Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:43 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

As a non-member (I think) of the SBLBSC can I ask what the fook you're talking about?

Guilty? Innocent?

The issue seemed to focus on whether Mitchell called the police "plebs". I have scoured the Statue books yet can find no such offence as "Calling someone a pleb".

I have scoured the news reports yet can find no report of any criminal charges pending against Mitchell for anything he allegedly said.

The question is thus simply, What did he say? There is no "presumption of innocence" whatsoever in this context. Indeed, albeit in the sphere of civil law, not criminal, Mitchell is going to court, suing Newsgroup for libel as he denies saying what they reported. In that case, it is actually positively up to him to prove he was libelled, so the burden of proof is actually on him. As the courts have given the Sun effectively a free punt, this may be no easy task for him.

He will have to prove his reputation has been damaged...

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:24 am  

Mintball wrote:

You don't "recall" what you wrote a page earlier on this thread.

Let us remind ourselves what you just said:

Given your inability to remember something that you yourself posted only hours earlier ...

Learn to read.

"Why have you remained silent"? What bumptious twaddle. Are you fantasising that you're in an old B&W Hollywood courtroom drama?

I rethink that's what this is – your fantasy of being Clarence Darrow.

I haven't "used it in an attempt to discredit Mitchell": I have made the point that there is no report out there of what was said that has witnesses to it, thus making it a word-against-word situation.

Try writing in English next time. There might be more chance of someone understanding it.

I considered them hilarious in their pettiness and stupidity, and subsequently in your apparent inability to remember something that you'd posted only a page previously.

Off on your tangents once again or is it an attempt at a smoke screen to hide your blunder.

The argument you made against Mitchell ie:

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." .

This argument equally applies to original allegations made by one PC in the police log. Therefore all of those that jumped in so quickly to pronounce Mitchell guilty of the allegations did so without evidence, by your own argument. And so he should be regarded as innocent.

That you made this point in an attempt to discredit Mitchell, yet have never made the same point to discredit the allegations, shows a lack of balance and prejudice which has been common to those who have posted against Mitchell.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:58 am  

PLODGATE LATEST SCORE As the game moves into extra time the police side scored a couple of own goals yesterday with 2 Officers sacked for gross misconduct over the "Plebgate" scandal. The one who sent the ficticious email claiming to be a witness at the gates continued to lie to the investigators until they proved he was not at the gates with the CCTV footage (which also failed to show the "visibly shocked members of the public) after which he pleaded guilty to what Mr Justice Sweeney, who jailed Wallis for 12 months, said he had been guilty of "sustained, and in significant measure, devious misconduct which fell far below the standards expected of a police officer". The other officer dissmissed was the one that leaked a copy of both the police log and the false email account to The Sun. So in the game so far we saw in the first half a spat between a Government team player and a Police team player which resulted in the Government player retiring injured and claiming he was kicked when he was down. The government player was made to look a bit pedestrian but claimed foul play. The VT was inconclusive and the score was allowed to stand with benefit of the doubt going the the police side. Early in the game the police had started well with concerted attacks and they showed a good kicking game around the rucks and had the crowd behind them. But as the game went on the police displayed some very poor handling and a shaky defence with gaps opening up all over the field. In the second half the police game plan fell apart and there was a lack of honesty about their play with the result that the ref started to penalise their foul play and the crowd deserted them, apart from few fanatics. Two police players were given red cards in the second half with one of them suspended for 12 matches and both have since been banned from the game for life. They have several other players due to be up before the disciplinary committee with further bans expected. The game is curently in extra time and may even need a replay before a final result . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26358662

PLODGATE LATEST SCORE As the game moves into extra time the police side scored a couple of own goals yesterday with 2 Officers sacked for gross misconduct over the "Plebgate" scandal. The one who sent the ficticious email claiming to be a witness at the gates continued to lie to the investigators until they proved he was not at the gates with the CCTV footage (which also failed to show the "visibly shocked members of the public) after which he pleaded guilty to what Mr Justice Sweeney, who jailed Wallis for 12 months, said he had been guilty of "sustained, and in significant measure, devious misconduct which fell far below the standards expected of a police officer". The other officer dissmissed was the one that leaked a copy of both the police log and the false email account to The Sun. So in the game so far we saw in the first half a spat between a Government team player and a Police team player which resulted in the Government player retiring injured and claiming he was kicked when he was down. The government player was made to look a bit pedestrian but claimed foul play. The VT was inconclusive and the score was allowed to stand with benefit of the doubt going the the police side. Early in the game the police had started well with concerted attacks and they showed a good kicking game around the rucks and had the crowd behind them. But as the game went on the police displayed some very poor handling and a shaky defence with gaps opening up all over the field. In the second half the police game plan fell apart and there was a lack of honesty about their play with the result that the ref started to penalise their foul play and the crowd deserted them, apart from few fanatics. Two police players were given red cards in the second half with one of them suspended for 12 matches and both have since been banned from the game for life. They have several other players due to be up before the disciplinary committee with further bans expected. The game is curently in extra time and may even need a replay before a final result . http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26358662

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Jun 02, 2014 9:47 pm  

Since my last 'match report' two more suspended players from the police team have been shown the red card and have finally been sacked for gross misconduct one in April and another at the end of May.

