Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.The events leading up to Andrew Mitchell's resignation from the Cabinet in October are now even more blurred, complex and highly charged than they were at the time.
Although the Prime Minister knew before his Chief Whip left the Government that some of the police evidence against the cabinet minister was not reliable, he neither said so publicly at the time nor moved from his balanced position between Mr Mitchell and the police.
David Cameron had been ready to sack Mr Mitchell, but was struck by the vehemence of his denials and ordered internal inquiries, parts of which appeared to challenge officers' accounts of the fracas at the gates of Downing Street. Yet Mr Cameron offered no public explanation – apparently because he did not want to poison relations between the Government and the senior officers who protect them, but more likely because of the existing stand-off with the police over deeply unpopular reforms.
The result was a bizarre sequence of events in which Mr Mitchell protested his innocence somewhat vaguely, without clarifying precisely whether or not he had accused officers of being "plebs"; the police were insistent that Mitchell was not telling the truth; and the Prime Minister floated uneasily between the two. In the end, Mr Mitchell resigned, although, given how strongly he is fighting back now, it is something of a mystery why he did not cling on more tenaciously in the first place.
With cause to doubt the police evidence, Mr Cameron should, perhaps, have acted more decisively in defence of the beleaguered minister. But even if he were not himself sure enough of events to give his full backing to Mr Mitchell, at the very least he should have ensured that the questions over the police accounts were made public and swiftly investigated.
Instead, Mr Cameron opted for the most political of solutions, a behind-the-scenes deal designed to smooth over the public row and minimise the risk to himself and his Government. Indeed, he allowed expediency to trump any concern over the facts of the matter, despite the far-reaching implications of their uncertainty. Even as the police face questions following the latest twist in the tale, so too does the Prime Minister.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments