You don't think that the particular presentation of the video in the Dispatches program had been handed to CH4 in that particular format then, video and commentary ?

Especially since its since been reproduced word for word in various news publications since ?

You could be right, maybe I am too cynical these days, but it was an easy program to make for CH4, everything provided on a plate, no investigative journalism to do, the script written for them, they didn't have to spend days on editing and proofing and supporting the story, why they never even asked why the most obvious thing, audio, was missing.

Still waiting for the proper video.

I think I'm equallly cynical, but I generally only believe conspiracy theories if: a) only a few people are involved; b) the rewards for the participants are great enough to justify the risks they're taking;and c) the participants genuinely believe they will not be caught out.

This particularly conspiracy theory definitely passes test a). Its debatable whether or not it passes test b). But it clearly fails to pass the "Will we get away with it?" test. They would have to complete idiots to think that they could put out doctored footage, accusing the police of lying, and not have that footage subject to rigorous tests.

I still wouldn't rule it out, because people do stupid things. But if it is proven that C4 had doctored the footage, or simply broadcast it without checking if it had been doctored, it would make the BBC's failings over McAlpine seem like small beer.

Please can you send the links to Mitchell's quotes where he accepted he made threats.

Mitchell maintains that according to the police log book all the "toxic" phrases were spoken while he was wheeling has bike from the main gate to the side gate and through to the pavement where several members of the public witnessed the fracas and were "visibly shocked"

The CCTV proves that these so called members of the public it would seem were "invisibly shocked" as they were nowhere to be seen! So this part of the police log was incorrect and a fabrication/lie.

The same footage does not show Mitchell to appear either angry or in a temper or display any aggressive bodily behaviour consistent with the police allegations.

I do not hold any brief for Mitchell and as I have only seen him on TV, where he appeared normal (or as normal as a politician can appear). So I cannot judge how likeably/unlikeable he is. But more importantly in the absence of clear evidence of guilt I have to say he is innocent until proven guilty.

To find him guilty or fail to give the benefit of doubt simply because he is from another class background or holds different political views is a sad reflection on how predjudice can distort justice.

Furthermore there is sufficient evidence and circumstantial evidence to cause grave concern regarding the behaviour of the police in this. Sending a mallicious email which contained lies and fabrications is a criminal offence and should lead to dismissal. That this fabrication mirrored the official log has more than a whiff of conspiracy. Who was responsible for leaking the log to the media and why? If the log was correct why was Mitchell not arrested and charged? Why did the Police Federation make a false statement regarding Mitchell?

The police log contained a false statement regarding the "visibly shocked" members of the public witnessing the event.

It has been widely reported. Google his name, and that phrase. Im sure you will be able to find it.

I could see people, i couldnt see their expressions, their faces were blurred.

How on earth are you judging this? What does an angry face look like on grainy CCTV footage which doesnt show the face?

yes, other than for what he has admitted.


To make things up about class of political persuasion doesn’t help your argument, even a little bit.
There is evidence that one police officer passed on information to an MP whilst pretending to be a member of the public. That is it, you are inventing the rest with no supporting evidence whatsoever. You should employ the same innocent until proven guilty standpoint to the police as you are to Mr Mitchell.

You have been making repeated claims that Mitchell has accepted he made threats to the police. As this is a cornerstone of your crumbling argument which I have challenged it is up to you to prove your point. I have read Mitchell´s account of the event and he denies making threats to the police.

If your whole argument is based on unsubstantiated internet tittle tattle which just quotes the allegations it would explain your viewpoint.



When people have an angry confrontation, as alleged by the police, then there is usually arms and head movements which show this clearly. The body language of Mitchell is consistent with him saying that he muttered the F word as he pushed his bike towards and through the pedestrian gate.




As I said anger and temper would show in the body language.You do not need to show the face.




But he has only admitted using the F word.




Do you deny your whole case and "knob" style language is not politically motivated?




1. The first evidence is that a serving police officer who is in the same unit as those at the gate sent an email into the Government Whip´s office pretending to be a member of the public who witnessed the altracation. This same officer has since admitted that not only is he not a member of the public but that he was not present and had fabricated his statement. The fact that his email was almost the same as the police log would indicate some form of collusion.

2. The second evidence is that this confidential police log was leaked to the press from the Met.

3. The third bit of evidence is that the Police Federation told a lie in their public statement after meeting with Mitchell.

4. And the 4th bit of evidence is that the CCTV shows no members of the public present at the gate to be "visibly shocked" by the "toxic" utterings making this part of the police log incorrect and so throwing doubt on the rest of it.

Do you deny any of this evidence against the police?

