Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Nov 07, 2013 8:52 pm  

I thought the whole fiasco was an embarrassment from beginning to end. We had the bullyboys of the committee, each with a permanent sneer fixed on their faces handing out a very public kicking to two guys several intellectual leagues lower.

It was British Politics at it's unedifying worst, as the age old ploys of interrupting mid sentence and telling the person to speak up, or repeating the same question endlessly were trotted out.

I found myself shouting at the TV...."Stick to your bloody script".....as the second Federation Officer stuttered and lapsed into a painful silence as he attempted to find a right choice of words. His very expensive Counsel must have simply raised his eyes to the heavens.

The correct answer to that overbearing buffoon Keith Vaz of "do you wish to apologise for the distress you have caused" would have been "No, but we do recognise that there is a great deal of distress caused by false and malicious claims....as you well know Mr Chairman"

"They don't like it up 'em"......as Corporal Jones opined.

[Kosh]

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:07 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Oh that's ok then.

Basic English comprehension still letting you down I see. Maybe some evening classes would help. Or sitting in with an average Primary School class. Which is approximately your debating level.

No offence intended to the average Primary age child.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:13 pm  

What I find most sad in this whole sorry episode is that until it looked like one of their own MAY have been the subject of a police fit-up, none of the politicos had given a toss about what had gone before.

I wonder when Keith Vaz will be calling the various members, serving and retired, of the Metropolitan Police, News International staff and other 3rd parties that have all been implicated in the horrific murder and subsequent cover-up of Daniel Morgan?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Nov 07, 2013 10:45 pm  

Can someone show me where Mitchell says what he actually said during the near minute of conversation with the police at Downing Street?
The transcript of the meeting with the Police Federation shows he didn't at that meeting.

And what did the Police Federation lie about?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Nov 08, 2013 6:50 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

Lord Elpers has been dealing with facts whereas your 'arguments' rely on us speculating on the mindset of the Prime Minster based on a set of circumstances which at the time he had limited knowledge of, and then inviting us to come to negative conclusions based on this speculation.

It's weak to be honest. I know it's weak, you know it's weak yet you continue to flog this dead horse because of your political prejudices.

So the Prime Minister had "limited knowledge" of what happened at the gate that night, ONE MONTH after it occurred and despite this "limited knowledge" accepted his chief whips resignation even in the knowledge that the police evidence had by then (in his own words) been "proven unreliable" ?

Keep swallowing the stories sonny...

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Nov 08, 2013 7:52 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

The reason he keeps making irrelevant points and I agree entirely with your point about his continued bizarre attack on the Prime Minister is, to be frank, because he hates Tories and loves the opportunity to give them a good kicking.

You seem to be mistaking JC for me. I'm the one who hates tories, ALL tories.

It may seem irrational to you but I also hate offal. The thought of either playing a role in my life makes me want to spew

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:05 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I have mentioned this point several pages back and several times since, Mitchell has his evidence in the public domain that he was apparently the victim of a police conspiracy.

The point that you are swerving is that its only the second installment of the story, he and his team are now very careful about NOT mentioning what was actually said on the fateful night and so is David Cameron for he does not mention it either - the public domain evidence of what happened on that night cannot be the only evidence that Cameron was presented with for you would not insist on your Chief Whips resignation on the strength of that alone.

The possible conspiracy and police cover up is the main story now but you do not seem to realise this.

Your point about what was actually said is a red herring. Mitchell has not been charged with any offense or indeed has not been cautioned either. It was a police officer who leaked the police log which was supposed to record what was said. Mitchell was on his bike at the time and was not making notes. The original issue was about three phrases that were in the leaked police log which Mitchell has consistently and strenuously denied. He underwent a 45 minute question and answer session with three police officers from the Federation at which he fully and firmly answered ALL of their questions.

What else is there to know about what was said? Other than Mitchell asking for the gates to be opened and the police saying "Ello Ello Ello what ave we got ere then.... etc etc"

Because there is no actual recording of the conversation the politically leaked log to the Sun hit the headlines and of course mud sticks, to the glee of his political opponents.

JerryChicken wrote:

None of which has helped him get his job back, why did he resign and why did Cameron accept so quickly on the strength of three poor quality non-audio videos that show a different storyboard to what was described, is Cameron so in hock to Murdoch that he bows to one of his news rags so eagerly and swiftly ?

