I Bought Some Boxes Of Chocolates Today...
ChatterBank1 min ago
Plebgate...police Have Another Opportunity To Apologise !
http://
Yet another appearance before the Home Affairs Committee. What is the chances of the Police telling the truth this time ? And why are they still not suspended for lying to Parliament ?
Yet another appearance before the Home Affairs Committee. What is the chances of the Police telling the truth this time ? And why are they still not suspended for lying to Parliament ?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. 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.
// Instead, they keep digging a deeper and deeper hole for themselves. They will probably now be dismissed and they have only hemselves to blame. //
Just watched the Select Committee live on the news. Now an even deeper and deeper hole. They seemed to not understand what was happening and the seriousness of their predicament. They ignored the lifeline that was being thrown to them, and failed to make the appropriate full apology to Mitchell.
They were very unconvincing and probably just ended their careers in the police.
Just watched the Select Committee live on the news. Now an even deeper and deeper hole. They seemed to not understand what was happening and the seriousness of their predicament. They ignored the lifeline that was being thrown to them, and failed to make the appropriate full apology to Mitchell.
They were very unconvincing and probably just ended their careers in the police.
I have been out working all day and missed the session of the Committee live but I have watched excerpts, now that I am home.
There used to a very amusing record, that was popular during my youth, called The Laughing Policemen. I think a more appropriate version for the 21st century would be The Lying Policeman, The idea that when you are in a hole, its a jolly good idea to stop digging, seems to have passed our Constabulary by. They have disgraced their profession and their uniform so often in the last few years, that you would think that it wouldn't be possible to sink any lower.
Det Sgt. Hinton has now admitted that he made an honest mistake when he appeared before the committee last month and that he regretted any distress that Andrew Mitchell had felt during the whole sage. A "honest mistake" you will notice, not "lied" to a Parliamentary committee.
The other lying Policeman, Sgt Jones also had to admit that he hadn't been entirely candid with the Committee over his appalling disciplinary record. The truth had to be dragged out of him by the Chairman, Keith Vaz. Jones also went on to repeat his earlier lie, by saying "he stood by what was said in the 2012 meeting with Mitchell". The transcript of the meeting, taken by Mitchell, and the resulting impromptu press conference after the meeting still do not match. But still no apology apparently.
The very least that we can expect these Officers respective Chief Constables to do now, is to suspend them with immediate effect, and act on the result of the enquiry being undertaken by the police watchdog, Dame Ann Owers.
The Police need to lance this boil as soon as it possibly can, in order to preserve what little credibility that our Police forces have left.
Dixon of Dock Green must be revolving in his grave.
There used to a very amusing record, that was popular during my youth, called The Laughing Policemen. I think a more appropriate version for the 21st century would be The Lying Policeman, The idea that when you are in a hole, its a jolly good idea to stop digging, seems to have passed our Constabulary by. They have disgraced their profession and their uniform so often in the last few years, that you would think that it wouldn't be possible to sink any lower.
Det Sgt. Hinton has now admitted that he made an honest mistake when he appeared before the committee last month and that he regretted any distress that Andrew Mitchell had felt during the whole sage. A "honest mistake" you will notice, not "lied" to a Parliamentary committee.
The other lying Policeman, Sgt Jones also had to admit that he hadn't been entirely candid with the Committee over his appalling disciplinary record. The truth had to be dragged out of him by the Chairman, Keith Vaz. Jones also went on to repeat his earlier lie, by saying "he stood by what was said in the 2012 meeting with Mitchell". The transcript of the meeting, taken by Mitchell, and the resulting impromptu press conference after the meeting still do not match. But still no apology apparently.
The very least that we can expect these Officers respective Chief Constables to do now, is to suspend them with immediate effect, and act on the result of the enquiry being undertaken by the police watchdog, Dame Ann Owers.
The Police need to lance this boil as soon as it possibly can, in order to preserve what little credibility that our Police forces have left.
Dixon of Dock Green must be revolving in his grave.
The two police made complete evasive ars+s of themselves.
Slow motion car crash wasn't in it.
Mikey - a recording was taken, and a transcript made ( of the recording)
I couldnt work out why no 2 was so evasive. Did he think he was covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (but not a conviction) or that he had a right not to discuss his disciplinary complaints ?
They warned him so clearly about not being truthful
that everyone wonders if there is something else to come out.
He also came out with a phrase I have never heard before - I adopt so-and-so's evidence - which seemd to mean - I say what he says, so you cant now say we are different in any way. weird.
Slow motion car crash wasn't in it.
Mikey - a recording was taken, and a transcript made ( of the recording)
I couldnt work out why no 2 was so evasive. Did he think he was covered by the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act (but not a conviction) or that he had a right not to discuss his disciplinary complaints ?
