Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[Mecky]

I see Toby Rowland is suing Mitchell for libel. I wonder who he uses to give him advice.

 

Tit-for-tat. What comes around goes around

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Pity neither of 'em is called "Ian", as the headline writers could then use "Pleb Ian" in big print.

Or "Patrick" (and then "Patric Ian").

[purdy]

Tit-for-tat. What comes around goes around

 

I'm sure Mitchel will be delighted. He gets the copper on the stand and having to testify under oath. It is now up to Rowland to prove his case. I wonder how many of the other coppers will be prepared to risk a long prison sentence by going on the stand and backing his tale?

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 20:06 ----------

 

Pity neither of 'em is called "Ian", as the headline writers could then use "Pleb Ian" in big print.

Or "Patrick" (and then "Patric Ian").

 

Or Garden so they could call it Garden Gate.

[I1L2T3]

I'm sure Mitchel will be delighted. He gets the copper on the stand and having to testify under oath. It is now up to Rowland to prove his case. I wonder how many of the other coppers will be prepared to risk a long prison sentence by going on the stand and backing his tale?

 

---------- Post added 05-12-2013 at 20:06 ----------

 

 

Or Garden so they could call it Garden Gate.

 

It's high stakes for both of them. As I said many pages ago on this thread it is the word of the police against Mitchell. There is no audio of the incident. The unedited video shows that either account could be correct. There is no way for either side to definitively prove their version of events. Unless one side does have audio and hasn't revealed it yet, but that seems unlikely.

 

Looks like a waste of time really.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

And libel actions are ruinously expensive...

[Mecky]

I'm sure Mitchel will be delighted. He gets the copper on the stand and having to testify under oath. It is now up to Rowland to prove his case. I wonder how many of the other coppers will be prepared to risk a long prison sentence by going on the stand and backing his tale?

 

Or indeed Mitchell. The thing is the evidence is lacking on both sides

[purdy]

Or indeed Mitchell. The thing is the evidence is lacking on both sides

 

I'm sure it is. However I'm also pretty clear which side of this I would want to be in court. Mitchell already has a bent cop in the dock for lying over this and proof another 3 cops who were prepared to lie about the meeting he had with them afterwards. I'm not really sure what Rowland has going for his case.

 

It is one thing being prepared to lie to the press but another entirely being prepared to do so under oath in a court of law. "The coppers on the gate" will need to think very carefully if called to the stand because being found to be lying in order to back up this totally fabricated stitch up will land them with no career, no pension and a very long time in jail.

 

---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 09:35 ----------

 

 

Channel 4 news at 7pm tonight. You will catch it on +1 if you have it.

 

 

CHANNEL 4 AND ITN STATEMENT

 

Director of Public Prosecutions Alison Saunders said on Tuesday: "The CCTV footage that has been aired publicly was edited and did not show the full picture."

 

In response, Channel 4 and ITN said: "The CCTV footage was obtained by Andrew Mitchell from Downing Street and provided to Dispatches and Channel 4 News. The footage as broadcast for the first time on 18 December 2012 was not edited by the production team to change or alter the sequence of events.

 

"Furthermore the three camera angles that we were provided with were image-matched frame by frame to confirm their veracity. We stand fully behind this investigation."

 

http://www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-police-charge-officer-mitchell

 

 

and..

Just how many of them were in on this?

 

 

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/dpp-apologises-to-c4-for-plebgate-film-statement/5064617.article?blocktitle=LATEST-NEWS&contentID=870

 

 

 

DPP apologises to C4 for Plebgate film statement

 

12 December, 2013 | By Alex Farber

 

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has apologised to Channel 4 for giving the impression that it had misleadingly edited CCTV footage used in its Plebgate film.

 

 

So 45 seconds it is.. So whose version of the conversation fits into the time frame now?

Edited December 12, 2013 by purdy

[I1L2T3]

I'm sure it is. However I'm also pretty clear which side of this I would want to be in court. Mitchell already has a bent cop in the dock for lying over this and proof another 3 cops who were prepared to lie about the meeting he had with them afterwards. I'm not really sure what Rowland has going for his case.

 

It is one thing being prepared to lie to the press but another entirely being prepared to do so under oath in a court of law. "The coppers on the gate" will need to think very carefully if called to the stand because being found to be lying in order to back up this totally fabricated stitch up will land them with no career, no pension and a very long time in jail.

 

---------- Post added 12-12-2013 at 09:35 ----------

 

 

 

and..

Just how many of them were in on this?

 

 

http://www.broadcastnow.co.uk/news/broadcasters/dpp-apologises-to-c4-for-plebgate-film-statement/5064617.article?blocktitle=LATEST-NEWS&contentID=870

 

 

 

DPP apologises to C4 for Plebgate film statement

 

12 December, 2013 | By Alex Farber

 

The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has apologised to Channel 4 for giving the impression that it had misleadingly edited CCTV footage used in its Plebgate film.

 

 

So 45 seconds it is.. So whose version of the conversation fits into the time frame now?

 

I don't think Channel 4 edited the film. Why would they do that? The DPP language was clumsy in that respect though because it didn't make clear who it believed had edited the footage. The apology is correct in that respect.

 

What the DPP was trying to say (I think) is that the footage supplied was edited beforehand - they made that point clear when they said there were 5 camera angles available but not all were used in the film.

 

If you think about it the 5 separate cameras would each be recording in a fixed zone, continuously. The film looks like it was a composite from several zones, cut together.

 

We'll find out for sure when the cases hit the courts.

[purdy]

I don't think Channel 4 edited the film. Why would they do that? The DPP language was clumsy in that respect though because it didn't make clear who it believed had edited the footage. The apology is correct in that respect.

 

What the DPP was trying to say (I think) is that the footage supplied was edited beforehand - they made that point clear when they said there were 5 camera angles available but not all were used in the film.

 

If you think about it the 5 separate cameras would each be recording in a fixed zone, continuously. The film looks like it was a composite from several zones, cut together.

 

We'll find out for sure when the cases hit the courts.

 

Indeed we will as Andrew Mitchell has apparently been given copies of the original footage from the cameras.

I can't wait to see the lawyers getting the two parties doing a voice over of their version of the reported conversations when they are played in court.

Edited December 12, 2013 by purdy

[Obelix]

Looks like the first police officer has decided to fall on his sword...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25682652