Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Thu Jan 03, 2013 1:41 pm  

The weird thing about this incident is that nobody investigating it seems to be asking the bleedin obvious questions. But this is normal nowadays. These include:

1. Since he started coming to and from work on his bike, has Mitchell ever been let through the main gate before? If so, how come? If not, why on earth would he make a fuss about it on this one occasion, if he knew the score?

2. Assuming therefore that he was regularly let through the main gate, which on what I have read is the only logical assumption, what is the reason these particular officers declined? Were they knew? Was the "policy" optional? If it was not optonal, are steps being taken to deal with those officers who had previously regularly opened the main gate for the bike?

3. Surely, there MUST be previous evidence on the video of Mitchell either daily riding through an opened gate, or else getting off his bike and going through the side door. The previous day's video (or the last day he came and went, if different) would, I suggest, conclusively prove who is lying about at least one key issue. We have no need to guess, or take anyone's word for it. It either happened before, in which case it's on tape, or it didn't, in which case that's also on tape.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:01 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: It isnt hyped up gossip on the internet, it was widely reported throughout the media. I asked you to substantiate the many claims you have made that Mitchell admitted threatening the police officers. You have been unable to do this. Because something is widely reported does not make it to be true. SmokeyTA wrote: No, words to the effect are actually an outright confirmation of not only what he said but the actual meaning intended. It is a description of intention, not the actual words used. If anything, this strengthens my argument.. The only quote you came up with was from someone like yourself who had believed the police version which is now in doubt. Therefore your argument and statements are not based on fact but just repeating media spin and inaccurate internet comments from people like yourself. Mitchell has consistently claimed the police log is false with the exception of the F word as you well know because it is “widely reported in the media” SmokeyTA wrote: You have taken that statement out of of context. Which is pretty idiotic. You would have thought he would have outright denied what sources close to him have agreed was said if he didnt say it wouldnt you .. Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper. SmokeyTA wrote: But im not using the CCTV footage as evidence that he did lose his tempter or displayed anger. You are, despite the fact it proves nothing either way.. Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police SmokeyTA wrote: Third parties can give evidence, they are generally called witnesses.. Third parties are only witnesses if they actually witnessed it first hand ....and as nobody other than the police liar has come forward as a witness then all you quotes are hearsay and so irrelevant. SmokeyTA wrote: Because none of these things are proven to have happened. You have quite clearly and obviously made them up.. Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”? Did I make up the fact that a serving policeman gave a false account of the event (using the same words and phrases as in the police log) and has been arrested? Did I make up that the media were sent a copy of the police log and that this “leak” is being investigated by the Met. If it wasn’t a policeman who leaked this confidential log then who was it? Did I make up that a spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. SmokeyTA wrote: He wasnt used as a witness to corroborate the police log. Your premise is wrong. . His email wasn’t used as evidence because it was later found to be false. As it contained the exact words and phrases as the official log and as this policeman falsely claimed to be at the gates with his cousin and witnessed the “toxic” phrases (when he wasn’t there at all) it is therefore quite reasonable to sumise he was trying to corroborate the police log. If not then what was the purpose of his email and why did the police log claim there were witnesses at the gate when the CCTV proves otherwise? SmokeyTA wrote: Please provide evidence for your assertion or retract it. . The police are investigating the leak. I ask you again if the confidential police log was not sent by a policeman then who was it sent by? Remember that your whole argument is based on what you have read from this same leak. SmokeyTA wrote: The statement was that Mr Mitchell told them nothing new, not that he told them nothing. Stop making things up. . You are wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 A spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. SmokeyTA wrote: how do you walk invisibly?. Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all. SmokeyTA wrote: Because it isnt. . See evidence above or wait for the court case. SmokeyTA wrote: The presumption of innocence has been given. Mr Mitchell hasnt been fired and hasnt been prosecuted. He chose to resign his post. Where did you post that he may be innocent? There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt.

