Mitchellgate, the aftermath.

[cee-dee]

Now we have a Police Officer charged with misconduct in a Public Office:-

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

As to the possibility of other officers and charges, the wording is significant.

It says "Insufficient evidence". Now that means that the DPP thinks that there is insufficient evidence to charge anyone and have a realistic chance of sustaining a sucessful prosecution.

What that also means is that there WAS some evidence but not enough. Had there been NO evidence, the words chosen would have been exactly that, there's NO evidence.

[bankhaunter]

I suppose it could depend on what could be called evidence.

A person could complain to the police that their neighbour had stolen their lawnmower and he saw them do it but if there were no other witnesses and no lawnmower was found in the neighbour's possession, there would be no prosecution.

Is that no evidence or insufficient evidence, is an unsubstantiated statement actually evidence?

[cee-dee]

More has been added to the BBC page and now five officers will "face gross misconduct proceedings linked to the subsequent row, meaning they could lose their jobs."

Sooooo, evidence as required for a criminal prosecution is more stringent than that required for gross misconduct proceedings.

[bankhaunter]

Not knowing exactly what the gross misconduct amounts to, it's difficult to tell however one could assume that a lower burden of proof can be required for disciplinary proceedings than would needed for a criminal prosecution.

Gross misconduct also doesn't necessarily means the person has committed a prosecutable offence.

[cee-dee]

It's like a lower burden of proof being required for civil cases as opposed to criminal cases.

Of course committing "Gross misconduct" isn't necessarily criminally prosecutable. It's misconduct in the employment field you happen to be in and will probably be contrary to the "rules" applicable to your job.

[0125arwen]

The guy admitted to swearing i don't see the choice of words makes a difference.

[cee-dee]

It was the alleged choice of words that caused all the kerfuffle!

[0125arwen]

so it's ok yo swear but not to say **bleep**?. 

Can't believe the money being wasted on this , he should have been fined same as anyone else , story finished

[cee-dee]

Fined? What for? He'd committed no offence.

BTW, you can't use the alleged word on here but now I can say that the situation has become known as "Plebgate".

[0125arwen]

swearing in public is a crime that can merit an 80 quid fine , it is after all anti social behaviour

[cee-dee]

****WRONG****  Under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, there is no specific offence of swearing at a Police Officer and is not an offence of swearing in Public unless it is causing harassment, alarm or distress.

[0125arwen]

Distress.

[cee-dee]

Just to back up what I said, a drunken woman was causing a nuisance in the street here and the cops were called. She started swearing and launched a "loud and angry verbal attack" at the cops and wouldn't stop even after being told she'd be arrested. She continued, was duly arrested and charged.

She wasn't charged with swearing at the cops, she was charged with being "drunk and disorderly in a public place". She pleaded guilty at Court, fined £40 with a £20 "victim surcharge" plus £85 costs.

Now Mitchell wasn't drunk or disorderly, he admitted swearing but left when told to so he caused no distress! The word for the incident, "Plebgate" is quite correct too. He was accused of using the word and it WAS at the gates.

[bankhaunter]

It could have been considered an offence was committed at the time because of the word 'insulting' in the Act.

To call a police officer a **bleep** may not be abusive but could be insulting, however the word has since been removed from the Act as being detrimental to free speech.

Threatening or abusive speech can be recognised by most people whereas what may insult one person may mean nothing to another, if I had a heated argument with an MP and they called me a **bleep**, I don't think I would give it a second thought.

[bankhaunter]

**bleep**?

Dear oh dear, obviously what I just said wasn't actually read by an intelligent human.

[cee-dee]

I did tell you that at #9. The word's in the list of those prohibited which get auto-removed.

[bankhaunter]

You're right, most have a shrewd idea of words which may be unacceptable but it's difficult to keep remembering the moderation bot doesn't take into account the forum is supposed to be for adults, appearing as it does to have been programmed by a very straightlaced elderly maiden aunt.

[cee-dee]

I'm told that the word is filtered so that it's not used to attack/insult other members.

The full word "plebgate" was "allowed" and removed from the filter after I found it had been bleeped in my thread title which was why I edited it at that time to "Mitchellgate".

[bankhaunter]

I've never been such a shrinking violet that such a word would bother me and have always thought that replacing words with **bleep** actually makes it potentially more insulting than the original word it replaced.

[cee-dee]

It wouldn't bother me either but there's nowt I can do about the filter, it's now set in stone.