Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Turned Out Nice Again

Plebgate

Recommended Posts

Easy Peasy...

1. Minister Mitchell leaves a meeting in Downing Street on his pushbike, cycles up to the main gates and is told he must use the side gate.

2. Exchange of words ensue supposedly heard by passers by in Whitehall. Mitchell is alleged to have called officers Plebs, he insists he did swear and said something along the lines of 'I thought you lot were here to ******* help us'.

3. Some time later accounts emerge in the press suggesting Mitchell used the Pleb word. Mitchell categorically denies.

4. A short while after an independent witness emerges (walking down Whitehall) who seems to back up the officers explanation of events.

5. CMD not impressed Mitchell told to go.

6. A short while later in an attempt to clear the air Mitchell invites Police Federation officers to his office, 3 indeed attend. He apparently records this conversation.

7.Police Fed officers stick the knife in further to a gathered press regarding the 'pleb' word.

8. Mitchell goes public with his version and I think a transcript of the conversation, in the meantime video emerges which show there were no other witnesses within earshot at the time of the confrontation. Also turns out the so called independent witness was a retired(ing) officer who may or may not have been in the vicinity.

9. Turns out Mitchell may have been right all along and that the Police Fed reps walked right into his trap.

10. Police continue to think the sun shines out of their behind and will not admit to wrongdoing, Cheif constables of the officers said as much as a Parliamentary committee.

11. CMD and the Home Secretary go on the record and say this must be investigated properly and sorted out. To date nothing further has occurred.

12. Latest is that the Parliamentary committee have recalled the three officers as their last appearance left quite a bit to be desired. This is where we currently stand.

The long and short of it is the Tory party feel there was a conspiracy to stitch up a Minister of the Crown as retaliation for Police service cuts. Meanwhile the Chief Constables stick two fingers up to this notion and as far as they are concerned it is business as usual.

The IPCC are now involved and are to investigate.

In a nutshell 3 allegedly bent coppers have and are continuing to stitch up a minister and their superiors do not intend to do anything about it.

Think I have covered most of the salient points but if not I am sure a correction will follow.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

8. Mitchell goes public with his version and I think a transcript of the conversation, in the meantime video emerges which show there were no other witnesses within earshot at the time of the confrontation. Also turns out the so called independent witness was a retired(ing) officer who may or may not have been in the vicinity.

Actually the 'witness' specifically denied being in the vicinity and attempted to disown the letter he wrote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy Peasy...

1. Minister Mitchell leaves a meeting in Downing Street on his pushbike, cycles up to the main gates and is told he must use the side gate.

2. Exchange of words ensue supposedly heard by passers by in Whitehall. Mitchell is alleged to have called officers Plebs, he insists he did swear and said something along the lines of 'I thought you lot were here to ******* help us'.

3. Some time later accounts emerge in the press suggesting Mitchell used the Pleb word. Mitchell categorically denies.

4. A short while after an independent witness emerges (walking down Whitehall) who seems to back up the officers explanation of events.

5. CMD not impressed Mitchell told to go.

6. A short while later in an attempt to clear the air Mitchell invites Police Federation officers to his office, 3 indeed attend. He apparently records this conversation.

7.Police Fed officers stick the knife in further to a gathered press regarding the 'pleb' word.

8. Mitchell goes public with his version and I think a transcript of the conversation, in the meantime video emerges which show there were no other witnesses within earshot at the time of the confrontation. Also turns out the so called independent witness was a retired(ing) officer who may or may not have been in the vicinity.

9. Turns out Mitchell may have been right all along and that the Police Fed reps walked right into his trap.

10. Police continue to think the sun shines out of their behind and will not admit to wrongdoing, Cheif constables of the officers said as much as a Parliamentary committee.

11. CMD and the Home Secretary go on the record and say this must be investigated properly and sorted out. To date nothing further has occurred.

12. Latest is that the Parliamentary committee have recalled the three officers as their last appearance left quite a bit to be desired. This is where we currently stand.

The long and short of it is the Tory party feel there was a conspiracy to stitch up a Minister of the Crown as retaliation for Police service cuts. Meanwhile the Chief Constables stick two fingers up to this notion and as far as they are concerned it is business as usual.

The IPCC are now involved and are to investigate.

In a nutshell 3 allegedly bent coppers have and are continuing to stitch up a minister and their superiors do not intend to do anything about it.

Think I have covered most of the salient points but if not I am sure a correction will follow.....

Thanks for that. Good summary.

Presumably, the alleged "bent" cops are the 3 from the federation in 6/ and not those making the original complaint against Mitchell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that. Good summary.

Presumably, the alleged "bent" cops are the 3 from the federation in 6/ and not those making the original complaint against Mitchell?

