Officer To Be Charged Over Plebgate

[ChillDoubt]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25101706

About time, but why only one? Surely the whole thing has been a conspiracy, so why only one sacrificial lamb?
Or is this to set the ball rolling and others will subsequently be charged with more serious offences?

[Zeuhl]

I suppose that lying about being present and a witness to something is the most obvious and 'bang to rights' element of this fiasco

It also has very uncomfortable parallels to day-to-day Police work

It will probably be harder to establish the truth in the main 'he said/no he didn't' part or any others' involvement in conspiracy

[emmie]

why only one, they were complicit in a fraud and the man whether one likes him or not, lost his job over it.

[ludwig]

// "The CPS has also found that there is insufficient evidence to show that Mr Mitchell was the victim of a conspiracy of misinformation."

But the CPS said it had decided to charge PC Keith Wallis with misconduct in a public office over the allegation he falsely claimed to have witnessed the incident in an email to deputy chief whip, John Randall who was his MP. //

He's the only one whose lying can be proven, because he's clearly not on the surveillance tape witnessing the incident as he claimed.

We obviously know the others are all lying too, but there's 'insufficient evidence' to prove it.

[Zeuhl]

/they were complicit in a fraud /

who were emmie?

if there's evidence that the officers on duty asked the other one to come forward as a 'witness' then indeed, that is probably perverting the course of justice or summink

[youngmafbog]

It is unlikely that anyone else will be charged.

They have their sacrificial lamb as you put it so that will do to put it to bed. They know the Tories can't push it too push without loosing the sympathy of the public as he [Mitchel] was not a particularly pleasant man.

[emmie]

one lied about being at the scene, he wasn't, that is lying, perverting the course of justice is it not?

[emmie]

ymg put yourself in Mitchells place, if that was you and they lied about what you said, then you could end up fined, or worse in jail for something you didn't do, that is not right is it?

[Zeuhl]

/They have their sacrificial lamb/

He's hardly a 'lamb' ymb

He stated he could back up the claims of other officers because he witnessed events between them and a member of the public

in fact, he was sat at home

that sort of behaviour undermines the credibility of any police evidence in any case - so a very serious offence

[emmie]

it is a serious offence and they shouldn't get more than a slap on the hands, and it should be a senior head that should also be on the block, anyone complicit in this should be out of a job.

[andy-hughes]

As ludwig has said - knowing something and proving it with evidence are two different things.

The phrase 'insufficient evidence' is leagl shorthand for 'we know you did it, but we can't prove it ...' and as I have often opined on here, I am entirely in favour of that concept.

If we start bending the rules to secure prosecution of other parties involved, then we as a nation and state become as bad as they are, and we are all on a slippery slope.

Hopefuly this will draw the proverbial line under the issue.

[Jomlett]

"In a separate development the police watchdog, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, said five officers would face gross misconduct proceedings linked to the Plebgate row."

[Zeuhl]

I have to say I have more sympathy for the Police Federation officials who 'misrepresented' their meeting with Mitchell

At the time they were acting as, in effect, union officials

When any other union officials (or politicians) do this we shrug it off as 'politics' and only what is expected

Clearly we expect police officers to behave better than politicians, but in that instance they were acting as politicians - are they to be judged as police officers regardless of what they are engaged in?

I haven't ever noticed Police sports teams being any less violent or cheating less than other teams

[jomifl]

Surely the originator of the story must have lied?

[Zeuhl]

/Surely the originator of the story must have lied? /

which one?

The copper or Mitchell?

[youngmafbog]

emmie, yes I do agree with you but I am trying to look at it realistically.

Unfortunately this sort of thing happens daily with us 'plebs' and we dont have the media and big friends to help us.

Many plod would stitch up their own Grandmother if they thought they would get something out of it. It's just a bit difficult to justify Granny having 3kg of coke to a jury.

[Gromit]

It seems inconeivable that this was the work of one lone officer. I am assuming this is the off duty officer who tried to pass himself as a shocked member of the public. But the log book and the CCTV didn't tally. This officer was off duty so he couldn't have written the log book. If he didn't write it then others must be involved.

Has all the makings of a cover up.

[ChillDoubt]

Against my nature though it is, I have to say I'm inlcined to agree with Gromit.

Without checking back, I possibly have a vague memory that up to 8 officers were alleged to have had some involvement (was it up to Superintendent/Chief Inspector level?) in this whole sorry saga and it would appear that only one lowly PC is to be charged.
Surely the others were complicit to one degree or another?
I'm sure that further questions will be raised, given the conspiratorial nature of this whole event.

[Bazile]

//We obviously know the others are all lying too, but there's 'insufficient evidence' to prove it. //

How do we know that ?

He admitted swearing , so how do we know he didn't call them plebs , either in earshot - or what he thought , was out of earshot ?

[bazwillrun]

"that is lying, perverting the course of justice is it not? "

when does lying become perverting the course of justice

anybody that pleads not guilty and subsequently found guilty would be guilty of PTCoJ and anybody who lies in court, but they arent charged with it

what gives ?

[bazwillrun]

wifi went again cont...

is it a case that the punishment for the crime if guilty would be larger than for the PTCoJ, so it takes precedence ?