Quote:
Originally Posted by Kizzy
I most certainly did read the article, in particular the part that said that Andrew Michell is a 'close friend' of those involved in the paper.
That doesn't automatically suggest that anyone without influence has to be wary of the police, that feeds the myth that this is endemic.
I think the whole Mitchell situation stinks to high heaven, a don't doubt for one moment that he didn't say 'pleb' 'know your place' or swear his head off.
The fact that this has been swirling around so much during a time of acute social and economic pressure is sickening.
It's as far as I can see irreconcilably damaged public perception of the police, and set public relations back decades.
In this social climate is that wise?
Was that the plan, to damage the police as they have the NHS?
I think it was, I'm certain it was!
|
A close friend of one journalist from the paper, that's all. It is a fact that at best three police officers lied about what happened and it might even have been worse than that, these were the findings of the IPCC not any politicians or journalists that were close to Mitchell.
Oborne's point is that for the police to be effective they need to be trusted by the public, something that won't happen if they are shown to have lied and gotten away with it, as they have done in other incidents as well. They're in a position where they have the power of arrest, are tasked with gathering evidence, and are generally given greater credence and special protections. Hence why they need to be held to such a high standard. With so many questionable incidents in recent years the police force should be scrutinised in the same way that MPs were after expenses, journalists after phone hacking, bankers after the recession and the intelligence services after Iraq. Seems a sensible idea to me.