[Closed] Plebgate, the rulers strike back!

OK - reading between the lines, here's my take

Mitchell approaches gates
Jobsworth plod refuses to open them, in a computer says no style.
mitchell exasparatedly mutters "FFS, your supposed to 'king help us" or similar
Plod says "watch your lip sonny or I'll nick you, now jog on " or similar
When Mitchell leaves the gate, he passes the partian shot of "you've not heard the last of this"

Plod goes into CYA mode as he thinks he's going to get a bollocking, but embellishes the story just a little bit too much.

what happens next, god only knows, but the inference is that the plod who wrote the letter to the other MP pretending he was an innocent bystander had either seen the police log, as the wording was so similar, or was the plod responsible for leaking the log to the press.

As always, its the cover up that gets you in the end!

Who leaked the CCTV footage?

This is a simple story, assuming the CCTV pictures are genuine.

First, the attending police officer's account has to be questioned because it claimed that there was a crowd outside the gates, there wasn't, and the body language does not indicate that Mitchell was ranting, although difficult to read much into that. But if the officer's recollection re the crowd was wrong, why should be rest of his account be trusted?

Second, a police officer who was not there but claimed to be with his nephew regurgitated the log book story and embellished it further in an email to his local MP, who happened to be the Deputy Chief Whip. He did not mention his employer. (Only one person stopped outside the gates, so it is pretty safe to assume no one was there who complained.)

Third, Mitchell explained what happened to the Police Federation in a taped meeting, yet the Police Federation still persisted in saying he needed to come clean to them.

So, third point is damning, second point has no link to Police Federation but it does appear that the false witness might have been put to it, in which case who by? And on the first, how accurate is the report and if it is not, why is it not, did someone encourage embelishment?

[URL= http://gifsoup.com/view/1065464/dumb-kid-bangs-head-on-table.html ][IMG] http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1065464&t=o [/IMG][/URL]

(at the Met, not the forum)

imho z11s probably closest to the truth there

dont forget it was another torry mp (who didnt like him either) in mitchells office who escalated it by passing the police report on to downing street

copper probably didnt realise who much of a sh!tstorm he was gonna create

I think there's only one thing for sure! Nobody involved in this is telling the whole truth. But then, when it comes to politicians and an politicised police force, you'd be lucky to find a single person shocked by that!

what happens next, god only knows, but the inference is that the plod who wrote the letter to the other MP pretending he was an innocent bystander had either seen the police log, as the wording was so similar, or was the plod responsible for leaking the log to the press.

Wouldn't be surprised if plod on duty knew the guy who sent the email in. Probably gave him enough details. Doubt it was leaked and went that way to the emailer.

Who did the initial investigation into the email claim? Was it the police?

Who leaked the CCTV footage?

I would imagine that Mitchell obtained it to try and clear his own name under a data protection act application for video of himself, a right all of us have - and since the police officers faces are all blanked out in the video, that would be normal procedure for DPA release CCTV video

best tenner he's ever spent I reckon 😆

[quote=breatheeasy said]
Wouldn't be surprised if plod on duty knew the guy who sent the email in. Probably gave him enough details. Doubt it was leaked and went that way to the emailer.
Who did the initial investigation into the email claim? Was it the police?

The Email copper is a member of the same diplomatic protection group that the coppers on duty at the time of the incident.

Wouldn't be surprised to see the police federation pulling all the strings on this one.

Zulu-Eleven - Member

"Who leaked the CCTV footage?"

I would imagine that Mitchell obtained it to try and clear his own name under a data protection act application for video of himself, a right all of us have - and since the police officers faces are all blanked out in the video, that would be normal procedure for DPA release CCTV video

best tenner he's ever spent I reckon

But if you were sure the situation didn't happen as reported and knew there was a strong possibility it was captured on CCTV then why resign [i]before[/i] reviewing the footage?

That's the weird thing for me.

It's common for politicians (and others) to resign whilst under suspicion and until they have had a chance to clear their name. Their position is pretty untenable with that sort of thing hanging over them and would have a negative impact on the current government.

I reckon there will be another resignation shortly though....

That's the weird thing for me.

I think at the very best, the video is inconclusive, although I do think the 'body language' in it tends to undermine the impression given of a 'stand off' between a ranting MP and a police man threatening to arrest him - on its own it tell us nothing. Plus, it could have taken 40 days to get the video release (as per the subject access rules)

however I get the impression that its come out now as they have only just found the key piece of evidence, that the 'independent bystander' was a serving police officer!

[quote=Zulu-Eleven said]
however I get the impression that its come out now as they have only just found the key piece of evidence, that the 'independent bystander' was a serving police officer!

