Talk:Andrew Mitchell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Biography / Politics and Government (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the politics and government work group (marked as Low-importance).
WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

"P.L.E.B.S." - an offensive Conservative HQ Acronym for Disabled People?[edit]

In connection with allegations that this gentleman abused Police officers on duty in Downing Street, it may appear odd to some that he has admitted (e.g. here <>) to using the the 'f' word in an abusive manner, but has strenuously denied using the word 'Pleb'. According to this BBC article by Ben Milne(<>) immediately before the Paralympic Games, a government agency released a rather cruel newsletter,mocking the problem of what it described as 'People Lacking Everyday Basic Skills' - a reminder about disabled 'Hate Crime' was issued, and use of this acronym was subsequently banned on threat of instant dismissal - this fact may help put current events into perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it's of any any great relevance to be honest. Two different people using the same silly epithet on completely different occasions (allegedly in Mitchell's case). And a "government agency" is a very different thing from "Conservative HQ". The article does not say that it was a "cruel newsletter", nor that it "mocked" anyone, nor that anyone was threatened with the sack for "Hate Crime" - rather it implies that it was an unfortunate and largely accidental use of the word. Are you sure you aren't reading what you want to read into this story? MissingMia (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

There was also this (<>) about Skills Minister (!) John Hayes using it to refer to those he was supposed to be helping into the employment market....people like David Cameron's late son I guess.... (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)JKhant79.67.255.98 (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Career section[edit]

I've removed a line referenced to The Guardian after a concern was raised at BLP/N that the Guardian was confusing Andrew Mitchell with Andrew Michael Mitchell. The line read:

Between 1981-89, he was a Manager at Touche Ross & Co., and from 1989–91, Financial Controller. Between 1991-93, he was Audit Manager at Storehouse PLC, and in 1993 he became Finance Director at W H Everett & Son Ltd. Andrew Mitchell: Electoral history and profile

Other than the IP raising the issue, I had two additional concerns. The first is that those positions are not mentioned on Andrew Mitchell's website, yet I can't see any reason for it to be excluded if true. The second is that these positions cover the period 1987-1993, during which he was the Member of Parliament for Gedling. Thus he would have had to hold these positions while an MP, and this seems very unlikely. Thus my assumption is that the IP's concerns were valid. - Bilby (talk) 10:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Guardian is a reliable source. If the statement is in their bio of Mitchell, and has not been challenged, we can accept this as established fact. There was no candidate named "Andrew Michael Mitchell" in the 1997 or 2001 general election. The information that Mitchell worked for Touché Ross, Lazards and other financial institutions can be found elsewhere, such as Africa Confidential's Who's Who entry [1] and Debrett's[2]. The statement is not pejorative; indeed, it has been cited in his support by various bloggers and commenters [3] [4]This information seems well-attested and notable, so I am restoring it to the article. RolandR (talk) 14:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I understand that The Guardian is a reliable source, but in this case it seems to have made an error. An Andrew Michael Mitchell ran as a Conservative candidate in 2001, and is currently on the Southwark Council. Andrew Michael Mitchell also goes by the name Michael Mitchell, and under that name he ran in 2001 as a Conservative candidate. The BBC published a bio of him in which he was ascribed the positions that The Guardian gave to Andrew Mitchell MP.
Thus it seems reasonable for The Guardian to make that mistake. When you consider that Andrew Mitchell couldn't have held those positions, as he was MP for Gedling at the time, it seems that The Guardian did confuse Andrew Mitchell with Andrew Michael Mitchell. It is an unusual error, but it definitely looks like a mistake from The Guardian. - Bilby (talk) 15:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Why do you assume that it was the Guardian that made the mistake, not the BBC? (Especially since the BBC even misspells the name of the constituency where he stood in 2001!) And what evidence is there that Michael Mitchell is actually Andrew Michael Mitchell? RolandR (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
(copied in part from the BLP noticeboard, after edit conflicts) There doesn't seem to be any dispute that Mitchell spent several years at Lazard. Other than the questioned Guardian article I don't see any reliable support for the statement that he was at Touche Ross, Stonehouse, or WH Everett. (One of the links that RolandR gives is to comments on a blog, which may well have just quoted the Wikipedia entry; the other link mentioned Lazard but not some of the others.) Most significantly, Mitchell was the MP for Gedling from 1987 to 1997; is it possible that he was simultaneously serving in these various other, full-time, positions? I know that MPs are allowed to have some outside interests, but I don't think they would have concurrent full-time positions in the City. Finally, there is no reason to believe that the Member's official bio would list some of his positions but not others (it is not like one turned out to be discreditable, or something like that).
Since this is a BLP, I have removed the material of disputed accuracy. Under the BLP policy, it may not be restored unless and until there is a consensus to do so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Either The Guardian or the BBC stuffed up. If it was The Guardian, then Andrew Mitchell was Manager at Touche Ross & Co at the same time as he was in Parliament and PPS first to William Waldegrave and then John Wakeham. This seems to be impossible. So I assume that the error was by The Guardian. In relation to your second question, the Southwark Conservative councilor "Andrew Michael Mitchell" is also listed as "Michael Mitchell", and this site refers to the BBC's Michael Mitchell as Andrew Michael Mitchell. It all points to an error, rather than making it absolutely clear, unfortunately, but there's enough there that The Guardian's information looks very doubtful. If there were more sources supporting those positions I'd be happier - but as Andrew Mitchell doesn't list them, they aren't listed on his BBC bio, and it seems very unlikely he could have held them while serving as an MP, I think there's good cause to leave the information out. - Bilby (talk) 15:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
At Newyorkbrad's invitation, I have had a look into this situation. First, in Andrew Mitchell's biography in the Times Guide to the House of Commons, 1987, no mention is made of any posts with Touche Ross (p. 118). The same is true in his entry in Dod's Parliamentary Companion 1988, which was the first edition after the election (p. 477). I have checked various other editions of these and other standard reference works and they all make no mention of Andrew Mitchell working for Touche Ross, Storehouse and W.H. Everett.
On the other hand, when Michael Mitchell was Conservative candidate in Greenwich and Woolwich in 1997, he replied to a questionnaire which was set to candidates as part of a general election guide which the company I then worked for was writing. His entry in the published guide says under "Occupations": "Chartered Accountant, Finance Dir WH Everett (Export Booksellers)". His entry in the Times Guide is uninformative, not naming the companies he worked for. However, I also have the BBC Political Research Unit 'Constituency Guide' for 1997, which was published for internal use by BBC journalists (copies can be seen on the table during the BBC election night programme). For Michael Mitchell it says under 'Non-Political Career' "Trainee then Chartered Accountant, Touche Ross 1981-89; Storehouse plc and British Urban Development plc 1989-93; Finance Director W H Everett and Son Ltd (export booksellers) 1993-" (p. 284) The same information is also included in the BBC PRU's 2001 guide when Michael Mitchell fought Selby (p. 507).
My conclusion from this is that it is fairly obvious that Michael Mitchell's details have been erroneously applied with Andrew Mitchell. The coincidence is just too great and I think we can take it for granted that Lazards would not take kindly to one of their senior staff moonlighting with a different company. After 1987 Andrew Mitchell was in Parliament and unable to work full time for any company. Whoever made the mistake in the first place is perhaps beside the point, but it is clear that we have here a case where a reliable source has fallen into error. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone please deal with the Jon Snow section? I don't think it inaccurate, just the wrong layout/hierarchical tier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Trustee of EM Radiation Research Trust[edit]

