Pleb, bigot or toff

[Marmora Man]

Ridgley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A saint @#$%& nightmare the most unfeeling bitch that governed this country.

Strictly of course, she (Margaret Thatcher) was the first, and so far, the only woman to lead a government in this country. She can therefore be both the most unfeeling and the most compassionate bitch that "governed this country".

[????]

Plebgate part 2....an interesting dilemma for lefties in social media

...do we stick the boot in on the police, ooh, hang on a minute that means being on the side of the dreaded tories

....do we stick the boot in on the tories, hang on a minute that maens stickinng up for the dreaded pigs

...I know, we'll just ignore this one

[dbboy]

oops, seems like the boys in blue have perverted the course of jusitice in making untrue statements. Now throw the book at tham and get them into court to face the charges. Its nor about either backing the police or tories, its about justice being done.

[maxxi]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Plebgate part 2....an interesting dilemma for

> lefties in social media

>

> ...do we stick the boot in on the police, ooh,

> hang on a minute that means being on the side of

> the dreaded tories

>

> ....do we stick the boot in on the tories, hang on

> a minute that maens stickinng up for the dreaded

> pigs

>

> ...I know, we'll just ignore this one

Nah, we stand back and watch the Tories lay into the police with one hand and back them in the latest police-shooting/death-in-custody with the other and with the third hand (these ARE Tories) cut police salary & pensions, replace officers with cheaper civilian staff, close stations and hand responsibility for it all to 'locally elected' officials - all the while whispering behind their hands "Er, you will still protect us from all those nasty protesters/students/smelly-bloody-poor-people when things get rough won't you?"

[Burbage]

dbboy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> oops, seems like the boys in blue have perverted

> the course of jusitice in making untrue

> statements. Now throw the book at tham and get

> them into court to face the charges. Its nor about

> either backing the police or tories, its about

> justice being done.

I'm not sure, but I think perverting the course of justice is only possible if the evidence they've fabricated would have affected a court case, and there's been no suggestion that any charges would have been pressed.

There are four possible grounds for prosecution:

1) the leaking of the initial reports which might have had a public interest justification had they been true, but now seem not to. However, as both Plod and Press are arguing against Leveson's outrageous criticisms of their bung-larded relationships, and Mitchell is also supposed to be toeing his party's line against regulation, I can't see any of them complaining.

2) the faking of the police report, and the apparent collusion in that fakery. We suspect, from as many high-profile cases as you can shake a stick at, that fiddling logs, forging notebooks and collusion between officers is rampantly routine. But, unless it's relevant to a court case, it's a cheerfully internal matter.

3) the theft of the details of the police log by a member of the public who turned out to be a Plod from Ruislip, making it not really theft at all. The Information Commissioner might have something to say, but the Information Commissioner is having an intensely relaxed year, and I doubt that will change.

4) the apparent conspiracy in the stitch-up by official respresentatives of the Police Federation who were valiantly defending their hard-working members until the CCTV footage turned up. They've currently gone to ground, save for an impressively weasel-worded statment of monumental chippiness, but I don't suppose it matters. I imagine Mitchell could have them up for libel, but I don't imagine his party would encourage it.

Overall, the chances of book-throwing look very slight indeed. An arrest has, admittedly, been made, but apparently only on the grounds of pretending to be a citizen, and I guess that's a tactical preparation in case things go badly wrong and they need to offer someone the opportunity to apply for sick leave and render themselves unfit to stand trial. And they wouldn't even need that if they'd remembered to requisition the CCTV footage nearer the time. I suspect the only fun we're likely to get is watching the Federation trying to distance itself from itself, and Hogan-Howe trying to look concerned.

But given that, in less than a week, those of us sat at festive tables will be grimly embroidering history and lying through our teeth, perhaps we shouldn't make too much of it.

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I dunno. Snobbery/discrimination is unpleasant either way, but there is something particularly

> distasteful about those in a privileged position looking down on those less fortunate.

Well, just to break up the 'me too' style of this thread, I completely disagree with this (and Rosie!). Bigotry is bigotry, hate is hate. It is never acceptable. It is always distasteful.

[DaveR]

"There are four possible grounds for prosecution"

misconduct in public office? The problem is that the officer was pretending to be a civilian, but i reckon you could make it stick.

Perverting is also not quite as restricted as you say - the belief that there was or may have been a criminal investigation ongoing, or that one may start as a result of the complaint, would be enough.

The detail I find interesting is that, as I understand it, the (now known to be fake) witness account supported the (still asserted to be accurate) police log as to the presence of other witnesses at the scene, when the CCTV appears to show that there was no-one else there. This strongly suggests that the original officers were complicit in the subsequent fakery, which in turn casts serious doubts on their reliability.

[uncleglen]

Mrs T was the only politician who did anything remotely constructive towards freeing the less well off from their miserable lot since grammar schools were abolished. She introduced the right-to-buy so that responsible council tenants could by their properties and move i they wanted to. She also introduced the assisted places so that clever poorer children could go to public school.

This incensed lefties- especially those with mortgages- because the ex-council tenants were being subsidised by the tax-payers, and public schools were getting tax-payers money. IMHO the woman is a saint. Do your worst- I won't be swayed from my opinion.