Who now admits he wasn't there. And didn't send the EMail 😆

Zulu-Eleven - Member
however I get the impression that its come out now as they have only just found the key piece of evidence, that the 'independent bystander' was a serving police officer!

druidh - Member
Their position is pretty untenable with that sort of thing hanging over them and would have a negative impact on the current government.

Makes sense.

It's common for politicians (and others) to resign whilst under suspicion

suspension pending investigations - politicians resigning due to suspicion - what like Fox? for balance mandy as well-they dont do this any more on any side as they lack the honour.

and also why use the phrase he did when denying it?

why not just go it never happened like that there was no one else around and i will get cctv to prove this- pretty sure the minister or PM could speed up the process - [kaesae]pretty sure he left by bike on more than one day as well[/kaesae] 😉

To be honest, what I'm more shocked about, is that the security video in the area of what has to be one of the biggest potential terrorist targets in the country (apparently so sensitive that the police can't even open the gate in case hordes of suicide bombers rush through) is so piss poor and lacks sound!

Anyways - I reckon that the reason Mitchell was so pissed off is that he was doing a wicked trackstand, waiting for plod to open the gate and then ride through, and because he had tO push it through the gate, didn't get to show off his rad skillz properly 😀

Of course this all happened immediately after those Police women were shot.....which caused a wave of public sympathy that the Plods seemed to use as a wave to ride on.

Now that has been forgotten, the Hillsborough disaster is back in the news....the wave has receeded. Now we see what the Police are all about!

dont forget it was another torry mp (who didnt like him either) in mitchells office who escalated it by passing the police report on to downing street

It was the Deputy Chief Whip, who was a rival but more importantly one of whose formal duties is reportedly to make No 10 aware of any concerns about the Chief Whip's conduct. Knowing this, it is a remarkable happen-stance that the false witness was one of the Deputy Chief Whip's constituents. Or perhaps it wasn't happen-stance, but a well educated attempt to make the most of the incident.

No real point regarding the original issue, except that the whole mess is indicative of an awful relationship between the government and the servants of the state it totally relies on to carry out its will. It does not bode well when you think of it that way, regardless of the individual rights and wrongs. A total mess yet again.

The point I actually wanted to make was that I had the misfortune to listen to one David Davies on Radio 4 this morning. What a mealy mouthed, forked tongued, weasely, snide, fact manipulating, fiction mingling, slimey bastard that man could be perceived to be. It seems he is always wheeled out when this lot want some toadying sycophant to do their bidding. No doubt if that is the case there is a knighthood with his name on it waiting in some steaming cesspit ready for when they’ve used up all his slime.

Post Leveson the illusion that the police, the government and the press arent all in bed together continues with some public arguing.

BB - David Davis does appear to be the Tories answer to Keith Vaz. Inescapable, toadying, utterly vacuous, and shallower than a puddle.

Disappointing as, at one point, he did look like he was going to be right royal PITA for Dave. Which does seem to suggest he's been promised baubles and, like Keith, the chairmanship of various oh-so-important parliamentary committees. In returning for STFU and toeing the party line!

It's all a bit transparent

It's all a bit transparent

Slime often is IME 🙂

Strange that he has voted against the government so often then. Obviously that is a false scent.

David Davis or David Davies? The second one has always been a complete slimeball, the former seemed OK on some civil liberty points for a while, but now seems to have sunk without trace.

julianwilson - Member

Well quite. But (in spite of pursuing the most unfortunate and embarrasing possible example of leaked police reports in recent years) the whole thing's [s](being touted by the government as)[/s] looking rather like a storm in a teacup.

"MP chief whip of governing political party [s]narrowly avoided arrest for a public order offence, using language unrepeatable on this public forum barring the word[/s] called a policeman a PLEB!!"
erm... so what?

"Chief whip publicly denied the above; Policeman LEAKED the report that an MP called a policeman a PLEB! detailing [s]the circumstances of chief whip's near arrest"[/s] some made up unproven details to get the MP arrested

OK, well that's fairly naughty, but again, [s]if it hadn't've been blown out of all proportion[/s] the [s]chief whip of the governing political party[/s] policeman hadn't tried to lie his way out of it the first time around, this probably wouldn't have been picked up.

There, [s]fixed it for you.[/s] fixed it to represent the police agenda

There, fixed it for you 😀

In case of any doubt;

[img] [/img]

didnt mitchell admit swearing at the copper

he got off lightly as any of us would've been nicked for that?

He did, but apparently admitting to a public order offence is no reason for a Government Minister to be ashamed of himself any longer!

didnt mitchell admit swearing at the copper
he got off lightly as any of us would've been nicked for that?

No we wouldn't.

If the police arrested everyone that swore at them the local Nick would need hundreds of holding cells and they would be bringing people in on coaches !

