The First Law of Being In A Hole? I thought it was basic stuff. Apparently not.

http://johnnyvoid.wordpress.com/2012/09/22/the-boy-who-went-to-jail-for-what-andrew-mitchell-did/

Seems you can end up in jail for speaking to an officer like how Andrew Mitchell did, assuming you first belong to the ‘wrong’ class anyway.

The title of this article is unintentionally ambiguous ‘labour complaint over Andrew Mitchell over #plebgate’ suggests that labour’s Mitchell complaint is over. This is because hashtags are not nesseserally part of the sentence. Anyway I am relived that they havent stopped complaining,if Mitchell did say wgatbisbreported he ought to resign in my opinion.

Lets be clear, swearing at a police officer is not an offence. That was decided in the Court of Appeal last year. Mitchell might have committed an offence under S5 of the Public Order Act 1986; Maximum penalty a low level fine. But even that is not clear cut because the standard for the police to suffer harassment, distress or alarm is higher than for a member of the general public. More serious offences – S4 and S4a require intent to cause harassment, distress or alarm. Intent is difficult to prove and must be considered in all the circumstances of the case. I know nothing about the case referred to by @2, but if the boy went to prison he must have been charged with a S4 or above. Furthermore, he must have pleaded guilty to that charge (4 months is standard for a G plea). There are further complications. Although Downing Street in theory is a public street, de facto, it is not. Why do we have police there preventing entry if it is a public road?

Having worked, in my time, in market research, I am quite aware of the flaws in the ABCDE classification system. But it is what there is. And if offers Labour to seize the present opportunity to demand that we plebeians be guaranteed representation on public bodies. That is vastly more important than anything to do with sex, or ethnicity, or disability.

NHS Trust Boards, school governing bodies, Police Authorities, and so on: when it comes to the appointed members rather than councillors or senior staff, the number should always be three or divisible by three, with equal numbers, by law, from the local AB, C1C2, and DE populations. Since juries are already divisible by three, and since there are three on a Bench of Magistrates, the same principle ought also to apply. Again, by law.

Where necessary, which is everywhere where it is possible, there should also be guaranteed parity within each of the three class categories, at least in public body appointments, between rural and urban areas, or between rural and suburban areas, or between suburban and urban areas, or among all three, as the locality necessitates. For that matter, there are places such as here in the old Derwentside District, still used for some purposes, with countryside and towns, but no suburbs. Again, there must be balance and parity: an equal number in each class from each of the rural and the urban areas.

Ed Miliband, and even more so Jon Cruddas and Maurice Glasman, over to you.

@6

And when there are not enough people interested (the process for ‘appointing’ people you don’t explain)from one of the categories you have decided should be the determining factor – what happens then?

@6, you wish.

This Tory Led Coalition gives the clear impression that it operates and behaves in the same way that you would expect of a Mafia Organisation.

David Laws, Andy Culson, Brookes, Murdocks, Doctor Fox, Cruddas and all the many others that have been upto some sort of wrong doing, the list is long !

8 yup. Nice and sleazy does it with those tories.

Mitchell showed us what they really think of us. They hate us.

If Cameron is backing Andrew Mitchell’s line, then he must pursue the police officers in question for manipulating police evidence / conspiracy to pervert the cause of justice etc. Anything less would be neglect on his part.

Lets be clear, swearing at a police officer is not an offence. That was decided in the Court of Appeal last year.

That must be no longer an offence because both instances that the Greater Manchester police claimed to have sent people down for swearing at a police officer occurred on the 11 Aug 2011. Presumably in the context of the riots.

“That must be no longer an offence because both instances that the Greater Manchester police claimed to have sent people down for swearing at a police officer occurred on the 11 Aug 2011. ”

Rather smugly too, if I recall correctly. And GMP are generally ok these days, it’s not like we’re talking about the Met.

There has never been an offence in law relating to swearing at the police. Either the police arrest for breach of the peace, or use S4 or S5 of the Public Order Act 1986. Breach of the Peace does not carry any punishment. Instead those arrested can be ‘bound over’ to keep the peace. This must be done by a magistrate – on pain of loss of a money surety if the peace is not kept. This is not a conviction and does not create a criminal record. Police do not like this very much because it must be done by a JP thus involving a court appearance. POA offences can be dealt with on the street, or in the station, usually by caution (if the offender accepts guilt). Either of these creates a criminal record. In recent years, since the introduction of street penalties by Labour, the police have increasingly been using S5 as a means of suppressing freedom of expression. There is presently a campaign afoot to change the wording of the Act to limit this misuse.

So the distinction is that there is no specific offense of swearing at a police officer, but there are laws that allow for people to be arrested and locked up for swearing at a police officer?

Cameron’s attitude:

We must always help the police with their enquiries except when it concerns Conservative MP’s.