JerryChicken wrote:
There is an honest account of what happened on the night in question in todays Times (assuming that you subscribe) as stated by one of the fours officers on duty at the gate that night and who retired one month later as scheduled after 30 service.
The fact that he can only speak so openly having left the police force and the fact that he believes that the Police Federation hijacked something that should have been sorted out with a couple of conversations and an apology the next morning just about sums it all up for me.
You often use the word "honest" without any knowledge of whether in fact it is honest. Because this account was critical of the police federation (most reasonable observers are now equally critical) does not mean exPC Richardson's account is wholly accurate.
Consider:
'The Times carries an interview with Ian Richardson, one of the police officers manning the gates at Downing Street at the time of the incident with Andrew Mitchell back in September 2012. It bears the headline “Truth about Plebgate by Downing Street police officer”.
The Times headline and article are wrong. We will never know the truth about Plebgate. It is an affair that boils down to the accounts of two men. PC Toby Rowlands, who claims Andrew Mitchell called the police f–––––– plebs” and the former chief whip himself, who denies it. There is no definitive evidence to categorically support or rebut either man’s case. All that really matters is who you believe.
Ian Richardson believes Toby Rowlands. According to the Times, “Mr Richardson, 50, who has retired from the Metropolitan Police, said he believed that Mr Mitchell called the officers “f–––––– plebs” as claimed by one of his colleagues in the original police log”.
Unfortunately, as with just about every other account of what happened that evening, Mr Richardson’s version of events – or at least his version as reported in the Times – does not quite tally with the facts. Indeed, his story does not even remain consistent with itself.
The first thing to note is that Ian Richardson claims he did not hear Andrew Mitchell call anyone anything. The Times is very clear on that. “He did not hear the exchange but said that PC Toby Rowland immediately recounted the contentious phrases”, they report. Andrew Mitchell was supposedly verbally abusing a police officer with such ferocity he was threatened with arrest. But his colleague, a few yards away, heard nothing.
Actually that’s not true. The Times, and Mr Richardson’s log of the account, say he heard nothing. But Richardson himself then contradicts himself and claims “he did hear PC Rowland say 'Please don’t swear at me'. In his log he says he didn’t hear the conversation between Andrew Mitchell and PC Toby Rowlands. In the Times he said he heard some of it. In his statement to the Times he said he was unable to hear Andrew Mitchell swearing “Best learn your f–––––– place … you lot don’t run this f–––––– government … You’re f–––––– plebs”. But he claims he was able to hear his colleague calmly admonishing Mr Mitchell with the words “please don’t swear at me”.
But again, what was said, and what was heard, is ultimately a matter for conjecture. There is no audio record.
But there is a video record. And it is crystal clear. According to the Times, Mr Richardson said that as the altercation (which he claimed not to have heard) was under way, “[he] walked over to see what was happening. As he arrived, Mr Mitchell was already pushing his bicycle along the path to the exit gate. “What happened there?” Mr Richardson asked his colleague. He says PC Rowland immediately recounted the version of the exchange "from which he has never wavered”.
As I type, there is video footage of the entire incident sitting on various sites on the internet. It shows Andrew Mitchell as he pushes his bike along the path towards the exit gate. Mr Richardson does not arrive before he reaches the gate. He does not stop and ask “what happened here”. PC Rowlands does not stop, turn to his colleague and immediately recount his version of what happened.
This is the problem with Plebgate. Time and time and time again we have seen police officers give statements about what supposedly happened. And time and time and time again those statements have been shown to be inconsistent with the facts.
So we had PC Keith Wallis’s statement that he had been at the gates of Downing Street and witnessed the entire incident. It wasn’t true. We had the statement of three members of the Police Federation who met Andrew Mitchell and said he had refused to tell them what he had said to PC Rowland at the gates of Downing Street. It wasn’t true. We had what purported to be PC Rowlands log of the incident at Downing Street, which talked of members of the public being “visibly shocked” by the altercation. Even though on the video there are no “shocked” members of the public to be seen, and his own colleagues who were present claim not to have heard a word of the alleged abuse.
In fact there is only one person, throughout the course of this whole affair, whose statements about what happened that evening have not been contradicted by any of the independent evidence. And that is Andrew Mitchell himself.'
Source:The Telgraph
