Rampant injustice: happy now?

Kerguelen

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064536

So Keith Wallis has been sacrificed to cover for lying criminal thug Andrew Mitchell.

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

mr_goo

Errrr. Hasn't it been proved that the police lied. Hence this trial and sentence.

And what do you mean by 'you lot' ?

Are you in the job?

DeVlaeminck

Mitchell was on his bike, therefore he is a cyclist and as fellow cyclists obviously we share collective responsibility for his sins - real or imagined.

manoirdelourde

From the BBC report, referring to PC Keith Wallis:
"But it is absolutely clear what did not happen. You were not an independent member of the public. You were not present, neither was your nephew, and neither of you witnessed the incident."

How exactly was he sacrificed?

mr_goo

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Mitchell was on his bike, therefore he is a cyclist and as fellow cyclists obviously we share collective responsibility for his sins - real or imagined.

Hell. Should we all pay back some money to Nike for the sins of Lance Pharmstrong?

GiantMike

Kerguelen wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064536

So Keith Wallis has been sacrificed to cover for lying criminal thug Andrew Mitchell.

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

WTF are you talking about? Did they kill him? Harsh!

Kerguelen

Mr Goo wrote:

Errrr. Hasn't it been proved that the police lied. Hence this trial and sentence.

Nope.

And what do you mean by 'you lot' ?

Are you in the job?

Not any more.

manoirdelourde

It has been proved he lied.
From the BBC report, referring to PC Keith Wallis:
"But it is absolutely clear what did not happen. You were not an independent member of the public. You were not present, neither was your nephew, and neither of you witnessed the incident."
Based on your comments it's just as well you are no longer Plod.

Monkeypump

Kerguelen wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Errrr. Hasn't it been proved that the police lied. Hence this trial and sentence.

Nope.

And what do you mean by 'you lot' ?

Are you in the job?

Not any more.

So, a refreshingly unbiased opening gambit, followed by an equally helpful (albeit, to the point) response. That's smashing, absolutely smashing. The thread title is a winner too.

As above, probably a good thing you're no longer on the force.

pblakeney

I love the smell of a voluntary sacrificial lamb before breakfast.

Well done Mr. Kerguelen. As an ex-pleb, your self sacrifice will not be forgotten.

bikes`n`guns

Just shows you eh

A copper gets caught being a criminal, and other coppers refuse to accept any wrongdoing and try to justify the fact that they think they should be above the law.

Disgraceful. Good job the OP is out of the force IMO.

airbag

Kerguelen wrote:

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

Good. I'm glad they're reminded that the only thing separating them from a psychopath is whether or not they live up to the trust we have given them. And that if they don't, it goes away, along with the reason for their existence.

bianchimoon

Kerguelen wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064536

So Keith Wallis has been sacrificed to cover for lying criminal thug Andrew Mitchell.

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

eh, you on something bit early in the day aint it?

CiB

Kerguelen wrote:

So Keith Wallis has been sacrificed to cover for lying criminal thug Andrew Mitchell.

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

Weird, Every time I've glanced at this thread that phrase has leapt out.

A police officer invented something to suit an agenda, kept up that lie for months even when the whole charade was falling down around him thanks to external investigations (C4 News primarily, not the police), and now that the instigator - a lying untrustworthy former policeman - has been done for his crime, it's Mitchell who is the 'lying criminal thug'? Blimey.

You couldn't make it up, except that this half-wit plod did. No wonder respect for them is ebbing away faster than you can say Jack Robinson. It seems that for some people if a lie is repeated loud enough and often enough it becomes fact, regardless of the truth. Well done Kerguelen for reminding us what a nasty bunch coppers can be when it suits them.

MartinGT

markhewitt1978

Someone (doesn't matter if they are a police officer) fabricates evidence in order to pervert the course of justice, and they are jailed - somehow that's "rampant injustice". Seriously?

Colinthecop

CiB wrote:

him thanks to external investigations (C4 News primarily, not the police

Depends if you believe what CH4 reports.

