Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Dec 04, 2013 1:39 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

I didn't realise the rozzer was suing News Group, I thought it was Mitchell doing that

It is he. Mitchell is the "he" I m referring to, not the policeman. Mitchell v News Group

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:48 pm  

cod'ead wrote: One police officer to be charged with misconduct in public office Please heed the warning at the top of the CPS statement: Journalists and users of social media are urged to exercise care and restraint in any additional reporting or commenting on the following statement. This is because they may risk committing a contempt of court as strict liability contempt rules apply. But there are a few interesting paragraphs: Previously unseen and unedited CCTV evidence has been considered very carefully. In addition there has been a detailed enquiry into emails, text messages, social messaging and telephone contact between numerous police officers and members of the public. The locations of mobile telephones have been analysed using cell site technology. We have considered evidence in relation to 14 individuals including 10 police officers, a member of the media and three members of the public. Much of the press reporting to date has assumed that the CCTV recordings show that the gate officer lied about the words used during the incident. The CCTV footage that has been aired publicly was edited and did not show the full picture. Over to you Lord Elpers Why over to me? Nothing here in any way proves my concerns are wrong. What you have is after a year long police internal investigation into five of their own has come up with "insufficient evidence" to prove that PC Rowland had lied. It is extraordinary that at no stage in this investigation has PC Rowland been interviewed under criminal caution, which rather tells you as much about the investigation as it does anything else. The CPS said “The CCTV footage that has been aired publicly was edited and did not show the full picture. We have been supplied with previously unseen and unedited footage of the incident from five different cameras. The CCTV footage does not determine the issue completely as it could be consistent with either the accounts of the officer on the gate or Mr Mitchell. It is clear from the footage that there was sufficient time for the words to have been said either as described by the gate officer or as described by Mr Mitchell, and this has been confirmed by an expert.” The CCTV footage was not edited by Channel 4 who have reacted angrily to the CPS statement "C4 did not edit CCTV footage to change or alter sequence of events. Our three CCTV streams were image-matched frame-by-frame to confirm veracity" Mitchell's lawyer who has been given access to the new unseen footage disputed the CPS's interpretation of the film. "The film simply does not back up PC Rowland's assertion that there were several members of the public witnessing the scene who 'looked visibly shocked' at the foul language" he said. "This is important because once you conclude that PC Rowland embellished his account how is it possible to believe the rest?" "Also according to Rowland 40 words were spoken, excluding the last response from Mitchell, in that last 5 seconds. Most people speak at two to three words per second. No one speaks at eight words per second"

cod'ead wrote: One police officer to be charged with misconduct in public office Please heed the warning at the top of the CPS statement: Journalists and users of social media are urged to exercise care and restraint in any additional reporting or commenting on the following statement. This is because they may risk committing a contempt of court as strict liability contempt rules apply. But there are a few interesting paragraphs: Previously unseen and unedited CCTV evidence has been considered very carefully. In addition there has been a detailed enquiry into emails, text messages, social messaging and telephone contact between numerous police officers and members of the public. The locations of mobile telephones have been analysed using cell site technology. We have considered evidence in relation to 14 individuals including 10 police officers, a member of the media and three members of the public. Much of the press reporting to date has assumed that the CCTV recordings show that the gate officer lied about the words used during the incident. The CCTV footage that has been aired publicly was edited and did not show the full picture. Over to you Lord Elpers Why over to me? Nothing here in any way proves my concerns are wrong. What you have is after a year long police internal investigation into five of their own has come up with "insufficient evidence" to prove that PC Rowland had lied. It is extraordinary that at no stage in this investigation has PC Rowland been interviewed under criminal caution, which rather tells you as much about the investigation as it does anything else. The CPS said “The CCTV footage that has been aired publicly was edited and did not show the full picture. We have been supplied with previously unseen and unedited footage of the incident from five different cameras. The CCTV footage does not determine the issue completely as it could be consistent with either the accounts of the officer on the gate or Mr Mitchell. It is clear from the footage that there was sufficient time for the words to have been said either as described by the gate officer or as described by Mr Mitchell, and this has been confirmed by an expert.” The CCTV footage was not edited by Channel 4 who have reacted angrily to the CPS statement "C4 did not edit CCTV footage to change or alter sequence of events. Our three CCTV streams were image-matched frame-by-frame to confirm veracity" Mitchell's lawyer who has been given access to the new unseen footage disputed the CPS's interpretation of the film. "The film simply does not back up PC Rowland's assertion that there were several members of the public witnessing the scene who 'looked visibly shocked' at the foul language" he said. "This is important because once you conclude that PC Rowland embellished his account how is it possible to believe the rest?" "Also according to Rowland 40 words were spoken, excluding the last response from Mitchell, in that last 5 seconds. Most people speak at two to three words per second. No one speaks at eight words per second"