The boss of the disgraced Police Federation has also fallen on his sword as his colleagues failed to accept his attempts to make some necessary changes.

And now the very lastest news revealed in emails sent by various Plods is that there was a plot to get Mitchell. Now a court dossier seen by the Sunday Times "reveals a complex web of electronic communications between a group of at least six DPG officers, suggesting conspiracy and collusion on an even greater scale" It appears they also deleted emails indicating their role in the affair and lied to investigators.

It appears that there was a long running feud between Downing Street police guards and cabinet ministers working at No 10. "The spats had produced a formal complaint on June 7th 2011 [more than a year earlier] from No 10's head of security John Groves to the inspector in charge of safe-guarding Downing Street. In it Groves referred to "incidents where cabinet ministers (including Andrew Mitchell) have either been not allowed access....or not have been recognised/identified within a reasonable time period" Groves added that "Members of HM cabinet are entitled to unfettered access to Downing Street any time day or night....and I expect that any reoccurance, especially if this involves Andrew Mitchell will result in a letter of complaint from the cabinet minister to your commissioner"

By September 2012 the issue had become a running sore and on September 18 Mitchell was once again stopped at the gates but had been allowed through. The court documents show that the following morning a DPG officer wrote to his boss asking "for backing when DPG officers were going to refuse him [permission] to use the main gates on future occassions, as was bound to happen" later that same evening came the infamous 'plebgate' altercation

The court documents reveal a text from one of the recently sacked officers in which she says they "warned that they [Gillian Weatherley and another DPG officer] would pursue the campaign against Mitchell and would not let it stop as the Police Federation needed their help. PC Weatherley also texted to another individual baosting that she had dealt with the chief whip and could 'topple this Tory government' "

So having been told to allow Mitchell unfettered access in and out of Downing Street some officers planned in advance to effectively set a trap for political reasons.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:13 pm  

There is no issue of him being barred from entering or exiting Downing Street, he was not prevented from doing so, the issue is his reaction to being told to use a specific gate which was all of three yards away and designed for pedestrian access - not an unreasonable request to make but by his own admission he made a response that would have any one of us being "spoken to" by any police officer anywhere else.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Jun 03, 2014 5:44 pm  

A heck of a lot of people on this forum were slating Mitchell and backing the police when this all kicked-off.

The same people now appear to be eating a rather large slice of humble pie.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Jun 03, 2014 7:56 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

There is no issue of him being barred from entering or exiting Downing Street, he was not prevented from doing so, the issue is his reaction to being told to use a specific gate which was all of three yards away and designed for pedestrian access - not an unreasonable request to make but by his own admission he made a response that would have any one of us being "spoken to" by any police officer anywhere else.

Interesting that you continue to argue against Mitchell when all the evidence that is coming out makes it look more and more like a political conspiracy by a group of police officers who were in cahoots with the discredited Police Federation. This same Police Federation were running a hate campaign against this government because of budget cuts. Because the cuts have not caused crime to rise, as was histerically claimed by the Fed, has undermined their case and caused the hate campaign.

This same group, with their huge secret bank accounts, are now financing an action against an individual member of the public (Mitchell) for calling the officer a liar. This in itself is a very dangerous precedent

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Jun 03, 2014 9:00 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Interesting that you continue to argue against Mitchell when all the evidence that is coming out makes it look more and more like a political conspiracy by a group of police officers who were in cahoots with the discredited Police Federation. This same Police Federation were running a hate campaign against this government because of budget cuts. Because the cuts have not caused crime to rise, as was histerically claimed by the Fed, has undermined their case and caused the hate campaign.

This same group, with their huge secret bank accounts, are now financing an action against an individual member of the public (Mitchell) for calling the officer a liar. This in itself is a very dangerous precedent

He isnt innocent in the matter by his own admission, if you find it interesting that I am not ignoring that as you seem happy to do then what can I say, Im sure he'll fund his own defence given that he has previously threatened lagal actions of his own.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jun 04, 2014 2:50 am  

Mitchell was riding his bike, a vehicle in law, he was within his rights to exit the main gates as he always had done. There is a lesser security risk exiting on bicycle than when a motor vehicle exits, to deny him that exit is plainly stupid and shows an agenda, it's pretty simple really.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Jun 04, 2014 6:02 am  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Mitchell was riding his bike, a vehicle in law, he was within his rights to exit the main gates as he always had done. There is a lesser security risk exiting on bicycle than when a motor vehicle exits, to deny him that exit is plainly stupid and shows an agenda, it's pretty simple really.

So do you think that his reaction to a simple request to use a gate three yards away was acceptable and that by his own admission using verbal abuse towards a police officer is justifiable ?

And do you therefore think that his boss should reinstate him and why do you think he hasnt so far ?