Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:11 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Has he said that it was "more important"?

No but he didn't need to say it nor do you need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce that he and those like him that have chosen to concern themselves with irrelevant points in this scandal and totally avoid comment on the really serious issues have their priorities in the wrong order.

So his postings clearly show what points he considers to be "more important"

The first issue was whether Mitchell used the alleged "Pleg" comments and never has been about what other words he used in the 40 second altercation. He has given his word by word version in a national broadsheet and was questioned for 45 minutes by three police officers from the now discredited police federation during which time he answered all their questions fully.

The saga has moved on and the important issues are now of possible misjustice, police officers lying, so far one police officer and being sent to prison, a possible police conspiracy and possible police cover up.

So much negative anti Mitchell comment from the lefties early on but as more and more police misdemeanors come to light their comment has been reduced to trying to make an irrelevant point yet totally avoiding to comment on this deepening police scandal

Mintball wrote:

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.

I have pointed out several times that Mitchell gave a word by word account in a full broadsheet page article in December 2012. At the time I quoted from it and offered to type it out in full if anyone wished. No requests were forthcoming and I do not keep old newspapers for over 12 months. But it is a matter of public record that he has fully stated what was said. I am sure that even a part time journo would have no trouble in getting a copy.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:17 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

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

You didn't need to. Your postings clearly show what you consider to be most important in your mind.

Big Graeme wrote:

I asked what HE said, not what YOU posted.

I gave you links to the answer. In December 2012 I quoted form his word by word account and offered to re-type it (The Sunday Times is not free on the internet so no link)

I have provided proof that he has accounted fully for what was said. But as I say it is irrelevant in any case

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:28 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

No but he didn't need to say it nor do you need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce ...

If anything, you're using inductive reasoning – not deductive reasoning.

In other words, you do not have conclusive proof for an infallible answer, but are taking what you view as facts and subjectively applying the conclusion that you want.

Lord Elpers wrote:

I have pointed out several times that Mitchell gave a word by word account in a full broadsheet page article in December 2012. At the time I quoted from it and offered to type it out in full if anyone wished. No requests were forthcoming and I do not keep old newspapers for over 12 months. But it is a matter of public record that he has fully stated what was said. I am sure that even a part time journo would have no trouble in getting a copy.

Given that various people have already been shown to be lying in this little farce, why you would assume that you're chosen one isn't remains to be seen.

You have chosen to take at face value the word of one person over another.

That's not proof of something.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:31 pm  

Mintball wrote:

If anything, you're using inductive reasoning – not deductive reasoning.

In other words, you do not have conclusive proof for an infallible answer, but are taking what you view as facts and subjectively applying the conclusion that you want..

Either way the question was irrelevant to both the original allegation issue and the more serious police scandal that followed. However your assement is quite wrong as the question posed was has Mitchell ever said exactly what he did say. The answer to this question is yes he did as I have clearly shown. I provided the proof in December 2012 and offered to retype it all up. No one requested that I should.

If you really do wish to see that account then you can quite easily gain a copy as you claim to be a journalist of sorts.

Mintball wrote:

Given that various people have already been shown to be lying in this little farce, why you would assume that you're chosen one isn't remains to be seen.

You have chosen to take at face value the word of one person over another.

That's not proof of something.

The only people that have "already been shown to be lying" have all been police officers. So far Mitchell has not been proven to be lying and has not been charged.

I have not "chosen to take at face value the word of one person over another" From the start my position has been that I do not know who was telling the truth regarding the allegations against Mitchell, however I maintain that in English law the man is innocent until proven guilty.

My stand from my first post has been against those of you who actually and clearly did "chose to take at face value the word of one person over another" and made post after post against Mitchell. As facts came to light it was clear to all but the most politically prejudiced that there was at the very least serious doubts about the allegations and the witch hunt that followed.

I do hope the articles you produce are based on better research.

Then as "this little farce" grew into a full scale police scandal facts emerged of serious police malpractice in the affair. So much so that to date one ploice officer has been jailed, with several others still under investigation and at least three Chief Constables and the Met Commissioner have made full and humilating apologies to Mitchell and this week 5 officers are up before the IPCC who are investigating more allegations of police lying with a possible conspiracy.

Yet despite the "farce" moving to a tragedy from the loyal members of The Sin Bin Leftie Back Slappers Club (SBLBSC) not a murmur that they may have been too hasty and got it wrong. No much better to go off at irrelevant tangents.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:40 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

You didn't need to. Your postings clearly show what you consider to be most important in your mind.

No that's just your right wing bias showing again.

Lord Elpers wrote:

I gave you links to the answer. In December 2012 I quoted form his word by word account and offered to re-type it (The Sunday Times is not free on the internet so no link)

I have provided proof that he has accounted fully for what was said. But as I say it is irrelevant in any case

No, you gave me a link to what you think he said and what he states he didn't say, he has constantly refused to state on record what he did say to the police on duty at the gate. There is a shocking hole in the CCTV coverage where we can all see and hear what he says, someone is covering something up. Justice and truth works for both sides.

You'll excuse me if I ignore what YOU think is relevant.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 4:58 pm  

"A shocking hole" that was diguised in the Mitchell-supplied cctv data as the time stamp was pixilated, why, why on earth would you want to do that being that we all know when and at what time it happened.

The "shocking hole" has also been uncovered and later viewed during the review of the case although the missing recordings have not been publicly revealed.