They warned him so clearly about not being truthful
that everyone wonders if there is something else to come out.
He also came out with a phrase I have never heard before - I adopt so-and-so's evidence - which seemd to mean - I say what he says, so you cant now say we are different in any way. weird.
mikey writes: The Police need to lance this boil as soon as it possibly can, in order to preserve what little credibility that our Police forces have left.
there is no one available to do the evil deed....
all the police fedz are autonomous apparently, which makes the task of " you shall do this... " extremely difficult.
Do you trust the Politicians rather than the Police ?
It looks as tho the Politicians will win that one on the grounds they occasionally tell the truth,,,,,
there is no one available to do the evil deed....
all the police fedz are autonomous apparently, which makes the task of " you shall do this... " extremely difficult.
Do you trust the Politicians rather than the Police ?
It looks as tho the Politicians will win that one on the grounds they occasionally tell the truth,,,,,
Look, I once had a man fined for contempt of court because he claimed that he bought goods of someone he knew but he wouldn't say who it was. The Court of Appeal went spare. It was technically possible, but the jury would rapidly deduce that the defendant was lying or evasive and guilty. They upheld the conviction on the handling, but quashed the fine and gave me a lecture about proper standards.
And that is the principle that we follow in Britain. These men could be convicted of some offence perhaps but they will not be held in contempt for not giving a full apology for their behaviour or, if you so think, lying.
And that is the principle that we follow in Britain. These men could be convicted of some offence perhaps but they will not be held in contempt for not giving a full apology for their behaviour or, if you so think, lying.
Fred...we all bow to your superior knowledge when it comes to the Law, so I am hoping that perhaps you can clear up something that doesn't sound right to me.
When these three Policemen first appeared before the Commons Select Committee, they were not entirely open and candid with their evidence. Their testimony was so lacking in clarity, that it was necessary to recall them again today. As I understand, these Commons Committees are, in effect extensions of the House of Parliament itself.
If they are not willing to apologise for their duplicity, then it would seem to to me that any further action would need to be taken by their superiors, or the Police Complaints organisation, whichever is the appropriate body. It would not be the job of the Committee to take action over a non-apology.
But they appear to have not told the truth when giving evidence before the Committee. I would call that lying but I appreciate that another, less emotive phrase might be appropriate for other people. But it is abundantly clear that they did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If they did not tell the truth in these hearings, is that not the same as not telling the truth in a court of law ?
When these three Policemen first appeared before the Commons Select Committee, they were not entirely open and candid with their evidence. Their testimony was so lacking in clarity, that it was necessary to recall them again today. As I understand, these Commons Committees are, in effect extensions of the House of Parliament itself.
If they are not willing to apologise for their duplicity, then it would seem to to me that any further action would need to be taken by their superiors, or the Police Complaints organisation, whichever is the appropriate body. It would not be the job of the Committee to take action over a non-apology.
But they appear to have not told the truth when giving evidence before the Committee. I would call that lying but I appreciate that another, less emotive phrase might be appropriate for other people. But it is abundantly clear that they did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
If they did not tell the truth in these hearings, is that not the same as not telling the truth in a court of law ?
PP...the main result of this latest saga of lying Policemen is that the credibility of the whole Police organization is brought into doubt.
I have made this point on AB before, but :::
If you are on a Jury, and a Policeman gets into the witness box, looking resplendent in his smart uniform and shiny buttons, you should be able to believe his evidence, almost without hesitation. He is, after all, a serving Policeman. You should, of course listen with alacrity to what he says but nobody would blame you if most of your judgment as to his honesty, was contained within the uniform. Policemen, as a rule, are supposed to be honest, unless there is a good reason to be believe otherwise. Not an unreasonable position to take. Trust should be inherent.
But the net result of all the recent cases of police corruption has changed the perception of the police and they have lost some, if not most, of their credibility. That surely is not a good step forward, if we expect to have justice in our courts of law.
Nobody is perfect, and we must include the Police in that. But instead of admitting their mistakes, they further compound their guilt, by continuing to lie.
I have made this point on AB before, but :::
If you are on a Jury, and a Policeman gets into the witness box, looking resplendent in his smart uniform and shiny buttons, you should be able to believe his evidence, almost without hesitation. He is, after all, a serving Policeman. You should, of course listen with alacrity to what he says but nobody would blame you if most of your judgment as to his honesty, was contained within the uniform. Policemen, as a rule, are supposed to be honest, unless there is a good reason to be believe otherwise. Not an unreasonable position to take. Trust should be inherent.
