Obelix Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I dont know - I don't go round logging how often people swear at coppers, except to note that it's very often, and with the jobsworths there are, I can well understand people doing, cabinet members, or opposition MP's. As for the several members of the public where were they? Oh there were none were they, as the CCTV shows.... so that's either operational ineptitude or lying. Not sure which is worse myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I dont know - I don't go round logging how often people swear at coppers, except to note that it's very often, and with the jobsworths there are, I can well understand people doing, cabinet members, or opposition MP's. As for the several members of the public where were they? Oh there were none were they, as the CCTV shows.... so that's either operational ineptitude or lying. Not sure which is worse myself. The police recorded it in their log book because Mitchell threatened them, telling them they hadn't heard the last of it. Are you saying no members of the public were present? The CCTV footage doesn't back up your argument does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And they failed to record it correctly. As I said, they were either incompetent, or telling porkie pies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 And they failed to record it correctly. As I said, they were either incompetent, or telling porkie pies. What was incorrect? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 The police recorded it in their log book because Mitchell threatened them, telling them they hadn't heard the last of it. Are you saying no members of the public were present? The CCTV footage doesn't back up your argument does it? Really? How did he threaten them? And how can we be sure the police logs are true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Have you changed your mind now after hanging the guy before knowing the full facts? He's a foul mouthed bloke who should know much better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 What was incorrect? If you still have to ask that you clearly are not listening, or are being wilfully obtuse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 Really? How did he threaten them? And how can we be sure the police logs are true? How did he threaten them? He's admittted to telling the on-duty police he would be following up the incident the next day. The really important bits about the police log are the points of agreement between Mitchell and the officers. The basic narrative appears correct. Mitchell admits to becoming angry. He admits to swearing. He admits to telling the officers he would follow the incident up. His behaviour was such that he had to apologise in the following days. Some people seem to have forgotten that the on-duty officers accepted his apology. I think that is the original incident in a nutshell, obviously minus the dispute about the precise language used but I doubt very much we well ever know the exact truth about that - it's Mitchell's word against the police. The secondary story is what happened after. That is where the email becomes very very important. ---------- Post added 23-12-2012 at 21:12 ---------- If you still have to ask that you clearly are not listening, or are being wilfully obtuse. I want you to tell me. You said there was nobody from the public in the footage. You were wrong about that weren't you? You said the police said there was a crowd of onlookers. You were wrong about that too weren't you? So what else do you think was wrong? ---------- Post added 23-12-2012 at 21:50 ---------- He's a foul mouthed bloke who should know much better. That is the crux of it. Even minus the pleb(s) part of it the original incident could easily have caused massive embarrassment for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Good mood Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 As I understand it he didn't swear directly at the officers, he sweared under his breath, which the police are generally quite tolerent of; its when you aim the swearing directly at them they have you. I havn't been following this thread but has anyone stated a good reason as to why he was prevented from cycling through the gates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted December 23, 2012 Share Posted December 23, 2012 I havn't been following this thread but has anyone stated a good reason as to why he was prevented from cycling through the gates? The gates were closed and he wasn't wearing a helmet so he could have hurt his bonce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now