Well there were the coppers at the gate, I don't think it was so much a complaint just a leak to the press. The original PC's probably didn't make statements but may have had their pockets books queried. Of course they may not have made any notes of the incident in these books nor on the (gate) logs they will be required to keep.

It may well have come out later in that one of the PC's was telling his Fed Rep what went on at the gate 'the other night' who them allegedly decided to embellish the facts when involving the press and thought mentioning the word pleb would be a good way to do that

The shall we say 'bending of the truth' grew until it led to the downfall of a minister and the fallout we see today.

What started out as a bit of political point scoring may now well compound itself into the loss of 3 career coppers. But then if they are guilty of this supposed 'stitch up' they have no place being coppers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started off with some sympathy for Andrew Mitchell following the meeting he had with 3 chief constables which he taped. That was until I read the transcript. Clearly they were asking him if he knew that the police at the gate were lying, and he replied that he did but wasn't prepared to say so publicly. They told him that his stance meant that nothing could be done to them and he agreed with this but said he wasn't prepared to dob them in.

Isn't withholding information that's vital to a police investigation a crime in itself? Regardless of whether the police at the gate should be banged up, and I personally believe they should be, I believe Mitchell should end up sharing a cell with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started off with some sympathy for Andrew Mitchell following the meeting he had with 3 chief constables which he taped. That was until I read the transcript. Clearly they were asking him if he knew that the police at the gate were lying, and he replied that he did but wasn't prepared to say so publicly. They told him that his stance meant that nothing could be done to them and he agreed with this but said he wasn't prepared to dob them in.

Isn't withholding information that's vital to a police investigation a crime in itself? Regardless of whether the police at the gate should be banged up, and I personally believe they should be, I believe Mitchell should end up sharing a cell with them.

What an utterly ludicrous comment. Mitchell was clear from the beginning that the police's account was not correct and didn't 'withhold information', merely exercise some tact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I have covered most of the salient points but if not I am sure a correction will follow.....

The gate copper's leak to the press claimed that many members of the public were standing around the gate at the time and were shocked at Mitchell's outburst. C4 video showed no-one was anywhere near the gate. So clearly someone on the police side was lying from the start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What an utterly ludicrous comment. Mitchell was clear from the beginning that the police's account was not correct and didn't 'withhold information', merely exercise some tact.

Read the transcript of the recorded meeting. The 3 chief constables wanted him to make a complaint and told him that they could, and would, take action against the officers outside Downing Street if he did. They also explained that without him making a complaint, they could do nothing about it. He explained that he understood what they were saying, but refused to complain. I'm pretty sure it's against the law to know of a crime taking place but not to tell the police about it.

What's ludicrous about that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the transcript of the recorded meeting. The 3 chief constables wanted him to make a complaint and told him that they could, and would, take action against the officers outside Downing Street if he did. They also explained that without him making a complaint, they could do nothing about it. He explained that he understood what they were saying, but refused to complain. I'm pretty sure it's against the law to know of a crime taking place but not to tell the police about it.

Have you forgotten that the Police Federation said after the meeting that Mitchell should resign for questioning the Police's account of what happened?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023

Nowhere in the transcript do they say that they can't take action without a complaint, quite the opposite.

In any case your position is equivalent to saying that all these apparent victims of Savile should be banged up for withholding information all these years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understand is this...

Police's word against Mitchell's word whether the word "pleb" was used. We'll never know.

What isn't in doubt, and is what the Conservatives are pouncing on, is that during an interview, the Police said that Mitchell did not give his side of his story. It turns out that there is a transcript that he did.

This is nothing to do with whether the word "pleb" was used but does make the Police look like Mitchell might not be being fairly treated.

That's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I started off with some sympathy for Andrew Mitchell following the meeting he had with 3 chief constables which he taped. That was until I read the transcript. Clearly they were asking him if he knew that the police at the gate were lying, and he replied that he did but wasn't prepared to say so publicly. They told him that his stance meant that nothing could be done to them and he agreed with this but said he wasn't prepared to dob them in.

Isn't withholding information that's vital to a police investigation a crime in itself? Regardless of whether the police at the gate should be banged up, and I personally believe they should be, I believe Mitchell should end up sharing a cell with them.

what crime?

Its a discipline offence at worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you forgotten that the Police Federation said after the meeting that Mitchell should resign for questioning the Police's account of what happened?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023

Nowhere in the transcript do they say that they can't take action without a complaint, quite the opposite.

In any case your position is equivalent to saying that all these apparent victims of Savile should be banged up for withholding information all these years.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not standing up for the police who were standing at the gate whose version of events didn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny, nor for the 3 chief constables who misreported the conversation they had with Mitchell. I think it's pretty clear that they all seriously misbehaved.

