Talk:Plebgate

The apology by the three Police Federation members
The article currently states;

the officers subsequently issued a statement in which they apologised for misleading the public.

The statement from the three officers actually says; We acknowledge the investigation's criticism relating to our poor judgement in talking to the media following the meeting with Andrew Mitchell, for which we take this opportunity to apologise.

That is clearly not an apology for lying about what was said in the meeting with Andrew Mitchell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.158.242 (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * You are, of course, free to edit the article. Before you do so, however, check out the BBC story which begins:


 * "Three police officers have apologised for their "poor judgement" in briefing the media about the "plebgate" scandal.


 * Ken MacKaill, Stuart Hinton, and Chris Jones said they had not planned to mislead the public."

Paul MacDermott (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

The name...
Maybe "The Andrew Mitchell" affair would be more in order? :P --Kawaii-Soft (talk) 20:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, today when I came here for the first time, I typed in 'plebgate' - it's quick! Rothorpe (talk) 20:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge of Operation Alice into Plebgate
I suggest a merge - one topic, currently size doesn't warrant separate article. Widefox ; talk 12:01, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Rothorpe (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - merge. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:03, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree - it's only two lines long so merge. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Now done per clear consensus. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Swearing at a police officer
"Under UK law and following a series of judgements between 1989 and 2011, the act of swearing at a police officer is not of itself sufficient to justify arrest.[24]" - This is not quite true. Section 5 Public order act requires in the individual to be offended or insulted by the language. Swearing in front of a Police Officer 'I told you you wouldn't fucking find anything' is judged not to be offensive. A barrister could certainly argue that calling someone a 'fucking pleb' is offensive, and would insult. Context is highly important in this situation 80.42.226.196 (talk) 01:42, 26 December 2012 (UTC) NoSuchUserName
 * The point of that ruling is that police officers are sworn at so often, and called names on such a regular basis that they have become accustomed to it. If you call a policeman a fucking pleb, then he should be able to rise above it, and not be offended. If he is offended then he is too sensitive to be a policeman. 86.29.180.90 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I understand the situation, it isn't illegal to swear at a police officer, but if you do so in a public place then you're likely to be arrested for a public order offense. I suspect that would probably be the case even if your language wasn't actually directed at the officer personally. I'm sure anyone who watches the fly-on-the-wall documentaries featuring police officers (Emergency Bikers and the like) will be familiar with phrases such as "Please don't swear, sir." Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The whole para that's there currently has wider issues in my view:
 * "Legally, the email remains significant even if discredited, because of the nature of its possible impact. Under UK law and following a series of judgements between 1989 and 2011, the act of swearing at a police officer is not of itself sufficient to justify arrest.[24] However if the behaviour gave rise to harassment, alarm or distress to someone else present (other than police officers who are regarded for the purpose as inured to swearing), and in particular children, then this would become sufficient to justify arrest. The email had purported - apparently falsely - to provide just such evidence."
 * It veers too close to analysis/commentary in WP's voice about both the general legal principles and the details of this case, with the only reference being a single – primary – source (ie this judgment). Even if we were sure the assertions were entirely accurate and had decent secondary sources, we should surely be avoiding this kind of explanatory/expository text in articles anyway.  N-HH   talk / edits  18:08, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If we could find a third party source to back it up then at least some of this information could be included as footnotes, which seems a more sensible way to present it. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:54, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Alternative names
I believe the two minor alternative names are significant per MOS:LEADALT and so should be included in the WP:LEAD. They are both redirects here. Widefox ; talk 11:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered the forthcoming Libel trials?
The article seems to end without mention of the libel or the trials. Is there a reason of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.246.110 (talk) 13:07, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Now The Libel Case Is Over
Now the libel case was settled in 2014 and Andrew Mitchell can now legitimately be called a liar and the offers version of events proven to be correct then shouldn't this article be reviewed. I note their is a 2 liner at the bottom of the page but the rest is all about a supposed dispute over what was said.... Well the High Court have decided the police officer was libeled by Mitchell and has had to make payment for damages. The whole story reads as if the officers all lied and some have lost their jobs as a result of this lie...

Their may be room for some reflection on the facts and corrections, updates and apologies!

16 previous occasions?
Re this edit: The claim is made here, that he "had been accused of a pattern of insulting and high-handed behaviour towards officials on at least 16 occasions dating back to 2005." A handy list is provided lower down in that article of 28 November 2014. I see no reason why the Daily Mail would make up a number like that or invent that list. But I believe we are currently unable to use that newspaper as a source for any Wikipedia article, unless it's reporting incontrovertable fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)