Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Jan 17, 2014 6:44 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

I was waiting for you to give evidence to support your spin conjecture in your recent post.

Most of your posting are anti Tory and anti the PM - and are in most cases politically one-eyed.

I seem to recall you have/had an in-law & his dog in the Met.

By the way the term "Thrasher" was an invention of Private Eye in 1987.

I also have family who work in Asda but I don't shop there.

Most of my postings question politicians of all colours and are critical of those who cannot see beyond the party flag that they wave like so many football supporters - like the little puppy dog who jumped up and yapped straight after your post, thats not one of your logins is it, hope not because I tend to read that one and mainly ignore it these days.




There is one solution to this whole ridiculous plebgate affair and one which could have been applied right back at the start - Cameron could nail his flag to the mast, stand by Thrasher and give him his job back declaring that he's confident in his colleagues version of affairs.

The fact that he still keeps him at bargepole length speaks volumes.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Jan 17, 2014 7:21 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I also have family who work in Asda but I don't shop there.

Most of my postings question politicians of all colours and are critical of those who cannot see beyond the party flag that they wave like so many football supporters.

Erm, no they don't. Very strange how you have never used your little sound bite on any poster who espouses left wing views.

I may not agree with much Cod'ed writes but at least he admits how he feels about Tories - you bottle it and hide behind your 'I'm so impartial' rubbish. Bit silly isn't it....

JerryChicken wrote:

There is one solution to this whole ridiculous plebgate affair and one which could have been applied right back at the start - Cameron could nail his flag to the mast, stand by Thrasher and give him his job back declaring that he's confident in his colleagues version of affairs.

The fact that he still keeps him at bargepole length speaks volumes.

To you maybe. No one else really cares.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Jan 17, 2014 8:21 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

Erm, no they don't. Very strange how you have never used your little sound bite on any poster who espouses left wing views.

I may not agree with much Cod'ed writes but at least he admits how he feels about Tories - you bottle it and hide behind your 'I'm so impartial' rubbish. Bit silly isn't it....

To you maybe. No one else really cares.

I'd give you some links to show where I have criticised Labour policy in the past and I'd also give you some links to show you where I've admitted to voting for the Tory party in the past, but...

1. I have far more important things to do than pander to your yapping.

2. You don't understand links.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Jan 18, 2014 12:19 am  

Lord Elpers wrote: If much of what I say is possibly true then Mitchell should be presumed innocent until there is proof of guilt. Which is my whole point. Now lets look at your "vital facts" The officer (not plural) indeed has not been charged with anything. I understand that the year long police enquiry didn't even question him under caution which tells you something about policemen investigating policemen. You do not know if the PC acted honestly or dishonestly. Only if you believe the PC at the gates version. It may not show the entire story but it does show Mitchell at the gate (when the PC's report stated the Pleb etc allegations took place) with no "visibly shocked members of the public" which is sufficient to at least cast doubt on the police log. No they did not say "Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant" you are embellishing what the CPS report stated. Remember the CPS can only work with the evidence (or lack of) that the police give them. No the officers have not been fully exonerated. Because the police did not supply sufficient evidence for the CPS to have an odds on chance of winning a prosecution they are not going to prosecute. The police enquiry found a PC (or WPC) leaked the police email report (log) to the media but because there was no evidence that a payment was asked for or received they decided not to prosecute. Quite how a serving police officer can leak a confidential report about a senior cabinet minister and not be charged shows just how out of control the police now are. Because it was another officers partner who introduced the word "moron" to the press therefore they cannot be considered for misconduct in a public office. So please don't make out they were all fully exonerated. It should be noted that Mitchell's lawyers do not agree with the CPS conclusions including the evidence against the PC at the gate I think most of us know why they conducted such a high profile campaign against Mitchell. The Police Federation have been actively against the cut backs to the police budget and so any government minister was a fair target in their eyes. Particularly since having campaigned that the budget cuts would lose front line officers and crime would rise they are now smarting as crime has continued to fall since the cuts and their arguments were shown to be wrong. Once again you are quite wrong. Mitchell made a full page account of the confronation covering what he said and what the PC said, in the Sunday Times in December 2012. He was also interviewed by the Police Fed reps for 45 minutes during which time he aswered every question they asked. Finally Mitchell has never been charged with anything. Wrong again the CPS report did not say "changed repeatedly" He has not admitted to swearing at the police, only using a 'swear' word to enhance a comment. You do not know that the police were only doing their jobs. Mitchell's account claims the PC was being deliberately difficult and obstructive. Pure conjecture You do not know he has not told the entire truth. It was not the allegations that caused him to resign but the high profile media frenzy which culminated in the Police Fed PC's misleading report to the TV news cameras. Don't hold your breath http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64746.html Maybe you should read this. It seems to me that you are from the side of the fence that has Mitchell as being completely innocent. Hardly an objective view point. Indeed you actually describe a conspiracy between the police and the CPS to make Mitchell (who admitted to swearing at the officer. In my mind as well a lack of respect for an officer doing his job). Not to mention a QC. Have you actually considered that Mitchell might actually be telling little porkies? Bottom line is sadly or thankfully depending on how you stand on this we will never know the truth. Maybe if Mitchell's version hadn't varied since the incident it would never have got to this. In all honesty I don't think the general public of GB really give a hoot.

