Quizzes & Puzzles16 mins ago
Plebgate Latest !
http://
The IPCC work at the same speed as glaciers but they do seem to get there in the end !
The IPCC work at the same speed as glaciers but they do seem to get there in the end !
Answers
1 to 15 of 15
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mikey4444. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// They do seem to be getting there in the end. //
No they don't.
The meeting between Michell and the Police Federation was 2 years ago. Michell complained that they lied about the meeting and the IPCC investigated. A year later they recommended no action should be taken against the 3.
// The affair was revisited again in October 2013, after a report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) concluded three officers had given a false account of a meeting they had with Mitchell at his constituency office in October 2012, and that the findings of a subsequent investigation had been changed at the eleventh hour to recommend no disciplinary action be taken against them. //
Mitchell had in fact taped the meeting. After the IPCC had recommended no disciplinary action, Mitchell released a transcript of the meeting. It made the IPCC investigation look a sham, so a full year later, they are having another go.
No they don't.
The meeting between Michell and the Police Federation was 2 years ago. Michell complained that they lied about the meeting and the IPCC investigated. A year later they recommended no action should be taken against the 3.
// The affair was revisited again in October 2013, after a report from the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) concluded three officers had given a false account of a meeting they had with Mitchell at his constituency office in October 2012, and that the findings of a subsequent investigation had been changed at the eleventh hour to recommend no disciplinary action be taken against them. //
Mitchell had in fact taped the meeting. After the IPCC had recommended no disciplinary action, Mitchell released a transcript of the meeting. It made the IPCC investigation look a sham, so a full year later, they are having another go.
// It further transpired that Police Federation officers from around the West Midlands who met with Mitchell had claimed he refused to give his side of events; a claim thrown into question by a recording of that meeting.
Mitchell—the MP for Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands—had met with three representatives from the West Midlands, Warwickshire and West Mercia forces at his constituency office on 12 October to discuss the incident, after which the officers gave interviews about what had been discussed at the meeting. They claimed Mitchell had not given a full account of the disagreement, but a transcript of the recording he made indicated he had spoken at length about the incident. //
Mitchell—the MP for Sutton Coldfield in the West Midlands—had met with three representatives from the West Midlands, Warwickshire and West Mercia forces at his constituency office on 12 October to discuss the incident, after which the officers gave interviews about what had been discussed at the meeting. They claimed Mitchell had not given a full account of the disagreement, but a transcript of the recording he made indicated he had spoken at length about the incident. //
This is really son of plebgate innit ?
and not the real thing
The decisions relate to the later meeting in the midlands between Mitchell and the three police at a Fed building. Mitchell had taped the meeting and it was obvious from the start that the police briefing bore no relation to the tape made by Mitchell
These decisions dont REALLY relate to the events outside no 10 but more to the subsequent events
slow... blimey will we ever get to the truth ?
and not the real thing
The decisions relate to the later meeting in the midlands between Mitchell and the three police at a Fed building. Mitchell had taped the meeting and it was obvious from the start that the police briefing bore no relation to the tape made by Mitchell
These decisions dont REALLY relate to the events outside no 10 but more to the subsequent events
slow... blimey will we ever get to the truth ?
I appreciate that whistle-blowers often record 'suspected' people with a view to entrapping them, but - as I understand it - it is illegal to record someone without their knowledge and consent. Mitchell did that and it appears he succeeded in catching the three officers out. Hence, his 'crime' was overlooked.
Fair enough. I wonder, though, what he would have done if THEY had taped HIM surreptitiously and somehow caught HIM out. Would they have got away with it?
Fair enough. I wonder, though, what he would have done if THEY had taped HIM surreptitiously and somehow caught HIM out. Would they have got away with it?
no
in England it is one sided ( one person needs to know - not both parties )
this is consistent with an employer not being allowed to record employees third party conversations ( neither party knows there)
No I cant give a case ref - but it has come up in the GMC and also the Mitchell case and there is no question of wrongdoing (!!!) I mean in the recording. One judge ( sorry no ref ) commented people take notes and I see no difference in recording and noting.
[ My comments do not cover crime, investigation and RIPA ]
in England it is one sided ( one person needs to know - not both parties )
this is consistent with an employer not being allowed to record employees third party conversations ( neither party knows there)
No I cant give a case ref - but it has come up in the GMC and also the Mitchell case and there is no question of wrongdoing (!!!) I mean in the recording. One judge ( sorry no ref ) commented people take notes and I see no difference in recording and noting.
[ My comments do not cover crime, investigation and RIPA ]
Obviously, I put the word 'crime' in inverted commas, having already said, "as I understand it." What I was thinking of is the situation one often finds where, if you phone an insurance company, say, they will often say something like, "You are advised that calls may be recorded..." The choice whether to go ahead is, therefore, yours.
Given the fact that it is far from just policemen who tell lies, would it be OK for me to tape an interview with my local MP if I felt I had good grounds for believing HE was a liar and a law-breaker? More to the point perhaps, would he ever finish up facing charges?
Given the fact that it is far from just policemen who tell lies, would it be OK for me to tape an interview with my local MP if I felt I had good grounds for believing HE was a liar and a law-breaker? More to the point perhaps, would he ever finish up facing charges?
