Plebs 0 Toffs 1?

[ahinton]

That was exactly my point - Mitchell's was rudeness de haut en bas, as I said in my first reply to Petrushka who thought it a mystery why the insult had attracted such attention.

That I can recognise when other people think they're addressing their social inferiors shouldn't lead you to conclude that I would do it myself, or would even think I could identify who they were. Or would have any interest at all in doing either.

But to what extent, if any, can one necessarily ascribe with certainty Mitchell's undeniable rudeness wholly to a belief on his part that he was, as he saw it, addressing his social inferiors? - in other words, mightn't he possibly have felt inclined under certain circumstances on other occasions to be at least as rude to people whom he might not have thought of in such terms? (assuming, that is, that he did not actually call any police officers "plebs" to their faces)...

[jean]

But to what extent, if any, can one necessarily ascribe with certainty Mitchell's undeniable rudeness wholly to a belief on his part that he was, as he saw it, addressing his social inferiors?...

His expression of his rudeness in those terms is entirely due to his sense of superiority.

[ahinton]

His expression of his rudeness in those terms is entirely due to his sense of superiority.

But which particular terms? I did write as a caveat "(assuming, that is, that he did not actually call any police officers "plebs" to their faces)"! If he had merely been rude to them without using such a term when so doing, mightn't that simply be regarded as rudeness per se (inexcusable though it remains) without the added frisson of the notion of his having addressed those whom he might have regarded as his social inferiors?

[Ferretfancy]

Once again we see a public figure blaming his bad behaviour on the effects of alcohol, or at least using his downing of the champagne at the Palace as an excuse.
The sad truth is that drunken behaviour simply brings out character traits that are already there, nicer people make happier drunks.

[jean]

...If he had merely been rude to them without using such a term when so doing, mightn't that simply be regarded as rudeness per se (inexcusable though it remains) without the added frisson of the notion of his having addressed those whom he might have regarded as his social inferiors?

Yes. That's the whole point.

[ahinton]

Yes. That's the whole point.

Well, if indeed that is so, much of that aspect of any response to it is surely down to whether or not he did use the "p" word and, if he did, then yes, talking down to those whom he believed to be his social inferiors pertains but, if he didn't, it doesn't necessarily do so.

[jean]

...whether or not he did use the "p" word...

The judge says he did.

(That's the only reason we're talking about it again now.)

“For the reasons given, I’m satisfied, at least on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Mitchell did speak the words attributed to him, or so close to them as to amount to the same, the politically toxic word pleb.”

Mind you, the judge did reveal his own brand of unthinking superiority when he went on to say of the police officer:

"He is not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination” to “invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him...”

[teamsaint]

The judge says he did.

(That's the only reason we're talking about it again now.)

“For the reasons given, I’m satisfied, at least on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Mitchell did speak the words attributed to him, or so close to them as to amount to the same, the politically toxic word pleb.”

Mind you, the judge did reveal his own brand of unthinking superiority when he went on to say of the police officer:

"He is not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination” to “invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him...”

do we know that this was unthinking?

[jean]

Do you think he wanted to invite the inevitable comparisons with Mitchell?

Or perhaps it was a coded message expressing his sympathies with him, despite the judgment he had been forced to give?

[ahinton]

The judge says he did.

(That's the only reason we're talking about it again now.)

“For the reasons given, I’m satisfied, at least on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Mitchell did speak the words attributed to him, or so close to them as to amount to the same, the politically toxic word pleb.”

Mind you, the judge did reveal his own brand of unthinking superiority when he went on to say of the police officer:

"He is not the sort of man who had the wit, the imagination or the inclination” to “invent in the spur of the moment what a senior cabinet minister would have said to him...”

Indeed - which is surely why it might be more prudent to take a pragmatic view of what Mr Mitchell may actually have said, in the absence of the incontrovertible evidence of a recording of his every word on that occasion; as someone once said, balancing on one leg's often similar to the balance of probabilities; if you're not careful, you or they might fall over...

All that said, I still wonder if Mitchell will appeal...

[ahinton]

Do you think he wanted to invite the inevitable comparisons with Mitchell?

Or perhaps it was a coded message expressing his sympathies with him, despite the judgment he had been forced to give?

Whilst either might be a theoretical possibility, neither is provable, hence the conclusions in my post above; I think that the one thing that seems certain is that Mr Mitchell was rude to police officers on that occasion and not only should he not have been but, as an MP, he should also have known better. No excuse there.

[jean]

...it might be more prudent to take a pragmatic view of what Mr Mitchell may actually have said...

I am struggling to understand what would qualify as pragmatic in this context.

(And why do we need to be prudent?)

[ahinton]

I am struggling to understand what would qualify as pragmatic in this context.

OK, to save you struggling any more, let's intead say "a more balanced view".

(And why do we need to be prudent?)

Because if we cannot be absolutely certain it might seem to be better not to jump to unprovable conclusions.

[Flosshilde]

Because if we cannot be absolutely certain it might seem to be better not to jump to unprovable conclusions.

Are yoiu saying that the judge is wrong?

[ahinton]

Are yoiu saying that the judge is wrong?

No; he referred to the balance of probabilities rather than declaring that M unquestionably used the "p" word.