The article states that Andrew Mitchell is a trustee of the EM Research Trust and cites a broken link. Here is the actual page of trustees. He is not included, but other MPs are:

Please find out whether this is true.

telewatho (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Army Career Details Hyperinflated?[edit]

According to an entry in the Daily Mail 'Comments Section' that accompanying revelations of bullying party workers, Mitchell's army career entry is inaccurate. The post alleges the following: "As for his vaunted Army Peacekeeping career, he was a full-time regular in 1975 for only seven months before being transferred to the reserves when he secured a placement to go to university. He resigned his commission barely a year and a half later in 1977, for a total of approx two years service. .."

- ChrisC, Cardiff, 22/9/2012.

Is this true? Is there any way to check his army career details against official records? Lot of good men and women have died in service, so army career details should be 100% accurate. The main article is titled "'I felt full force of Mitchell's rage': Student volunteer claims she was at the end of angry phone call from Chief Whip over newspaper article'. <>.

@Andy the Grump- this was really a request that an experienced Wiki Editor actually checks the facts against official army records - or at least cites a source for the career details as a 'UN Peacekeeper' - Conservative Party CV ? the official entry cited here says he resigned from the reserve list: "2nd Lt. (on probation) A. J. B. MITCHELL (499546)resigns his commn., 9th Feb. 1977.". He was at university for his entire army career - the 'facts' in the main article don't appear to make sense. I mean, there are thousands of guys working on building sites with more distinguished service records than that - and in the Police Force - it does need to be checked out for accuracy.

An edit made to his own constituency website on 22.09.12 has removed all reference to 'UN Peacekeeping ' - it now reads that 'He served with the British Army (Tank Regiment)" - there is no reference to UN service at all there ...the sources should be checked for recent edits too. (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Pleb/Police Widow79.70.233.58 (talk) 16:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a reference to the UN Peacekeeping thing is in this article if you need source for it. (talk) 01:17, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the details but it sounds like he did what used to be known as a "Short Service Limited Commission", aka "Gap Year Second Lieutenant" before going up to University, same as Rory Stewart I believe. It's possible Mitchell was still on the Army Reserve list whilst at University, in case he decided to do some more soldiering after he graduated.MissingMia (talk) 01:44, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

'PC Plebs' demonstration outside constituency office[edit]

A link to this unprecedented event should be included in the main article: source: Daily Mail: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Plebgate/resignation merge[edit]

I've now merged the two separate treatments of "Plebgate" into a single narrative, under the "Chief Whip" subheading. -- The Anome (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent Plebgate developments: Plebgate becoming a stand-alone topic?[edit]

It looks like "Plebgate" just got a lot weirder, and potentially a much larger story with ramifications beyond Mitchell himself; new CCTV evidence, an arrest, statements from the police commissioner. Number 10, Police Federation, and the Mayor of London.

