Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[I1L2T3]

Who it appears wasn't even there.....

 

It looks quite possible. We'll have to wait and see what the investigation yields.

 

As I mentioned it's a separate story anyway. The main substance of the original event is not in dispute apart from the points of disagreement between Mitchell and the police.

[SevenRivers]

As I mentioned earlier there are two separate stories.

 

1. The incident recorded in the log book. That story is clear and has not changed.

 

2. The corroborating story (not police evidence) supplied to the Tory deputy chief whip by an off-duty police officer.

 

The two stories have been cleverly merged together. The police were never relying on an independent witness. In a situation where two police officers saw and recorded the same event they wouldn't need another witness.

 

The log book may be clear and unchanged, but is it a true account?

 

You say the corroborating story isn't police evidence, but it is police evidence, it's evidence fabricated by the police, to back up the log book. Is it usual practice for the police to invent witnesses to back up police logs?

Edited December 19, 2012 by SevenRivers

[I1L2T3]

Why did the police prevent him from riding his bicycle through the gates anyway??

 

Security reasons.

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2012 at 20:02 ----------

 

The log book may be clear and unchanged, but is it a true account?

 

You say the corroborating story isn't police evidence, but it is police evidence, it's evidence fabricated by the police, to back up the log book. Is it usual practice to invent witnesses to back up police logs?

 

It's up to you who you believe. In this case I would side with the police because Mitchell's logged actions are by accounts in character.

 

As for the email, we have only heard about it this week. It seems to have been uncovered by Downing Street's internal enquiry. I'm not covinced it was even part of the original evidence.

 

Like I said two separate stories cleverly conflated into one.

[SevenRivers]

It's up to you who you believe. In this case I would side with the police because Mitchell's logged actions are by accounts in character.

 

As for the email, we have only heard about it this week. It seems to have been uncovered by Downing Street's internal enquiry. I'm not covinced it was even part of the original evidence.

 

Like I said two separate stories cleverly conflated into one.

 

No, you try to portray this as two entirely distinct and separate events, but anybody with an ounce of common sense can see they are part of the same thing.

 

Police logs. Police invented witness to support their own logs. How can you possibly say they are nothing to do with each other, it defies logic.

[I1L2T3]

No, you try to portray this as two entirely distinct and separate events, but anybody with an ounce of common sense can see they are part of the same thing.

 

Police logs. Police invented witness to support their own logs. How can you possibly say they are nothing to do with each other, it defies logic.

 

It's the same thing to you perhaps but you're confusing two different stories.

 

The orginal story remains unchanged. The email story is new this week. The email story is being used to deflect away from Mitchell's original actions and rehabilitate his reputation. If you read the email you would know that it is not official police evidence by any stretch of the imagination, well not part of the original investigation anyway. In fact it reads like some crazy screwed-up attempt at a joke. Obviously it has become the focus of a NEW investigation around a possible conspiracy.

[Eater Sundae]

I reckon the police should start carrying sound recording equipment, permanently on.

[Good mood]

It's the same thing to you perhaps but you're confusing two different stories.

 

The orginal story remains unchanged. The email story is new this week. The email story is being used to deflect away from Mitchell's original actions and rehabilitate his reputation. If you read the email you would know that it is not official police evidence by any stretch of the imagination, well not part of the original investigation anyway. In fact it reads like some crazy screwed-up attempt at a joke. Obviously it has become the focus of a NEW investigation around a possible conspiracy.

 

The media and none of the various commentators on this matter seem to have taken this view.

[I1L2T3]

The media and none of the various commentators on this matter seem to have taken this view.

 

BBC news did tonight at 6. It was clearly stated that the original story remains unchanged.

 

The email story is a bolt-on. Did you know about the email before this week?

[SevenRivers]

It's the same thing to you perhaps but you're confusing two different stories.

 

The orginal story remains unchanged. The email story is new this week. The email story is being used to deflect away from Mitchell's original actions and rehabilitate his reputation. If you read the email you would know that it is not official police evidence by any stretch of the imagination, well not part of the original investigation anyway. In fact it reads like some crazy screwed-up attempt at a joke. Obviously it has become the focus of a NEW investigation around a possible conspiracy.

 

I don't think we're going to agree on this, I just cannot follow your logic. Just because there has been a gap of a few weeks doesn't make them totally unconnected. To me there is the police evidence (log books) and then there is the police fabricating evidence to corroborate it so it's all part of the same story. As much as you say it isn't "official police evidence" the fact remains it was police officers that fabricated that evidence to back up what they'd already said in the log books. It's the sort of thing that happened following Hillsborough and I don't know how you can defend it tbh.

Edited December 19, 2012 by SevenRivers

[Dingus]

I don't think we're going to agree on this, I just cannot follow your logic. Just because there has been a gap of a few weeks doesn't make them totally unconnected. To me there is the police evidence (log books) and then there is the police fabricating evidence to corroborate it so it's all part of the same story. As much as you say it isn't "official police evidence" the fact remains it was police officers that fabricated that evidence to back up what they'd already said in the log books. It's the sort of thing that happened following Hillsborough and I don't know how you can defend it tbh.

 

There is no logic. The moment that it becomes clear that police police officers are prepared to tell lies then the rest falls apart.

 

The question now is why a policeman deliberately lied in order to try to discredit a serving government minister, because that fact is not in question. Then when you know that police officers are prepared to tell lies in furtherance of that objective it discredits all other police evidence in the case.

 

People will be going down over this and they will be folks in uniform.

 

BBC news did tonight at 6. It was clearly stated that the original story remains unchanged.

 

The email story is a bolt-on. Did you know about the email before this week?

 

It seems like a deliberate attempt to make the original police statement credible. It was the contents of the email and the reporting of its contents that made the police version of events be believed.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Dingus