SmokeyTA wrote: It isnt hyped up gossip on the internet, it was widely reported throughout the media. I asked you to substantiate the many claims you have made that Mitchell admitted threatening the police officers. You have been unable to do this. Because something is widely reported does not make it to be true. SmokeyTA wrote: No, words to the effect are actually an outright confirmation of not only what he said but the actual meaning intended. It is a description of intention, not the actual words used. If anything, this strengthens my argument.. The only quote you came up with was from someone like yourself who had believed the police version which is now in doubt. Therefore your argument and statements are not based on fact but just repeating media spin and inaccurate internet comments from people like yourself. Mitchell has consistently claimed the police log is false with the exception of the F word as you well know because it is “widely reported in the media” SmokeyTA wrote: You have taken that statement out of of context. Which is pretty idiotic. You would have thought he would have outright denied what sources close to him have agreed was said if he didnt say it wouldnt you .. Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper. SmokeyTA wrote: But im not using the CCTV footage as evidence that he did lose his tempter or displayed anger. You are, despite the fact it proves nothing either way.. Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police SmokeyTA wrote: Third parties can give evidence, they are generally called witnesses.. Third parties are only witnesses if they actually witnessed it first hand ....and as nobody other than the police liar has come forward as a witness then all you quotes are hearsay and so irrelevant. SmokeyTA wrote: Because none of these things are proven to have happened. You have quite clearly and obviously made them up.. Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”? Did I make up the fact that a serving policeman gave a false account of the event (using the same words and phrases as in the police log) and has been arrested? Did I make up that the media were sent a copy of the police log and that this “leak” is being investigated by the Met. If it wasn’t a policeman who leaked this confidential log then who was it? Did I make up that a spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. SmokeyTA wrote: He wasnt used as a witness to corroborate the police log. Your premise is wrong. . His email wasn’t used as evidence because it was later found to be false. As it contained the exact words and phrases as the official log and as this policeman falsely claimed to be at the gates with his cousin and witnessed the “toxic” phrases (when he wasn’t there at all) it is therefore quite reasonable to sumise he was trying to corroborate the police log. If not then what was the purpose of his email and why did the police log claim there were witnesses at the gate when the CCTV proves otherwise? SmokeyTA wrote: Please provide evidence for your assertion or retract it. . The police are investigating the leak. I ask you again if the confidential police log was not sent by a policeman then who was it sent by? Remember that your whole argument is based on what you have read from this same leak. SmokeyTA wrote: The statement was that Mr Mitchell told them nothing new, not that he told them nothing. Stop making things up. . You are wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 A spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. SmokeyTA wrote: how do you walk invisibly?. Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all. SmokeyTA wrote: Because it isnt. . See evidence above or wait for the court case. SmokeyTA wrote: The presumption of innocence has been given. Mr Mitchell hasnt been fired and hasnt been prosecuted. He chose to resign his post. Where did you post that he may be innocent? There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sat Jan 05, 2013 6:28 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt.

This is where I struggle to swallow the story.

He was asked to be chief whip of the party, a very senior figurehead position, presumably with David Cameron's agreement, probably with his nomination - therefore at that point you have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him indeed.

A matter of a few weeks later he is involved in some sort of incident at the gates to Downing Street, the sort fo kerfuffle that you or I would laugh off later and would not be worthy of noting in any ordinary police officers book, but a log has to be kept at the security office and so it was.

At that point you still have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him as he never asked him to resign at any point over the next few weeks.

When the whole media thing broke you also have to assume that Mitchell and Cameron spoke about it, they may even have had formal meetings with Ministers and senior party members and its reasonable to assume that Mitchell protested his innocence at those meetings as he does now - and still Cameron was not asking for his resignation and presumably still thought that he was the ideal man for the job.

In David Camerons position you can instantly snuff out all of the press speculation and antics, if you want to stop all of this silly distraction from your serious parliamentary duties you do what any CEO of a private company would do, you review the evidence, and if the evidence is exactly as Mitchell insists, and if he is being set up by the Metropolitan Police, then you do something about it and letting your trusted Chief Whip resign as if guilty is not the thing that you do - you might not want to wash all of this in public but you'd certainly call in the Metropolitan Police Commisioner and show him the evidence, then get the whole affair carefully airbrushed away.

But he didn't do any of that.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:48 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

This is where I struggle to swallow the story.

He was asked to be chief whip of the party, a very senior figurehead position, presumably with David Cameron's agreement, probably with his nomination - therefore at that point you have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him indeed.

A matter of a few weeks later he is involved in some sort of incident at the gates to Downing Street, the sort fo kerfuffle that you or I would laugh off later and would not be worthy of noting in any ordinary police officers book, but a log has to be kept at the security office and so it was.