Here's the full transcript. Read it through - it's not hugely long at 21 pages. I agree that this is a politician talking to 3 senior coppers and they are all being 'careful' what they say, but the implication across the whole conversation is absolutely apparent. The chief constables are frustrated at Mitchell's position that he doesn't want to contradict what was written in the police report after the incident. Mitchell is adamant that "I am not going to say anything to impugn the integrity of a police officer", a police officer who he knew to have lied. The chiefs say that action should be taken against the lying police officers but, without Mitchell's cooperation, they can't takes things any further.

As for the Savile reference, do you not agree that police and policitians should hold themselves to higher standards than the public at large? Personally I feel that every single person involved in making and enforcing the law should have to live within the law every moment of their working lives down the most microscopic level. Those who can't should be rapidly removed and replaced with others who can.

IPCC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the full transcript. Read it through - it's not hugely long at 21 pages. I agree that this is a politician talking to 3 senior coppers and they are all being 'careful' what they say, but the implication across the whole conversation is absolutely apparent. The chief constables are frustrated at Mitchell's position that he doesn't want to contradict what was written in the police report after the incident. Mitchell is adamant that "I am not going to say anything to impugn the integrity of a police officer", a police officer who he knew to have lied. The chiefs say that action should be taken against the lying police officers but, without Mitchell's cooperation, they can't takes things any further.

But he didn't know that the office lied. He knew that the account was incorrect but generously offered the benefit of the doubt and allowed that they could have misheard.

It was the letter to a newspaper from another policeman who alleged he was a witness which really made the story escalate and this part really was a pure fabrication.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mitchell cycles up to the main gate expecting to be let through as he has done on many occasions, and he has also on many occasions been told to push his bike through the pedestrian gate. coppers have had enough of posh twit expecting to do as he pleases. coppers get their own back.

technically mitchell also swore at them or about them, peolpe have been arrested and charged for less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure it's against the law to know of a crime taking place but not to tell the police about it.

What's ludicrous about that?

Seeing how it was the police committing the crime, I'm pretty sure they already knew about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brazen manner in which the cops have managed so far to get away with a pretty crude attempt to fit up a cabinet minister for reasons unknown is pretty concerning. Mitchell is by all accounts a tit but he deserves total exoneration and some cops deserve P45s.

What are the Met playing at by not acting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just read the transcript of the meeting between Mitchell and the three police officers and it seems to me that Mitchell is a lying weasel. He was constantly evasive, hiding behind the lie that the reason he hasn't come out and specified what he said is that he doesn't want to impugn a police officer. Bullsh1t. The reason he hasn't stated what he actually said is that he his a pathological liar with psychopathic tendencies. You just can't pin these people down, then will not tell the truth even when cornered. Even if there is no way to get out of something then they will keep spinning the lies in the hope something comes up that may give them an escape route.

The sickening sychophantic opening by Mitchell is something that would have made me vomit had I been witness to it. Vile.

Mitchell is as guilty as sin. One can only assume he won't state what he said because the truth is he did say what the police said he did, or something worse. What he does is spin and lie in the hope that some mud will stick elsewhere and attention can be deflected from him and his lies. He will then seize the opportunity to make that the real issue and hope everyone forgets about his original offence and behsviour.

The man is a lying psychopath. End of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I just read the transcript of the meeting between Mitchell and the three police officers and it seems to me that Mitchell is a lying weasel. He was constantly evasive, hiding behind the lie that the reason he hasn't come out and specified what he said is that he doesn't want to impugn a police officer. Bullsh1t. The reason he hasn't stated what he actually said is that he his a pathological liar with psychopathic tendencies. You just can't pin these people down, then will not tell the truth even when cornered. Even if there is no way to get out of something then they will keep spinning the lies in the hope something comes up that may give them an escape route.

The sickening sychophantic opening by Mitchell is something that would have made me vomit had I been witness to it. Vile.

Mitchell is as guilty as sin. One can only assume he won't state what he said because the truth is he did say what the police said he did, or something worse. What he does is spin and lie in the hope that some mud will stick elsewhere and attention can be deflected from him and his lies. He will then seize the opportunity to make that the real issue and hope everyone forgets about his original offence and behsviour.

The man is a lying psychopath. End of.

Watch Michael Crick's report and see if you still hold that view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gate copper's leak to the press claimed that many members of the public were standing around the gate at the time and were shocked at Mitchell's outburst. C4 video showed no-one was anywhere near the gate. So clearly someone on the police side was lying from the start.

Not exactly lying. More failing to concoct a plausible calumny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The brazen manner in which the cops have managed so far to get away with a pretty crude attempt to fit up a cabinet minister for reasons unknown is pretty concerning. Mitchell is by all accounts a tit but he deserves total exoneration and some cops deserve P45s.

What are the Met playing at by not acting?

It's beginning to sound like a Very British Coup attempt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.