UKC

Turn's out that Andrew Mitchell was telling lies, after all....and PC Rowlands integrity has been restored.

Off-Duty, this is your chance to gloat.

"Judge rules Andrew Mitchell probably did use ‘politically toxic’ word pleb
Former Conservative chief whip loses Plebgate libel case over his altercation with Downing Street police officers"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/27/pleb-andrew-mitchell-loses-...

In reply to THE.WALRUS:



Under the circumstances, I wouldn't. Nobody has come out of this covered in glory - Mitchell has caused my mrs all sorts of hardship because of a fairly important procedural ruling early on in the case, but the Federation behaved pretty badly throughout.

>

In reply to toad:
Pc Rowlands has been completely vindicated, Mitchell lied...he used the words pleb

In reply to Gael Force:

It was a judgement based on the balance of probabilities and the Judge's impression of PC Rowlands I thought?

In reply to Gael Force:


Hmmm.well sort of.
Rowlands vindicated because judge says he's too thick ('lacks the wit') to make stuff up. So, yes, vindicated, but that's the end of the good news in that ruling, I'd have thought.
Judge said Mitchell was so angry he perhaps forgot what he had said. So gives him the benefit of the doubt and does not say he lied.
Judge says 'on balance of probabilities' he thinks Mitchell said 'plebs' So only probably said the word.
If you want to gloat - and you'd need a heart of stone not to with a charmer like Mr M - just dwell on the costs. Plebs could end up working out about half a million quid a letter.
Turned out to bea bit of an expensive bike ride.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Oh, I dunno.

Whilst the judge was only able to say that Mitchell 'probably' used the word 'pleb' - it's clear that his insistence that he would never use that kind of language to a copper and that he not some kind foul mouthed posh yobbo was lies, because the judge didn't believe it.

I'm not sure that the judge was suggesting that PC Rowland's was too thick to cook up a conspiracy to overthrow a Tory MP in revenge over budget cuts (the conspiracy theory has been advanced by dozens of suspiciously quiet left wing journo's and UKC posters). It sounds like the judge was trying to portray him as an ordinary bloke trying to do his job, and the thought of trying to overthrow the government hadn't crossed his mind, as you would expect.

After all, his testimony was believed in court and his written records of events before and during the incident proved to be compelling evidence that stood up to close examination from Mitchell's millionaire defence team...hardly the work of a thicko.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

Can someone remind me why this actually matters? Don't we have more important things to worry about ?

In reply to Bobling:
Probably, though it is important because a member of the police has been jailed for lying in relation to this, so it's relevant, if not amongst the most important things.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:
Interesting that this is settled on the basis of probability rather than something that happened beyond reasonable doubt.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

I wonder if a Not Proven verdict like in Scotland might be sensible for things like this, to avoid a miscarriage (if that's the right technical word).

In reply to earlsdonwhu:


That's the burden of proof in civil cases. Beyond reasonable doubt is a higher level and is used for criminal cases when people's liberty is at stake.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

..hardly the work of a thicko.

Just quoting the judge who said Rowland did not have the wit to make it up.

In reply to Timmd:

Ah OK I'd missed that - I thought it was the world's longest running game of "he said, she said" (hence hadn't been following it closely, well at all).

In reply to Bobling:

It wasn't today, but a fair while ago a policeman called Keith Wallis was jailed for a year, for saying he'd seen it when he hadn't done.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Exactly. So when it is effectively one person's word against another's, voluntarily entering into such a case is a bit of an expensive lottery.

In reply to Timmd:
I don't know about Not Proven. A more useful verdict would be Not interested.

In reply to earlsdonwhu:

All libel cases are a lottery. And even if you win the mud thrown during the case still sticks and everyone can print it for years to come because it's said in court

In reply to Wiley Coyote:



That'll be the judge that said that Rowland impressed him as a rather old-fashioned sort of policeman.
He also said that Rowland lacked the "wit, imagination or inclination" to make up the allegation - interesting how everyone focusses on the "wit" though.

Always easy to laugh at a thick plod. As Mitchell, it appears, routinely did.

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

There are no winners in this, including the legal system. As if this became such a big deal because of a daft insult. Its pathetic.

In reply to Scarab9:


I'd say those that are getting paid, are the winners in this one.

Plebgate, the gift that keeps giving.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:

Yes, and it does take a certain kind of arrogance to press on with an action when it should have been possible to sort it out in a civilised manner. Clearly there were elements in the Police Federation who were deliberately mischief-making, and at least one of the officers on duty has now said that he thought the the Met should have just issued a short factual statement at the time and said the case was closed, rather than allowing the thing to get out of control. Even so, Mitchell could have swallowed his pride and got on with rebuilding his career.

He had the advantage, since there was at least a question mark over the police account of events, given the dismissals and conviction, and he seemed to have been at least partially rehabilitated politically, but he just couldn't leave it alone. Now he's in the same bracket as Neil Hamilton, which is never a good place to be.

In reply to The Lemming:



true. It's definitely fair to say Society lost then!

In reply to THE.WALRUS:

I heard the " sensible and experienced " policeman talk on R4 this morning.He best summed it up as it was a minor incident that spun stupidly out of control.Best commetn on the whole thing.

In reply to off-duty:



it's a curiously unkind thing to say about the policeman in a summing up which was otherwise quite nice to him.

In reply to Wiley Coyote:


To an extent. Sometimes the truth can easily be proved, but cases like this are always going to come down to who is most convincing.

Who paid for Toby Rowlands legal costs? The Federation or the Sun? I'm sure he didn't.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

I think the judge was closing off any conspiracy theories or accusations against rowland that he had desgins on beinging down a cabinet minister, rather than he was thick. According to what I have heard and read Rowlands received unsually high praise from the job.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Yes; I think the terms 'wit' and 'imagination' were used in a very formal way here, not quite as in colloquial (normal) use.

Pretty sure the implication was that he was unusually unmotivated by politics or ego, and was boringly interested in doing his work with discretion.

His colleague speaking on R4 gave a similar impression - he clearly was not an idiot and I thought was quite deft in handling questions about the role of the Police Federation.

In reply to The New NickB:

The Federation paid his costs.

In reply to hamsforlegs:

Since the result I think it is Mr Mitchell who will be paying his costs.

In reply to hamsforlegs:

Following the day by day reports of the case I thought PC Richardson was about the only person who came out of it sounding at all sensible. I loved his response in court as to why he had not written it up straight away and instead went back to eatng his butties. 'I couldn't be arsed. It was just a quirky incident with a bloke on a bike not the crime of the century'. I bet a lot of others, not least the delightful Mr Mitchell (or as we can now call him 'the disgraced former Cabinet minister'), the copper who ended up in jail, the three other officers who lost their jobs for misconduct and the three still under investigation two years later wish they had taken an equally sanguine view.

In reply to The Lemming:


Spot on, the legal profession always seem to manage to profit out of the misfortune of others ;(

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


If the intention wasn't to bring down a cabinet minister then HTH did this non event hit the headlines within just 2 days. Someone, somewhere was politically motivated IMHO.

In reply to timjones:

Quite, but that was nothing to do with Rowlands, which was exactly the Judge's point.

In reply to timjones:

What's the joke, if there are two people fighting over ownership of a cow there'll be a lawyer in the middle milking it.

Cheers

Toby

I'd like to add an apology to all the very nice lawyers on here and my mother, you're not all bad



Toby