Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:39 pm  

Him wrote:

Have any of the police who were present at the incident lied?

Well either Mitchell or the PC at the gate lied. There is a senior police "whistleblower" who has reported that there was a concerted plot against Mitchell which dated from the something that happened the previous evening (to the infamous "Phleb" evening)

Him wrote:

Has Andrew Mitchell said what he did say yet?
Why not?.

Why do you keep repeating this question, when you have been told you are wrong. Mitchell did give a full page (broadsheet) account of what was said in December 2012 which was printed in the Sunday Times.

Him wrote:

You see you're doing exactly that, focussing on speculation and not facts. The only facts we know are that the police at the gate thought Mitchell said one thing. Andrew Mitchell says he didn't say that, did swear, but won't admit what he actually did say. .

Oh dear there you go again using that word "facts". Large pinch of salt again please. You know that Mitchell has gave a full account of what was said by himself and the PC because I reported it in 2012 and offered to report it word by word at the time.

Him wrote:

Once again, how is what Andrew Mitchell said an irrelevance in a debate about what Andrew Mitchell said? You and His Lordship are hilarious you both really are. .

Because, other than the 3 phrases, that Mitchell has denied are not in dispute. If you were so interested you should have read his blow by blow account back in 2012.

Him wrote:

Everything about this policeman lying is an irrelevance to the actual core issue of what Andrew Mitchell said. Until he admits what he did say or more CCTV is discovered that could shed more light on the incident then we are unlikely to know anymore other than Andrew Mitchell swore at Police. .

Repeat above answer, repeat above answer. Didn't swear at the police. Details are important - like reading the right date on graphs

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 5:43 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

The key aspect is not if "a cabinet minister lost it" it is whether he called th PC a pleb or not. There is no evidence that he lost it or used the word "Pleb" or the other allegations.

Mitchell admits to saying 'I thought you guys were supposed to f***ing help us.' - that is not losing it, nor in this context is it being abusive or swearing at the PC.

The use of what is now an everyday word, that is in most dictionaries and considered at worst 'vulgar slang'. It can be used as a verb, an adverb or an adjective, and as in this case was not as a direct insult as in 'you f'ing b.....d' . This is a word that can be heard on the TV every night and in almost every place and including between policemen. In 2010, U.S. vice president Joe Biden whispered into President Barack Obama's ear, "This is a big f..king deal" when referring to the U.S. health care reform bill. His words were picked up by microphones and video. So let's not get all pompous.

I repeat Mitchell has given a full account of what he said as I reported over a year ago. Mitchell claims the police were being awkward and difficult in preventing him going through the main gate as usual. If the "rest were a big deal" then surely the police log would have said so?

The policeman who falsely claimed to be witness and fabricated a corrobaration with the police log did not "allegedly lie" he actually did lie because he has admitted to doing so in court and awaits a possible stretch.

The PC (or perhaps WPC) who leaked the confidential police log to the media has yet to appear in court. Two or is it three Chief Constables have publicly apologised to Mitchell because the three Police Federation representatives misled the public on the national TV news. Two of these same officers also misled and didn't tell the truth to the Home Affairs Committee regarding their own personal disciplinary records. They have since aplogised for being confused which was their excuse this time for not telling the truth. Or was it just another lie!!!

We may never know the truth about what was said. But do not forget that Mitchell was not charged with anything and has no case to answer.

My point from the start was not that I believed Mitchell or I disbelieved the police. I objected to the various posters who had Mitchell down as guilty without a shread of evidence. You did not need to be Sherlock to smell a rat as first the police leaked the log to the media. Next the false witness corroboration of the police log , then the CCTV that for most neutrals threw doubt on the police log. Then the campaign by the disgraced 'proud to be Plebs' police federation. Finally the year long police investigation which has failed to find "sufficient evidence" to prove anything.

What is quite clear though is that most, if not all, of those posters on here, including yourself, who chose to take sides against Mitchell, did so for anti-tory reasons with no sense of justice or thought whatsoever of 'innocent until proven guilty'. This lack of common fairness or objectivity means that it will be difficult to take seriously anything else they or you post again.

Whilst much of what you say is possibly true you are also over looking a few other vital facts.

