Lord Elpers wrote:
He is innocent in the matter until proven guilty. This has been my position from the start. You persist in ignoring the facts in favour of the media storys which were spread by police several of whom have been proven to be liars with 4 sacked and one in prison. You have sided against Mitchell for reasons which I can only imagine are political.
1. He (Mitchell) was not charged with anything by the police
2. He has never said he swore at the police.
3. He admitted to using the f-word as an adjective and in a context that is now commonly used and excepted. He apologised for this and this apology was excepted. This was never the issue in the matter anyway.
4. He has consistently denied using the specific words (Pleb etc) spread by certain members of the police to the media.
5. He lost his job due to a high profile campaign by members of the police and the police federation which spread lies and half truths
6. There is now plenty of evidence to suggest he was 'fit' up
Yes he will fund his own defence and may have to sell his house to raise the money. What is of concern to many is that the deep pockets of the police federation are being used to fund a private action against Mitchell for alleged slander/libel. This slander/libel is using the word liar against a police officer.
Imagine you have wrongfully been accused by the police of saying or doing something. You know full well the accusation is not true and you know the police officer is lying. In this case it must be your right to say so. It cannot be right to be intimidated by threats of being taken to court and sued for libel privately by the officer and who is funded by a wealthy union. You know the officer lied and you quite rightly stated the officer was lying.
Mr Elpers you need to calm down. The officer who dealt with the Right Honourable gentleman has never once lied (remember your sentence innocent until proven guilty). Indeed the CPS commented that he is the only one who has maintained his stance from the outset. I would suggest they know considerably more than any of us on here. Please enlighten us if you know more.
There has been NO disciplinary action taken against him as he has done absolutely nothing wrong. He has been accused of lying which appears at this moment in time to be slanderous. As a result he is taking the Right Honourable gentleman to court. His court action is being funded out of Federation funds. That's funds which the members pay into. It's NOT public money. It is assigned by the members and approved by the members. It's not got anything to do with the general public or indeed you. Unless of course you are a paid up member of the Police Federation.
The Federation is there to protect the interests of its members. When one of its members have any issues at all then the Federation will help however they can. That is their role. And as such they are helping the officer in this case. They do it for all officers.
The rouge officers in this sorry saga have all been dealt with, certainly the Met officers. Sackings and jailings prove that. That's what the police do. If you step out of line you are dealt with.
Who hasn't had any disciplinary action taken? Answer the officer who dealt with the Right Honourable gentleman. Ask yourself why. Indeed the disciplinary hearings taken against the officers had the Right Honourable gentleman present. Something unheard of previously. So open and transparent procedures which were there to appease all.
Now in terms of swearing police officers hear it all the time. New ruling came in that they can not be caused offence by swearing. So no Section 5 public order offences when you swear at or within hearing of an officer. As a result the Right Honourable gentleman was correctly dealt with. The officer on the gate dealt with it all appropriately and the Right Honourable gentleman even apologised the following day I believe.
Rouge officers were dealt with. That is the facts of the case. What the Right Honourable gentleman ACTUALLY said has never been confirmed by him. For reasons only he can actually explain. It does make you wonder why. (Well maybe not you, but certainly the rest of us). I am sure we will find out once all the court cases have been heard.
I'm sure you won't agree, but those are the facts. Let's see how it all rides out from here.