I too couldn't really give a toss anymore what was said or done other than the police federation did themselves no favours at all when they tried to fit him up and supplied the press with a massive diversion on which to focus - the principal question still remains - what was said and done in the missing time frame, why was it removed, and why has David Cameron refused to back a man that he initially promoted to one of the highest positions in his team by giving him his post back and declaring his trust in the man - why does Mitchell still remain on the outside looking in ?



By the way - I love the "leftie" comments Every time anyone with a political slant to the right is disagreed with they start whining about "leftie" conspiracies - I fookin voted for Thatcher for gods sake

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 5:22 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Either way the question was irrelevant to both the original allegation issue and the more serious police scandal that followed. However your assement is quite wrong as the question posed was has Mitchell ever said exactly what he did say. The answer to this question is yes he did as I have clearly shown. I provided the proof in December 2012 and offered to retype it all up. No one requested that I should.

Let's try again. He claims to have given an account of what he did say. How quaint your belief in his word is.

Lord Elpers wrote:

... If you really do wish to see that account then you can quite easily gain a copy as you claim to be a journalist of sorts.

You claim to have a brain but there's no evidence of it, while my tax returns illustrate that I'm quite successful in terms of work.

Lord Elpers wrote:

The only people that have "already been shown to be lying" have all been police officers. So far Mitchell has not been proven to be lying and has not been charged.

I have not "chosen to take at face value the word of one person over another" From the start my position has been that I do not know who was telling the truth regarding the allegations against Mitchell, however I maintain that in English law the man is innocent until proven guilty...

Yet you believe Mitchells's word on what he said – without any evidence to support it.

Lord Elpers wrote:

I do hope the articles you produce are based on better research.

Lord Elpers wrote:

... Yet despite the "farce" moving to a tragedy from the loyal members of The Sin Bin Leftie Back Slappers Club (SBLBSC) not a murmur that they may have been too hasty and got it wrong. No much better to go off at irrelevant tangents.

'People don't agree with me – it no fair: they're all loony lefties!!!"

The foot stamping little tantrum is audible here.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:00 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

No that's just your right wing bias showing again..

OK then please give examples of your postings that show your balanced view on this affair eg: any that have suggested Mitchell maybe innocent, or postings on this subject where you been critical of the police behaviour, or the poor way the police federation have behaved - indeed anything that shows you are concerned over the police scandal to date.

Big Graeme wrote:

No, you gave me a link to what you think he said and what he states he didn't say, he has constantly refused to state on record what he did say to the police on duty at the gate. There is a shocking hole in the CCTV coverage where we can all see and hear what he says, someone is covering something up. Justice and truth works for both sides.

You'll excuse me if I ignore what YOU think is relevant.

How many times do I have to say it. You are quite wrong . It is not what I think he said. Mitchell gave a word by word account of what both he and the PC at the gate said in a full page article in the Sunday Times. This is on record as is my comment at the time

29 December 2012 repeat 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."

Along with other readers of the Sunday Times I read the article and saved it for several weeks before binning it almost one year ago as nobody requested the full "word by word" script. Anyone who cares to challenge me can contact the ST and get a copy.

The "shocking whole" in the CCTV coverage is all of a couple of seconds and there you cannot hear what either of them says. What is missing are the "visibly shocked" members of the public who could not have appeared and dissappeared in the missing few seconds.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:35 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Let's try again. He claims to have given an account of what he did say. How quaint your belief in his word is.

Still not doing your research I see.

He doesn't claim to have given an account - he actually did give a word by word account in the Sunday Times in December 2012. I and many ST readers read it (and I quoted from it and offered to copy it all) and you too can read it you if you contact the ST. Why don't you.

Mintball wrote:

You claim to have a brain but there's no evidence of it, while my tax returns illustrate that I'm quite successful in terms of work..

I have never "claimed to have a brain" You claim to be a journalist but there is no evidence of it. You certainly don't do detailed research or offer balance views and are not accurate in your quotes.

Mintball wrote:

Yet you believe Mitchells's word on what he said – without any evidence to support it. .

No wrong again. I have never said I believe Mitchell's word. In have said he is innocent until proven to be guilty according to our law. Why do you not agree with this? There is no evidence to say he is guilty of the allegations. Why do you not sense that there may,just may, have been a stitch up and he is actually innocent of the allegations?

Mintball wrote:

'People don't agree with me – it no fair: they're all loony lefties!!!"

The foot stamping little tantrum is audible here.

This is where Mintball decends into abuse. Why?

I have been consistent in my arguments and my suspicion of the police case. So far my concerns have been justified and what was a media hyped confrontation of little consequence at the Downing Street gates has become a self inflicted nightmare for the Met police.

That you have chosen only to make comments against Mitchell and not address the real serious issues of police giving false accounts, other leaking confidential reports to the press, yet more telling lies, one sent to prison for 12 months etc etc shows some sort of prejudice. This certainly has leftie hallmarks - But I had not considered it to be"loony" until you mentioned it

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Feb 25, 2014 8:48 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Still not doing your research I see.

He doesn't claim to have given an account - he actually did give a word by word account in the Sunday Times in December 2012. I and many ST readers read it (and I quoted from it and offered to copy it all) and you too can read it you if you contact the ST. Why don't you.

He gave what he claims is an account. Unless he can offer supporting evidence it remains nothing other than what he claims he said. It may be accurate: it may not be. But the point is that there is, at this juncture, no corroborative evidence.

Lord Elpers wrote:

This is where Mintball decends into abuse. Why?

As opposed to your infantile attempts at slighting me professionally and your errant nonsense about anyone who dares disagree with you obviously being a 'lefty'!? ~ROTFLMFAO~