Mintball wrote:
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.
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~
Poor research once again.
Firstly the accusation that has kept being posed by some of your fellow members of the SBLBSC (
) is that Mitchell has refused to state publically exactly what he did say. This accusation is false as I have explained. You and your colleague's ignorance of this fact is perhaps because the ST is not freely available on the internet, however that does not alter the fact that Mitchell's full account has been in the public domain for 14 months. As it turns out what he said was irrelevant to the allegations which he has consistently refuted. And as such the police, federation and media have not pursued this line further.
Now turning to the point you now make, which is at a tangent to the question I answered but interestingly agrees with my case:
It is interesting that you now say:
"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."
Well you will have to agree that this also applies to the PC at the gate too who filed the log. Which is precisely the main point I have made from the start. Unless there is evidence to prove Mitchell actually made the Pleb remarks then he has to be viewed as innocent. It is for the prosecution to provide the evidence and not Mitchell as he has not been charged with anything.
I have said before that either one of Mitchell or the PC at the gate is lying through his teeth (or perhaps both may not be telling the whole truth) but that is not the issue in the absence of proof.
Having made this statement can we assume you finally agree with my argument.
I have not slighted you professionally - unless you are offended that I pointed out the amount of time you spend on this forum which is there for all to see.
Again I have not said that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a leftie. What I commented on was that most who have taken sides against Mitchell have left wing views which they express daily on this forum for all to see too.
You really should be more accurate in your reporting!
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 
