An international jetsetting lothario.
Do you want me to pay you a visit?

Bye bye Mitchell

And replaced by an Eton & Oxford educated baronet, who once famously said: "The homeless are what you step over when you come out of the opera". He should ensure the cabinet keep in touch with the people.

And from the "you couldn't make it up" department, little did he know when he posed for this photograph, it would come back to link a hat-trick of topical news - bicycles, trains and Jimmy Savile



Schadenfreude on its grandest scale

In case any tory apologist thinks that the poster may have been photoshopped, as of this morning, it was still available on [url=http://www.sirgeorgeyoung.org.uk/pages/biog3.htmYoung's official website[/url, including the accompanying text:

[iOn(sic) 1982, along with Jimmy Saville(sic), the Youngs featured on a British Rail poster promoting the transport of bicycles by rail. Sir George had made a critical speech in the House, having found British Rail restrictive and at times unhelpful to cyclists.
Putting his bicycle in the guards van felt like invading someone's private space.When they responded with some improvements, BR invited Sir George to help with their publicity.
(Some of these posters were still up at stations in Ealing during the 1983 General Election campaign. Ingeniously, Sir George's opponents argued that British Rail's publicity programme should be added to Sir George's election expenses. They didn't get very far, as Sir George's name was not on the poster.)[/i

Justice for Mitchell?

In what way ?

Sounds like Mr Mitchell could possibly get a handsome defamation settlement if he goes for it.

I don't see how, unless I've missed something.

Possibly.

From whom?

I should also point out that it is usual for anyone bringing a claim of defamation to prove that they were of good character and any remarks made would sully that.

Mitchell has always said he never used the word 'pleb'.

An officer who claims to have heard him say the word wasn't even on duty at the time. Shambles.

Which officer is that? If you mean the one who's been arrested I don't believe he ever said he heard Mitchell say anything, he is alleged to have leaked the official police incident log to the press. It is the log which states Mitchell used the word pleb.

So I'm still struggling to see how Mitchell has a decent case for defamation.

Wrong.

The arrest is for leaking the details of statements to the press by an officer who wasn't on duty at the time but who subsequently had access to the statements, nothing at all to do with what was said by whom.

You should read the news.

news.sky.com/story/1026850/andre ... vestigates States here that "A police officer who claimed to have witnessed Andrew Mitchell's Downing Street rant is being investigated by the police watchdog" "The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is looking into the "validity" of his account - which helped lead to Mr Mitchell's resignation as Tory Chief Whip in October"

news.sky.com/story/1026850/andre ... vestigates States here that "A police officer who claimed to have witnessed Andrew Mitchell's Downing Street rant is being investigated by the police watchdog" "The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is looking into the "validity" of his account - which helped lead to Mr Mitchell's resignation as Tory Chief Whip in October"

Even The Guardian reports that the officer seems to have said he witnessed the events when he wasn't on duty and then it is alleged he also misled MPs. If these allegations are founded, it would appear that Mitchell may have been set up for political reasons. The fact that Labour so relentlessly pursued and hounded him on what could prove false allegations should tell the voters all they need to know about Miliband's judgment and ethics.

The Guardian tucks away its report today in a modestly sized article at the bottom of, I think, page 4. A far cry from it's pages on the subject previously. Again, tells you all you need to know about the morals of the left-leaning chattering classes mouthpiece.

None of which gives Mitchell a case for defamation since it is not this officer who recorded the police log.

Or, maybe, The Guardian has realised (as has Mitchell) that, ratrher than this off-duty chap, the issue is really about the contents of the Police log where it is recorded what Mitchell said.
Just a thought.

Your attempts to provoke are merely yawn-inducing.

Just spotted on Twitter:

Eye Spy MP ‏@eyespymp Andrew Mitchell MP told off in Chancery Lane by cab driver for using mobile while cycling: "Get off the phone you moron."

Chancery Lane? Presumably calling his legal advisers to say he's just about to arrive?

Why?
Did he get arrested for using his mobile whilst cycling?

There is a really simple solution to all of this nonsense.

Release the cctv and audio tapes.

Cabinet Ministers don't resign because someone is making up stories about them, not when the incident took place in a street that MUST have the biggest saturation of cctv and audio devices, high quality at that, in the whole country, it would take a Cabinet Minister about five minutes to request a copy of the recordings that would proove beyond doubt what was said and done on that day, especially as his government will own the recordings int he first place.

What probably happened was that within five minutes of the story breaking the tapes were called in, watched, and then they spent a month hoping that the story would run its course and he'd escape the falling on his sword, what is happening now is a discrediting campaign of fluff and bluster to allow him to creep in by the back gate, preferably not on his bike.

Its not a Tory thing, its politics, they think we are all blind to their shenanigans.

CCTV footage has now appeared.

It has no audio and you can make your own mind up but Mitchell doesn't look like someone who lost their temper.

The plot thickens. Mitchell was done for by an email allegedly from a Ruislip constituent. Seems that the person was a serving police officer! The account in the email was almost exactly as per the police account, hence Mitchell was in the brown stuff. CCTV allegedly contradicts the police account and the constituents'.

The question is who set him up if that was the case? Police alone or where others involved - perhaps even a faction within the Tory party? Apparently The Sun is standing by its initial account. Not sure of the relevance of that.

Shame Mitchell didn't get charged with a criminal offence as some were suggesting. Can you imagine if he had pleaded not guilty and proceeded to trial. Those dodgy coppers would have got destroyed under cross ex. Would have been charged with perjury.

[urlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210655/Andrew-Mitchell-CCTV-footage-calling-police-plebs-inconclusive.html[/url You know what that is - carefully leaked political spin.

I've been around too long to swallow this as the only evidence that Cameron has been presented with, a distant 40 second shot with no audio that "experts" have been unable to decipher mouthed comments from.

Sorry, but that is Bull-droppings being carefully fed to a media who they want to bring back onside, if the event had been a terrorist attack then they'd have produced the real tapes, the HD ones that could be used as rushes for the next Hollywood blockbuster shot from several carefully located camera angles, camera positions that were picked by the experts that they employed to provide cctv to the home of the British Prime Minster.

FFS I could provide a video clip of the quality in that report just buy nipping down to Maplins and buying a £50 kit.

Cameron forced Mitchell to resign and he didn't do it on a complete lack of evidence, in the meantime the Met Police Commissioner who presumably has seen the real security video evidence seems to back his officers [urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20771199[/url