Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:16 pm  

Him wrote:

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

As has been explained to you numerous times, the key aspect of the incident is whether the word pleb was used.

Hence 'plebgate'...

It's really not that hard.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jan 15, 2014 10:50 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

As has been explained to you numerous times, the key aspect of the incident is whether the word pleb was used.

Hence 'plebgate'...

It's really not that hard.

No it's not. The key aspect of the incident is that a cabinet minister lost it, swore and was abusive toward police officers. If the rest isn't such a big deal why hasn't Andrew Mitchell confirmed what he did say?

The police who have allegedly lied are not the police present at the incident. So changes nothing other than those individuals should be prosecuted.

I'll tell you what is irrelevant. The edited CCTV footage released by Andrew Mitchell.

It's really not that hard my little Tory groupie.

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

Him wrote:

No it's not. The key aspect of the incident is that a cabinet minister lost it, swore and was abusive toward police officers. If the rest isn't such a big deal why hasn't Andrew Mitchell confirmed what he did say?

The police who have allegedly lied are not the police present at the incident. So changes nothing other than those individuals should be prosecuted.

I'll tell you what is irrelevant. The edited CCTV footage released by Andrew Mitchell.

It's really not that hard my little Tory groupie.

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.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 8:32 am  

Him wrote:

No it's not. The key aspect of the incident is that a cabinet minister lost it, swore and was abusive toward police officers. If the rest isn't such a big deal why hasn't Andrew Mitchell confirmed what he did say?

I think you will find the story has moved on ever so slightly since that. You know, police lying to attempt to frame cabinet a cabinet minister.

Nevermind though you focus on your speculation and totally ignore the facts at hand.

I understand that your hatred for Tories means you need to cling on to your irrelevant arguments.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 9:23 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

I think you will find the story has moved on ever so slightly since that. You know, police lying to attempt to frame cabinet a cabinet minister.

Nevermind though you focus on your speculation and totally ignore the facts at hand.

I understand that your hatred for Tories means you need to cling on to your irrelevant arguments.

Have any of the police who were present at the incident lied?
Has Andrew Mitchell said what he did say yet?
Why not?

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.

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.

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.

I understand your need to bring up "football supporter style" politics doesn't enable you to see past the PR-spun rubbish.

As for my hatred of Tories, I hate to inform you but I've actually voted for the Tories before. Never mind eh. Time to log back into another account and try a different approach.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 12:47 pm  

The only facts we know is that a police officer lied. People wonder why the public has such a massive distrust of them

Regards

King James

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 1:26 pm  

Lebron James wrote:

The only facts we know is that a police officer lied. People wonder why the public has such a massive distrust of them

Regards

King James

And that Mitchell swore at police. He's admitted that himself.

The point about police trust is a legitimate one though, especially after things like Hillsborough. Which is partly why, on the Mark Duggan thread, I posted about police officers being allowed several days and being allowed to confer with other officers before making statements.

I understand the difficulties of the job, any of the police tv shows currently illustrate how annoying and frustrating it can be to be a police officer and have to deal with the kind of people they do (especially when they often appear to get lenient sentences), but they often don't help themselves in terms of trust. Be it major incidents like Hillsborough or Ian Tomlinson, or everyday minor incidents where they go overboard, the appearance to many of the public is that they simply back each other up and cover up where possible. I'm sure it's not true in all cases, but it's the appearance anyway.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:41 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

The two legal cases should be interesting then.

Yes they will. In the case Mitchell is bringing the PC will have to repeat his allegations under oath as a witness and in the other case that The PC (likley backed by Police Federation) is bringing he will have to prove that Mitchell was wrong to state that what the PC said was untrue.

IMO neither can be proven unless new evidence is produced. It is one mans word against another.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Jan 16, 2014 2:53 pm  

Him wrote:

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

The public debate is about whether Mitchell said the word Pleb or not. And if not why there was a campaign to stitch him up from leaks to the media, offduty policemen pretending to witness the event to Police Union reps misleading the public and not telling the truth to aParliamentary commitee.

He said just afterv the event "The offending comment and the reason for my apology to the police was my parting remark 'I thought you guys were supposed to f***ing help us.'

"It was obviously wrong of me to use such bad language and I am very sorry about it and grateful to the police officer for accepting my apology."

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

Him wrote:

No it's not. The key aspect of the incident is that a cabinet minister lost it, swore and was abusive toward police officers. If the rest isn't such a big deal why hasn't Andrew Mitchell confirmed what he did say?.

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?

Him wrote:

The police who have allegedly lied are not the police present at the incident. So changes nothing other than those individuals should be prosecuted. .

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.