Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Oct 17, 2013 7:47 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Has Ajw71 accepted the challenge yet of proving his claims?

It is remarkable how much such an obviously educated political intellect avoids direct questions, isn't it?

Of course not. He's disappeared. Like he always does when he knows he's cocked up. But probably then moves on to another identity...

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:00 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Or for ever doubting him ?

Probably not being as Mitchell has yet to make a complaint to the police.

So much of this story has been buried, so much invented, its not the same story at all.

What really does grate with me is the fact that until a "trusted" government minister (if a whip can be termed such), cried about being fitted up by the old bill, the Westminster bubble was quite happy to let things plod (no pun intended) along as they always have done.

There's no doubt the police have been politicised and there's even less doubt that they have been found capable of influencing how investigations and trials were progressed. Were it you or I, we'd no doubt be charged with perverting the course of justice but some of these fookers seem to be totally above the law they are supposed to uphold.

The IPCC is not fit for purpose, even worse is asking one bunch of rozzers to investigate another bunch of rozzers. The Met has long been held up as epitomising everything that is wrong with policing, from corruption to institionalised racism. The sad fact is the politicians have allowed this to continue until one of their own is portrayed as a victim.

Look at the case of Daniel Morgan and you'll see something that is far, far worse than anything that Andrew Mitchell has ever endured.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Thu Oct 17, 2013 8:25 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

What really does grate with me is the fact that until a "trusted" government minister (if a whip can be termed such), cried about being fitted up by the old bill, the Westminster bubble was quite happy to let things plod (no pun intended) along as they always have done.

There's no doubt the police have been politicised and there's even less doubt that they have been found capable of influencing how investigations and trials were progressed. Were it you or I, we'd no doubt be charged with perverting the course of justice but some of these fookers seem to be totally above the law they are supposed to uphold.

The IPCC is not fit for purpose, even worse is asking one bunch of rozzers to investigate another bunch of rozzers. The Met has long been held up as epitomising everything that is wrong with policing, from corruption to institionalised racism. The sad fact is the politicians have allowed this to continue until one of their own is portrayed as a victim.

Look at the case of Daniel Morgan and you'll see something that is far, far worse than anything that Andrew Mitchell has ever endured.

Not to mention that it is beyond doubt that Andrew Mitchell actually did something wrong and probably committed an offence that other people have arrested for. So, whilst the police actions need investigating (and as you point out, it's difficult to have confidence in their investigations of themselves - see Ian Tomlinson) I have little to no sympathy for Andrew Mitchell.

[Kosh]

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:00 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

It's a shame the other thread on 'Plebgate' (shouldn't really call it that now should we) was locked. There were some cracking posts from Him and Kosh on there about there definitely not being a stitch up.

Feel free to quote one.

Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do.

I'll wait.

[Kosh]

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 7:03 am  

BTW - I caught part of 'This Week' last night and Portillo let slip that he'd heard Mitchell use the word 'in private'. He then had to flub around trying to claim it wasn't in a 'bad context'. Yeah, right.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:04 am  

Lord Elpers wrote: ..You are quite wrong to suggest Mitchell hasn't stated what he actually said... This is the transcript of his meeting with the Police Federation representatives ... http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... eeting.pdf ... in it he denies saying "f'ing pleb", "f'ing moron" or "you should know your f'ing place". He admits swearing at the police. He does not describe the conversation as you or I would in terms of "... I walked to the gate and I said this and then he said that and then I said etc etc ..." instead he denies certain words and admits to some others such as telling the police he was the Chief Whip and his office is at No.9 (like they wouldn't know that). The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given. Many times he says that he does not want to say that the policemen were lying and he also says that he is not asking the Federation reps to choose between two recollections but to draw a line under it (he repeats many times that he wants that line drawn under it). Lord Elpers wrote: ...If you do not keep up to speed with all the evidence wouldn't it be better to refrain from making judgements? My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript). Lord Elpers wrote: ...Most politicians act like t0$$ers yet you select this as more serious offence than police officers lying and give false statements, or of mounting a conspiracy against a democratically elected MP or of a police cover up at the highest level. Do I? Where have I said or implied that? Sounds like you've already decided that the policemen are guilty ... that's OK is it?

Lord Elpers wrote: ..You are quite wrong to suggest Mitchell hasn't stated what he actually said... This is the transcript of his meeting with the Police Federation representatives ... http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... eeting.pdf ... in it he denies saying "f'ing pleb", "f'ing moron" or "you should know your f'ing place". He admits swearing at the police. He does not describe the conversation as you or I would in terms of "... I walked to the gate and I said this and then he said that and then I said etc etc ..." instead he denies certain words and admits to some others such as telling the police he was the Chief Whip and his office is at No.9 (like they wouldn't know that). The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given. Many times he says that he does not want to say that the policemen were lying and he also says that he is not asking the Federation reps to choose between two recollections but to draw a line under it (he repeats many times that he wants that line drawn under it). Lord Elpers wrote: ...If you do not keep up to speed with all the evidence wouldn't it be better to refrain from making judgements? My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript). Lord Elpers wrote: ...Most politicians act like t0$$ers yet you select this as more serious offence than police officers lying and give false statements, or of mounting a conspiracy against a democratically elected MP or of a police cover up at the highest level. Do I? Where have I said or implied that? Sounds like you've already decided that the policemen are guilty ... that's OK is it?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:03 am  

Kosh wrote:

Feel free to quote one.

Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do.

I'll wait.

ONE QUOTE

Kosh wrote:

So no conspiracy there. In fact no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy anywhere. And the people harking on about police conspiracies aren't after 'truth and justice'. They're just desperate to score political points..

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:07 am  

Kosh wrote:

Feel free to quote one.

Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do.

I'll wait.

SECOND QUOTE

Kosh wrote:

My superior critical skills enable me not to see conspiracies where there is no evidence of any, and to realise that what's being investigated is (in one case) the conduct of a Police officer and (in the second) an unspecified offence that took place just a few days ago..

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:09 am  

Kosh wrote:

Feel free to quote one.

Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do.

I'll wait.

THIRD QUOTE

Kosh wrote:

Moreover, he fails to mention that the three West Midlands officers have been accused of exploiting media interest in the incident and not any involvement in fabricating evidence. There is not even a hint of any grand conspiracy..

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:11 am  

Kosh wrote:

Feel free to quote one.

Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do.

I'll wait.

FOURTH QUOTE

Kosh wrote:

What hasn't happened is the uncovering of any conspiracy whatsoever, which is what your new best friend asserted in his discredited OP.