I have explained why he resigned in detail and the crucial effect of the police Federation false briefing on TV which said Mitchell had not explained himself fully and called for him to resign. The negative political spin of this was enormous and he had at that stage no choice but to resign.

JerryChicken wrote:

All of which is the police conspiracy element and does not address the issue of what was said, and what happened in those forty ro so seconds that caused Cameron to accept the resignation so swiftly, christ, this is a Prime Minister who leaves his kids in a pub, you'd think he wouldn't be all that worried about a Minister who uses one "F" word in a sentence after a long day in office.

See above reasons.

Mitchell resigned on 19 October. He stated that "it has become clear to me that whatever the rights and wrongs of the matter I will not be able to fulfill my duties as we both would wish. [...] Nor is it fair to continue to put my family and colleagues through this upsetting and damaging publicity". He continued to maintain that he had not used the word "pleb".

JerryChicken wrote:

Again, you speak of the conspiracy and not of the actual event, we've covered the conspiracy from top to bottom and most of the evidence is in the public arena, the pertinent evidence of what was recorded at the gate is not for no audio recording exists in the public domain.

Again the consiracy has overtaken the actual event and is far more serious than the original allegations. If there is a recording of the conversation at the gate it would be in the police hands and if they have not released it this would be one more nail in the police coffin on this issue.

JerryChicken wrote:

You also mention again that most of the resultant outcry came from The Sun, do you think that Cameron jumped to attention when Murdoch shouted his name and started stirring things ?

No.

JerryChicken wrote:

And finally you reach the pertinent part.

I've done a Google streetview of Downing Street, you should do too, its quite revealing really if only for the fact that the Google car was allowed through the gate and a short way up Downing Street.

The streetview shots clearly show the three cctv camera positions which supplied the extremely cheap amateur tapes, two are on the Whitehall facing wall of the two government buildings that are adjecent to the security gate and the other is actually on the wall of the security lodge 20 or 40 yards into Downing Street, unless they are very covert there appears to be no other security coverage on the main entrance to the seat of government , I'm trying not to believe that this could be the case or that we rely totally on the type of cctv image that, if you'd produced them on your home door entry camera you'd be taking the kit back to Maplins for a refund, but I'm starting to believe that the public domain films could be the be all and end all of the protection offered to the whole of the cabinet when they meet at No 10 every week.

So are you saying your much repeated theory, that there are secret recordings hidden in the PM's bottom drawer, is now wrong?

Police logs and the supporting email had both claimed that "several members of the public" were present, that they had heard the exchange and were "visibly shocked". The email alleged that "Other people/tourists standing with us were also shocked and some were even, inadvertently, filming the incident". However, the CCTV footage shows only a single member of the public stopping to look on from an otherwise empty section of street immediately outside the gates.

No attempt by you to malign the exisiting CCTV tapes can contest the absence of these 'invisible shocked members of the public.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Nov 08, 2013 2:56 pm  

Him wrote:

Can someone show me where Mitchell says what he actually said during the near minute of conversation with the police at Downing Street?
The transcript of the meeting with the Police Federation shows he didn't at that meeting.

He gave an interview to the Sunday Times which I quoted from in the other thread. But knowing word for word what he said is not relevant... only the offensive phrases are relevant. He has not been charged or cautioned about what he said. A police officer leaked the log to the Sun which alleged he made three very offensive phrases. He has consistently denied saying these phrases which were at the officers but he has admitted using the F word as an adjective and not directly at them as he walked away.

The full 45 minute tape and transcript of the tape shows clearly that Mitchell denied many times making any of the alleged phrases. He answered all the questions fully and unequivocally..

Him wrote:

And what did the Police Federation lie about?

He said in the meeting: 'I did not say and I give you my word, I give you my word, I did not call an officer an f'ing pleb I did not say you are an f'ing moron and I did not say you should know your f'ing place.

'I would never speak to anyone like that least of all a police officer and you have my word I never said those things.'

Later Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton said to Mr Mitchell in the meeting: 'I appreciate your candour, and we appreciate you have gone beyond what you said in, to the media.'

But minutes later outside the meeting, Inspector Ken MacKaill, from West Mercia Police, accused Mr Mitchell of refusing to give any more detail of the incident.
Mr MacKaill said: 'I think Mr Mitchell has no option but to resign.
'He is continuing to refuse to elaborate on what happened. I think his position is untenable.'

The police statement is not a true account of the meeting and led the public to believe that Mitchell had refused to fully answer questions and was therefore guilty of the allegations. The uproar in the media etc afterwards directly led to his resignation within days.

