Its a bluff, as is the police commissioners statement, one of them is wrong, the one who is correct will be the one who holds the actual evidence (not the bull-poop they've released to the press), or the one who controls the terms of any enquiry.

Don't forget, the Hillsborough enquiry held up a false premise just by denying evidence to the contrary.

It's very difficult to guess what's going on here. I don't even think it's a simple as the apparent police v politician(s). What is for sure that what incidents like this show is that we are not really any wiser about such matters in our so called democracy with its so called free press as the folk of places like North Korea.

Even though he's admitted losing his temper?

[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20775071[/url

Mitchell resigned because the Police said he had said something and a member of the public witnessed it. Without that witness it's his word against the police (still not great press for an MP).

The CCTV suggests elements of the police log were not right.

Recordings suggest the Police federation had recolection issues with their Mitchell interview.

If it wasn't a tory toff, you'd be shouting about a fit up.

The CCTV doesn't prove or contradict anything. It shows Mitchell wheeling his bike through the gate while talking to a policeman. I'm at a loss to understand why this CCTV footage is thought to be so important. What did anyone expect to find out from CCTV with no sound?

Regardless of whether its an arrogant posh boy Tory toff or not, I'm still wondering why he's not charged with breaking Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

The log suggests that it was sometime before Mitchell left via the sidegate and a long (relative) discussion was had. The CCTV shows Mitchell got off the bike straight away and walked out.

The log says Mitchell refused several times to use the side gate. The CCTV suggests that didn't happen.

The log states there was a crowd outside the gate. The CCTV shows there wasn't.

Mitchell admits to saying 'I though you was supposed to ing helping us'.

The CCTV would suggest that there was no heated argument, no stand up row, etc, etc.

No it doesn't. The log states:
[i"Whilst on duty at *** tonight (Wed 19th Sept) on a 1400-2200 hrs between the hours of 1800-2000 I had to deal with a man claiming to be the chief whip and who I later confirmed to be such and a Mr Andrew MITCHELL.

Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr MITCHELL refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates.

I explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was to use the side pedestrian gates and that I was happy to open those for him, but that no officer present would be opening the main gates as this was the policy we were directed to follow.

Mr MITCHELL refused. Repeatedly reiterating he was the chief whip. My exact explanation to Mr MITCHELL was "I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance".

After several refusals Mr MITCHELL got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him." [/i

Note the last sentence. "AFTER several refusals Mr Mitchell got off his bike". The CCTV only starts at the point he gets off his bike, we can't see the period before that. It also doesn't state he walked straight out, it says he headed to the gate.


Yes the log does say that but that is not contradicted by the CCTV since the CCTV only shows things after the point he gets off his bike.


No it doesn't. The log states:
[i"There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said: "Best you learn your f------ place...you don’t run this f------ government...You’re f------ plebs." The members of public looked visibly shocked"[/i
Which is backed up by the CCTV as several people can be seen outside the gate and some look in the direction of Mitchell.


The police log does not back this up.


The CCTV shows Mitchell roughly hauling his bike toward the gate while saying things to the police officer which attracted the attention of passers by. It does not show anything prior to him getting off his bike.

The CCTV does not contradict anything in the police log.

From what I am hearing on the radio / reading in the press, the whole thing was supposed to have been witnessed by a diplomatic protection officer who gave a statement.

It has now transpired that this person was not even at the scene and their statement was a pile of lies. They have been arrested for perverting the course of justice, or something to that effect.

So, if a copper who wasn't even there can claim he was, I don't think it would be too difficult for one who was there to attribute something to Mitchell that was never even said.

Either way, the police's version of events has lost all credibility.

Odd that it's taken three months to come up with a short CCTV clip that proves nothing either way, don't you think? Even odder that this is apparently the first time Mitchell has seen any CCTV at all. Convenient that it has no sound and fails to cover a crucial part of the confrontation.

I call shenanigans.

Strange that only one clip has a clock running too

No the policeman arrested has not been arrested for perverting the course of justice. He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A very different offence.
The officer arrested made no official complaint to police about the incident and so has not fabricated evidence. He allegedly lied to an MP about the fact he heard was what reported in the police log. And is rumoured to have released the log to the press.

Why do you think an officers conduct, who wasn't present and has had no input into the police handling of the incident or the recording of the log, has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of the police log.

The Tories must be desperate to get Mitchell back, they're really going for this but it's going to backfire because nothing so far has contradicted the police log.

