THE last couple of years have witnessed a sharp increase in public disenchantment with some of the most respected and cherished institutions in Britain. Political parties and politicians are now widely distrusted; the media is seen as cynical and dishonest following the phone hacking scandal; and even the National Health Service has been discredited after shocking revelations about conditions in some hospitals.

However, for a long time, the British bobby was regarded with affection and respect: the image of blue-clad, helmeted policemen keeping the peace without firearms is part of folklore. Sadly, that proud reputation has faded, as much due to a change in policing techniques with the rise of a terrorist threat, as to the perception that the modern British cop is a not to be trusted.

Now, grim-faced, unfriendly policemen hurtle about in their cars, sirens wailing as they speed off on some urgent, mysterious mission. Many officers now carry side arms, and have exchanged their traditional helmets for caps with visors. Despite this transformation that has taken place over the last decade, the police force still enjoys a respected place, at least in the media and among politicians.

Yet a succession of scandals has chipped away at this image. The latest one involves the conservative MP, Andrew Mitchell, who, until he was forced to resign a year ago, was the Conservative Party’s Chief Whip, a very senior cabinet position with an office at 9, Downing Street.

As Mitchell was leaving his office on his bicycle on September 20, 2012, he was told by the police officer on duty that he couldn’t use the main gate. After a brief stand-off, Mitchell admits to losing his temper and using expletives as he stormed out of the side gate. But what made the incident explosive and resulted in Mitchell’s resignation was the allegation that he used the word ‘pleb’ in his argument with the two policemen on duty.

Mitchell freely admitted using the F word, but denied calling the police officer a ‘pleb’. Now it is perfectly acceptable to prefix ‘effing’ to anything; indeed, the four-letter word appears regularly in print and on TV in the UK without anybody batting an eyelid. But ‘pleb’, deriving from plebian, has deeply offensive connotations of class. The allegation sank Mitchell’s career when it appeared in the media. Three police officers confirmed Mitchell’s outburst.

Despite his denials, the ensuing storm just would not go away as the police closed ranks and insisted on his resignation. As the chairman of the Police Foundation put it: “It is hard to fathom how someone who holds the police in such contempt could be allowed to hold public office…”

An email to the Deputy Chief Whip seemed to confirm the police version. The author claimed to be passing by Downing Street and witnessing the incident. The letter went on to assert that there were a number of tourists present, some of whom had filmed the altercation. Police logs of the incident were also leaked to the media.

The following month, Mitchell duly resigned, and the matter seemed to be laid to rest. However, it emerged that the CCTV footage backed up Mitchell’s version. It also did not show any tourists at the scene. Then, it was discovered that the person who had sent the email was a police officer.

An enquiry was launched by the Independent Police Complaints Commission, and meanwhile, Mitchell met three police officers who declared that the MP had failed to clarify his position. However, Mitchell had secretly recorded the discussion, and the transcript clearly showed that he had given a full account of his version of events.

These disclosures have prompted an outcry, with senior politicians like Prime Minister David Cameron and home secretary Teresa May demanding disciplinary action, and an apology from the officers involved to Andrew Mitchell. But such is the power of the police unions that thus far, they have stalled, saying no further action was necessary. One head of a police force – out of three involved in the case – has apologised, but those on duty have stubbornly refused.

Many pundits and editorial writers have criticised the police for always covering up errors and criminal acts committed by those in their ranks. There is a long list of incidents where the police have deliberately concealed illegalities. And immigrants have often complained of racial profiling and police brutality.

Now, with fresh revelations about ‘plebgate’ – as the incident has inevitably come to be known as – an angry public is demanding disciplinary action. When Mitchell had earlier insisted he was telling the truth, he had been accused of calling police officers liars. The shoe is on the other foot now, with their version being exposed as a tissue of lies.On one level, the accusation of calling somebody a pleb reveals the deep class distinctions that still divide British society. Yobs and yahoos are other, though less offensive, words used to put down those deemed to be ‘non-U’, or ‘not one of us’. Accents, and the names of the public (ie, expensive private) schools people have attended, immediately serve as identification markers.

Another aspect of the system ‘plebgate’ throws a light on is the power of certain institutions. The fact that the home secretary and prime minister have been able to merely urge officers to take action and apologise to a senior minister for a blatant wrong shows the limits of their power. In Pakistan, it is simply impossible to imagine a parallel scenario: firstly, no cop would ever dream of stopping a minister from using a gate; were he to do so, he would be out of a job the next day. And of course it would be unthinkable for a minister to bicycle home from work.

The reason commonly given for the police’s seemingly deliberate effort to force Mitchell’s resignation is their resentment over government budgetary cuts. But as the efforts to frame Mitchell have been exposed, the police are totally isolated.