Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:32 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

If people getting their heads together to lie and corroborate each other's stories is not a conspiracy, then please tell me what is?

That is how the police work, they've done it with the blessing of the law for decades now. Before they have to submit statements or their notebooks, they are allowed to meet and compare their recollections before writing up their notebooks. Funny it's only wrong now because a scummy tory MP feels wronged

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Mar 25, 2013 6:36 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

That is how the police work, they've done it with the blessing of the law for decades now. Before they have to submit statements or their notebooks, they are allowed to meet and compare their recollections before writing up their notebooks. Funny it's only wrong now because a scummy tory MP feels wronged

There's more than a handful of former miners who would have had such "evidence" set before the beak under a former Tory Prime Ministers rule and who still carry criminal records with them for doing nothing else but lawful (at the time) picketing.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:32 am  

cod'ead wrote:

That is how the police work, they've done it with the blessing of the law for decades now. Before they have to submit statements or their notebooks, they are allowed to meet and compare their recollections before writing up their notebooks. Funny it's only wrong now because a scummy tory MP feels wronged

Yes, sadly so.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:26 am  

Did the Sin Bin legal 'experts' forget to call Mitchell and tell him he has no chance..... http://news.sky.com/story/1071355/plebg ... -for-libel

Did the Sin Bin legal 'experts' forget to call Mitchell and tell him he has no chance..... http://news.sky.com/story/1071355/plebg ... -for-libel

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:29 am  

Ajw71 wrote: Did the Sin Bin legal 'experts' forget to call Mitchell and tell him he has no chance..... http://news.sky.com/story/1071355/plebg ... -for-libel They might not need to yet

Ajw71 wrote: Did the Sin Bin legal 'experts' forget to call Mitchell and tell him he has no chance..... http://news.sky.com/story/1071355/plebg ... -for-libel They might not need to yet

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 9:52 am  

cod'ead wrote: They might not need to yet From the link above... A CPS spokesman said: "We have received initial papers but we have not received a full file of evidence and we now await the conclusion of the police investigation before considering charges." If anyone wonders how the hell so much money is spent on public services in this country then you simply need to consider the statement above and the fact that the CPS have not yet received a full file of evidence on this stupid altercation which should have been settled the following morning. Imagine if a security guard at the gates of a large private company had complained to his senior managers that he had been verbally abused by a director of the same company whilst trying to do the job that he had been instructed to do. Do you think there would still be an open file on the matter SIX MONTHS later ?

cod'ead wrote: They might not need to yet From the link above... A CPS spokesman said: "We have received initial papers but we have not received a full file of evidence and we now await the conclusion of the police investigation before considering charges." If anyone wonders how the hell so much money is spent on public services in this country then you simply need to consider the statement above and the fact that the CPS have not yet received a full file of evidence on this stupid altercation which should have been settled the following morning. Imagine if a security guard at the gates of a large private company had complained to his senior managers that he had been verbally abused by a director of the same company whilst trying to do the job that he had been instructed to do. Do you think there would still be an open file on the matter SIX MONTHS later ?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 10:07 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

... Imagine if a security guard at the gates of a large private company had complained to his senior managers that he had been verbally abused by a director of the same company whilst trying to do the job that he had been instructed to do.

Do you think there would still be an open file on the matter SIX MONTHS later ?

I must say, my personal experience of the private sector is hardly one that illustrates that management would have sorted it out in the way that you imply, Jerry.

I've seen a pretty lengthy stream of private-sector bosses who would probably sack the complaining security guard and as for 'files', well they wouldn't even exist.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:10 pm  

Mintball wrote:

I must say, my personal experience of the private sector is hardly one that illustrates that management would have sorted it out in the way that you imply, Jerry.

I've seen a pretty lengthy stream of private-sector bosses who would probably sack the complaining security guard and as for 'files', well they wouldn't even exist.

Are you suggesting in the public sector the guard should not be sacked for leaking confidential reports to the media? or indeed the other guards who lied and sent a false statement in support?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 2:18 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Are you suggesting in the public sector the guard should not be sacked for leaking confidential reports to the media? or indeed the other guards who lied and sent a false statement in support?

Mintball will answer for herself but if I was you I'd get your condiments of choice ready. I have a feeling that you are just about to be served your goolies on a plate

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Mar 29, 2013 6:02 pm  

Ajw71 wrote: Did the Sin Bin legal 'experts' forget to call Mitchell and tell him he has no chance..... http://news.sky.com/story/1071355/plebg ... -for-libel It depends on the wording of The Sun article, but if all they say is that he swore and called them plebs as according to the police log then I fail to see how he could possibly win a libel case. Even his own lawyers have called it risky.

Ajw71 wrote: Did the Sin Bin legal 'experts' forget to call Mitchell and tell him he has no chance..... http://news.sky.com/story/1071355/plebg ... -for-libel It depends on the wording of The Sun article, but if all they say is that he swore and called them plebs as according to the police log then I fail to see how he could possibly win a libel case. Even his own lawyers have called it risky.