Quote ="Him"icon_lol.gif No the policeman arrested has not been arrested for perverting the course of justice. He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A very different offence. The officer arrested made no official complaint to police about the incident and so has not fabricated evidence. He allegedly lied to an MP about the fact he heard was what reported in the police log. And is rumoured to have released the log to the press. Why do you think an officers conduct, who wasn't present and has had no input into the police handling of the incident or the recording of the log, has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of the police log. The Tories must be desperate to get Mitchell back, they're really going for this but it's going to backfire because nothing so far has contradicted the police log.'" The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/1 ... ess-claims Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell. Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.

Quote ="Him"icon_lol.gif No the policeman arrested has not been arrested for perverting the course of justice. He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A very different offence. The officer arrested made no official complaint to police about the incident and so has not fabricated evidence. He allegedly lied to an MP about the fact he heard was what reported in the police log. And is rumoured to have released the log to the press. Why do you think an officers conduct, who wasn't present and has had no input into the police handling of the incident or the recording of the log, has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of the police log. The Tories must be desperate to get Mitchell back, they're really going for this but it's going to backfire because nothing so far has contradicted the police log.'" The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/1 ... ess-claims Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell. Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.

Quote ="The Video Ref"The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/1 ... ess-claims Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell. Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.'" Once again, how does the arrest of an officer who wasn't present and didn't contribute in any way to the police log affect the credibility or validity of the police log? Which parts of the log are now in doubt and why? For some reason none of the Tory apologists can answer this question.

Quote ="The Video Ref"The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie: www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/dec/1 ... ess-claims Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell. Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.'" Once again, how does the arrest of an officer who wasn't present and didn't contribute in any way to the police log affect the credibility or validity of the police log? Which parts of the log are now in doubt and why? For some reason none of the Tory apologists can answer this question.

You are quite right. They have him bang to rights.

It's quite normal pretend to be a witness just to make sure. Normal police procedures I suppose.

Well normal if you are a police apologist? I suppose the fabrication of evidence isn't an issue anymore.

Is lying to an MP fabrication of evidence?
If the police officer who wasn't there has committed a crime he should be punished.

But I'll ask the question again - which part of the police log has been contradicted by either the police officer being arrested or the CCTV?

Police apologist. Bet you think they are innocent of Hillsborough, Orgreave, killing newspaper sellers...

You could have just said,

"it doesnt, I was wrong"

its pretty much the same thing as what you have put.

So you don't think it's dodgy? You don't think it's strange that a police officer pretends to of witnessed the events? You don't think it's shakey in the slightest? All above board?

The desire to bag a tory is amazing.

As for the CCTV showing several bystanders... it shows 1....

So theres one flaw in the log.

No, I don’t think it is ‘shady’ at all.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the arrested officer had leaked it to MP and had ‘borne false witness’ to the MP. I don’t think that has anything to do with the actual incident and im not sure why people would wish to conflate them

Original incident was witnessed and reported by two police officers, proper procedure was followed and none of the evidence they gave is either proven or disproven by what has come out since.
A different officer, then told an MP he had witnessed what had happened when it seems he didn’t, and it made its way into the press.

I can’t see why you think the separate actions of the 3rd officer, casts doubts on the reports of the other two, considering the 3rd officer had nothing to do with the original logs of the original 2 officers. I.e no part of police logs were reliant on what the 3rd officer claimed to witness.

I think its pretty clear, that along with the MP, the 3rd officer may have been looking to leak this information and get it to public attention, maybe with the expressed intention of damaging Mr Mitchells political career, but nobody has shown anything, or even come up with a logical theory, to show that this was some kind of conspiracy by all 3 officers to misrepresent what happened.

Which part of the police log is contradicted by the arrest or the CCTV?

No it doesn't. Actually watch it instead of reading and repeating the views of someone else. It shows several people outside the main gate.

The desire to make up non-existent contradictions in the log is amazing.

Not giving any view but just watched it on the news and the only people I could see were on the Downing Street side of the gate. One guy walks past outside without stopping.

This whole event is fcking pathetic, and indicative of why the people of this country find politicians and this culture if blame, false apologies and unnecessary resignations at the slightest hint of "outrage" or "offence" even more pathetic.

Ask yourselves this: why, in a month of Sundays, would the police MAKE IT UP? Answer: they wouldn't. They have absolutely NO reason to falsify their report. Of course the police haters can't accept that - it's all some conspiracy to...what exactly? Get a politician fired? Inflate the event so there's as much focus and scrutiny as possible on them? The CCTV footage is ambiguous at best, you don't have 360-degree views and no audio.

As it is, it seems a member of public who heard the apparently-ever-so-fcking-crucial word "plebs" and has surfaced.

Just pathetic.

It's not very good quality footage so can be difficult to see at times, but I've just re-watched the second piece of footage where he is off his bike and can make out at least 5 people on the public side of the gate, as the only people on the Downing Street side are Mitchell and the 2 officers.