Lord Elpers wrote: If much of what I say is possibly true then Mitchell should be presumed innocent until there is proof of guilt. Which is my whole point. Now lets look at your "vital facts" The officer (not plural) indeed has not been charged with anything. I understand that the year long police enquiry didn't even question him under caution which tells you something about policemen investigating policemen. You do not know if the PC acted honestly or dishonestly. Only if you believe the PC at the gates version. It may not show the entire story but it does show Mitchell at the gate (when the PC's report stated the Pleb etc allegations took place) with no "visibly shocked members of the public" which is sufficient to at least cast doubt on the police log. No they did not say "Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant" you are embellishing what the CPS report stated. Remember the CPS can only work with the evidence (or lack of) that the police give them. No the officers have not been fully exonerated. Because the police did not supply sufficient evidence for the CPS to have an odds on chance of winning a prosecution they are not going to prosecute. The police enquiry found a PC (or WPC) leaked the police email report (log) to the media but because there was no evidence that a payment was asked for or received they decided not to prosecute. Quite how a serving police officer can leak a confidential report about a senior cabinet minister and not be charged shows just how out of control the police now are. Because it was another officers partner who introduced the word "moron" to the press therefore they cannot be considered for misconduct in a public office. So please don't make out they were all fully exonerated. It should be noted that Mitchell's lawyers do not agree with the CPS conclusions including the evidence against the PC at the gate I think most of us know why they conducted such a high profile campaign against Mitchell. The Police Federation have been actively against the cut backs to the police budget and so any government minister was a fair target in their eyes. Particularly since having campaigned that the budget cuts would lose front line officers and crime would rise they are now smarting as crime has continued to fall since the cuts and their arguments were shown to be wrong. Once again you are quite wrong. Mitchell made a full page account of the confronation covering what he said and what the PC said, in the Sunday Times in December 2012. He was also interviewed by the Police Fed reps for 45 minutes during which time he aswered every question they asked. Finally Mitchell has never been charged with anything. Wrong again the CPS report did not say "changed repeatedly" He has not admitted to swearing at the police, only using a 'swear' word to enhance a comment. You do not know that the police were only doing their jobs. Mitchell's account claims the PC was being deliberately difficult and obstructive. Pure conjecture You do not know he has not told the entire truth. It was not the allegations that caused him to resign but the high profile media frenzy which culminated in the Police Fed PC's misleading report to the TV news cameras. Don't hold your breath http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64746.html Maybe you should read this. It seems to me that you are from the side of the fence that has Mitchell as being completely innocent. Hardly an objective view point. Indeed you actually describe a conspiracy between the police and the CPS to make Mitchell (who admitted to swearing at the officer. In my mind as well a lack of respect for an officer doing his job). Not to mention a QC. Have you actually considered that Mitchell might actually be telling little porkies? Bottom line is sadly or thankfully depending on how you stand on this we will never know the truth. Maybe if Mitchell's version hadn't varied since the incident it would never have got to this. In all honesty I don't think the general public of GB really give a hoot.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Feb 06, 2014 3:14 pm  

Has Elpers got a day off today?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 09, 2014 2:55 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

Has Elpers got a day off today?

he's busy in the Wail moaning about coffee and changes in the Lords restaurant (maybe?)

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:21 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I also have family who work in Asda but I don't shop there..

Irrelevant

JerryChicken wrote:

Most of my postings question politicians of all colours and are critical of those who cannot see beyond the party flag that they wave like so many football supporters ..

This is just not true. Most of your postings are against the Conservatives and in the PM in particular.

JerryChicken wrote:

- like the little puppy dog who jumped up and yapped straight after your post, thats not one of your logins is it, hope not because I tend to read that one and mainly ignore it these days..

You know from your other login that I only have one name on the Sin Bin. Why do you have to resort to insulting a poster who agrees with some of the points I make?

JerryChicken wrote:

There is one solution to this whole ridiculous plebgate affair and one which could have been applied right back at the start - Cameron could nail his flag to the mast, stand by Thrasher and give him his job back declaring that he's confident in his colleagues version of affairs.

