Mitchell stance

Published on 27/09/2012 00:00

I DISAGREE with Neil Sinclair (Letters, 26 September) and others who believe that police should have arrested Conservative chief whip Andrew Mitchell for swearing at them. Such an arrest would have been made under the Public Order Act 1986, which does allow for police officer discretion.

Mr Mitchell admitted to swearing at police and, according to the police log, he was warned that he would be arrested if he continued to swear. He stopped swearing. That was the proper way to deal with the confrontation and I think Mr Sinclair is wrong to say: “Police failed to arrest Mr Mitchell because they perceived him to be of the ‘patrician’ class and themselves to be plebs.”

Unlike Mr Mitchell, the police officer – having recognised that Mr Mitchell was frustrated and had lost his temper – acted reasonably and with restraint.

What is of greater concern to many is that Mr Mitchell has refused to reveal what he did say to police and that he may have lied to the Prime Minister when he assured David Cameron that he did not call the police “plebs”, although the police log appears to show that he did. More important, did he lie to us when he denied saying that word?

Mr Mitchell should make it clear that he will sue anybody for defamation who says he used the word “plebs”.

Malcolm W Ewen

Ferryhills Road

North Queensferry, Fife