Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:14 am  

Lord Elpers wrote:

SECOND QUOTE

This is brilliant - "superior critical thinking skills"

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..

Epic fail from the forum's most pompous poster.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Oct 19, 2013 11:21 am  

Ajw71 wrote:

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.

Bothered answering any of the direct questions you've been repeatedly asked in a number of threads?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:37 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

...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...

"not even-handed in your comments"?
So, because I didn't declare that he was innocent, therefore I was saying that he was guilty?
That's the logic of a twerp.

Lord Elpers wrote:

...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...

If you are going to presume innocence, you cannot prejudge .. and you have pre-judged the police, no presumption of innocence shown at all.
Your guess may well turn out to be correct but it remains a pre-judgement, regardless of any pompous declarations to the contrary.

Lord Elpers wrote:

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

At no time have I said he is guilty of anything other than being a t0$$er and that IF he had the nasty bullying qualities that someone had ascribed to him in that thread then he was perfect for his role as Chief Whip. (A quote from which you carefully stripped the context.)

In the old thread to which you keep referring, you will of course have noted where I actually said that (posh tory boy) Cameron's knowledge (or otherwise) of Latin was not something about which to blame him.

Your high horse is way too high for you, you are confusing your own bombast with devastating logic ... and it ain't.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Oct 19, 2013 12:45 pm  

Ajw71 wrote:

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.

At least Lord Elpless puts forward a case, albeit a flawed one ... you, on the other hand, just pop up from behind his coat tails and blurt the equivalent of "Yah Boo".
Answered any questions yet sonny?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sat Oct 19, 2013 5:43 pm  

Mintball wrote:

Bothered answering any of the direct questions you've been repeatedly asked in a number of threads?

Has he gone again? That was quick.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:06 pm  

El Barbudo wrote:

"not even-handed in your comments"?
So, because I didn't declare that he was innocent, therefore I was saying that he was guilty?
That's the logic of a twerp..

'Don't play the slippery eel with me my man'

I never suggested you should have declared “that he was innocent” what I actually said was ;

“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.

My comment is true and none of your weasel words can alter the fact that you never even hinted that there could be a potential injustice. From the beginning there were enough obvious doubts that surfaced with leaks to the press, fabricating evidence, false pretences by police, a police union running an out of control political agenda etc. You did not need to be Hercule Poirot to smell a rat. Yet you and the other members of your leftie back slappers club never saw fit to even consider that Mitchell could be innocent of the allegations. This lack of an even handed comment with so many clear doubts about Mitchell’s guilt rather gives a big clue to your leanings.

The majority of posters on this subject have from the very start spoken against Mitchell and in favour of the police account for what I have to assume was for blind political reasons as the so called police evidence started to crumble for the start.

Most, if not all, your comments on the subject have been made against the few posters who pointed out the possibilities of a stitch up. Are these the words and actions those of a person with a questioning mind or of someone whom opinions are fixed in prejudice.

El Barbudo wrote:

If you are going to presume innocence, you cannot prejudge .. and you have pre-judged the police, no presumption of innocence shown at all.
Your guess may well turn out to be correct but it remains a pre-judgement, regardless of any pompous declarations to the contrary.

But I did not prejudge Mitchell but spoke out against those that did. As for the police I have did not pre-judged them either but expressed doubt regarding the Mitchell guilt. As events progressed I have taken into consideration (as with Mitchell) the evidence produced. In the police case there is clear evidence that some of them lied, one of them pretended to be a member public who was a witness at the gates when in fact he was an off duty police colleague who was nowhere near at the time but still happened to use exactly the same words as reported in the police log. Another one leaked the police log to the press. While the three Police Federation representatives lied to the TV cameras and it would seem also lied to the Home Affairs Select Committee too. Anyone who watched their sorry performance would be hard pressed to believe a word they said.

So I have made my ongoing comments on the evidence available and I think my logic has been consistent throughout, while yours is as dodgy as your usual postings are pretentious. Perhaps your beard has hidden your sense of justice as well as your face.

El Barbudo wrote:

"At no time have I said he is guilty of anything other than being a t0$$er and that IF he had the nasty bullying qualities that someone had ascribed to him in that thread then he was perfect for his role as Chief Whip. (A quote from which you carefully stripped the context.)

