Other Sports4 mins ago
Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' rant
As logged by the police officer(s) - and reported by the Daily Telegraph
Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' rant
http://
Andrew Mitchell's 'pleb' rant
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sir.prize. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The importance of the issue here is not that an apology has been offered and accepted, it is that mr Mitchell is insisting that his conversation is at odds with that advised by the officers involved.
This means that either a senior minister is lying, of that one or more police officers with responsibility fo security at Downing Street are lying - and that is more serious than the initial abuse, totally unacceptable though this is if proven.
The issue has not been helped by the fudging coming from the PM who has decliened either to back his minister, or censure him publicly - which points to an increasing inability to offer the required forthright leadership the nation is entitled to expect from its Prime Minister.
This means that either a senior minister is lying, of that one or more police officers with responsibility fo security at Downing Street are lying - and that is more serious than the initial abuse, totally unacceptable though this is if proven.
The issue has not been helped by the fudging coming from the PM who has decliened either to back his minister, or censure him publicly - which points to an increasing inability to offer the required forthright leadership the nation is entitled to expect from its Prime Minister.
Bit like the palaver over the DoCambridge's breast exposure - sensationalism, press dictated and designed not to focus on key news issues such as the economy, Afghanistan tactic changes, the friction and the escalation of it between China and Japan, our Overseas aid programmes and the booting out of the Abous, thereby wasting serious government action too.
DT - there is no comparison at all here.
The DOC's pictures are a combination of ill-advised activity and prurient interest.
The 'rant' scenatio indicates that one or other of the involved parties has lied, and continues so to do.
One is a 'distraction' but is ultimately pointless and will die a natural death, as all media novelties do.
The other has serious implcations for the integrity of either the goverment or the police service - and must be addressed properly.
The DOC's pictures are a combination of ill-advised activity and prurient interest.
The 'rant' scenatio indicates that one or other of the involved parties has lied, and continues so to do.
One is a 'distraction' but is ultimately pointless and will die a natural death, as all media novelties do.
The other has serious implcations for the integrity of either the goverment or the police service - and must be addressed properly.
andy-hughes
/// The issue has not been helped by the fudging coming from the PM who has decliened either to back his minister, or censure him publicly ///
Apparently he has backed him Andy.
http://
/// "There are a range of different accounts and allegations in the newspapers. The fact remains that Andrew Mitchell has apologised for his behaviour. He has acknowledged that that behaviour was unacceptable and that apology has been accepted," the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. ///
/// "We have not received any formal complaint from the Metropolitan Police Service and the Prime Minister thinks we should draw a line under it. He thinks the correct action has been taken." ///
/// The issue has not been helped by the fudging coming from the PM who has decliened either to back his minister, or censure him publicly ///
Apparently he has backed him Andy.
http://
/// "There are a range of different accounts and allegations in the newspapers. The fact remains that Andrew Mitchell has apologised for his behaviour. He has acknowledged that that behaviour was unacceptable and that apology has been accepted," the Prime Minister's official spokesman said. ///
/// "We have not received any formal complaint from the Metropolitan Police Service and the Prime Minister thinks we should draw a line under it. He thinks the correct action has been taken." ///
We'll agree to disagree - there are bigger priorities. Ultimately the issue is with DC as whatever, AM's credibility to rule the backbench rebels with the rod of iron has been considerably weakened and, whatever the merits of he said this and he didn't, it is this position that may see his demise. May I point out that any barrister can use counter-arguments in witness's statements as, naturally, we all put our own PR spin on things....... and this maybe the case in this - i.e. AM didn't use the term directly at the PC, but the PC perceiving that he did. Neither is wrong.
By the way, I am not condoning what AM did or said, it was a case of petulance - ok we all have had our own moments but in such a position that he is both jobwise and where he was, he was a plonker.
By the way, I am not condoning what AM did or said, it was a case of petulance - ok we all have had our own moments but in such a position that he is both jobwise and where he was, he was a plonker.
Right, well the officer didn't event an incident which was unpleasant, that's agreed by everyone. And it was worth reporting, that seems to be agreed. No harm in Mitchell agreeing that he might have said 'in the agony of the moment', the words 'attributed to him' but, for some reason, he won't.
Now, we have to imagine, that the officer speaking to this angry man has invented the word 'pleb' in the swearing. What does it add, from the officer's point of view? He has the man bang to rights, as all agree. The incident had to be reported anyway, in the circumstances. 'Pleb' adds nothing.But it is an oddly memorable word, the kind of word which would stick in the memory when recording the log.
But Mitchell, the politician, has every reason to regret saying it, and every reason to deny it, because he knows, on reflection, exactly how it sounds and how it goes against his boss's strenuous efforts not to have the Party, and himself, portrayed as snobby, elitist, public school, toffs.
The officer is correct. The embarrassed Mitchell is not.
On the other
Now, we have to imagine, that the officer speaking to this angry man has invented the word 'pleb' in the swearing. What does it add, from the officer's point of view? He has the man bang to rights, as all agree. The incident had to be reported anyway, in the circumstances. 'Pleb' adds nothing.But it is an oddly memorable word, the kind of word which would stick in the memory when recording the log.
But Mitchell, the politician, has every reason to regret saying it, and every reason to deny it, because he knows, on reflection, exactly how it sounds and how it goes against his boss's strenuous efforts not to have the Party, and himself, portrayed as snobby, elitist, public school, toffs.
The officer is correct. The embarrassed Mitchell is not.
On the other
Thanks for the update AOG - I stand corrected.
DT - your point is very well made, but I would argue that the 'bigger issues' point is weak - there are almost always bigger issues than any news story, but that does not weaken the validity of the story or its importance per se.
Well argued rebuttal though - hats off to you sir!
DT - your point is very well made, but I would argue that the 'bigger issues' point is weak - there are almost always bigger issues than any news story, but that does not weaken the validity of the story or its importance per se.
Well argued rebuttal though - hats off to you sir!
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles25 mins ago
Is What I Experienced Called...
Body & Soul28 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles32 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.