I'm obviously missing something. If Mitchell claims that he did not say the words attributed to him, what did he say and for what is he apologising for that has been accepted by the Officer concerned?

Having worked, in my time, in market research, I am quite aware of the flaws in the ABCDE classification system. But it is what there is. And if offers Labour to seize the present opportunity to demand that we plebeians be guaranteed representation on public bodies. That is vastly more important than anything to do with sex, or ethnicity, or disability.

NHS Trust Boards, school governing bodies, Police Authorities, and so on: when it comes to the appointed members rather than councillors or senior staff, the number should always be three or divisible by three, with equal numbers, by law, from the local AB, C1C2, and DE populations. Since juries are already divisible by three, and since there are three on a Bench of Magistrates, the same principle ought also to apply. Again, by law.

Where necessary, which is everywhere where it is possible, there should also be guaranteed parity within each of the three class categories, at least in public body appointments, between rural and urban areas, or between rural and suburban areas, or between suburban and urban areas, or among all three, as the locality necessitates. For that matter, there are places such as here in the old Derwentside District, still used for some purposes, with countryside and towns, but no suburbs. Again, there must be balance and parity: an equal number in each class from each of the rural and the urban areas.

Ed Miliband, and even more so Jon Cruddas and Maurice Glasman, over to you.

Andrew Mitchell's response is exactly what i would expect from an arrogant right wing bully that believes he is above common decency he just displays a lack of respect for the "plebs " that afford him security in his privileged position and anybody else.
I ask, who would you believe, Police officers who's evidence is accepted as being the truth daily in courts of law or the guilty squirming of an arrogant man thats been caught out showing his true character.
Please don't get me wrong this is not a phenomenon that is the reserve of the right wing. Far to many politicians of all persuasions have shown a similar contempt for us all once they are in power.
When will Politicians begin to realise they are elected to serve us .... not for us to serve them.

According to the camera on TV, it seems that the main gate and the walking gate are not that far apart.
Is it a big tantrum that minister had, and lost his head other 3 yards?
Is it typical of rich people to think that they are always right therefore what they want should be granted without explanations?

Politicians have for years relied on the 'spun' public perception of them as decent, honest, hard working (and underpaid) individuals, selflessly working for their constituents and the public good.
Public perception of them now, is of worthless, greedy, self serving parasitic freeloaders, currently run by a cabal of out of touch public school bully boys.
Was it the Westminster 'spinners', the Tory Press or M.P.s' general behaviour that has formed current public opinion?
What Mr Mitchell was alleged to have said and to whom he may have said it is largely irrelevant, for me it was the attitude he exhibited in dealing with someone whom he clearly identified as socially inferior.
Unfortunately, he represents a political party that accomodates many who share his immensely privileged background and people may attribute to them the same attitudes.
You know, rather like we are expected to believa all benefit claimants are work shy scum and like Lazarus of Bethany the disabled should recover their functions and get a bl##dy job.
What beggars belief is that anybody votes for any of them.

Your photo caption says that Mitchell again denied calling police officers 'plebs'.
This is not so. When asked if he called them plebs he said this:
"I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not say the words attributed to me."
That is not the same. It is sophistry and semantics and should be treated with utter contempt.

He - and those sent out to defend him in the media - also keep reminding us that he apologised to the officer and that this apology was accepted. We should remind ourselves in this respect that this apology was made before he spent the following days denying that he said anything wrong - which renders it cynical, false and worthless.

Contrary to what he says, he has been anything but clear about what he did and did not say, and it is time for this to be cleared up once and for all, as there are currently two wholly incompatible versions of the affair in circulation.

'Pleb' has the stamp of a public schoolboy insult all over it, and it has been reported that Mitchel uses it liberally . Can it really be postulated that two police officers can have made it up? Armando Ianucci maybe, or Craig brown, but not two gate-keeping policemen.

I feel strongly to put my comment on that.
I found it incredible that o man at this level cannot come front of the camera and said what he has apologised for without being economical with the truth.
This person worked all his life to be where he is and not respecting his role by being honest.
That i found it disgusting,disgratful, incomprehensible, not worth the position he is.
He call himself a father, what role model he gives to his daughters?
I lost my job and my compensation because people in high positions than me told lies and being economical with the truth.
I fully understand if the police officers are angry and i'll support them if they take this further.
As a member of the public, yes i want to know the all truth, this man thing is above the reste of us, it is showing the way he spokes in front of the camera.
I totaly agree with Mr Trevor Kavanagh, let see if this minister has got what it takes to be a real man.
I cannot wait for the next episode.