Good luck with the IPCC cover-up brigade, Mr Mitchell! If YOU were a ‘pleb’, you’d need it…

Andrew Mitchell: Either you believe him when he says the police log of 'Gate-gate' (or 'Plebgate') was false, or you believe him when he admitted abusing a policeman and apologised "profusely" for it. I prefer not to believe a word he says.

Andrew Mitchell: Either you believe him when he says the police log of ‘Gate-gate’ (or ‘Plebgate’) was false, or you believe him when he admitted abusing a policeman and apologised “profusely” for it. I prefer not to believe a word he says.

The announcement that former Coalition chief whip Andrew Mitchell has made a formal complaint to the Independent Police Complaints Commission about the so-called ‘plebgate’ row almost made me smile. Almost.

Having had experience of this organisation and it’s amazing cover-up tactics, supporting police officers who deny the existence of any laws that conflict with what they’ve done, I view the affair with scepticism.

If the outcome goes badly for him, it will confirm the IPCC’s position as principle rubber-stamping organisation for police behaviour – no matter whether they have behaved rightly or wrongly.

If it comes out in his favour, for me, it will confirm that the system works only for privileged members of society such as Mr Mitchell – those in influential positions – and not for ordinary citizens like the rest of us.

The facts of the case are completely unimportant to the outcome. Inconsequential.

For the record, it relates to an incident on September 19 last year, when it was alleged that the then-Chief Whip swore at police, calling them “plebs” (of all things) when they refused to open the Downing Street gates for him to cycle through on his pushbike.

Mitchell resigned his position but CCTV coverage later cast doubt on the accepted version of events and four people, including three police officers, have since been arrested.

Now, in a letter to the IPCC, Mr Mitchell has accused the police of a “dishonest and illicit attempt to blacken my name and destroy my career”.

Personal experience tells me he’d better have a mountain of evidence to back up that claim.

My own experience, as outlined in previous Vox articles, related to an incident in which somebody illegally published information identifying an alleged crime victim, in an attempt to blacken a suspect’s name, prior to a trial. I reported this, quoting the relevant law down to the section and paragraph, to the police – who flatly refused to investigate, claiming that the law had not been broken by ignoring the references I had given and referring to a different section of the same legislation – a section that was totally irrelevant to the nature of the crime.

You see, prosecuting this individual would have been inconvenient as it would have weakened the case against the suspect they had lined up for trial. Easier to flout the law, apparently. One law for us… another law for them.

I made a full, detailed complaint to the IPCC, quoting the relevant legislation with a printout of it from the government’s own website, pointing out where the officer involved had gone wrong, and explaining why I believed the error was intentional.   All I got for my efforts was another flat refusal to acknowledge the facts. The investigator spoke with the officer and decided that his interpretation of the law was correct – despite having it quoted to them, in black and white, by me!   For me, the only way forward from that point would have been to hire a lawyer and get a judicial review, but that costs money and I simply don’t have enough. Again, it’s one law for us… another law for them.

Mr Mitchell, on the other hand, does have money. But since he is, by definition, a member of “them”, any success he may enjoy will not affect the fact that is the theme of this article, which is (one last time):

It’s one law for us… another law for them.

Actually, now that I have a police commissioner, I might take the case to him and see what he makes of it. At least, that way, he’ll have something to do. The outcome will show whether his appointment – and that of all the others – really was the waste of time and money that the vast majority of Britons believe it to have been.

latest video

news via inbox

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

6 Comments

  1. jack johnson (@jackjoh01219520) March 31, 2013 at 1:20 pm - Reply

    The Met are nothing but a police state for London.

  2. chibipaul March 31, 2013 at 1:24 pm - Reply

    Calls the coppers allsorts that would have had them locking us up for the night had we said it, but he didn’t call them plebs.
    So that’s okay then.

  3. Liz727 March 31, 2013 at 3:54 pm - Reply

    Mitchell was said to use the word “pleb” in his daily speech as a matter of course. Why wouldn’t he revert to form under pressure? I’m sick of this man and those like him as you say, Mike, have the money to fight through courts. The “Justice” system in this country is now only for the wealthy and the likes of Abu Hamza.. oh wait, he’s on legal aid which means of course we all pay for his (and the government’s) endless cat and mouse appeals to the tune of millions. What a crazy world we live in.

    PS: Just don’t let Mitchell back into Foreign Aid, which is what he’s angling for, I wonder why… I’ll answer myself, the Big Money when his time in government’s over. Like Blair, I mean how the heck has he amassed a multi-million pound fortune since? He wasn’t that hot a shot when he was among us. They’re all drooling at the mouth to get into government – and cling on with their fingernails if needs be to stay in it – for the contacts it gives them, not for the good of us who vote them in, that’s for sure.

    Great article, Mike, keep going.

  4. NMac March 31, 2013 at 5:04 pm - Reply

    Mitchell, the pleb, obviously wants to keep digging himself deeper into his hole.

  5. rainbowwarriorlizzie April 1, 2013 at 11:00 pm - Reply

    Reblogged this on HUMAN RIGHTS & POLITICAL JOURNAL and commented:
    In Solidarity

  6. […] is anything but independent, and that it provides verdicts as required by its superiors – either within the force or politically. But the weight of the evidence that we have seen so far suggests that, in this instance, the […]

Leave A Comment