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:57 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

I have seen CCTV of Mitchell cycling towards the gates in Downing Street.
Also of Mitchell pushing his bike past the police box to the pedestrian gate to exit Downing Street.
I have not seen any footage of the time between those two pieces, i.e. the time of the alleged altercation, have you?.

The time of the alleged "Pleb" words and foul language were right at the end as he was at the gate according to the police log.

"The footage as broadcast for the first time on 18th December 2012 was not edited by the production team to change or alter the sequence of events. Furthermore the three camera angles that we were provided with were image-matched frame by frame to confirm their veracity. We stand fully behind this investigation." source C4

El Barbudo wrote:

The footage shot from the Treasury building outside of Downing Street (in the version I've seen online) has the time-of-recording pixillated-out (why?) and doesn't show Mitchell emerging from the gate, so we have no idea at all when it was recorded.
It shows one guy who stops and takes a step back to look into Downing Street ... this doesn't correspond with the footage taken from inside Downing Street, which shows more people walking past at the time when Mitchell was walking past the police box and exiting from Downing Street.

A Channel 4 / ITN spokesman said: " We welcome the clarification and acknowledgement received today from the CPS that the footage broadcast on Channel 4 News on 18th December 2012 was not edited by the production team to change or alter the sequence of events.

"In an email today to the executive producer of the Channel 4 News item and Dispatches programme the Crown Prosecution Service Chief Press Officer said: ' Please be aware that the CPS has not maintained that you or Channel Four/ITV [sic] edited the footage yourselves, indeed we have not ever said that but the footage you showed is an edited version. That is that people were obscured so movement, head turns and head angles as well as any visible reactions cannot be seen'

Channel 4's statement went on to say: "In addition we have had sight of an email sent today from the Director General, Propriety and Ethics, Cabinet Office, Sue Gray to Andrew Mitchell MP which states: 'Further to our telephone conversation, I can confirm that the Cabinet Office provided you with a copy of the relevant CCTV footage unedited for the incident and time period in question.

"The pixilation was undertaken by another government department on our behalf."'

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Jan 12, 2014 7:59 pm  

The sage rolls on.

Now we have the first Police officer admitting in court that he lied and gave a false statement against Mitchell. What we do not know yet is why he pretended to be a member of the public who witnessed the confrontation when he was off duty at the time and why he felt the need to back up almost word for word the account in the police log.

I doubt this have ever come to court had it not been for Michael Crick of Channel 4.

So in addition to three Chief Constables that have publicly apologised to Mitchell we have the Met Commisioner forced to make a grovelling apology, after initially backing his officers in the affair. Speaking in November 2012 Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe insisted he was '100 per' behind the officers, saying 'They accurately reported what happened. All the evidence I saw led me to think it was accurate. I believe my officers. They had no reason to lie'

As Keith Vaz chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, said the case showed the "internal mechanisms" of the police had not worked and that lessons needed to be learnt to restore public confidence in the police. He said: "This plea is not only the first public acknowledgement that Mr Mitchell has been the subject of gross unfairness but it also an admission that a criminal offence has been committed against him.