At that point you still have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him as he never asked him to resign at any point over the next few weeks.

When the whole media thing broke you also have to assume that Mitchell and Cameron spoke about it, they may even have had formal meetings with Ministers and senior party members and its reasonable to assume that Mitchell protested his innocence at those meetings as he does now - and still Cameron was not asking for his resignation and presumably still thought that he was the ideal man for the job.

In David Camerons position you can instantly snuff out all of the press speculation and antics, if you want to stop all of this silly distraction from your serious parliamentary duties you do what any CEO of a private company would do, you review the evidence, and if the evidence is exactly as Mitchell insists, and if he is being set up by the Metropolitan Police, then you do something about it and letting your trusted Chief Whip resign as if guilty is not the thing that you do - you might not want to wash all of this in public but you'd certainly call in the Metropolitan Police Commisioner and show him the evidence, then get the whole affair carefully airbrushed away.

But he didn't do any of that.

I think few will come out of this smelling of roses. The timing of the resignation occured when not all the evidence was available. But what did for him was the escalation of calls for his resignation and mounting pressure from the media, Red Ed and Mrs Balls, the Police Federation (comments after their meeting with Mitchell that said he refused to say what he had said) the eye witnessed email that was so damming in corroborating the police log and not helped by Mitchell's own pathetic aplology and unconvincing denials on TV.

When all this furore came to a head the PM asked the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to conduct an investigation which was done with his typical civil service bungling aplomb as he failed to look at the police log and collate all the evidence. So Mitchell felt he had no choice but to fall on his sword which with hindsight was too soon as much of the case against him started to crumble....... but all to late for him.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:11 pm  

How difficult would it be to walk twenty yards to the security office and demand that the police log and the cctv for the night in question be delivered to your office NOW ?

Those two items alone would prove or disprove the case, then its back to business.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:39 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

He was asked to be chief whip of the party, a very senior figurehead position, presumably with David Cameron's agreement, probably with his nomination - therefore at that point you have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him indeed.

.

Probably in the same way that Tony Blair thought very highly of Gordon Brown

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sat Jan 05, 2013 10:50 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Probably in the same way that Tony Blair thought very highly of Gordon Brown

He did.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:38 pm  

Rumour I heard today (credible source) was that the word pleb was not used, but something far far worse. I think he was implying that he would next see the officers on the following Tuesday.

I know it's only a rumour but it may well explain why he hasn't actually said what he actually said. So denying using the word pleb was true but the reality may well be far worse.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sun Jan 06, 2013 8:55 pm  

ZACH wrote:

Rumour I heard today (credible source) was that the word pleb was not used, but something far far worse. I think he was implying that he would next see the officers on the following Tuesday.

That's amazing, I can't believe the man would be so ignorant. Even us plebs know ACAB

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sun Jan 06, 2013 11:47 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote: I asked you to substantiate the many claims you have made that Mitchell admitted threatening the police officers. You have been unable to do this. Because something is widely reported does not make it to be true. Nor does it make it untrue. What it does do is ensure it isnt simply hyped up internet gossip. The only quote you came up with was from someone like yourself who had believed the police version which is now in doubt. Therefore your argument and statements are not based on fact but just repeating media spin and inaccurate internet comments from people like yourself. Mitchell has consistently claimed the police log is false with the exception of the F word as you well know because it is “widely reported in the media” The only quote i bothered to find, as i said it was widely reported. Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper. But not that he didnt say words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' Both statements that Mitchell said words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' and the words 'you havent heard the last of this' werent the words he used could be true. Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police Im not because it shows nothing either way. It is you who seems to be hiding behind the frankly ridiculous argument that because the video doesnt prove the polices account it disproves it. A child could probably explain the logical fallacy you have fallen into. Third parties are only witnesses if they actually witnessed it first hand ....and as nobody other than the police liar has come forward as a witness then all you quotes are hearsay and so irrelevant. No they arent, that's just misguided nonsense. Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”? You make up that it is relevant. Did I make up the fact that a serving policeman gave a false account of the event (using the same words and phrases as in the police log) and has been arrested? You make up the relevance this has. Did I make up that the media were sent a copy of the police log and that this “leak” is being investigated by the Met. If it wasn’t a policeman who leaked this confidential log then who was it? innocent until proven guilty young sir, be consistent. Did I make up that a spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. The west midlands police federation. I would like you to clarify why you are consistently trying to conflate the West Midlands Police federation, the metropolitan police, the officers who were present and the officer who was? His email wasn’t used as evidence because it was later found to be false. As it contained the exact words and phrases as the official log and as this policeman falsely claimed to be at the gates with his cousin and witnessed the “toxic” phrases (when he wasn’t there at all) it is therefore quite reasonable to sumise he was trying to corroborate the police log. If not then what was the purpose of his email and why did the police log claim there were witnesses at the gate when the CCTV proves otherwise? Only if as well as thinking the police were involved in some kind of conspiracy they were also mentally retarded. They are serving police officers, im pretty confident that if they were looking to create some corroborating evidence which would stand up, having another officer e-mail someone unconnected with police wouldnt be high on their list of options. The police are investigating the leak. I ask you again if the confidential police log was not sent by a policeman then who was it sent by? Remember that your whole argument is based on what you have read from this same leak. innocent until proven guilty squire. It is your assertion, it is up to you to prove it. You are wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 A spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. Fine, that is still completely superfluous to the actual issue. Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all. Or just not on the cctv. See evidence above or wait for the court case. It isnt evidence. Where did you post that he may be innocent? There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt. Only you has brought up the possibility that his resignation was an acceptance of guilt.