So unless you know Mitchell personally on what evidence you are basing your character assassination?

Again you show bias and a lack of an even handed approach. No mention that Mitchell for two years was Secretary of State for International Development and attracted much praise from MP's of all parties.

Look back over my comments on both threads and tell me if the doubts I expressed were justified? I have not argued that Mitchell is innocent because of course I do not know that. But I have argued that there is enough doubt to suggest the police version is dodgy and that there is some evidence of a conspiracy aginst Mitchell

Just so we do know which side of the fence you are on with the benefit of hindsight answer me these if you will?
1. Do you still believe the police log version of events at the Downing St gates?
2. Do you believe the police Federation account of their meeting with Mitchell?
3. Do you think it possible that there was some kind of conspiracy against Mitchell?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:11 pm  

As Plodgate continues to put the Plebgate scandal in the shade, this weeks news is that two of the police officers from the discredited Police Ferderation (aka police union) who gave such unbelievable evidence to the powerful home affairs select committee recently are to be hauled back before them this week as it appears that they lied to the Commons committee too. The 3rd police officer may also be recalled.

The Labour MP & Chairman of this committee Keith Vaz has expressed sharp criticism of the police saying “the narrative of what we have seen could rival any great work of fiction. At every level, instead of being transparent, we have uncovered a process that obstructs the truth. If this can happen to a cabinet minister, what hope is there for anyone else?”

In the report publish over the weekend the committee describes the evidence the three provided to the MP’s as “misleading, possibly deliberately so, and lacking in credibility” It also says it was “contradictory, inconsistent and providing little or no insight into their actions”

The report accuses the three officers of showing little remorse and failing to recognise the impact of their actions on Mitchell. “We are appalled at the stubborn and unashamed refusal of an apology” by these three officers the report says. In the course of the inquiry the committee received evidence that directly contradicted a number of answers given by the two recalled men.

It appears they lied once again and if they do not now correct the record they will be in prima facie contempt of parliament with a possible prison sentence to face.

The three officers also face a new enquiry by the flawed Independent Police Complaints Commission as they found the original police enquiry to have “procedural irregularities” which cleared their colleagues of deliberately lying. At least two may face a hearing for gross misconduct.

Meanwhile back at the Plebgate scandal, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether to bring criminal charges over the Downing Street altercation. The eight people arrested including 5 Metropolitan police officers have been re-bailed.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Nov 04, 2013 1:33 pm  

Lord Elpers wrote:

'Don't play the slippery eel with me my man'
I never suggested you should have declared “that he was innocent” what I actually said was ;
“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....

Oh very good, I love the way you accuse and then do exactly the same.

Lord Elpers wrote:

But I did not prejudge Mitchell but spoke out against those that did. As for the police I have did not pre-judged them either ...

Give over, you called them liars when it was yet to be proven either way.

Lord Elpers wrote:

...So unless you know Mitchell personally on what evidence you are basing your character assassination?

Based on the blend of his own admissions and his lily-livered refusal to make a complaint.

Lord Elpers wrote:

1. Do you still believe the police log version of events at the Downing St gates?

Some of it is borne out by Mitchell, so I'd guess that at least some of it is correct, just how much I guess we'll never know.

Lord Elpers wrote:

2. Do you believe the police Federation account of their meeting with Mitchell?

You mean the transcript of that meeting or what they said immediately afterwards?
I have no reason to doubt the transcript (I don't think Mitchell has cast any doubt on it either).
What they said afterwards was probably misleading, unlike you I am not accusing them of lying.

Lord Elpers wrote:

3. Do you think it possible that there was some kind of conspiracy against Mitchell?

Of course it's "possible".

It does seem to me that whilst the police federation members have something to answer and the truth of the conversation at the gate of Downing Street may well never be settled, Mitchell is being made out to be an innocent victim of a random conspiracy when, even by his own admission of swearing at police officers simply because he wasn't allowed to cycle out of the main gates, he was acting like a t0sser.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Nov 04, 2013 5:06 pm  

Why hasn't Mitchell been charged? He's admitted committing a crime.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Mon Nov 04, 2013 6:29 pm  

Him wrote:

Why hasn't Mitchell been charged? He's admitted committing a crime.

Steady on.
What crime?