El Barbudo wrote:
:lol:
Oh very good, I love the way you accuse and then do exactly the same..
Not the same at all. You still cannot bring yourself to admit that Mitchell just might be innocent.
El Barbudo wrote:
:Give over, you called them liars when it was yet to be proven either way. .
No wrong again. I called them liars when the evidence was in the public domain.
1. One police officer sent an email falsely stating he was a member of the public and had witnessed the confrontation at the gates. A journalist tracked down the email and traced the address and found the officer. He has been arrested. Are you saying he didn't tell a lie?
2. The three Police Federation representatives told lies to the TV cameras. The meeting was taped and the transcript shows they lied?
El Barbudo wrote:
:Based on the blend of his own admissions and his lily-livered refusal to make a complaint. .
Your character assassination was based, like most of your other opinions, on internet anti Tory tittle tattle rather than solid evidenced backed reports. Mitchell gave good reasons for not making an official complaint which would have led to several officers in his constituency losing their jobs. He may well have to go down that route to get justice.
El Barbudo wrote:
:Some of it is borne out by Mitchell, so I'd guess that at least some of it is correct, just how much I guess we'll never know. .
So come on now is it a yes or a no to my question?
El Barbudo wrote:
:You mean the transcript of that meeting or what they said immediately afterwards?
I have no reason to doubt the transcript (I don't think Mitchell has cast any doubt on it either).
What they said afterwards was probably misleading, unlike you I am not accusing them of lying..
I think you know full well what I mean. The 3 police Federation officers made a statement on national TV news immediately after the meeting with Mitchell that was plainly not true. The proof was in the transcript which was made from the tapes that Mitchell made at the meeting.
Once again weasel words. For you to say "probably misleading" is again the understatement of the year. It was misleading without a doubt and if it were deliberately so these three would have committed gross misconduct and would be sacked.
These same three officers also gave evidence to the MP's committee that was "misleading and possible deliberately so" according to the chairman of the committee. One of them told a lie to the committee with regard to his own disciplinary record and 2 of them have been summoned back to correct the records.
El Barbudo wrote:
:Of course it's "possible"..
Now why has this had to be dragged out of you?
I
El Barbudo wrote:
:t does seem to me that whilst the police federation members have something to answer and the truth of the conversation at the gate of Downing Street may well never be settled, Mitchell is being made out to be an innocent victim of a random conspiracy when, even by his own admission of swearing at police officers simply because he wasn't allowed to cycle out of the main gates, he was acting like a t0sser.
So this comment is supposed to show your even handedness is it? You keep repeating that Mitchell has admitted swearing
at the police which is quite wrong. He has admitted using a swear word as an adjective which is quite different. He did not use an insulting name, as you so often do.
But even if he had done what you say, this still cannot be compared with the really really serious crime of police telling lies, and of police mounting a political camapign against an elected MP and cabinet minister, and of police fabricating evidence, and of a possible conspiracy and police cover up and lying to a committee of MP's
For you to totally ignore these very serious allegations yet choose to make out swearing is worse makes your standpoint laughable.
What you are choosing to ignore is this is just the latest chapter in a sorry on-going tale of police woe. We know that there is a deep rooted section in our police forces that is happy to fabricate evidence, tell lies and then more lies to cover up police crimes. This goes right to the top in many cases where police investigating police turns out to be a white wash.