Lord Elpers wrote: I asked you to substantiate the many claims you have made that Mitchell admitted threatening the police officers. You have been unable to do this. Because something is widely reported does not make it to be true. Nor does it make it untrue. What it does do is ensure it isnt simply hyped up internet gossip. The only quote you came up with was from someone like yourself who had believed the police version which is now in doubt. Therefore your argument and statements are not based on fact but just repeating media spin and inaccurate internet comments from people like yourself. Mitchell has consistently claimed the police log is false with the exception of the F word as you well know because it is “widely reported in the media” The only quote i bothered to find, as i said it was widely reported. Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper. But not that he didnt say words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' Both statements that Mitchell said words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' and the words 'you havent heard the last of this' werent the words he used could be true. Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police Im not because it shows nothing either way. It is you who seems to be hiding behind the frankly ridiculous argument that because the video doesnt prove the polices account it disproves it. A child could probably explain the logical fallacy you have fallen into. Third parties are only witnesses if they actually witnessed it first hand ....and as nobody other than the police liar has come forward as a witness then all you quotes are hearsay and so irrelevant. No they arent, that's just misguided nonsense. Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”? You make up that it is relevant. Did I make up the fact that a serving policeman gave a false account of the event (using the same words and phrases as in the police log) and has been arrested? You make up the relevance this has. Did I make up that the media were sent a copy of the police log and that this “leak” is being investigated by the Met. If it wasn’t a policeman who leaked this confidential log then who was it? innocent until proven guilty young sir, be consistent. Did I make up that a spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. The west midlands police federation. I would like you to clarify why you are consistently trying to conflate the West Midlands Police federation, the metropolitan police, the officers who were present and the officer who was? His email wasn’t used as evidence because it was later found to be false. As it contained the exact words and phrases as the official log and as this policeman falsely claimed to be at the gates with his cousin and witnessed the “toxic” phrases (when he wasn’t there at all) it is therefore quite reasonable to sumise he was trying to corroborate the police log. If not then what was the purpose of his email and why did the police log claim there were witnesses at the gate when the CCTV proves otherwise? Only if as well as thinking the police were involved in some kind of conspiracy they were also mentally retarded. They are serving police officers, im pretty confident that if they were looking to create some corroborating evidence which would stand up, having another officer e-mail someone unconnected with police wouldnt be high on their list of options. The police are investigating the leak. I ask you again if the confidential police log was not sent by a policeman then who was it sent by? Remember that your whole argument is based on what you have read from this same leak. innocent until proven guilty squire. It is your assertion, it is up to you to prove it. You are wrong. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023 A spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie. Fine, that is still completely superfluous to the actual issue. Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all. Or just not on the cctv. See evidence above or wait for the court case. It isnt evidence. Where did you post that he may be innocent? There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt. Only you has brought up the possibility that his resignation was an acceptance of guilt.