The CPS were sceptical of their reporting - http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/latest_news/ ... index.html


Much of the press reporting to date has assumed that the CCTV recordings show that the gate officer lied about the words used during the incident. The CCTV footage that has been aired publicly was edited and did not show the full picture.

We have been supplied with previously unseen and unedited footage of the incident from five different cameras. The CCTV footage does not determine the issue completely as it could be consistent with either the accounts of the officer on the gate or Mr Mitchell. It is clear from the footage that there was sufficient time for the words to have been said either as described by the gate officer or as described by Mr Mitchell, and this has been confirmed by an expert. The fact that an expert has confirmed what is possible does not of itself determine the issue. Both the officer and Mr Mitchell agree that the officer warned him about swearing and that Mr Mitchell made a further remark on leaving. There is no sound recording and the faces of the officer and Mr Mitchell cannot be seen sufficiently clearly. It does show that there are a small number of members of the public present immediately in front of the gate at the relevant time, but what cannot be seen is how many people were immediately off camera but in the vicinity, at least some of whom then quickly came into view. This is consistent with the officers account that several members of the public were present. No officer ever mentioned "crowds" being present - this was first mentioned in Channel 4 News/Dispatches programmes in December 2012 and February 2013 - which showed edited footage that was less than clear in a number of regards

Garry H

I think we need to separate Wallis from the rest of what happened, unless someone can show that there was some kind of conspiracy between him and the officer at the gate. Wallis hasn't done him any favours though.

Best that can be done now though, i think, is to let it lie (no pun intended), as it's just the politician's word against a policeman's.

Jehannum

But does the unedited CCTV footage show that the officer in question really was there, or not? ignoring the issue of what was said at the gate, we're debating the honesty of the officer who said he was there as a witness, and was subsequently proved [and admitted] that he had lied.

So the fact remains: bent copper perverts course of justice, copper is convicted and sentenced. hardly a sacrifice, unless you mean the masons may have lost a member.

Pross

Kerguelen wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Errrr. Hasn't it been proved that the police lied. Hence this trial and sentence.

Nope.

I think you meant 'yes'.

Colinthecop

Jehannum wrote:

we're debating the honesty of the officer who said he was there as a witness, and was subsequently proved [and admitted] that he had lied.

It's my understanding, that he claimed to be a member of the public walking past who witnessed it.

His reasoning being, he did not want the incident hushed up by his politically motivated bosses. He believed what his colleagues told him and repeated that version.

At no time has he made a statement or attempted to make a statement about the incident. He considered himself something of a whistleblower.

Yes, he could have given his name, said he was a serving officer and explained what happened to his colleague. But somehow felt that this unauthorised approach would have been detrimental to his career. This proved to be wrong and now he's paying for it with his liberty.

slowmart

The guy in question has pled guilty, apologised and paid a heavy price. Pension, job and liberty. Madness.




End of

Jehannum

the judge in summing up said "But it is absolutely clear what did not happen. You were not an independent member of the public. You were not present, neither was your nephew, and neither of you witnessed the incident."

So he lied. He wasn't altruistically trying to ensure that the truth came out or something, he was just plain lying.

"Passing sentence, Mr Justice Sweeney said Wallis had been guilty of "sustained, and in significant measure, devious misconduct which fell far below the standards expected of a police officer"." This from the original linked BBC news article.

I don't see what there is to argue about here. He has even admitted the offense.

Pross

Colinthecop wrote:

Jehannum wrote:

we're debating the honesty of the officer who said he was there as a witness, and was subsequently proved [and admitted] that he had lied.

It's my understanding, that he claimed to be a member of the public walking past who witnessed it.

His reasoning being, he did not want the incident hushed up by his politically motivated bosses. He believed what his colleagues told him and repeated that version.

At no time has he made a statement or attempted to make a statement about the incident. He considered himself something of a whistleblower.

Yes, he could have given his name, said he was a serving officer and explained what happened to his colleague. But somehow felt that this unauthorised approach would have been detrimental to his career. This proved to be wrong and now he's paying for it with his liberty.

