SevenRivers Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Has it been discredited? And can it be? It's his word against theirs. Not just his word though is it? CCTV casts doubt over the police account. http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-police-cctv-downing-street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Stop trying the defend the indefensible, they tried to stitch him up, they failed. They should be prosecuted no early retirements, no sickies. Prosecution, punishment and the sack. Yes. We were told that corruption & lies were a thing of the past in the Met and other police forces, but here we see both running from the top to the bottom of the organisation. This is from the same institutions that failed to investigate phone hacking because of their own links with the press, until it they were forced to do so by public outrage. The police forces have a difficult job to do, and it's not made any easier by venal, corrupt and lying officers at every level bringing down and discrediting the service as a whole. The police forces have to not only weed out these officers, whoever they are, but they must be dealt with in the courts. Justice must be seen to be done, and retiring on a police pension with no further investigation is no longer an option for an officer suspected of high or low level corruption. Mitchell lost his temper with the police. What he said at the gates of Downing street is totally unimportant. What matters is that there was a clear attempt made by the police to fabricate an allegation, and then fabricate a press announcement, in order to discredit a senior politician and effectively force him from office. It worked, but they didn't bank on Mitchell recording the meeting he had in his constituency with 3 senior police officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eater Sundae Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 But that doesn't prove anything about the original event. Conspiracy (if it happened) is much more serious than the exact words spoken on Downing Street Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Mitchell can go all mediæval on the Met and Mercia now. The coppers are on the back foot. Pliers? Blowtorch? ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 20:55 ---------- With due respect that is nothing but a load of flim flam. There is a major difference between condemning and not condoning. For example I'm sure the EDL didn't condone the knifing of Steven Lawrence. That's hardly the same as saying they condemn it. So why not put your cards on the table and say you condemn the police conspiring to remove a minister from office if that's what you mean? If not we'll just assume you don't. You asked me if I was 'bothered'. I replied unequivocally. I'd answered your question before you'd asked it, but to be explicit, yes it does bother me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Stop trying the defend the indefensible, they tried to stitch him up, they failed. They should be prosecuted no early retirements, no sickies. Prosecution, punishment and the sack. I'm not defending the police. Just stating the fact that his account of the original event cannot be proven. I feel a bit sorry for Mitchell as it happens - the police were at odd with the government looking for weaknesses to attack. He gave them a golden opportunity, by his own admission losing his temper a bit and using at least one swear word. If he can prove that he didn't say the other things he should, because the sooner he does the sooner he can be back in government. ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 21:25 ---------- Mitchell say he has a recording and has provided a transcript. If the police want to call his bluff then they could make a further denial but they will have dug themselves into a bloody big hole if he then released the recording. Why are you so desperate for his version of events to be untrue? Even the most ardent tory hater must surely admit it is looking increasingly bad for the police? At the end of the day this isn't about political allegiances but about keeping the police in check and slapping them down when they are caught abusing position and power. I'm not desperate for his version to be untrue. And yes it does look bad for the police. At the time it happened and afterwards I did believe the police account, as it seems did others like Cameron, May etc... Obviously the way things are panning out it looks worse and worse for the police. But the original police logs stand, unaltered. Mitchell's story is unaltered. It really is his word against theirs, effectively an impasse. With neither side able to prove their story. That is a fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SevenRivers Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I'm not defending the police. Just stating the fact that his account of the original event cannot be proven. I feel a bit sorry for Mitchell as it happens - the police were at odd with the government looking for weaknesses to attack. He gave them a golden opportunity, by his own admission losing his temper a bit and using at least one swear word. If he can prove that he didn't say the other things he should, because the sooner he does the sooner he can be back in government. Innocent to proven guilty. It can't be proven he said the words attributed to him. How many people have you verbally abused today by the way? And how many laws have you broken? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Conspiracy (if it happened) is much more serious than the exact words spoken on Downing Street Well, they are two separate things but yes one is a much more serious crime than the other. The original incident if it is as the police on duty claim is essentially a petty public order offence. The importance of course if it is true is that it casts doubt on Mitchell's suitability for senior public office. It's why he was forced to resign. The subsequent events could amount to a conspiracy, obviously very serious. So yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I'm not defending the police. Just stating the fact that his account of the original event cannot be proven. I feel a bit sorry for Mitchell as it happens - the police were at odd with the government looking for weaknesses to attack. He gave them a golden opportunity, by his own admission losing his temper a bit and using at least one swear word. If he can prove that he didn't say the other things he should, because the sooner he does the sooner he can be back in government. ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 21:25 ---------- I'm not desperate for his version to be untrue. And yes it does look bad for the police. At the time it happened and afterwards I did believe the police account, as it seems did others like Cameron, May etc... Obviously the way things are panning out it looks worse and worse for the police. But the original police logs stand, unaltered. Mitchell's story is unaltered. It really is his word against theirs, effectively an impasse. With neither side able to prove their story. That is a fact. It appears that you only attack him because he is a conservative. You would argue black was white to malign a tory. Your true colours have come out here as plain as the nose on your face. You have humiliated yourself and lost any vestige of credibility you may have thought you had Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Innocent to proven guilty. It can't be proven he said the words attributed to him. How many people have you verbally abused today by the way? And how many laws have you broken? Have you been following me Mitchell wasn't arrested, wasn't charged, no caution, no conviction. But that doesn't matter - it has been recorded in an official police log. That IS what caused the whole thing to blow up and forced him to account for his actions. Obviously, if it was a politician from any party they quite rightly should be held to account. You would expect it of a Labour politician I suspect. ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 21:41 ---------- It appears that you only attack him because he is a conservative. You would argue black was white to malign a tory. Your true colours have come out here as plain as the nose on your face. You have humiliated yourself and lost any vestige of credibility you may have thought you had Yes I absolutely detest the Tories. Well spotted. I support the Green party by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Have you been following me Mitchell wasn't arrested, wasn't charged, no caution, no conviction. But that doesn't matter - it has been recorded in an official police log. That IS what caused the whole thing to blow up and forced him to account for his actions. Obviously, if it was a politician from any party they quite rightly should be held to account. You would expect it of a Labour politician I suspect. ---------- Post added 16-10-2013 at 21:41 ---------- Yes I absolutely detest the Tories. Well spotted. I support the Green party by the way. My bold explains it fully thanks! 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