Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Feb 13, 2014 9:05 am  

If you are ever going to stand anyone in a dock and question them about what happened on that night then one of the people that you would question would be the first police officer that PC Rowlands spoke to within minutes of the conflict occurring.

In the interview he states what was said to him and what his reply was, thats all, he doesn't then wander off into speculation, simply states what was said to him and what he replied, then he states that he believed what PC Rowlands told him.

The rest of the interview is his opinion on how and why the Police Federation got involved, how and why the "rogue" officer made his crazy statement, and ends with his belief that the whole thing has been blown completely out of all proportion and that Mitchell should never have lost his job over something that should have been sorted the following morning.

Thats all it says, no need for any embellishment, I happen to agree with his point of view - the only other pointer that I have added is that he is only making these comments and criticisms now AFTER he has retired and presumably left the Police Federation.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Feb 13, 2014 3:39 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote: 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 The following is from the Independent and the link has been placed on here for all to read previously. It contains the CPS report and their findings into this whole sorry affair. I suggest you read it again and make the relevant parts fit with your interpretation of events. I think after careful consideration you may well realise you are no closer to speaking the actual truth of the matter than anyone else on this thread. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64746.html Moving on it's interesting to see a copy of an email that was sent from one police officer to his senior officer 19 hours before this whole sorry incident occured. In the email the officer claims that the chief whip is quite insistant that he as the chief whip will use the main gate for his bike despite the specific instructions / orders that the police officers have been given. These orders presumably for the good of all concerened and not least for the safety of Downing Street. The email finishes off with advice that AM should get some lights for his bike if he's riding it after midnight. I am not entirely sure how to get the email onto here, but if you use twitter #plebgate will find it for you. The question is there to be asked, why this email has not previously been in the public domain and also raises questions of its authenticity after all this time. But it might and I accept its a BIG MIGHT explain why there appears to be little support for AM from the PM. I leave that out there and end my time on this thread.

Lord Elpers wrote: 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 The following is from the Independent and the link has been placed on here for all to read previously. It contains the CPS report and their findings into this whole sorry affair. I suggest you read it again and make the relevant parts fit with your interpretation of events. I think after careful consideration you may well realise you are no closer to speaking the actual truth of the matter than anyone else on this thread. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/cr ... 64746.html Moving on it's interesting to see a copy of an email that was sent from one police officer to his senior officer 19 hours before this whole sorry incident occured. In the email the officer claims that the chief whip is quite insistant that he as the chief whip will use the main gate for his bike despite the specific instructions / orders that the police officers have been given. These orders presumably for the good of all concerened and not least for the safety of Downing Street. The email finishes off with advice that AM should get some lights for his bike if he's riding it after midnight. I am not entirely sure how to get the email onto here, but if you use twitter #plebgate will find it for you. The question is there to be asked, why this email has not previously been in the public domain and also raises questions of its authenticity after all this time. But it might and I accept its a BIG MIGHT explain why there appears to be little support for AM from the PM. I leave that out there and end my time on this thread.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:17 pm  

Plodgate deepens.

Five Met Police officers are to face secret “trials” starting this week amid claims they colluded to bring down the cabinet minister Andrew Mitchell according to a report in the Sunday Times. “The armed protection officers will face disciplinary hearings behind closed doors at Scotland yard for allegedly lying about their actions in the Plebgate scandal”

The Met police and its commissioner have consistently maintained there was no conspiracy. But in an email to Mitchell last week, the IPCC, the independent police watchdog, said there was evidence of collusion.

“Crucial will be the evidence that the one officer jailed over the scandal was not acting as a “lone wolf”. Telephone logs show that two other officers were in contact with him in the hours after Mitchell clashed with armed police in Downing Street on September 19 2012.

Details of the alleged plot – and apparent concerted attempts to conceal it from the investigators – will be disclosed for the first time at the hearings. The media is barred from reporting on them despite Commissioner Hogan-Howe stating that he wanted all proceedings to be “transparent and open”

After PC Wallis (lying officer 1) was jailed, the Met insisted it had found “no evidence to suggest that any officer involved in the incident at the gate was involved with PC Wallis or aware of the fact that he had contacted his MP in this way” (You may recall he sent an email to his local MP the day after the altercation in which he claimed to be a member of the public who was present and had seen and heard Mitchell using the words “f****** Plebs” etc. He later confessed he was lying)

You may also recall the Director of Public Prosecutions relied heavily on this lack of “insufficient evidence” in deciding not to bring posecutions against any officers other that PC Wallis.

However, in its email to Mitchell the IPCC said it disagreed with the view that Wallis had acted as a “lone wolf” The disciplinary panels will hear evidence showing that two officers (officers 4 & 5) were in contact with Wallis during the critical hours after the Downing Street incident,

Officer 5 communicated with Wallis by phone or email but allegedly lied about doing so in a statement to the investigators. There is also evidence of phone contact between Officer 4, who heard about the incident from a colleague on duty that night, and Wallis. There is no suggestion that Officer 4’s colleague did anything wrong, but the link shows that, contrary to what the Met has suggested, there was a connection – albeit indirect – between the officers on duty during the incident and Wallis.

Equally significant is the uncovering by the IPCC of telephone data linking a woman – thought to be Officer 4’s girlfriend – to a phone call made to The Sun newspaper, which first reported the Plebgate story.