As per the summing up, he wasn't there at all. Who knows what his motivation was but ultimately he lied and that lie ensured that Mitchell (who may or may not have said what was reported - my guess is he said at least most of it) lost his job. I can't understand why serving or retired police officers seem prepared to defend his actions and (in the case of the OP) give him martyr status as this sort of behaviour just gives credence to those who portray the police as a law to themselves when in reality the overwhelming majority just want to do their job properly.

Kerguelen

Colinthecop wrote:

Both the officer and Mr Mitchell agree that the officer warned him about swearing and that Mr Mitchell made a further remark on leaving.

Odd how that bit got 'lost' in all the hysteria, isn't it? Almost as if no-one in the Andrew Mitchell Fan Club wanted to acknowledge it.

Funny old world, isn't it?

BillyMansell

Kerguelen wrote:

Colinthecop wrote:

Both the officer and Mr Mitchell agree that the officer warned him about swearing and that Mr Mitchell made a further remark on leaving.

Odd how that bit got 'lost' in all the hysteria, isn't it? Almost as if no-one in the Andrew Mitchell Fan Club wanted to acknowledge it.

Funny old world, isn't it?

You must have been the shittiest police officer ever.

As you've highlighted, neither the officer nor Mitchell denied swearing took place so nothing was lost in the hysteria. That it's taken you this long to see what everyone else already knew just shows how sh1t an officer you must have been.

Monkeypump

Kerguelen wrote:

Colinthecop wrote:

Both the officer and Mr Mitchell agree that the officer warned him about swearing and that Mr Mitchell made a further remark on leaving.

Odd how that bit got 'lost' in all the hysteria, isn't it? Almost as if no-one in the Andrew Mitchell Fan Club wanted to acknowledge it.

Funny old world, isn't it?

So, no thoughts on your original post being complete tosh then?

YOUR world certainly must be a funny old place. And by 'funny' I mean scarily biased and filled with blatant lying, denial of the truth and wildly incorrect accusations.

mamba80

Kerguelen wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064536

So Keith Wallis has been sacrificed to cover for lying criminal thug Andrew Mitchell.

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

Did you get chucked out the job or did you resign to keep your "benefits" ? whatever, the police are better off with out people who cant tell right from wrong but tbh this post just smells of trol :shock:

BillyMansell

mamba80 wrote:

Kerguelen wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26064536

So Keith Wallis has been sacrificed to cover for lying criminal thug Andrew Mitchell.

That will be remembered by every police officer you lot encounter.

Did you get chucked out the job or did you resign to keep your "benefits" ? whatever, the police are better off with out people who cant tell right from wrong but tbh this post just smells of trol :shock:

There is a whiff of troll but trolls are solitary and it has to be remembered that this case has revealed a culture of lying as Wallis wasn't the only one that lied but also the three members of the Police Federation were shown to have lied as well.

Pross

Kerguelen wrote:

Colinthecop wrote:

Both the officer and Mr Mitchell agree that the officer warned him about swearing and that Mr Mitchell made a further remark on leaving.

Odd how that bit got 'lost' in all the hysteria, isn't it? Almost as if no-one in the Andrew Mitchell Fan Club wanted to acknowledge it.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Exactly, he admitted swearing. The guy was being awkward and pedantic but if losing your temper and swearing cost everyone their job the queues at the job centre would be massive.

However, there's a huge difference between that and deliberately lying to claim you heard something when you weren't even present at the scene. The only purpose in that would appear to be to fan the flames and get Mitchell sacked.

Frank Wilson

Kerguelen wrote:

Colinthecop wrote:

Both the officer and Mr Mitchell agree that the officer warned him about swearing and that Mr Mitchell made a further remark on leaving.

Odd how that bit got 'lost' in all the hysteria, isn't it? Almost as if no-one in the Andrew Mitchell Fan Club wanted to acknowledge it.

Funny old world, isn't it?

Yeah but I suppose you could always trash some pensioners car then get a cool 434K pay out for doing it.