Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Thu Jan 10, 2013 6:42 pm  

Downing Street Suspected 'Gigantic Conspiracy' Over Plebgate, But Did Not Investigate

Downing Street Suspected 'Gigantic Conspiracy' Over Plebgate, But Did Not Investigate

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:23 pm  

McClennan wrote: Downing Street Suspected 'Gigantic Conspiracy' Over Plebgate, But Did Not Investigate Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary no less, seems to suggest that the video "evidence" that has been released to public view is the sum total of all video and audio evidence. We should all sit down and shake our heads if that is so, apart from any miltant extremists who will be too busy stockpiling fertiliser and detonators anyway. No wonder a four man IRA cell managed to lob a few home made mortars into the garden of 10 Downing St through the roof of a Transit van - and then disappear before anyone saw them.

McClennan wrote: Downing Street Suspected 'Gigantic Conspiracy' Over Plebgate, But Did Not Investigate Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary no less, seems to suggest that the video "evidence" that has been released to public view is the sum total of all video and audio evidence. We should all sit down and shake our heads if that is so, apart from any miltant extremists who will be too busy stockpiling fertiliser and detonators anyway. No wonder a four man IRA cell managed to lob a few home made mortars into the garden of 10 Downing St through the roof of a Transit van - and then disappear before anyone saw them.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:48 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote: Nor does it make it untrue. What it does do is ensure it isnt simply hyped up internet gossip. The only quote i bothered to find, as i said it was widely reported. 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. 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. No they arent, that's just misguided nonsense. You make up that it is relevant. You make up the relevance this has. innocent until proven guilty young sir, be consistent. 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? 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. innocent until proven guilty squire. It is your assertion, it is up to you to prove it. Fine, that is still completely superfluous to the actual issue. Or just not on the cctv. It isnt evidence. Only you has brought up the possibility that his resignation was an acceptance of guilt. You cannot back up your statements and you clearly are unable to admit that you may have made a mistake in your hasty judgement against Mitchell. You say you were only “bothered to find” a quote which was nothing more than hearsay yet you are “bothered” to continue your folly. Please state the names of the witnesses? And please quote the statements of these third parties witnesseses? What is relevant about the CCTV is that it disproves part of the police log. So you think that it is not relevant that a false statement was made to verify the log by a police colleague of the officer who wrote the police log. The leak is being investigated so we shall soon see. But as this log is made and kept by the police I ask you to suggest who else may have sent it to the media? I don’t think I have suggested that the West Midland Police Federation, the Met , the officers who wrote the log and the one who gave false evidence are all together and the same. In fact I clearly have separated each as a separate and relevant piece of evidence and circumstantial evidence which points at a stitch up. I am not usually a believer in the grassy knoll conspiracy theories. However todays headline has the chief civil servant saying that “Andrew Mitchell could have been the victim of a ´gigantic conspiracy’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/10/andrew-mitchell-victim-jeremy-heywood I think it to be more likely that it is PC Plod showing “peaked cap syndrome” and then trying to cover his booty backed up by the anti-government union showing self interest and opportunism above fairness and truth. The Labour front bench led by Red Ed and Mrs Balls have gone a bit quite on this issue after gobbing off so much...wonder why this could be? No it is not fine and not superfluous! The Police Federation having led the calls for Mitchell to resign put unfair and extra pressure to bring about that resignation by briefing the media with a downright lie. The CCTV that has been released (from different angles) covers that actual area and time of the allegations in the police log and although not perfect shows clearly enough that there were not the witnesses at the gate as per the police log. So most relevant. Finally for you to mention “innocent until proven guilty” is a joke coming from someone who has only believed internet hearsay and then made a guilty judgement and then continued to post this hearsay stating it as fact. I only hope you are never called to do jury service

SmokeyTA wrote: Nor does it make it untrue. What it does do is ensure it isnt simply hyped up internet gossip. The only quote i bothered to find, as i said it was widely reported. 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. 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. No they arent, that's just misguided nonsense. You make up that it is relevant. You make up the relevance this has. innocent until proven guilty young sir, be consistent. 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? 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. innocent until proven guilty squire. It is your assertion, it is up to you to prove it. Fine, that is still completely superfluous to the actual issue. Or just not on the cctv. It isnt evidence. Only you has brought up the possibility that his resignation was an acceptance of guilt. You cannot back up your statements and you clearly are unable to admit that you may have made a mistake in your hasty judgement against Mitchell. You say you were only “bothered to find” a quote which was nothing more than hearsay yet you are “bothered” to continue your folly. Please state the names of the witnesses? And please quote the statements of these third parties witnesseses? What is relevant about the CCTV is that it disproves part of the police log. So you think that it is not relevant that a false statement was made to verify the log by a police colleague of the officer who wrote the police log. The leak is being investigated so we shall soon see. But as this log is made and kept by the police I ask you to suggest who else may have sent it to the media? I don’t think I have suggested that the West Midland Police Federation, the Met , the officers who wrote the log and the one who gave false evidence are all together and the same. In fact I clearly have separated each as a separate and relevant piece of evidence and circumstantial evidence which points at a stitch up. I am not usually a believer in the grassy knoll conspiracy theories. However todays headline has the chief civil servant saying that “Andrew Mitchell could have been the victim of a ´gigantic conspiracy’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/10/andrew-mitchell-victim-jeremy-heywood I think it to be more likely that it is PC Plod showing “peaked cap syndrome” and then trying to cover his booty backed up by the anti-government union showing self interest and opportunism above fairness and truth. The Labour front bench led by Red Ed and Mrs Balls have gone a bit quite on this issue after gobbing off so much...wonder why this could be? No it is not fine and not superfluous! The Police Federation having led the calls for Mitchell to resign put unfair and extra pressure to bring about that resignation by briefing the media with a downright lie. The CCTV that has been released (from different angles) covers that actual area and time of the allegations in the police log and although not perfect shows clearly enough that there were not the witnesses at the gate as per the police log. So most relevant. Finally for you to mention “innocent until proven guilty” is a joke coming from someone who has only believed internet hearsay and then made a guilty judgement and then continued to post this hearsay stating it as fact. I only hope you are never called to do jury service