This is all over the UK press. See

and many more for more details.

Given all this, it will probably make sense to give Plebgate its own standalone article in the near future. -- Chronulator (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Re:'Plebgate': recent developments don't actually change the fact that a Section 5 Public Order Offence was committed (and admitted), according to the CPS Guidance on Public Order Offences (which is at: "There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but remember that this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum [1988] Crim L R 848). Although the existence of a person who is caused harassment alarm and distress must be proved, there is no requirement that they actually give evidence. In appropriate cases, the offence may be proved on a police officer's evidence alone. "

The video showed 3 police officers were present, a passing bus with windows down and ~20 people on board, countless cars and several people on foot; in addition, Downing Street is a large office complex with many people working inside. Mr Mitchell admitted using the 'F' word: even if no genuine formal witness statement were to emerge, and the email cited in many press reports today were shown definitively not to be genuine, its a red herring. The other 2 police officers present heard the obscene language, and that is sufficient for a prosecution, according to CPS guidelines. (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)RogerWhittaker'sBeardTrimmer212.139.111.140 (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't Denzel Cassius Harvey's appeal in November 2011 have an impact on that though? The judge, Mr Justice Bean, ruled that the f word does not offend police since they hear it all the time. [1] (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit hard to imagine that many people in an office would be offended by hearing the "f" word, even if they heard it clearly (I'd have to check, next time I go past, whether there are many windows within obvious earshot of the gate). The footage most certainly doesn't suggest that anyone going past heard AM's outburst: it's not as if there was a gaggle of people listening. I've been up Whitehall on the bus umpteen times and the idea that somebody on a bus could hear what is being said in the gates of 10 Downing Street across a wide pavement is really quite absurd. If the bus is stationary you can sometimes hear what is being said at the adjacent bus stop, but that's about it. So that just leaves the coppers on the gate. Using the f-word once or twice in a heated conversation (and taking a while to come clean) is whole different level of seriousness from (allegedly) attempting to influence an ongoing politically sensitive investigation by submitting false evidence claiming to have been an independent eyewitness.

It has been suggested that the police on the gate could perfectly genuinely have misheard "f-ing help us" (which AM admits to saying) as "f-ing plebs" which sounds quite plausible to me.MissingMia (talk) 16:16, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

RE: Denzil Harvey appeal: The CPS guidelines on Public Order Offenses must be read here: S.5 offence ( reads as follows: "Section 5 should be used in cases which amount to less serious incidents of anti-social behaviour. Where violence has been used, it is not normally appropriate to charge an offence under section 5 unless the physical behaviour amounts merely to pushing or undirected lashing out of a type likely to cause no more than a glancing blow, minor bruising or grazing. Such conduct may also be classified as disorderly and suitable for a charge under section 91 CJA 1967 in appropriate circumstances. There must be a person within the sight or hearing of the suspect who is likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress by the conduct in question. A police officer may be such a person, but remember that this is a question of fact to be decided in each case by the magistrates. In determining this, the magistrates may take into account the familiarity which police officers have with the words and conduct typically seen in incidents of disorderly conduct. (DPP v Orum [1988] Crim L R 848). Although the existence of a person who is caused harassment alarm and distress must be proved, there is no requirement that they actually give evidence. In appropriate cases, the offence may be proved on a police officer's evidence alone. " a) other people only need to have been within earshot,b) they don't have to have made a formal complaint, and c) the other 2 police officers would have sufficient proximity to serve as 'the other people'...Mitchell admitted using the 'f' word, and therefore admitted the offense. End of. DPP vs Oram involved the case of a young man who did not swear AT the police officer, but merely used the 'f' word as verbal punctuation ...that is the difference here..Mitchell swore AT the officers..End of. Just as the law recognises the difference between clenching your fist in your pocket, and making a fist and waving it at someone, here, the law and CPS guidance make a distinction between saying something like 'I ain't f####ing done nuffink' (which was what happened with the previous case) and 'you are a f###ing plod' or 'you are a f###ing pleb' (which Mitchell has admitted). He's guilty - he's admitted it. He's gone. (talk) 20:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)twl20:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Not only hasn't he admitted he said the words you attribute to him, he's expressly denied that he did. The CPS guidance is not definitive of the law - it is often wrong - in this case whether or not Mitchell would, on his admitted conduct, be guilty of a s.5 offence seems doubtful to me, but a mere admission of words said is not an admission of the offence. That requires more. Francis Davey (talk) 22:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
But the judicial precedent is that using the f word at a police officer does not offend them. Therefore although a police officer may be the offended party, if all that was said was "I thought you were supposed to f---ing help us" then that is not sufficient to have offended the police officer. The CPS guidelines do not trump judicial precedent. (talk) 05:57, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BLP issues[edit]

Can people please be very careful what they say here in reporting the most recent developments in the Plebgate saga? WP:BLP should apply to all those involved in this affair. including not only Mitchell himself, but all others involved. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

How tall is he?[edit]

Is he 4'9, or much taller and just peddling very quickly?

  1. ^