But the net result of all the recent cases of police corruption has changed the perception of the police and they have lost some, if not most, of their credibility. That surely is not a good step forward, if we expect to have justice in our courts of law.
Nobody is perfect, and we must include the Police in that. But instead of admitting their mistakes, they further compound their guilt, by continuing to lie.
Eddie...Of course, you are right. But not only are the Police guilty of duplicity, they are also guilty of bad judgement. They appear to be so stupid, that they can't see that by continuing to look evasive and shifty, they are only making the situation worse. They cannot escape their guilt for much longer. I predict that some high-up pointy head, with an extra O Level than the average in the Police, will take the bull by the horns in the next day or so and finally start sorting this out.
mikey, the answer is that these officers appear in the role of defendants, though they are not in fact on trial in a criminal court. In the United States they could plead the 5th Amendment, and refuse to answer any question which they think may require them to incriminate themselves. We do not have that protection enshrined for those on trial, or herein, and witnesses can only refuse to answer if a) they could be convicted of a crime on their answer alone and b) their answer is not essential for the administration of justice (some glorious examples: you can't refuse to answer questions by the Revenue, nor in your own bankruptcy proceedings, nor questions of an officer demanding that you produce evidence to convict yourself in drink-drive cases)
We generally follow the principle that the Court of Appeal adopted in my case (above). And remember that a lot of convicted defendants commit perjury, but we don't then charge them with it.
We generally follow the principle that the Court of Appeal adopted in my case (above). And remember that a lot of convicted defendants commit perjury, but we don't then charge them with it.
erm sorry your honour,
The awful Maxwells were summoned to the Bar of the House to answer questions over the pension funds stolen by their father
and declined to answer questions on the grounds the answers would incriminate themselves
and the Commons said OK go home.....
But they were aided and abetted by the late George Carman QC I think - anyway they were lawyered up.
'technically' they were in contrmpt of the House about which we know v little as the last one was imprisoned I think in around 1690.
Some of the circumstances of R v WIlkes 1762 may have involved contempt of the House - or it may not. Mansfield comes out with
fiat justicia ruant coela - more Latin - Let Justice be done even tho the Heavens fall. That one.
No 2 was very hesitant - I wondered if he was gonna get up and walk out.
Mikey what was your question ?
Why werent they led out and beheaded immediately ?
I dont know: I really dont know. I would have.
The awful Maxwells were summoned to the Bar of the House to answer questions over the pension funds stolen by their father
and declined to answer questions on the grounds the answers would incriminate themselves
and the Commons said OK go home.....
But they were aided and abetted by the late George Carman QC I think - anyway they were lawyered up.
'technically' they were in contrmpt of the House about which we know v little as the last one was imprisoned I think in around 1690.
Some of the circumstances of R v WIlkes 1762 may have involved contempt of the House - or it may not. Mansfield comes out with
fiat justicia ruant coela - more Latin - Let Justice be done even tho the Heavens fall. That one.
No 2 was very hesitant - I wondered if he was gonna get up and walk out.
Mikey what was your question ?
Why werent they led out and beheaded immediately ?
I dont know: I really dont know. I would have.
All the trouble with the Police can be blamed on Blunkett and his PCSO's.No power of arrest and yet drive round in patrol cars.When I was a "Special" we had the power of arrest and yet were restricted to carnival's,marathons and the turning on of Christmas lights.Also now policemen look like bovver boys in those awful uniforms.Lets hope the system,starting with bernard Hyphen howe and his ilk can be sorted out and the return to a Police force we can trust is cascaded down from there.
The officers were acting as representatives of the Police Federation, the closest there is to a police Trade Union.
They were politically motivated. They were reacting to tens of thousands of job losses in the force since the coalition came to power. They referred to Theresa May in derogitory terms and they were successful in getting the resignation of the Chief Whip and attacking an high ranking Conservative politician.
But they used lies, deceit, and plain falsehoods to discredit Mitchell. That cannot be acceptable from the Police Service, and I imagine Jones will be recalled again because they clearly laid a trap for him, which he willingly dived into.
Watch his space. This will run.....
They were politically motivated. They were reacting to tens of thousands of job losses in the force since the coalition came to power. They referred to Theresa May in derogitory terms and they were successful in getting the resignation of the Chief Whip and attacking an high ranking Conservative politician.
But they used lies, deceit, and plain falsehoods to discredit Mitchell. That cannot be acceptable from the Police Service, and I imagine Jones will be recalled again because they clearly laid a trap for him, which he willingly dived into.
Watch his space. This will run.....
Latest Posts
ChatterBank3 mins ago
ChatterBank11 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles14 mins ago
Mass Job Losses In The Retail Sector...
News27 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.