Apparently the Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said about the Andrew Mitchell affair that “… there is more to this than meets the eye.” This is in response to the arrest and questioning of a police officer who apparently corroborated the original officers’ accounts of the confrontation but is now said not to have been there.
Well, the central facts of this case are undisputed. Andrew Mitchell has admitted to swearing at police officers – an act for which you or I would have had our collars felt in next to no time – yet has not been subject to arrest himself. Those police officers were moreover acting in the course of their duty in protecting the members of the Government of which he was a part yet were the victims of verbal abuse by a subject of their efforts. Mitchell, of course, disputes the officers’ version of his words.
I believe it is quite common for an accused person to give a different account of what transpired than the one the police put forward; indeed for accused persons to imply or state that the police evidence is embellished, perhaps even fabricated, and the result of collusion. Is it often the case that, as seems to be happening here, it is the officers’ account that is taken to be at variance with the truth?
Or does that only occur when it is former members of the Government, people still close to the Prime Minister, whose memory does not accord with those of policemen?
More to this than meets the eye?
You can bet there is!