Both Officer 4 and the woman – who is not a police officer – were arrested over the alleged link. Both deny leaking the story to The Sun. The disciplinary panel will hear evidence that, after learning of the Mitchell row, at least three officers decided to leak it to the press.

One alleged to be Officer 3, a female gun guard who had been on duty in Downing Street at the time. She had been copied in an email about the incident by PC Toby Rowland (the gate officer involved). Officer 3 took a picture of Rowland’s email log on her mobile phone and sent it to officer 2. who is alleged to have leaked it to The Sun but denies doing so.

Officer 3 insists she kept all copies of the email and no one else had access to them. But this is allegedly contradicted by evidence from her phone, which indicated she had sent it to Officer 2."

Much of this new evidence backs up the whistleblower Superintendant who had said a plot was hatched the night before the infamous night when there was another altercation with Mitchell and it was decided to stitch him up.

What is of concern is that the IPCC has in a short time been able to find evidence that the year long police investigation into it's own, was unable to find. Which brings into question the findings of the Crown Prosecution Service

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 23, 2014 2:35 pm  

Has he stated exactly what he said yet?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 23, 2014 4:29 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Has he stated exactly what he said yet?

Yes he has, as I have reported on several occassions.

But as it is only the specific allegations that are relevant why do you consider this a more important point than police lying, a possible police conspiracy and coverup and of course my original point of possible injustice?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Feb 23, 2014 8:37 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Yes he has, as I have reported on several occassions.

You'll be able to give me a link then? All I can find is him stating what he didn't say.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Feb 24, 2014 4:23 am  

If there was an email 19 hours before the event specifying that AM must use the sidegate then it can't be for safety reasons as it takes far far longer for motorvehicles to exit the gates than it does a bicycle (a vehicle in law) and it needn't be opened as far either..that was one of the points AM was initially pointing out to the police on duty.
If opening the gates are a security problem then they should be looking at reducing the number of times/length of time they are opened by forcing ministers to leave all at the same time crammed into cars/vans, as it is, it is the motor centric attitude of the police that have landed themselves into this quagmire and the spiralling mess thereafter which is all of their own doing AFAICT.

Opening the gate for one bicycle does not constitute a threat to security over and above the many motor vehicles exiting downing street, to try to force the minister to exit via the side gate when he had every right to exit via the main gates as others choose to do via car just goes to show the micturate poor attitude/poor leadership of the officers involved.

That he may or may not have called the officers f'king plebs to me is the least of the problems here, the police acted incorrectly from beginning to end

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:07 pm  

Big Graeme wrote: You'll be able to give me a link then? All I can find is him stating what he didn't say. You have avoided answering my question which is - why do you consider whatever Mitchell is alleged to have said as more important than: 1) police officers lying and giving false evidence, 2) evidence of a police conspiracy and 3). evidence of a police cover-up Are you able to provide an answer please? My next question is why do you take part in a debated without reading what is being said? Going back to December 2012 on the previous thread you closed down I gave a clear answer to this question: http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=537713&tsmp=1393240635&start=210 Only a short while ago on January 15th on this same thread I repeated the answer: http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=547004&tsmp=1393241094&start=170 And finally to prove you join a debate and take sides without reading I answered you specifically with links to prove it but you failed to reply. On Mon Jan 15th you asked me the same question to which I gave you the same answer (see below) Big Graeme wrote: Indeed but will he now tell us what he DID say rather than what he didn't? 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 2012http://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') http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=547004&tsmp=1393241241&start=150

Big Graeme wrote: You'll be able to give me a link then? All I can find is him stating what he didn't say. You have avoided answering my question which is - why do you consider whatever Mitchell is alleged to have said as more important than: 1) police officers lying and giving false evidence, 2) evidence of a police conspiracy and 3). evidence of a police cover-up Are you able to provide an answer please? My next question is why do you take part in a debated without reading what is being said? Going back to December 2012 on the previous thread you closed down I gave a clear answer to this question: http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=537713&tsmp=1393240635&start=210 Only a short while ago on January 15th on this same thread I repeated the answer: http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=547004&tsmp=1393241094&start=170 And finally to prove you join a debate and take sides without reading I answered you specifically with links to prove it but you failed to reply. On Mon Jan 15th you asked me the same question to which I gave you the same answer (see below) Big Graeme wrote: Indeed but will he now tell us what he DID say rather than what he didn't? 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 2012http://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') http://forums.rlfans.com/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=547004&tsmp=1393241241&start=150

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Feb 24, 2014 1:31 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

You have avoided answering my question which is - why do you consider whatever Mitchell is alleged to have said as more important than ...

Has he said that it was "more important"?

Perhaps you can link to where he has asserted that?

Along with the link stating what Mitchell said, since you have also claimed that he has clarified that. Nothing in your most recent post shows any such thing.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Feb 24, 2014 11:57 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

You have avoided answering my question which is - why do you consider whatever Mitchell is alleged to have said as more important than:
1) police officers lying and giving false evidence,
2) evidence of a police conspiracy and
3). evidence of a police cover-up

Are you able to provide an answer please?

I have never stated I consider what he said more important than anything else.

Lord Elpers wrote:

My next question is why do you take part in a debated without reading what is being said?

I asked what HE said, not what YOU posted.