"With 11 other officers being subject to misconduct hearings, and the further investigation by the IPCC, this appears to be a complete vindication of Mr Mitchell's position."

Tom Watson, a Labour MP, called for Mr Mitchell to be restored to the Cabinet.

He told World At One: "It's been pretty clear to me for some time that Andrew Mitchell has had a great injustice done to him."

Just when you think it cannot get worse for the Police reputation we have news that the three Police Federation officers, who misled the public after their meeting with Mitchell, now are refusing to attend a meeting of the Independent Police Complaints Commission this week to discuss their behaviour.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Jan 12, 2014 8:58 pm  

Just to underline one very pertinent point - Channel 4 were handed a piece of cctv evidence by an un-named government department that had already been edited by an un-named government department, not only were faces pixilated on the video but no time frame was indicated, from memory at least one of the cameras had the time pixilated on it.

A government department feeding an edited news story to Ch4 and I suspect feeding them with a script to accompany it too.

Then more video evidence turns up too.

Someone at the Department of Information and Surveillance isn't doing their job properly.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Jan 12, 2014 9:50 pm  

Sage rolls ... yummy!

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Jan 13, 2014 4:57 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

The sage rolls on.

Indeed but will he now tell us what he DID say rather than what he didn't?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:23 pm  

Big Graeme wrote: Indeed but will he now tell us what he DID say rather than what he didn't? Why do you (and others) keeping asking this? It is irrelevant. The only thing that the police, media, leftwing opportunists, anti-tories etc objected to and hyped up were the alleged three phrases including the word "Plebs". Mitchell has consistently denied saying any of these things. The only corroboration of the allegations, made by the PC at the gate who later wrote the official log, was a police colleague who was offduty and nowhere near at the time and who has just admitted in court to lying and now might face being sent down. (You have to question why this PC lied and specifically corroborated the allegations in the log and claimed, along with his lying relation, that they and several other members of the public witnessed this and were "visibly shocked" at what they heard. These are the witnesses that are 'invisible' on the CCTV and who the police failed to find and collect statements in their year long investigation. (Pure coincidence you understand) So whatever else he said was irrelevant. However for the record Mitchell has made public his side of the events as I posted on the original Mitchel thread in December 2012: "Andrew Mitchell wrote an article for the Sunday Times in which he recorded his side of events: including “I never uttered those phrases they are completely untrue”. He does admit to using the F word and gives his word for word recollection of the discussion with the policeman. In his version it would seem the officer is being unhelpful and a bit obstructive and displaying a touch of traffic warden syndrome. If you wish I can post all of his version but it will take some time to draft." Lord Elpers December 2012 http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=537713&tsmp=1389810111&start=210MP He further answered all questions robustly in the now infamous 45 minute interview with the three Police Federation officers, who are also being investigated for misleading the public. (pure coincidence you understand - never a stitch up - never a conspiracy - 'never a willow')

Big Graeme wrote: Indeed but will he now tell us what he DID say rather than what he didn't? Why do you (and others) keeping asking this? It is irrelevant. The only thing that the police, media, leftwing opportunists, anti-tories etc objected to and hyped up were the alleged three phrases including the word "Plebs". Mitchell has consistently denied saying any of these things. The only corroboration of the allegations, made by the PC at the gate who later wrote the official log, was a police colleague who was offduty and nowhere near at the time and who has just admitted in court to lying and now might face being sent down. (You have to question why this PC lied and specifically corroborated the allegations in the log and claimed, along with his lying relation, that they and several other members of the public witnessed this and were "visibly shocked" at what they heard. These are the witnesses that are 'invisible' on the CCTV and who the police failed to find and collect statements in their year long investigation. (Pure coincidence you understand) So whatever else he said was irrelevant. However for the record Mitchell has made public his side of the events as I posted on the original Mitchel thread in December 2012: "Andrew Mitchell wrote an article for the Sunday Times in which he recorded his side of events: including “I never uttered those phrases they are completely untrue”. He does admit to using the F word and gives his word for word recollection of the discussion with the policeman. In his version it would seem the officer is being unhelpful and a bit obstructive and displaying a touch of traffic warden syndrome. If you wish I can post all of his version but it will take some time to draft." Lord Elpers December 2012 http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=537713&tsmp=1389810111&start=210MP He further answered all questions robustly in the now infamous 45 minute interview with the three Police Federation officers, who are also being investigated for misleading the public. (pure coincidence you understand - never a stitch up - never a conspiracy - 'never a willow')