Fair enough, i can prove that it has been widely reported. Here is an example, there are plenty more if you dispute how widely this was reported but in the interests of space I have included this [iHis allies this weekend admitted he had said words to the effect of “you haven’t heard the last of this” - which they believe prompted officers to write up an exaggerated version of events in their police log, which was then leaked. [/iwww.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9763005/Andrew-Mitchell-the-toxic-smears-aimed-at-destroying-my-party-and-me.html

Now would you like to provide us with proof of your assertion that Mitchell has made a clear statement denying he said words to that effect? Afterall we wouldnt want your argument relying on unsubstantiated tittle-tattle would we.


This may be news to you, but you can shout, you can swear, you can threaten, you can even sing a jaunty sea shanty without waving your arms and head about. Mr Mitchell was accused of swearing and arrogant behaviour, he wasn’t accused of doing an impression of Kevin and Perry.

And his allies have admitted to him threatening the police.


Yes.


Firstly police officers are members of the public, they are, uniformed members of the public. It does not, in any way shape or form indicate collusion, it indicates that the officer who was there had seen the police log which isnt out of the ordinary.


Have the sun confirmed it was the met that leaked the log? Innocent until prove guilty remember......
I think lie is a fairly strong word for that fairly superfluous statement.

It quite clearly show one member of the public, with another couple a bit further away. I dont know if they were shocked or not.
yes, because quite clearly none of it is evidence of anything at all.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... roses.html

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... roses.html

The issue was not about it being widely reported or misreported. If people are going to make judgements on the behaviour of others and call for them to lose their jobs it is not good enough to do it based on hyped up gossip on the internet.

I asked you for a direct quote from Mitchell himself which admits he made threats to police. Without this you cannot substantiate your main point.

This quote is not from Mitchell and its nothing more than hearsay. To say it is from his allies is questionable as he has enemies within his own party after leading the leadership campaign for David Davies. And having said that the quote is vague in any case “words to the effect of ...’you haven’t heard the last of this’ ” is hardly a threat and something anyone should be allowed to say to a policeman who they thought was being over officious and who they intended to report.




Andrew Mitchell wrote an article for the Sunday Times in which he recorded his side of events: including “I never uttered those phrases they are completely untrue”. He does admit to using the F word and gives his word for word recollection of the discussion with the policeman. In his version it would seem the officer is being unhelpful and a bit obstructive and displaying a touch of traffic warden syndrome.

If you wish I can post all of his version but it will take some time to draft.




The allegation is that he lost his temper and displayed anger. But the CCTV does not show any sign of this in his body language.



I am not interested in what third parties are saying as this is not evidence. You said that Mitchell himself had admitted to using threats.



So if your standpoint is not political why do you rush to castigate Mitchell when there is no proof, yet defend the police when doubt has been raised about:

1. the accuracy of log itself (CCTV)
2. supporting police evidence was criminally false (policeman admitted it)
3. someone from the Met leaked the confidential police log to the media
4. the Police Federation told lies to the public and behaved in a very political manner (on tape)



The policeman who sent the email pretending to be a member of the public who witnessed the event to corroborate the police log was in fact not present (1st lie) he was not one of the members of the "visibly shaken" public at the gates he claimed to be (2nd lie) and gave false witness with the same story as the log (3rd lie) Yet you maintain this is not out of the ordinary.



The confidential police log was leaked to the media. (fact). So it had to be someone at the Met that did it my dear Watson. The question is, was it corrupt police officer who leaked it for money? Or did they do it for political reasons?




Well I am not sure what you mean by “superfluous statement” But Ian Edwards (Chairman of the west Midlands police Federation) asked for a meeting and Mitchell to clear the air. It was agreed that the location of the meeting would not be disclosed. (In reality the federation lined up as much of the press as it could muster) Federation officials minus Edwards arrived 30 minutes early and briefed the massed press and told the waiting journalists that they would demand to know what Mitchell had said at the Downing Street gates and if he failed to tell them they would demand he must be sacked.

The meeting lasted 45 minutes and Mitchell told them exactly what had happened and what he had said and what he had not said. The officials brought the meeting to a sharp close in time to get a quote on the six o’clock news. One of them announced to the reporters that Mitchell had refused to tell them what he had said at the gates and therefore should resign.

However a Conservative press officer had taped the whole encounter which clearly showed the reporters were not told the truth. Or as we say in our part of the world they told a lie!




The CCTV shows no one in front of the gates and only one person walking past (to be =#0000BFinvisibly shocked)



Why do you think none of this evidence? when you believe your google tittle tattle.

Neither you nor I know who is really telling the truth it is one word against another. However I maintain he has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, no matter which political party he is from, which so far has not happened.

You've got a good eye if you can tell that from the footage, particularly as none of it shows Mitchell's face, which is probably a greater indicator of his demeanor than looking at him from behind 50ft away.

...with no audio.


That camera must be located almost opposite the door to 10 Downing Street - can you imagine if, as we are supposed to believe, that is the only cctv source of the gates and approach to the home of our PM - can you imagine the aftermath of a terrorist attack on the gates which overpowered the three police officers there and led to Downing St being bombed and sacked and left in flames with our PM dead, "Police have examined the Downing St cctv and can't quite make out who the terrorists were, or if they were black, white or some other shade inbetween, or even people, sorry"

I've read that article and have no reason to not believe it and have no reason to not believe that the Police Federation have set up the Minister.

However you must always keep in mind that the Police Federation are NOT "The Police", they are a trades union and as such they have, and are entitled to, a political viewpoint and they entitled to campaign on issues that affect their members, I don't believe that they picked on Mitchell deliberately as he wouldn't be their natural target to protest at cuts to their members working conditions, but due to his obstinacy (something he is reknown for within his party) he presented them with a political situation that they exploited to the full and possibly beyond.

What they did may ultimately prove to be wrong, but they took advantage of a political situation in the same manner that politicians of all colours do every day in their debating chamber, its something they practice well and its something their party leaders are proficient in and view as perfectly acceptable within their profession - they should have been able to spot what was going on and declare this to the media immediately that it was occuring and before Mitchell felt that he had to resign (they had three weeks to do so after all).

The fact that they didn't, the fact that Mitchell had been appointed by them only shortly before, and the fact that they simply accepted his resignation without media protest against dubious political shenanignas only serves to highlight the fact that Mitchell got no back up from his seniors who must surely have reviewed ALL of the available evidence before turning their backs on him ?



As I've said all along, there is a VERY simple solution, release the real video and audio recordings.

And if they don't want them in the public domain then let the PM see them and then make a public statement on what he has concluded and then draw a line under the whole affair, I'll trust him on this occasion - or maybe he already has and thats why he is refusing to get drawn in ?

You are forgetting that the onus is on those of you who were so quick to judge Mitchell as guilty to prove him so. The only people who have been proven to be liars so far are all from the police side you may recall.

The CCTV does not show Mitchell in any way as having a temper rant and is more consistant with his version that says he was muttering the F word as he pushed his bike towards and through the pedestrian gate.

The Police Federation are a Union representing the rank and file police officers, but are made up of serving and former police officers. They have led the way in the witch hunt against Mitchell and have made much of the word "pleb". This I agree is their right and I have no sympathy with Mitchell (or any other politician) on this score who IMO has been very naive in his own defence.

However whilst not expecting this union to act in an honourable manner with regard to their handling of the media, I do think we can expect them not to tell a blatant lie, about a crucial point, to the media when reporting what was said in their meeting with Mitchell.

The timing of Mitchell's resignation and of his colleagues doubting his innocence was brought about by the malicious email that was purported to come from a member of the public that witnessed the verbal exchanges. As this email fully supported the police log and was real evidence as to Mitchell's guilt it was no wonder that he felt he had to resign. Since then we know that this email was a fabrication from a Police officer from the same unit who was nowhere near the scene at the time but too late for Mitchell to keep his job.

I very much doubt that the PM or Mitchell himself had looked at the CCTV before he resigned other wise he would not have resigned.

It was a case of media mob justice stoked up by the Police Federation, the Labour front bench and the media.

You keep asking for the "real video and audio recordings" to be released as though the ones so far seen are not "real". I doubt if there will be audio recordings but agree that it would be helpful to see more footage of the CCTV.

Having said that the police log stated "There were several members of the public present, as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate, and as we neared it Mr Mitchell said 'Best you learn you f****** place.....You don't run this f****** government.....Your'e f****** plebs', The members of the public looked visible shocked"

The CCTV footage so far released does cover the period and place where the fracas is supposed to have taken place and casts serious doubt on the police log with regard to the witnesses.

So I would not hold your breath that more footage will confirm the police account.

No one has come out of this smelling of roses and it will be interesting to see who Mitchell will sue. It is only a matter of time before someone takes action against libel made in postings on forums such as this one.

Excellent point my fellow conspiracy theorist





Well he has admitted to using the F-word towards a police officer. Now you don't have to be [iThe Mentalist[/i to suggest that when people use the F-word towards a police officer it's usually because they are in a rage or have lost their temper. In what non-temper related scenarios would one use the F-word when speaking to a police officer?

I'm not saying he should have resigned btw. That's for the Conservatives to decide and if they've fallen prey to a media backlash then they only have themselves to blame. When you tell lies and deliberately mislead the public (every government has done since I was born) as often as politicians do then you can't be surprised that the general public decides not to believe a word they say. Not saying that's right but when a political party fails to promote fairness in society they can't be surprised to find out they're judged as harshly as the people they continue to neglect. It's like beating on a person and then turning to them for sympathy. When you have a political ethos mired in punishment, not rehabilitation, then society will reflect that back to you.

Where have you been these last years. The f word is part of the majority of the populations regular language and on TV most nights. It is certainly not just used just in temper.

I would be tempted to use the f word as an adjective if an officer was being deliberately obstructive and would certainly let him know he wouldn't hear the last of it if I intended to report him. It is not a police state just yet.





So logically you would also agree then that the police who regularly tell lies and deliberately mislead the public should also not be believed too?

I never said that they are not "real", but for the purposes of an investigation by either party they are virtually useless being as they do not prove or disprove anything.

I do not doubt that there is very clear cctv in HD and audio recordings of what took place, all properly timestamped and I would be absolutely stunned if the hierachy in the Tory party have not viewed these - no-one will convince me that the total extent of cctv in Downing Street is the three camera angles submitted by Mitchell and his supporters - what they are is the sum total of what they were able to request in their role as government employees rather than the Met Police or the PM.

Frankly if it were me who was being accused of saying something to a police offier that I absolutely knew I had not said and my very well paid, and more importantly to my well acknowledged ego, very prestigious office, was at stake then I would raise merry hell in order to obtain the evidence especially as his PM seemed to be very supportive of him in the early weeks when the press were very anti-Mitchell (don't forget that the press have attacked from both sides in this and the Labour Party were just doing what its is they all do for a living) - frankly if it were me I'd be formally requesting that my PM gathered all of the available media, viewed it, and then absolved me.

Mitchell is absolutely convinced that he has been wronged, his boss can prove it easily, but seems very reluctant to do so.





The evidence to date is not conclusive at all for either party, the footage that counts will be - to one or the other.

Someone is sitting on that evidence, the PM has the wherewithal to demand it, the Met handle security for HM Gov on Downing Street but HM Gov own the properties, own the street and will have paid for the security measures that exist and for their upkeep and maintenance, they will own copyright to the recordings and are within their rights to demand the recordings I don't understand why Cameron has let this drag on for as long as it has and be built up into something that can either drag him down or drag the Met down and if he drags the Met down then he'll be the first PM who can't depend on his own Police force for support, his dithering has created a mountain out of a pimple on a molehill, we're not even bothered that the Minister used the "f" word against a police officer, its the "p" word FFS !

If this were a dispute between a private company and its security providers then there would have been a board room meeting weeks ago, a banging of heads together and the matter forgotten - then again that is using common sense.

He was leaving work on his bike and had to go an extra couple of yards. That's hardly provocative enough to generate using the F-word to a police officer. Add into that the fact that this is the party of 'Law and Order' who constantly harp on about respect, morals, being a good citizen etc. and I think you can understand why I'm finding it a bit hard to put, effing at a police officer, down to a lazy choice of adjective. Even if I take it from the point of view of him being stressed out, it is still a police officer and he's had to walk an extra twenty or so metres. Is that a sackable offence? Probably not for me but if it wasn't why let him resign? Perhaps, because of Mitchell's reputation, the Conservatives own first reaction was to believe he said exactly what was first reported. Why then hold the public accountable for a political decision by the Conservative Party? It's quite possible that factions in the Conservative Party itself pushed for it.



You've probably answered your own question there about the police. We know the police have corrupt officers but on a per head basis they fall well below politicians. It may be wrong but when politicians behave like criminals (and let's face it, what else is corruption) why would the public choose to believe them over a man who is just trying to do his job according to how he's supposed to do it?

My opinion itself, is the guy swore at a police officer and resigned because his party couldn't handle the political fallout which, if they had any credibility, probably wouldn't be as big an issue e.g. Brown calling that woman bigoted. I'd certainly say it's less of an issue compared to something like when the UK Border Agency guy was sacked by the Home Secretary without any sort of disciplinary procedure, costing the taxpayer at least £100,000 (effectively a deliberate breaking of employment law). 'Plebgate' is insignificant news but people buy into it because the narrative fits with how the Conservative Party behaves.

They are certainly not useless and while not conclusive either they do cast doubt on the police log.




There maybe other cctv but also maybe not. But if there were something that supported the police log I feel sure the police would have released it by now




This is based on your assumption that there is clear evidence being withheld. If indeed there is fresh evidence available I feel sure that Mitchell's legal team will have put in place the demands for sight of it in order to further their forthcoming libel prosecutions to all and sundry.




Again your point is based on your assumption that there is further proof available which until substantiated is pure speculation. Perhaps the boys in blue forgot to turn on the other cameras or had them pointing in the wrong direction or is that the PM's fault as well?




Not conclusive... but enough to throw doubt on the police version.




Again you make an assumption and then treat it as fact as you continue your agenda against Cameron. As for depending on police support, I think that went out of the station window when the new Government outlined their budget cuts. Interestingly the crime rate has gone down during these cuts which shows the police scare spin about losing front line officers was not valid.




This was always a storm in a teacup which started with the police leaking a dodgy log was hyped up by the government`s enemies. I will not be suprised to see one or two members of the police lose their jobs over this and a tighter control made over the Police Federation.

If you have read Mitchell's version of the affair you will know that he regulary uses the main gate as when on his bike he is not a pedestrian. He stes that he had been in and out of the main gate several time that day. If he is to be believed the officer just refused to open the gate for him for no reason repeating "No" to his various requests. It did sound like the officer was just being awkward and using his power for no other reason. I am no fan of politicions but an elected member of the government should not have been treated so rudely if Mitchell is telling the truth.




Well recent events have shown the police to be equally as bad if not worse than politicians so why would you believe them first...and would you have done if the politician had been from the Labour party?




Well you certainly have bought into it and have also chosen to gloss over the police's lies and poor behaviour....nothing to do with political bias I suppose?

So do you seriously think that the three poor quality camera shots (without any audio) are the sum combined total of Whitehall and Downing Street security surveillance ?

I had better security on my last house.

Anyone thinking the rozzers overstepped the mark in this case should've tried visiting Knowsley Road in the early 80s for a CC game

It isnt hyped up gossip on the internet, it was widely reported throughout the media

No, words to the effect are actually an outright confirmation of not only what he said but the actual meaning intended. It is a description of intention, not the actual words used. If anything, this strengthens my argument.

You have taken that statement out of of context. Which is pretty idiotic. You would have thought he would have outright denied what sources close to him have agreed was said if he didnt say it wouldnt you .

But im not using the CCTV footage as evidence that he did lose his tempter or displayed anger. You are, despite the fact it proves nothing either way.
Third parties can give evidence, they are generally called witnesses.

Because none of these things are proven to have happened. You have quite clearly and obviously made them up.

He wasnt used as a witness to corroborate the police log. Your premise is wrong.

Please provide evidence for your assertion or retract it.


The statement was that Mr Mitchell told them nothing new, not that he told them nothing. Stop making things up.



how do you walk invisibly?
Because it isnt.
The presumption of innocence has been given. Mr Mitchell hasnt been fired and hasnt been prosecuted. He chose to resign his post.

You could well be right although respect works both ways which is something that politicians and people who hold power tend to forget. I've seen it from managers throughout my working life. You treat people how you expect to be treated yourself. That's a simple, common rule that it appears neither party was able to adhere for whatever reason that is i.e. a playground spat between two s. It's more complicated than that I know but these are grown men arguing over somebody leaving Downing Street on a bike and yet one is running the country and the other is supposed to be protecting his valuable service. What does this incident say about both?



It makes no difference what their political allegiance is in the same way that it didn't matter with the expenses scandal.



I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. I'm pretty sure that I've based my opinion on what happened i.e. he admitted swearing and he resigned. It appears to be you who wants to blame the police and the media for a choice made by Mitchell himself and/or his party. Again, I'm not sure how anybody else is accountable for a Conservative Party decision.

The weird thing about this incident is that nobody investigating it seems to be asking the bleedin obvious questions. But this is normal nowadays. These include:

1. Since he started coming to and from work on his bike, has Mitchell ever been let through the main gate before? If so, how come? If not, why on earth would he make a fuss about it on this one occasion, if he knew the score?

2. Assuming therefore that he was regularly let through the main gate, which on what I have read is the only logical assumption, what is the reason these particular officers declined? Were they knew? Was the "policy" optional? If it was not optonal, are steps being taken to deal with those officers who had previously regularly opened the main gate for the bike?

3. Surely, there MUST be previous evidence on the video of Mitchell [ieither[/i daily riding through an opened gate, or else getting off his bike and going through the side door. The previous day's video (or the last day he came and went, if different) would, I suggest, conclusively prove who is lying about at least one key issue. We have no need to guess, or take anyone's word for it. It either happened before, in which case it's on tape, or it didn't, in which case that's also on tape.