The officers at the gate at the material time have NOT been charged with anything. They have acted it would appear honestly. The incident occured. They carried out their orders. That being that the gate in question was NOT to be opened for a cyclist. However high up he or she may have been. The incident occured and they reported to a superior immediately.
Mitchell at the very least was showing a complete lack of respect for the officers who are simply there to protect Downing Street. The CCTV which it would appear does not show the entire story (the C4 footage that is) is not something that us as the general public can really rely on. The CPS claim to have seen it all we haven't. What we have seen really shows very little and without audio you can not state with any certainty what was or was not said.
Also with regards the CPS report they stated that Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant. Yes Mitchell. Not the Officers on the gate at the time, but Mitchell. Why has his story not been consistant. (Not my thoughts but those closest to the investigation).
Indeed the officers have been fully exonerated. Not charged and not disciplined. The officer (only one) who has been charged and now pleaded guilty clearly had an agenda for which he will be punished. What ever that punishment is I am sure many will not be happy. But thats for our justice system to sort.
The other (non Met) officers who have become embroiled in this really need to shake their heads. Why they felt the need to be involved only they can answer. Mitchell as far as I know is not anti Police and has certainly not had a direct influence on the current policies of the Home Secretary. So why pick on him?
But going back to St Mitchell. He has never once said what he actually said, or at least certainly not in an open forum. He has been told by the CPS that his story has changed repeatedly. And which ever way you look at it he has sworn at Police officers who were simply doing their job. Job worths or not they act under strict orders. So why swear at them? Equally if you were to make a word up I would bet that PLEB would not feature (at least prior to this case) in many officers vocabularys. Indeed if he has sworn as he admits I would bet my mortgage that the "made up word" would have been another swear word. For me and its not an anti Tory agenda or pro Police Mr Mitchell has only himself to blame. He apologised to the Met after the incident and they accepted it. If he had told the entire truth from day one then I am sure he would still be in Government and this and all the expense that it has cost would have ended there and then.
I guess when it comes to the lible case we might get a version of the truth. But I bet it won't be the officers at the gate who will be out of pocket or out of a job.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 6:07 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

The other point of relevance is the fact that Mitchell is still without a senior role in the current government, we the public only get to see and read what Mitchells PR machine release, nothing has been seen or heard of the "other recordings" that are still being kept under lock and key and which threw enough doubt on Mitchells own version that he has not yet been completely exonerated, hence the reason that Cameron is keeping well out of it, for someone who was one of his inner circle of trusted friends he certainly knows how to kick you in to touch if you smell ever so slightly of posh boy syndrome.

May I see the evidence please? Or is it more made up politically motivated spin?

By the way you are wrong again. We/you the public also get to see the Police PR machine releases (one of which was the Met Commissioner's backing and support for his men last year before he was presented with evidence to the contrary. You know the "why would they lie?" one. Stand by for new one with grovelling apology and excuses)

And then there is the Police Federation PR machine releases (one of which was made to the TV cameras after the infamous meeting with Mitchell and now has been aplogised for)

I note your continued lack of objectivity and still take a one sided (police in the family) view over this.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 7:58 pm  

Mitchell is a typical arrogant toff who thinks virtually everyone is beneath him. His lack of tact given two policewomen had been shot in Manchester a few days earlier shows his inability to understand the ordinary person. Typical Tory MP - and I vote Tory.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:22 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

May I see the evidence please? Or is it more made up politically motivated spin?

By the way you are wrong again. We/you the public also get to see the Police PR machine releases (one of which was the Met Commissioner's backing and support for his men last year before he was presented with evidence to the contrary. You know the "why would they lie?" one. Stand by for new one with grovelling apology and excuses)

And then there is the Police Federation PR machine releases (one of which was made to the TV cameras after the infamous meeting with Mitchell and now has been aplogised for)

I note your continued lack of objectivity and still take a one sided (police in the family) view over this.

Politically motivated ?
One sided (police in the family) ?

Oh how easily you jump to conclusions, incorrectly too.

You are asking to see evidence of "the other video evidence" ? Yes so are we all, as we also await Mitchells complete absolving of any blame and reinstatement to a senior position within government again by his boss who probably still regrets promoting Thrasher and his temper ...

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:27 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

You are asking to see evidence of "the other video evidence" ? Yes so are we all, as we also await Mitchells complete absolving of any blame and reinstatement to a senior position within government again by his boss who probably still regrets promoting Thrasher and his temper ...

Realistically if this is going to happen it won't happen until the defamation cases are over and done with.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:34 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Realistically if this is going to happen it won't happen until the defamation cases are over and done with.

For once, you are correct although a good boss who wasn't terrified of public opinion and who had access to all of the evidence (as he must surely have) might have backed him right from the start.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:17 pm  

Graham Richards wrote:

Whilst much of what you say is possibly true you are also over looking a few other vital facts. .

If much of what I say is possibly true then Mitchell should be presumed innocent until there is proof of guilt. Which is my whole point.

Now lets look at your "vital facts"

Graham Richards wrote:

The officers at the gate at the material time have NOT been charged with anything. They have acted it would appear honestly. The incident occured. They carried out their orders. That being that the gate in question was NOT to be opened for a cyclist. However high up he or she may have been. The incident occured and they reported to a superior immediately..

The officer (not plural) indeed has not been charged with anything. I understand that the year long police enquiry didn't even question him under caution which tells you something about policemen investigating policemen.

You do not know if the PC acted honestly or dishonestly.

Graham Richards wrote:

Mitchell at the very least was showing a complete lack of respect for the officers who are simply there to protect Downing Street. .