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:10 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote: Why do you (and others) keeping asking this? It is irrelevant. The only thing that the police, media, leftwing opportunists, anti-tories etc objected to and hyped up were the alleged three phrases including the word "Plebs". Mitchell has consistently denied saying any of these things. The only corroboration of the allegations, made by the PC at the gate who later wrote the official log, was a police colleague who was offduty and nowhere near at the time and who has just admitted in court to lying and now might face being sent down. (You have to question why this PC lied and specifically corroborated the allegations in the log and claimed, along with his lying relation, that they and several other members of the public witnessed this and were "visibly shocked" at what they heard. These are the witnesses that are 'invisible' on the CCTV and who the police failed to find and collect statements in their year long investigation. (Pure coincidence you understand) So whatever else he said was irrelevant. However for the record Mitchell has made public his side of the events as I posted on the original Mitchel thread in December 2012: "Andrew Mitchell wrote an article for the Sunday Times in which he recorded his side of events: including “I never uttered those phrases they are completely untrue”. He does admit to using the F word and gives his word for word recollection of the discussion with the policeman. In his version it would seem the officer is being unhelpful and a bit obstructive and displaying a touch of traffic warden syndrome. If you wish I can post all of his version but it will take some time to draft." Lord Elpers December 2012 http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=537713&tsmp=1389810111&start=210MP He further answered all questions robustly in the now infamous 45 minute interview with the three Police Federation officers, who are also being investigated for misleading the public. (pure coincidence you understand - never a stitch up - never a conspiracy - 'never a willow') The two legal cases should be interesting then.

Lord Elpers wrote: Why do you (and others) keeping asking this? It is irrelevant. The only thing that the police, media, leftwing opportunists, anti-tories etc objected to and hyped up were the alleged three phrases including the word "Plebs". Mitchell has consistently denied saying any of these things. The only corroboration of the allegations, made by the PC at the gate who later wrote the official log, was a police colleague who was offduty and nowhere near at the time and who has just admitted in court to lying and now might face being sent down. (You have to question why this PC lied and specifically corroborated the allegations in the log and claimed, along with his lying relation, that they and several other members of the public witnessed this and were "visibly shocked" at what they heard. These are the witnesses that are 'invisible' on the CCTV and who the police failed to find and collect statements in their year long investigation. (Pure coincidence you understand) So whatever else he said was irrelevant. However for the record Mitchell has made public his side of the events as I posted on the original Mitchel thread in December 2012: "Andrew Mitchell wrote an article for the Sunday Times in which he recorded his side of events: including “I never uttered those phrases they are completely untrue”. He does admit to using the F word and gives his word for word recollection of the discussion with the policeman. In his version it would seem the officer is being unhelpful and a bit obstructive and displaying a touch of traffic warden syndrome. If you wish I can post all of his version but it will take some time to draft." Lord Elpers December 2012 http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=537713&tsmp=1389810111&start=210MP He further answered all questions robustly in the now infamous 45 minute interview with the three Police Federation officers, who are also being investigated for misleading the public. (pure coincidence you understand - never a stitch up - never a conspiracy - 'never a willow') The two legal cases should be interesting then.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jan 15, 2014 9:44 pm  

Lol. What Andrew Mitchell said is apparently irrelevant in a debate about what Andrew Mitchell said.