Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[Wildcat]

How would that change the original account as recorded by the PC on the gate?

 

Ministry of Truth makes an interesting point about the way memory works and that it is quite possible both Keith Wallis and Andrew Mitchell's account is as accurate as their memory allows.

 

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2014/01/10/plebgate-and-the-illusion-of-memory/

 

I suspect Andrew Mitchell did use the word "pleb", but he is never going to admit to it and no one will be able to prove he did.

 

Andrew Mitchell is however hardly exonerated by this incident by his own admission he "did not treat the police with the respect they deserved".

 

As for police falsifying information... quelle suprise

[Qualtrough]

The original PC maintains his stance even if a load of daft bandwagon jumpers turned it into a circus.

 

If you look at what both say was said they sound similar phonetically. Mitchell's words may have been misheard with other voices and traffic din in the mix, particularly if he said it under his breath. This would explain why both are so adamant.

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Andrew Mitchell is however hardly exonerated by this incident by his own admission he "did not treat the police with the respect they deserved".

Maybe the officers then present in Downing Street deserved little.

Certainly the three senior officers who seem to have been less than honest deserve none.

[I1L2T3]

Oh that's very simple. Unlike the police a court will want to get to the bottom of this rather than cover it up.

 

So I expect the first thing to crop up is the question. "Here is the CCTV footage filmed of the incident. Could you fit your report of the conversation in as it happened?"

 

Then

 

" Why do you think so many of your fellow officers have lied in order to discredit the minister"

 

" As a police officer I assume you know the penalty for perjury"

 

"I would like to call PC Keith Wallis to ask why he made up the tale of witnessing the events"

 

They can also call the 3 officers from the Police Federation and ask them why they lied, and the reporter from the Sun and ask who in the police provided the leaked documents. Indeed all the 11 suspended officers under investigation could be brought in and questioned under oath.

 

I think it will be good fun.

 

Are you saying this was a planned conspiracy, even before the incident in Downing Street?

 

I can't rationalise your response in any other way.

[Anna Glypta]

The original PC maintains his stance even if a load of daft bandwagon jumpers turned it into a circus.

 

If you look at what both say was said they sound similar phonetically. Mitchell's words may have been misheard with other voices and traffic din in the mix, particularly if he said it under his breath. This would explain why both are so adamant.

 

But only if they compared stories before submitting identical reports.

[I1L2T3]

But only if they compared stories before submitting identical reports.

 

There is only one official police report.

 

Then there is the disgraceful conspiracy against Mr Mitchell that the report was used to fuel.

 

The subsequent conspiracy is proven without any doubt. There are two versions of the original event - one from the police one from Mitchell - and is the fallout from dispute over the differing versions that forms the essential basis of the libel cases.

[Anna Glypta]

There is only one official police report.

 

Then there is the disgraceful conspiracy against Mr Mitchell that the report was used to fuel.

 

The subsequent conspiracy is proven without any doubt. There are two versions of the original event - one from the police one from Mitchell - and is the fallout from dispute over the differing versions that forms the essential basis of the libel cases.

 

But the official police report was made up from the statement of one officer on duty backed up by his 2 colleagues. When you hear the reported conversation from this report it is fairly difficult to imagine their report is as a result of miss-hearing what Mitchel claims to have said or that the conversations could be fitted into the time frame available.

Then of course there was the identical reporting of the "police version" of the conversation, submitted by email before the actual police log was released. This was sent to the deputy chief whip by a serving officer and his nephew who posed as a Japanese student visiting London.

 

Real class.

[I1L2T3]

But the official police report was made up from the statement of one officer on duty backed up by his 2 colleagues. When you hear the reported conversation from this report it is fairly difficult to imagine their report is as a result of miss-hearing what Mitchel claims to have said or that the conversations could be fitted into the time frame available.

Then of course there was the identical reporting of the "police version" of the conversation, submitted by email before the actual police log was released. This was sent to the deputy chief whip by a serving officer and his nephew who posed as a Japanese student visiting London.

 

Real class.

 

So you agree that there is only one police account. The unedited CCTV footage apparently could support either version of events.

 

The original report was by email. Somehow the email fell into the hands of others who then used it. There is no suggestion that the PC who sent the original email was responsible for that in any way.

[Anna Glypta]

So you agree that there is only one police account. The unedited CCTV footage apparently could support either version of events.

 

The original report was by email. Somehow the email fell into the hands of others who then used it. There is no suggestion that the PC who sent the original email was responsible for that in any way.

 

You have clearly been following a different case from the rest of us. Mind you the conclusions you draw from my comment lead me to believe that you were a copper on duty at Hillsborough on the afternoon of the tragedy there.

It is also pretty clear the CCTV footage does not support the police version of events. But as you are clearly desperate to try to leave the police with a modicum of credibility I can see you continue to grasp for any remaining straw.

 

Police filing reports by email. Now that's a good one.

Edited January 20, 2014 by Anna Glypta

[I1L2T3]

You have clearly been following a different case from the rest of us. Mind you the conclusions you draw from my comment lead me to believe that you were a copper on duty at Hillsborough on the afternoon of the tragedy there.

It is also pretty clear the CCTV footage does not support the police version of events. But as you are clearly desperate to try to leave the police with a modicum of credibility I can see you continue to grasp for any remaining straw.

 

Sorry Anna but with all due respect that response is a bit silly.

 

I am not a copper, never was and was not at the match that day. Quite a strange personal attack.

 

How do you know the unedited CCTV from all 5 cameras does not support either version? Or are you basing that argument on the edited footage from only 3 of the cameras that was released to C4?

 

My view on this is quite simple now. There was the original event and a subsequent conspiracy. We all know that Mitchell was treated terribly by the police in subsequent events. We must not forget that many in his own party were very quick to judge him. And we must also not forget that by his own admission his behaviour was wrong.

 

But the doubt over the original events still remains and that is pretty uncomfortable for Mitchell and the PC, both of whom have a critical interest in proving their version. As it is one against the other and there are pending court cases then we will have to wait for the court cases, unless something dramatic happens in the meantime. If Mitchell can vindicate himself in court I will be very pleased for him. Likewise for the PC.