The fact that he still keeps him at bargepole length speaks volumes.

Here you go again having yet another pop at the PM.

From the start you chose to completely ignore the key points in this sorry Plebgate affair. That is; a person being innocent until proven to be guilty. I have repeatedly stated that I do not know who was telling the truth Mitchell or the PC at the gate. Therefore in the absence of proof you have to assume innocence if you value justice. Remember Mitchell has not been charged by the police with anything.

Where this became a scandal was the witch hunt by the lefties and the Police Federation to hound a Cabinet Minister from office, based on false statements made by police officers. The CPS were not provided with any proof that there was a conspiracy against Mitchell. However it was certainly a big coincidence that a police colleague of the gate PC falsely corroborated the "pleg" log and the three police Fed reps mislead the public after their infamous meeting with Mitchell and then two of them went on to mislead (police speak for lying) the Home Affairs committee. The first two of these three episodes of serious misconduct by police officers were fed to the media which in turn ramped up the pressure with the resulting resignation.

But despite all this you chose to witter on about missing tapes and hidden CCTV cameras and blamed everything on the PM. Without any proof you floated your idea that the PM had somehow nipped down to the gate after midnight and nicked the tapes which proved Mitchell to be guilty.

The allegation of a bit of name calling at the gate cannot be put in the same league as serving police officers falsifying evidence unless of course you are a leftie and the target is a Tory!

The first lying policeman has now been sentenced to a 12 month stretch which for a bobby will be a hard time. Whereas Mitchell has now had three Chief Constables publicly apologise and now the Met Police Commissioner invited Mitchell to a meeting where he too apologised.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:32 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

I'd give you some links to show where I have criticised Labour policy in the past and I'd also give you some links to show you where I've admitted to voting for the Tory party in the past, but...

1. I have far more important things to do than pander to your yapping.

2. You don't understand links.

I do understand links. So I look forward to viewing those links and in the interest of balance will you be posting links to where you have been critical of the Torys and the PM in particular. The first part shouldn't take you too long but I fear the second part may take quite some time and the balancing scales may get strained under the weight of just the anti Cam stuff.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:15 pm  

The puppy owner's got himself a bit riled up.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:15 pm  

@airlie_bird wrote:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/plebgate-crown-prosecution-services-full-statement-on-charges-against-pc-keith-wallis-8964746.html

Maybe you should read this. .

I read it fully when it was published and indeed have made reference to it

@airlie_bird wrote:

It seems to me that you are from the side of the fence that has Mitchell as being completely innocent. Hardly an objective view point. .

You have not read all my posting then (have a look at the original thread) You will see that I have never said Mitchell was innocent of the allegations. None of us know actually what was said. What I have argued against consistently has been those posters that had Mitchell down as guilty from the start and fully believed the allegations without evidence to back it up. In the absence of evidence against Mitchell, to still speak out against him is highly subjective and I have to assume based on political prejudice.

@airlie_bird wrote:

Indeed you actually describe a conspiracy between the police and the CPS to make Mitchell (who admitted to swearing at the officer. .

I descibed the fact that the CPS can only work with the evidence produced by the police. I also pointed out that the CPS reported insufficient evidence to bring a successful conviction against several police officers. (except the one who got 12 mths prison) If there was no evidence at all against the officers then it would not have gone to the CPS.

Mitchell did not admit to swearing at the PC. He used the F word as an adjective. Quite a different thing.

@airlie_bird wrote:

In my mind as well a lack of respect for an officer doing his job). Not to mention a QC. Have you actually considered that Mitchell might actually be telling little porkies? .

How do you know if the officer did not show respect to Mitchell?

Yes I have considered that Mitchell may have lied - but I repeat there is no evidence. Whereas there is plenty of evidence of police wrongdoing in this affair. eg Leaking the confidential log to the press - false statement corroborating the police log (guilty 12 mths inside) misleading the public on prime time news - police whistleblowers alleging conspiracy - CCTV throwing doubt on the police log. Also the police had plenty of 'motive' as they have campaigned actively and unsuccessfully against the government because to the budget cuts.

@airlie_bird wrote:

Bottom line is sadly or thankfully depending on how you stand on this we will never know the truth. Maybe if Mitchell's version hadn't varied since the incident it would never have got to this. .

It is not clear how Mitchell's version has varied since the incident. What has been consistent is his denial of the "toxic" phrases which is what is relevant.

@airlie_bird wrote:

In all honesty I don't think the general public of GB really give a hoot.

I think you are wrong. This affair has further dropped the public confidence in the police, the police Federation and the Met in particular.