The police had arrived for the meeting with a paid PR man in the car. They had discussed and planned for the press conference and made sure the meeting finished in time for the early evening news on TV.

You can dress up all you like and call it an unintentional misleading statement but most folks now believe this to be a lie that they would have got away with had it not been taped.

Two of these same officers have been in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee and once again each had made an “inadvertent error" in their first appearance. Both looked like crooks rather than police officers and one has been reported to the police watchdog after his second appearance.

I cannot imagine anyone who watched them could believe they were telling the truth.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:25 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

So are you saying your much repeated theory, that there are secret recordings hidden in the PM's bottom drawer, is now wrong?

Police logs and the supporting email had both claimed that "several members of the public" were present, that they had heard the exchange and were "visibly shocked". The email alleged that "Other people/tourists standing with us were also shocked and some were even, inadvertently, filming the incident". However, the CCTV footage shows only a single member of the public stopping to look on from an otherwise empty section of street immediately outside the gates.

No attempt by you to malign the exisiting CCTV tapes can contest the absence of these 'invisible shocked members of the public.

My maligning of the existing public domain tapes is because they are crap, they are basic quality cameras with poor low light quality and carry no audio and they are not located to provide primary security cover for the main gate, which by inference is the one place that you would expect cctv cameras to be if you "for instance) were in charge of providing security against terrorist or complete lunatic attacks on the home of our most senior government ministers - that is my point together with the fact that they offer no evidence as to what was said and so that part at least is still unproved.

The other issues about the police log are well documented.


As I eluded to previously some months ago, as part of my employment I access several very high security power station sites including nuclear power stations and as you'd imagine the security provided there, by the UK police, is of a VERY high standard - it can easily take you an hour just to get through the security checks - I personally would expect nothing less at the gates to the seat of the UK government, apparently David Cameron is rather more relaxed ?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Nov 08, 2013 3:59 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

He gave an interview to the Sunday Times which I quoted from in the other thread. But knowing word for word what he said is not relevant... only the offensive phrases are relevant. He has not been charged or cautioned about what he said. A police officer leaked the log to the Sun which alleged he made three very offensive phrases. He has consistently denied saying these phrases which were at the officers but he has admitted using the F word as an adjective and not directly at them as he walked away.

The full 45 minute tape and transcript of the tape shows clearly that Mitchell denied many times making any of the alleged phrases. He answered all the questions fully and unequivocally..


He said in the meeting: 'I did not say and I give you my word, I give you my word, I did not call an officer an f'ing pleb I did not say you are an f'ing moron and I did not say you should know your f'ing place.

'I would never speak to anyone like that least of all a police officer and you have my word I never said those things.'

Later Detective Sergeant Stuart Hinton said to Mr Mitchell in the meeting: 'I appreciate your candour, and we appreciate you have gone beyond what you said in, to the media.'

But minutes later outside the meeting, Inspector Ken MacKaill, from West Mercia Police, accused Mr Mitchell of refusing to give any more detail of the incident.
Mr MacKaill said: 'I think Mr Mitchell has no option but to resign.
'He is continuing to refuse to elaborate on what happened. I think his position is untenable.'

The police statement is not a true account of the meeting and led the public to believe that Mitchell had refused to fully answer questions and was therefore guilty of the allegations. The uproar in the media etc afterwards directly led to his resignation within days.

The police had arrived for the meeting with a paid PR man in the car. They had discussed and planned for the press conference and made sure the meeting finished in time for the early evening news on TV.

You can dress up all you like and call it an unintentional misleading statement but most folks now believe this to be a lie that they would have got away with had it not been taped.

Two of these same officers have been in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee and once again each had made an “inadvertent error" in their first appearance. Both looked like crooks rather than police officers and one has been reported to the police watchdog after his second appearance.

I cannot imagine anyone who watched them could believe they were telling the truth.

So no-one can tell me what Mitchell said yet then? Mitchell himself won't say what he said. All he keeps repeating both in public and in that meeting (amongst fawning praise for the police and attempts to draw a line under the whole issue) is that he denies the use of certain phrases but repeatedly refuses to confirm what he did say. Which is very strange.

As is the fact that in that meeting he repeatedly says he hasn't told them anything new. If there is, what did we discover in that meeting that hadn't already been released to the media, and we certainly didn't get any closer to finding out what was said.