There is no crime in swearing at a police officer there is an offence of disorderly conduct ie causing harassment alarm or distress section 5 of the public order act . It is a defense to section 5 to show there was no one present likely to be caused harassment alarm or distress . There is a line of cases which support the proposition that police officers may have a degree of backbone and won't break down in tears if someone calls them a rude name . That may be why the officer who wrote the report was so clear about the members of the public who were visibly distressed. Pity they were invisible to CCTV.

Indeed, he needed the fictional members of the public to be "visibly shocked" so he wrote exactly that in his logbook.

Just a shame they weren't "visibly present" 🙄

nealglover - Member

Indeed, he needed the fictional members of the public to be "visibly shocked" so he wrote exactly that in his logbook.

Just a shame they weren't "visibly present"

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the video show that there are members of the public present?

Consider yourself corrected, there was one chap who was momentarily standing still in front of the gates and it is not clear he was there during the discussion.

[url] http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-12-18/mitchell-crowds-in-log-book-not-seen-on-cctv/ [/url]

Here you go.

Shows no crowds but not no people.

Shows no crowds but not no people.

Doesn't show what the Police Logbook claims though, that's the important part.

And the email that came from an "Eyewitness" later turned out to be from someone who wasn't there at all. And is a serving police officer.
And also contains almost word for word what it says in the Police Logbook.
And it was sent before the details of the Police Logbook were made public

Mmmmm, how could that have happened ??

http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-police-cctv-downing-street

didnt mitchell admit swearing at the copper

he got off lightly as any of us would've been nicked for that?

It strikes me that fabricating evidence is a far more serious offence by a serving police officer - that is the real story and if it's true he should be sacked.

nealglover - Member

Doesn't show what the Police Logbook claims though, that's the important part.

Aye, definately, was just raking over the details.

That email is here:
[url= http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-email-letter-plebgate-pleb-police ]C4 News[/url]

Not looking good for the Rozzers 😐

Looks like a bit of a fit up.

That's abominable!

"passed elections"
"digesting behaviour"
"site seeing"

And also contains almost word for word what it says in the Police Logbook.
And it was sent before the details of the Police Logbook were made public

is the leaked version of the logbook the real document, have the Met confirmed that it's real and not a fake?

A second arrest has been made, how many more before Christmas?

I Wonder if any of the officers responsible for fabricating evidence at hillsborough will ever be arrested?

Clearly a cabinet ministers career is a much more pressing issue than 96 deaths 🙄

give them a bloody chance binners, theyve only just (a few weeks ago) put the laws in place to be able to go after them. Sometimes the cynicism in here can be a bit choking 🙄

The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is set to gain new powers after the House of Lords passed legislation prompted by the Hillsborough disaster and cover-up.

MPs approved the bill, which enables the IPCC to compel serving officers to give evidence in person, last week.

The IPCC could investigate up to 2,400 serving or retired officers as it examines the Hillsborough case.

Ministers say the bill is "essential to achieve justice" for the victims.

Home Office minister Lord Taylor of Holbeach told peers: "The bill before the House today is essential to achieve justice for the 96 innocent men, women and children who died as a result of the Hillsborough disaster.

"This short bill provides the IPCC with the tools it needs to and marks one step further along the road to justice for the victims of Hillsborough. All who support this aim will, I'm sure, support this bill."

Cynicism? They've had over 20 years, and done absolutely nothing!!!

Whereas, you upset an MP.....

Be fair Binners though its not like they had video evidence on hilsborough or witness statements

Still good to know 20 years on and plod still lies
I wonder if judges are paying attention to this fact
Ignoring political point scoring we are prety screwed if plod keep getting found out to lie as they testify in court quite a bit - not good

Stoner did the police have the ability to refuse to attend the IPCC - Holds head in hands 😯

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who watches the watcher

JY, yep and also:

The bill will also mean that in exceptional circumstances, the IPCC could investigate a matter that has already been investigated by its predecessor body, the Police Complaints Authority.

Without the changes in the Bill the IPCC wouldnt have been able to revisit the investigation of the officers at all.

So I wonder if we'll see any arrests, as in the pleb gate case.

I predict a raft of senior officers retiring on grounds of I'll health

Retirement wont protect an officer from criminal charges, only professional sanctions. Your cynicism is showing again binners.

We can investigate both criminal and misconduct offences after an officer has retired, though retirement prevents any misconduct sanction

http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/parliamentary-business/written-ministerial-statement/hillsborough-investigation-wms/?view=Standard&pubID=1144249

God only knows how I've ended up so cynical! Maybe it's because I'm presently listening to a Tory MP, on the news, saying 'we have to rebuild trust in the police'. Funny that. Until one of their own number found themselves on the wrong end of it, they didn't seem to give a toss about the subject!

I'll believe they're serious on the matter when as many officers have been arrested over hillsborough as they have over plebgate.

I won't be holding my breath

God only knows how I've ended up so cynical

I consider it a moral obligation 😉

we are in your debt Binners