Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:23 am  

Kosh wrote:

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.

What Portillo said was that he was 100% sure Mitchell would never have used the word "Pleb" in the context the police alleged.

You failed to report that Labour MP Diane Abbott and the LibDem spokeslady each made clear on the same programe just how serious this case is and that if a posh boy MP can be "fit up" then what chance a poor black guy who the police stop in the street. And that these same police officers who have been proven to have lied and given false statements are the same ones that will be in court on another day giving evidence against some sole in the dock.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 10:54 am  

El Barbudo wrote: 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). 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). 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? From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof and even though doubts quickly appeared regarding the dodgy police log you never displayed any balance in your postings which appear soley based on political prejudice and class. Mitchell does not have to give a word perfect account of what was said. He has clearly and consistently stated that he did not say the offending words he was accused of and although he has admitted to using a swear word this is not the issue. I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my opinion. Police investigating themselves is sadly no longer reliable and it was left to Mitchell and journalists to prove so many police to be liars. Now this affair is moving from police lies and leaks to the more serious conspiracy and cover up charges with weak Chief Constables in the frame. Yet none of this seems to trouble you as you persue your political agenda

El Barbudo wrote: 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). 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). 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? From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof and even though doubts quickly appeared regarding the dodgy police log you never displayed any balance in your postings which appear soley based on political prejudice and class. Mitchell does not have to give a word perfect account of what was said. He has clearly and consistently stated that he did not say the offending words he was accused of and although he has admitted to using a swear word this is not the issue. I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my opinion. Police investigating themselves is sadly no longer reliable and it was left to Mitchell and journalists to prove so many police to be liars. Now this affair is moving from police lies and leaks to the more serious conspiracy and cover up charges with weak Chief Constables in the frame. Yet none of this seems to trouble you as you persue your political agenda

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:12 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof ...

That is a lie or you are mistaken.
Which is it?

Lord Elpers wrote:

I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my opinion.

You don't see the contradiction there?

[Kosh]

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 12:16 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

What Portillo said was that he was 100% sure Mitchell would never have used the word "Pleb" in the context the police alleged.

Indeed he did. That was an opinion. His claim to have heard him use the word in private was a claim of fact. Maybe you can tell the difference?

Lord Elpers wrote:

You failed to report that Labour MP Diane Abbott and the LibDem spokeslady each made clear on the same programe just how serious this case is and that if a posh boy MP can be "fit up" then what chance a poor black guy who the police stop in the street. And that these same police officers who have been proven to have lied and given false statements are the same ones that will be in court on another day giving evidence against some sole in the dock.

As far as I'm aware, the seriousness of police honesty and reliability hasn't ever been questioned. By anyone.

As to your multiple quotes earlier - not one of them proves the allegation made. But I don't expect you to be able to understand that as your critical thinking skills have been proven to be third rate at best on numerous occasions.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 1:53 pm  

Did anyone think you could trust anything Portillo says? Frankly, now saying he "misspoke" means you cannot trust anything he says on this subject at least.

Did anyone think you could trust anything Portillo says? Frankly, now saying he "misspoke" means you cannot trust anything he says on this subject at least.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 2:48 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

That is a lie or you are mistaken.
Which is it??

The truth lies in your answer to the following question I posed to you

Lord Elpers wrote:

... To publish in print an untruth about someone which will do harm to that persons's reputation by tending to bring them into ridicule or contempt of others is libel...

El Barbudo wrote:

There you go then.
This being Andrew Mitchell, there was no "bringing" involved, he was already there.

and you had previously stated about Mitchell

El Barbudo wrote:

Obnoxious fool and bully sounds about the right sort of personality (if that's the right word) for that role.

These were one eyed and prejudiced comments. You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. So do not pretend you didn't side with the police version rather than Mitchell's.


Y

El Barbudo wrote:

ou don't see the contradiction there?

There is no contradiction. Mitchell was the accused yet no proof has been offered to back up the dodgy police log. Until this happens his innocence should be presumed. However there is now plenty of evidence against the police version of events with 8 people arrested so far. But these are two very different cases now. Of course the police officers are innocent until proven guilty in court. But the big difference is that in their case we have already seen sufficient evidence to know several police officers have lied which is way beyond doubt.

Be honest you had him banged to rights because he was a posh Tory boy and for no other reason.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:00 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

He admits swearing at the police.

No he doesn't. What he admits to is saying as he walked away from them towards the gate was...."I thought you lot were supposed to f...ing help us" This is not swearing at the police but using a swear word as an adjective. And lets not get carried away this word is now part of our common language used every day on TV and published in papers and books.

El Barbudo wrote:

The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given.

This full conversation lasted 40 seconds and he has given his version in bits. The key bit being his utter denial of using andy of the 3 toxic phrases.

El Barbudo wrote:

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).

Get real ...if swearing in the above way means you are a t0$$er then so are 99% of the population including I guess 99.99% of the police.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:40 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

No he doesn't. What he admits to is saying as he walked away from them towards the gate was...."I thought you lot were supposed to f...ing help us"

Lord Elpers wrote:

This is not swearing at the police but using a swear word as an adjective. And lets not get carried away this word is now part of our common language used every day on TV and published in papers and books.

Yes it is, the comment was directed at the PC involved.
No amount of bluster will get away from this.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Fri Oct 18, 2013 3:48 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Yes it is, the comment was directed at the PC involved.
No amount of bluster will get away from this.

Nor will it erase the small matter of Cameron accepting Mitchells resignation and not defending him at the time, or since, over what was said at the gate.

Lets reiterate - a few weeks previous Mitchell was Camerons personal appointment to the Chief Whips office, an office at No9 Downing St and all that goes with it, a favoured appointment to someone who came with a reputation for being a strict disciplinarian, obviously a feature that Cameron decided that he needed within his party.

Just a few short weeks later he is expunged from the records - you don't do that to an old mate unless you have good reason to - and he has never discussed the issue of what happened at the gate since.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:12 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

Yet none of this seems to trouble you as you persue your political agenda

Therein lies the problem Lord Elpers.

They are so blinded by their political and Tory hating agenda that they are unable to view events from a balanced objective perspective to the extent that they disregard facts as if they don't even exist. Utterly pointless to try and argue with them.