an isolated incident, I'm trying to get to the point that it is quite a unique incident.

Unless this is just back to the "they aren't to be trusted" generalisation on the topic of evidence fabrication, again.
Click to expand...

By isolated incident I meant example of a police officer bending the truth to make his mistaken account of events look like they happened. Not specifically a event where an officer has lied to do over an MP.

My position is not 'they're not to be trusted', my position is 'they are not to be automatically assumed to be telling the truth'. I don't believe a policeman's version of events, or log book should be considered as more factual than a member of the public's testimony or account.

At the time of this event, there did seem to me the automatic assumption that the policeman's notebook was more reliable than Mitchell's recollection of event and that is something I don't think should happen. I get the impression that with two non-police saying different things people are quick to write it off as one man word against another's, I think this same logic should apply to a police officer's account versus someone else's too.
 
estebanrey said:
By isolated incident I meant example of a police officer bending the truth to make his mistaken account of events look like they happened. Not specifically a event where an officer has lied to do over an MP.

My position is not 'they're not to be trusted', my position is 'they are not to be automatically assumed to be telling the truth'. I don't believe a policeman's version of events, or log book should be considered as more factual than a member of the public's testimony or account.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately you're on a hiding to nothing with this.

All people are innocent until proven guilty, if that conviction is based largely on police witness statements then so be it, it is no different to that of a civilian witness statement if accepted as true in terms of outcome.

It has happened in the past, no doubt, it is not endemic however.

estebanrey said:
At the time of this event, there did seem to me the automatic assumption that the policeman's notebook was more reliable than Mitchell's recollection of event and that is something I don't think should happen. I get the impression that with two non-police saying different things people are quick to write it off as one man word against another's, I think this same logic should apply to a police officer's account versus someone else's too.
Click to expand...

Quite rightly too, it is sad and regretful that this might not be the case.

Unfortunately you cannot remove the weight of a commissioned officers statement, it is how the state and law function.

The Judiciary, quite rightly, place great emphasis on the impartial testimony and evidence of arresting officers.

My only advice would be to avoid getting on the wrong side of the law in the first instance.
 
Biohazard said:
Unfortunately you cannot remove the weight of a commissioned officers statement, it is how the state and law function.

The judiciary, quite rightly, place great emphasis on the impartial testimony and evidence of arresting officers.

My only advice would be to avoid getting on the wrong side of the law in the first instance.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't agree that that the testimony of the arresting officer was 'impartial' by it's nature. You can only be impartial if you have no involvement and nothing to gain or lose with what you say. I'd say the arresting officer wants to make himself 'look good' and that he did everything by the book in his testimony so therefore not impartial.

Can't disagree with your last sentence. I have only been to court once (I was defending myself on a speeding charge where the police broke every ACPO rule in the book but that's another story).
 
estebanrey said:
I wouldn't agree that that the testimony of the arresting officer was 'impartial' by it's nature. You can only be impartial if you have no involvement and nothing to gain or lose with what you say. I'd say the arresting officer wants to make himself 'look good' and that he did everything by the book in his testimony so therefore not impartial.
Click to expand...

Without prejudice, then.

estebanrey said:
Can't disagree with your last sentence. I have only been to court once (I was defending myself on a speeding charge where the police broke every ACPO rule in the book but that's another story).
Click to expand...

Well, clearly they didn't, otherwise you'd be able to cite their behavour as a defense for your own.

Just saying...
 
have you two finished kissing yet ?


anyway....so can anyone shed some light on why the police officer stitched this guy up ?
did he make or suggest the cuts to the police force?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom