I asked you to substantiate the many claims you have made that Mitchell admitted threatening the police officers. You have been unable to do this. Because something is widely reported does not make it to be true.



The only quote you came up with was from someone like yourself who had believed the police version which is now in doubt. Therefore your argument and statements are not based on fact but just repeating media spin and inaccurate internet comments from people like yourself. Mitchell has consistently claimed the police log is false with the exception of the F word as you well know because it is “widely reported in the media”



Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper.



Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police



Third parties are only witnesses if they actually witnessed it first hand ....and as nobody other than the police liar has come forward as a witness then all you quotes are hearsay and so irrelevant.



Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”?

Did I make up the fact that a serving policeman gave a false account of the event (using the same words and phrases as in the police log) and has been arrested?

Did I make up that the media were sent a copy of the police log and that this “leak” is being investigated by the Met. If it wasn’t a policeman who leaked this confidential log then who was it?

Did I make up that a spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie.



His email wasn’t used as evidence because it was later found to be false. As it contained the exact words and phrases as the official log and as this policeman falsely claimed to be at the gates with his cousin and witnessed the “toxic” phrases (when he wasn’t there at all) it is therefore quite reasonable to sumise he was trying to corroborate the police log. If not then what was the purpose of his email and why did the police log claim there were witnesses at the gate when the CCTV proves otherwise?



The police are investigating the leak. I ask you again if the confidential police log was not sent by a policeman then who was it sent by? Remember that your whole argument is based on what you have read from this same leak.



You are wrong. [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023[/url

A spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie.



Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all.



See evidence above or wait for the court case.



Where did you post that he may be innocent?

There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt.

This is where I struggle to swallow the story.

He was asked to be chief whip of the party, a very senior figurehead position, presumably with David Cameron's agreement, probably with his nomination - therefore at that point you have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him indeed.

A matter of a few weeks later he is involved in some sort of incident at the gates to Downing Street, the sort fo kerfuffle that you or I would laugh off later and would not be worthy of noting in any ordinary police officers book, but a log has to be kept at the security office and so it was.

At that point you still have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him as he never asked him to resign at any point over the next few weeks.

When the whole media thing broke you also have to assume that Mitchell and Cameron spoke about it, they may even have had formal meetings with Ministers and senior party members and its reasonable to assume that Mitchell protested his innocence at those meetings as he does now - and still Cameron was not asking for his resignation and presumably still thought that he was the ideal man for the job.

In David Camerons position you can instantly snuff out all of the press speculation and antics, if you want to stop all of this silly distraction from your serious parliamentary duties you do what any CEO of a private company would do, you review the evidence, and if the evidence is exactly as Mitchell insists, and if he is being set up by the Metropolitan Police, then you do something about it and letting your trusted Chief Whip resign as if guilty is not the thing that you do - you might not want to wash all of this in public but you'd certainly call in the Metropolitan Police Commisioner and show him the evidence, then get the whole affair carefully airbrushed away.

But he didn't do any of that.

I think few will come out of this smelling of roses. The timing of the resignation occured when not all the evidence was available. But what did for him was the escalation of calls for his resignation and mounting pressure from the media, Red Ed and Mrs Balls, the Police Federation (comments after their meeting with Mitchell that said he refused to say what he had said) the eye witnessed email that was so damming in corroborating the police log and not helped by Mitchell's own pathetic aplology and unconvincing denials on TV.

When all this furore came to a head the PM asked the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to conduct an investigation which was done with his typical civil service bungling aplomb as he failed to look at the police log and collate all the evidence. So Mitchell felt he had no choice but to fall on his sword which with hindsight was too soon as much of the case against him started to crumble....... but all to late for him.

How difficult would it be to walk twenty yards to the security office and demand that the police log and the cctv for the night in question be delivered to your office NOW ?

Those two items alone would prove or disprove the case, then its back to business.

Probably in the same way that Tony Blair thought very highly of Gordon Brown

He did.

Rumour I heard today (credible source) was that the word pleb was not used, but something far far worse. I think he was implying that he would next see the officers on the following Tuesday.

I know it's only a rumour but it may well explain why he hasn't actually said what he actually said. So denying using the word pleb was true but the reality may well be far worse.

That's amazing, I can't believe the man would be so ignorant. Even us plebs know ACAB

Nor does it make it untrue. What it does do is ensure it isnt simply hyped up internet gossip.

The only quote i bothered to find, as i said it was widely reported.

But not that he didnt say words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' Both statements that Mitchell said words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' and the words 'you havent heard the last of this' werent the words he used could be true.

Im not because it shows nothing either way. It is you who seems to be hiding behind the frankly ridiculous argument that because the video doesnt prove the polices account it disproves it. A child could probably explain the logical fallacy you have fallen into.

No they arent, that's just misguided nonsense.
You make up that it is relevant.

You make up the relevance this has.

innocent until proven guilty young sir, be consistent.

The west midlands police federation. I would like you to clarify why you are consistently trying to conflate the West Midlands Police federation, the metropolitan police, the officers who were present and the officer who was?
Only if as well as thinking the police were involved in some kind of conspiracy they were also mentally retarded. They are serving police officers, im pretty confident that if they were looking to create some corroborating evidence which would stand up, having another officer e-mail someone unconnected with police wouldnt be high on their list of options.

innocent until proven guilty squire. It is your assertion, it is up to you to prove it.

Fine, that is still completely superfluous to the actual issue.

Or just not on the cctv.

It isnt evidence.


Only you has brought up the possibility that his resignation was an acceptance of guilt.

[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/01/10/jeremy-heywood-plebgate-mitchell_n_2445588.html?ir=UK&ref=topbarDowning Street Suspected 'Gigantic Conspiracy' Over Plebgate, But Did Not Investigate[/url

Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary no less, seems to suggest that the video "evidence" that has been released to public view is the sum total of all video and audio evidence.

We should all sit down and shake our heads if that is so, apart from any miltant extremists who will be too busy stockpiling fertiliser and detonators anyway.



No wonder a four man IRA cell managed to lob a few home made mortars into the garden of 10 Downing St through the roof of a Transit van - and then disappear before anyone saw them.

You cannot back up your statements and you clearly are unable to admit that you may have made a mistake in your hasty judgement against Mitchell.

You say you were only “bothered to find” a quote which was nothing more than hearsay yet you are “bothered” to continue your folly.

Please state the names of the witnesses? And please quote the statements of these third parties witnesseses?

What is relevant about the CCTV is that it disproves part of the police log.
So you think that it is not relevant that a false statement was made to verify the log by a police colleague of the officer who wrote the police log.

The leak is being investigated so we shall soon see. But as this log is made and kept by the police I ask you to suggest who else may have sent it to the media?

I don’t think I have suggested that the West Midland Police Federation, the Met , the officers who wrote the log and the one who gave false evidence are all together and the same. In fact I clearly have separated each as a separate and relevant piece of evidence and circumstantial evidence which points at a stitch up.

I am not usually a believer in the grassy knoll conspiracy theories. However todays headline has the chief civil servant saying that “Andrew Mitchell could have been the victim of a ´gigantic conspiracy’

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/10/andrew-mitchell-victim-jeremy-heywood[/url

I think it to be more likely that it is PC Plod showing “peaked cap syndrome” and then trying to cover his backed up by the anti-government union showing self interest and opportunism above fairness and truth.

The Labour front bench led by Red Ed and Mrs Balls have gone a bit quite on this issue after gobbing off so much...wonder why this could be?

No it is not fine and not superfluous! The Police Federation having led the calls for Mitchell to resign put unfair and extra pressure to bring about that resignation by briefing the media with a downright lie.

The CCTV that has been released (from different angles) covers that actual area and time of the allegations in the police log and although not perfect shows clearly enough that there were not the witnesses at the gate as per the police log. So most relevant.

Finally for you to mention “innocent until proven guilty” is a joke coming from someone who has only believed internet hearsay and then made a guilty judgement and then continued to post this hearsay stating it as fact.

I only hope you are never called to do jury service

So perhaps all your anti Cameron comments were null and void then?

Not at all, I have yet to hear him make a statement on the affair, as I have also to hear him admit that the total cctv coverage of the whole of Downing Street consists of three badly positioned poor quality slightly out of focus non audio supporting cameras, and I have yet to hear him explain why he accepted Mitchells resignation when his chief civil servant admits that they all suspected a conspiracy but didn't bother to investigate or gather in any or all information with immediate effect - unless of course just two weeks into the job Cameron realised that he'd made a terrible mistake in selecting Mitchell, its not like he hasn't got a track history in selecting bed fellows who take everyone else for fools is it ?

No, quite frankly Cameron is keeping his distance but he's swimming against a vortex here, sooner or later, whichever way the Met eqnuiry goes, he's going to have to make a statement of explanation and as his senior advisors have admitted all along, no-one is going to come out of this smelling of roses.

You appear to have followed the headlines, without further reading. From the article you linked to:

[i"We accepted there were unanswered questions including the possibility of a [ugigantic[/u conspiracy or a [usmall[/u conspiracy. Those were unanswered questions. But we decided, on balance, to let matters rest as they were, decide to stick by Andrew Mitchell, keep him in post and move on."[/i

So there may have been a "gigantic" conspiracy, equally there may also have been a "small" conspiracy or even no conspiracy at all

And at present that potential conspiracy relates to the emails not the police log.

Update on the "plebgate saga"

The police officer who wrote the original pocket book entry about the incident and later the log book entry was arrested on Friday, and suspended from duty, on suspicion of leaks to the press.

She is the 3rd serving Met police officer to be arrested in connection with plebgate and the leaks. A 4th individual ( a relative of one of those arrested) has also been arrested.

The female officer's arrest comes 24 hrs after another diplomatic protection officer was arrested over the leak.

The Met is also carrying out a misconduct investigation into 4 other officers from diplomatic protection 3 of whom have been placed on restrictive duties.

Update on [url=http://www.channel4.com/programmes/dispatches/episode-guide/series-112/episode-8C4 Dispatches[/url tomorrow night

The sooner Mitchell gets knocked down a few pegs the better - arrogant egotist.

Quote ="Dally"Sounds like Mr Mitchell could possibly get a handsome defamation settlement if he goes for it.'" You might be right Dally. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... n-plebgate

Quote ="Dally"Sounds like Mr Mitchell could possibly get a handsome defamation settlement if he goes for it.'" You might be right Dally. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... n-plebgate

Quote ="Ajw71"You might be right Dally. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... n-plebgate'" Interesting. He intends to sue one or more newspapers for correctly reporting the news? Has he had a blow to the head recently?

Quote ="Ajw71"You might be right Dally. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... n-plebgate'" Interesting. He intends to sue one or more newspapers for correctly reporting the news? Has he had a blow to the head recently?

Don't know why don't you call him to explain the error of his ways.

I'm sure he will listen to you over his practising solicitor.

Because a lawyer has never taken a case he thought he might lose just for the fat fee. No sirree...

People sue and fail all the time. Even people with ever-so-expensive lawyers. On the face of it suing a newspaper for printing what everyone at the time thought was a genuine Police report appears doomed to failure, but strange things can happen in libel cases. Either way it will further damage his public image, which he claims to be so concerned about.

No..... I think he intends to sue for reporting something that was not correct. You cannot just repeat other peoples libeleous statements and report it as fact. Great care has to be taken with the written word and unless you have proof it has to be made clear the story is only alleged.

To publish in print an untruth about someone which will do harm to that persons's reputation by tending to bring them into ridicule or contempt of others is libel. There are some quite good examples earlier in this thread.

The papers (and other media) reported the content of a leaked Police report. They were reporting facts. And so far nobody has [iproven[/i that the report in question was false. All the reports I read were also at pains to point out that Mitchell denied the allegations contained in the report.

If you can't see the difference between this and your average libel case then I guess you must be Mitchell's legal adviser.