Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[Dingus]

So. Without any investigation, or corroboration, you are willing to claim that there has definitely been police corruption?

 

Do you have good legal insurance, because you might be needing it.

 

It would be best to let the investigation take its course. Then critically analyse the evidence.

 

Of course, if you haven't that much foresight, you could always just give a knee jerk reaction.

 

Yes I'm quaking in my boots over that one.

 

One police officer has already been shown to have fabricated evidence, and we are still to learn how he came by the detail of what was in the police log.

Don't you just love that e-mail?

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-email-letter-plebgate-pleb-police

 

I suppose you think that is how our police officers should behave.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Dingus

[I1L2T3]

Right - but it brings into question the trustworthyness of the police though. If one of them was prepared to fabricate evidence and email it out, how can we trust what the rest of them are claiming?

 

That is what the current investigation is about.

 

As for trust it boils down to whether you trust a politician or the police. Not a great choice is it.

[alchresearch]

A bit like saying who would you prefer to look after your kids - Jimmy Saville or Gary Glitter!

[Dingus]

That is what the current investigation is about.

 

As for trust it boils down to whether you trust a politician or the police. Not a great choice is it.

 

But we already know that members of the police force have been prepared to lie and fabricate evidence in this case which to most people's eyes rather tips the balance.

[alchresearch]

But we already know that members of the police force have been prepared to lie and fabricate evidence in this case which to most people's eyes rather tips the balance.

 

Which takes us nicely back to post 252 on P13.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9422438&postcount=252

[Dingus]

Which takes us nicely back to post 252 on P13.

 

http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9422438&postcount=252

 

It is all rather sinister

 

There is an altercation between a cabinet minister and police officers. Their version of events differ greatly

 

These police officers claim that the action was witnessed by several members of the public.

 

Cue.. member of public stepping forward with story that totally matches that of the officers on duty.

 

Minister hounded from office.

 

But then things start to unravel. CCTV shows no man with his nephew, and no members of the public showing the slightest interest in events.

 

Now it turns out the "member of the public" was a police officer in same division who conveniently seems to have latched on to the story before it even made a public appearance.

 

Now a second man has been arrested.

 

It just gets better and better

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20795489

 

The man was arrested at around 20:00 GMT on Wednesday "on suspicion of intentionally encouraging or assisting the commission of an indictable offence on or around" last Friday.

 

BBC home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said this had been "about the time police received fresh information about it [Plebgate]".

 

Former Conservative home secretary Kenneth Baker said the federation was in "real trouble".

 

He told BBC2's Daily Politics programme it had "decided to become... an extremely aggressive lobbying body, determined to get a minister... because they were very opposed to what the home secretary is doing looking into their pay, pensions and early retirement."

Edited December 20, 2012 by Dingus

[WeX]

It is all rather sinister

 

I smell something fishy and its not the contents of Baldrick's apple crumble!

[Eater Sundae]

I've only half followed the actual release of any documents, so am not sure what is real and in the public domain, and what is just hearsay, but it seems to me that if the log books of both on duty officers say that there were X No of members of the public who witnessed the "pleb" incident, but CCTV then shows that there weren't, then it puts both officers in a difficult position.

 

It would indicate that their accounts were not truly independent of each other (how likely is it that 2 people would independently see members of the public who were not actually there?). If they agreed a version of events before completing their logs, or one copied the details of the other's, then surely that could amount to conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. Much more serious than than "who said what to whom".

 

As regards the possibility of an off duty policeman pretending to be a passing member of the public. As I see it, that is primarily an issue of his behaviour, in public office. However, the other issue is how he came about the duty policemen's logs. If he sees such documents as a matter of course in his day to day work, then it is all down to him. However, if the information was provided by one or both of the on duty officers, then we are back to a possible conspiracy. Again, this would be much more serious.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Eater Sundae
to correct the meaning

[truman]

As regards the possibility of an off duty policeman pretending to be a passing member of the public. As I see it, that is primarily an issue of his behaviour, in public office. .

 

If he wasn't actually there and didn't witness the event at all then don't you see it as falsifying evidence? Or even worse, as a possible conspiracy with the other two bobbies?

[Benggo]

Mitchell will be out of the front benches for a few months and then be at the front as though nothing happened.Look at David Laws,he fiddled his expenses,cast out from the government and then a few months later back as though nothing happened.I repeat if you are working class the full weight of the law is down on you for a lot lot less than what the thieving MP's have done with expenses.