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Thu Jan 10, 2013 7:55 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary no less, seems to suggest that the video "evidence" that has been released to public view is the sum total of all video and audio evidence.

We should all sit down and shake our heads if that is so, apart from any miltant extremists who will be too busy stockpiling fertiliser and detonators anyway.



No wonder a four man IRA cell managed to lob a few home made mortars into the garden of 10 Downing St through the roof of a Transit van - and then disappear before anyone saw them.

So perhaps all your anti Cameron comments were null and void then?

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Thu Jan 10, 2013 9:46 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

So perhaps all your anti Cameron comments were null and void then?

Not at all, I have yet to hear him make a statement on the affair, as I have also to hear him admit that the total cctv coverage of the whole of Downing Street consists of three badly positioned poor quality slightly out of focus non audio supporting cameras, and I have yet to hear him explain why he accepted Mitchells resignation when his chief civil servant admits that they all suspected a conspiracy but didn't bother to investigate or gather in any or all information with immediate effect - unless of course just two weeks into the job Cameron realised that he'd made a terrible mistake in selecting Mitchell, its not like he hasn't got a track history in selecting bed fellows who take everyone else for fools is it ?

No, quite frankly Cameron is keeping his distance but he's swimming against a vortex here, sooner or later, whichever way the Met eqnuiry goes, he's going to have to make a statement of explanation and as his senior advisors have admitted all along, no-one is going to come out of this smelling of roses.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Fri Jan 11, 2013 7:43 am  

Lord Elpers wrote: I am not usually a believer in the grassy knoll conspiracy theories. However todays headline has the chief civil servant saying that “Andrew Mitchell could have been the victim of a ´gigantic conspiracy’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/10/andrew-mitchell-victim-jeremy-heywood You appear to have followed the headlines, without further reading. From the article you linked to: "We accepted there were unanswered questions including the possibility of a gigantic conspiracy or a small conspiracy. Those were unanswered questions. But we decided, on balance, to let matters rest as they were, decide to stick by Andrew Mitchell, keep him in post and move on." So there may have been a "gigantic" conspiracy, equally there may also have been a "small" conspiracy or even no conspiracy at all

Lord Elpers wrote: I am not usually a believer in the grassy knoll conspiracy theories. However todays headline has the chief civil servant saying that “Andrew Mitchell could have been the victim of a ´gigantic conspiracy’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/10/andrew-mitchell-victim-jeremy-heywood You appear to have followed the headlines, without further reading. From the article you linked to: "We accepted there were unanswered questions including the possibility of a gigantic conspiracy or a small conspiracy. Those were unanswered questions. But we decided, on balance, to let matters rest as they were, decide to stick by Andrew Mitchell, keep him in post and move on." So there may have been a "gigantic" conspiracy, equally there may also have been a "small" conspiracy or even no conspiracy at all

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:16 am  

cod'ead wrote:

You appear to have followed the headlines, without further reading. From the article you linked to:

"We accepted there were unanswered questions including the possibility of a gigantic conspiracy or a small conspiracy. Those were unanswered questions. But we decided, on balance, to let matters rest as they were, decide to stick by Andrew Mitchell, keep him in post and move on."

So there may have been a "gigantic" conspiracy, equally there may also have been a "small" conspiracy or even no conspiracy at all

And at present that potential conspiracy relates to the emails not the police log.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:13 pm  

SmokeyTA wrote:

Blarr blarr blarr.... argument based on anti conservative bias...... blarr blarr blarr...... I get my opinions from unreliable internet left wing gossip..... blarr blarr blarr........I'll believe anything if its against the Tories sod justice.....blarr blarr blarr....etc etc

Update on the "plebgate saga"

The police officer who wrote the original pocket book entry about the incident and later the log book entry was arrested on Friday, and suspended from duty, on suspicion of leaks to the press.

She is the 3rd serving Met police officer to be arrested in connection with plebgate and the leaks. A 4th individual ( a relative of one of those arrested) has also been arrested.

The female officer's arrest comes 24 hrs after another diplomatic protection officer was arrested over the leak.

The Met is also carrying out a misconduct investigation into 4 other officers from diplomatic protection 3 of whom have been placed on restrictive duties.

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:31 pm  

Update on C4 Dispatches tomorrow night

Update on C4 Dispatches tomorrow night

Re: Andrew Mitchell MP - Meltdown ? : Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:27 pm  

The sooner Mitchell gets knocked down a few pegs the better - arrogant egotist.