// would it be OK for me to tape an interview with my local MP if I felt I had good grounds for believing HE was a liar and a law-breaker? More to the point perhaps, would he ever finish up facing charges? //
Don't know QM, but it'd probably be a good way of avoiding charges yourself if the MP gave a false account of the interview in which he accused you of something illegal.
That's more like what happened here. He taped the interview in defence, expecting they would tell lies about it afterwards.
Of course he could have warned them in advance - I'm going to tape this interview - but then they wouldn't have been exposed as liars, which they do need to be.
Don't know QM, but it'd probably be a good way of avoiding charges yourself if the MP gave a false account of the interview in which he accused you of something illegal.
That's more like what happened here. He taped the interview in defence, expecting they would tell lies about it afterwards.
Of course he could have warned them in advance - I'm going to tape this interview - but then they wouldn't have been exposed as liars, which they do need to be.
The meeting with the police was in his constituency office and therefore private property. I assume by entering private property, they were consenting to whatever happens there.
Also, the 3 Police officers are public servants. It is not illegal to record, photograph or film the police while they are on duty.
Mitchell did not break the law.
Also, the 3 Police officers are public servants. It is not illegal to record, photograph or film the police while they are on duty.
Mitchell did not break the law.
I take your points, L, but I'm none too sure of your one about being free to record police activity as long as they are on duty, G.
I can't imagine their taking kindly to a cameraman scuttling about, trying to get a best picture as they crept up to batter a suspect's door in at 5 AM, for example!
The key point about the follow-up to the Plebgate situation being discussed here is that the police were incredibly naive not to suspect Mitchell would do what he did and act accordingly; namely, to beware of saying anything self-incriminating!
I can't imagine their taking kindly to a cameraman scuttling about, trying to get a best picture as they crept up to batter a suspect's door in at 5 AM, for example!
The key point about the follow-up to the Plebgate situation being discussed here is that the police were incredibly naive not to suspect Mitchell would do what he did and act accordingly; namely, to beware of saying anything self-incriminating!
// I take your points, L, but I'm none too sure of your one about being free to record police activity as long as they are on duty, G. //
I am not sure if you have taken any of the points QM
Do all the CCTVs click off in a street when the police make an arrest ?
Do they knock on doors and say I am sorry you have to wipe your home CCTV esp of the arrest of your next door naighbour ?
No they dont for the good reason - that it is lawful
when the late very late viddie of Mark Duggans arrest came to light, did they knock on the fella's door and say - you're nicked matey, you shouldna done that ? Nope they didnt
And Mitchell 's meeting with the three from the Police Fed - and the meeting could not possibly be said to be in connection with a crime, and one side knew it was being recorded
Luckiily in my work place I was used to my employer saying O you cant do that
when the true position was that he didnt want me to do that ( because it would be to his disadvantage ) but I could if I wanted since it was lawful
DOI dobbed inn my employer for listening to our phone calls whilst denying it. His accepted defence was - "well I didnt really deny it" x " well I didnt think I was"
I am not sure if you have taken any of the points QM
Do all the CCTVs click off in a street when the police make an arrest ?
Do they knock on doors and say I am sorry you have to wipe your home CCTV esp of the arrest of your next door naighbour ?
No they dont for the good reason - that it is lawful
when the late very late viddie of Mark Duggans arrest came to light, did they knock on the fella's door and say - you're nicked matey, you shouldna done that ? Nope they didnt
And Mitchell 's meeting with the three from the Police Fed - and the meeting could not possibly be said to be in connection with a crime, and one side knew it was being recorded
Luckiily in my work place I was used to my employer saying O you cant do that
when the true position was that he didnt want me to do that ( because it would be to his disadvantage ) but I could if I wanted since it was lawful
DOI dobbed inn my employer for listening to our phone calls whilst denying it. His accepted defence was - "well I didnt really deny it" x " well I didnt think I was"
One point that Ludwig made, PP, was expressed in the words, "Probably not" and another as, "I don't know, QM." I certainly took both of these points, so just which points are you claiming, in a disparaging way, you aren't sure of my having 'taken'?
I should have thought it perfectly plain from the first contribution I made to this thread that I was, at best, tentative about the legal situation here. I did so by writing "as I understand it" and then putting the word crime in inverted commas. This is a standard literary technique for telling the reader that the writer is far from sure that the word thus enclosed is the correct word. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with it?
You keep suggesting that anyone is free to do what they like as regards recording police activity. I then presented a scenario of a cameraman filming police during what they would wish to be a surreptitious approach and possibly disturbing officers or alerting the suspect. Would that not be covered by the offence of "obstructing a police officer..."? If so, it would surely mean that it ISN'T just acceptable to record police activity on a whim, wouldn't it?
I should have thought it perfectly plain from the first contribution I made to this thread that I was, at best, tentative about the legal situation here. I did so by writing "as I understand it" and then putting the word crime in inverted commas. This is a standard literary technique for telling the reader that the writer is far from sure that the word thus enclosed is the correct word. Perhaps you're unfamiliar with it?
You keep suggesting that anyone is free to do what they like as regards recording police activity. I then presented a scenario of a cameraman filming police during what they would wish to be a surreptitious approach and possibly disturbing officers or alerting the suspect. Would that not be covered by the offence of "obstructing a police officer..."? If so, it would surely mean that it ISN'T just acceptable to record police activity on a whim, wouldn't it?
1 to 15 of 15
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
Could All Help With Signing My Petition
Seasonal29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles29 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles34 mins ago
Crosswords38 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.