Only if you believe the PC at the gates version.

Graham Richards wrote:

The CCTV which it would appear does not show the entire story (the C4 footage that is) is not something that us as the general public can really rely on. The CPS claim to have seen it all we haven't. What we have seen really shows very little and without audio you can not state with any certainty what was or was not said. .

It may not show the entire story but it does show Mitchell at the gate (when the PC's report stated the Pleb etc allegations took place) with no "visibly shocked members of the public" which is sufficient to at least cast doubt on the police log.

Graham Richards wrote:

Also with regards the CPS report they stated that Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant. Yes Mitchell. Not the Officers on the gate at the time, but Mitchell. Why has his story not been consistant. (Not my thoughts but those closest to the investigation)..

No they did not say "Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant" you are embellishing what the CPS report stated. Remember the CPS can only work with the evidence (or lack of) that the police give them.

Graham Richards wrote:

Indeed the officers have been fully exonerated. Not charged and not disciplined. The officer (only one) who has been charged and now pleaded guilty clearly had an agenda for which he will be punished. What ever that punishment is I am sure many will not be happy. But thats for our justice system to sort. .

No the officers have not been fully exonerated. Because the police did not supply sufficient evidence for the CPS to have an odds on chance of winning a prosecution they are not going to prosecute.

The police enquiry found a PC (or WPC) leaked the police email report (log) to the media but because there was no evidence that a payment was asked for or received they decided not to prosecute. Quite how a serving police officer can leak a confidential report about a senior cabinet minister and not be charged shows just how out of control the police now are.

Because it was another officers partner who introduced the word "moron" to the press therefore they cannot be considered for misconduct in a public office.

So please don't make out they were all fully exonerated.

It should be noted that Mitchell's lawyers do not agree with the CPS conclusions including the evidence against the PC at the gate

Graham Richards wrote:

The other (non Met) officers who have become embroiled in this really need to shake their heads. Why they felt the need to be involved only they can answer. Mitchell as far as I know is not anti Police and has certainly not had a direct influence on the current policies of the Home Secretary. So why pick on him? .

I think most of us know why they conducted such a high profile campaign against Mitchell. The Police Federation have been actively against the cut backs to the police budget and so any government minister was a fair target in their eyes. Particularly since having campaigned that the budget cuts would lose front line officers and crime would rise they are now smarting as crime has continued to fall since the cuts and their arguments were shown to be wrong.

Graham Richards wrote:

But going back to St Mitchell. He has never once said what he actually said, or at least certainly not in an open forum..

Once again you are quite wrong. Mitchell made a full page account of the confronation covering what he said and what the PC said, in the Sunday Times in December 2012. He was also interviewed by the Police Fed reps for 45 minutes during which time he aswered every question they asked. Finally Mitchell has never been charged with anything.

Graham Richards wrote:

He has been told by the CPS that his story has changed repeatedly..

Wrong again the CPS report did not say "changed repeatedly"

Graham Richards wrote:

And which ever way you look at it he has sworn at Police officers who were simply doing their job. Job worths or not they act under strict orders. So why swear at them?

He has not admitted to swearing at the police, only using a 'swear' word to enhance a comment. You do not know that the police were only doing their jobs. Mitchell's account claims the PC was being deliberately difficult and obstructive.

Graham Richards wrote:

Equally if you were to make a word up I would bet that PLEB would not feature (at least prior to this case) in many officers vocabularys. Indeed if he has sworn as he admits I would bet my mortgage that the "made up word" would have been another swear word. .

Pure conjecture

Graham Richards wrote:

If he had told the entire truth from day one then I am sure he would still be in Government and this and all the expense that it has cost would have ended there and then..

You do not know he has not told the entire truth. It was not the allegations that caused him to resign but the high profile media frenzy which culminated in the Police Fed PC's misleading report to the TV news cameras.

Graham Richards wrote:

I guess when it comes to the lible case we might get a version of the truth. But I bet it won't be the officers at the gate who will be out of pocket or out of a job.

Don't hold your breath

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Jan 17, 2014 1:39 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Politically motivated ?
One sided (police in the family) ?

Oh how easily you jump to conclusions, incorrectly too.

You are asking to see evidence of "the other video evidence" ? Yes so are we all, as we also await Mitchells complete absolving of any blame and reinstatement to a senior position within government again by his boss who probably still regrets promoting Thrasher and his temper ...

I was waiting for you to give evidence to support your spin conjecture in your recent post.

Most of your posting are anti Tory and anti the PM - and are in most cases politically one-eyed.

I seem to recall you have/had an in-law & his dog in the Met.

By the way the term "Thrasher" was an invention of Private Eye in 1987.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:19 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

I was waiting for you to give evidence to support your spin conjecture in your recent post.

Most of your posting are anti Tory and anti the PM - and are in most cases politically one-eyed.

Football supporter politics.