Perfect for the discerning [iSin Bin[/i lefty back slapper in your life.



[url=http://s27.photobucket.com/user/Mintball/media/back_slap_zps0368e40d.jpg.html[/url

I need to up my lefty post quotient to get one of those

Poor research once again.



Firstly the accusation that has kept being posed by some of your fellow members of the SBLBSC (

) is that Mitchell has refused to state publically exactly what he did say. This accusation is false as I have explained. You and your colleague's ignorance of this fact is perhaps because the ST is not freely available on the internet, however that does not alter the fact that Mitchell's full account has been in the public domain for 14 months. As it turns out what he said was irrelevant to the allegations which he has consistently refuted. And as such the police, federation and media have not pursued this line further.



Now turning to the point you now make, which is at a tangent to the question I answered but interestingly agrees with my case:



It is interesting that you now say:

[i"He gave what he claims is an account. Unless he can offer supporting evidence it remains nothing other than what he claims he said. It may be accurate: it may not be. But the point is that there is, at this juncture, no corroborative evidence.[/i"



Well you will have to agree that this also applies to the PC at the gate too who filed the log. Which is precisely the main point I have made from the start. Unless there is evidence to prove Mitchell actually made the Pleb remarks then he has to be viewed as innocent. It is for the prosecution to provide the evidence and not Mitchell as he has not been charged with anything.



I have said before that either one of Mitchell or the PC at the gate is lying through his teeth (or perhaps both may not be telling the whole truth) but that is not the issue in the absence of proof.



Having made this statement can we assume you finally agree with my argument.



I have not slighted you professionally - unless you are offended that I pointed out the amount of time you spend on this forum which is there for all to see.



Again I have not said that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a leftie. What I commented on was that most who have taken sides against Mitchell have left wing views which they express daily on this forum for all to see too.



You really should be more accurate in your reporting!

What would you like to know about The Times or Sunday Times archives, I have access to all of them.

I don't "now" say anything that I have not previously said or that contradicts anything that I have previously said.







I've never suggested otherwise. Thus your point is pointless.







Which has nothing to do with anything, even if you could actually work such a thing out. Which you can't.



Actually, I was thinking more of the following little gems from a page or so ago that you now appear to have forgotten:

























No sweeping generalisations there about anyone who has disagreed with you on this thread, oh no.













I'm not "reporting", here, any more than you're flogging property.



HTH.

As a non-member (I think) of the SBLBSC can I ask what the fook you're talking about?



Guilty? Innocent?



The issue seemed to focus on whether Mitchell called the police "plebs". I have scoured the Statue books yet can find no such offence as "Calling someone a pleb".



I have scoured the news reports yet can find no report of any criminal charges pending against Mitchell for anything he allegedly said.



The question is thus simply, What did he say? There is no "presumption of innocence" whatsoever in this context. Indeed, albeit in the sphere of civil law, not criminal, Mitchell is going to court, suing Newsgroup for libel as he denies saying what they reported. In that case, it is actually positively up to him to prove he was libelled, so the burden of proof is actually on him. As the courts have given the Sun effectively a free punt, this may be no easy task for him.

Sure you don't. I do not recall you stating this point before so of course it wouldn't contradict anything you previously said but as you have had 14 months to have made this point in favour of Mitchell and you only choose to make it now but against Mitchell then I think the word "now" is appropriate.



Let us remind ourselves what you just said:







You made this point against Mitchell. This point applies equally to the police log where the same point can be made in favour of Mitchell. How come you never made this point over the last 14 months?









No you never suggested otherwise but if you have always believed this to be an important point why have you remained silent over the last year and never thought to apply it to the police log? You only now have used it in an attempt to discredit Mitchell without any comment that it equally applies to the police version of events.



This may wish to dismiss this as pointless but I believe you have been hoist with your own petard as your point confirms my original argument.









Well I am so glad you enjoyed them but they seem do to have touched a nerve

You don't "recall" what you wrote a page earlier on this thread.



Let us remind ourselves what you just said:







Given your inability to remember something that you yourself posted only hours earlier ...







Learn to read.







"Why have you remained silent"? What bumptious twaddle. Are you fantasising that you're in an old B&W Hollywood courtroom drama?



I rethink that's what this is – your fantasy of being Clarence Darrow.





I haven't "used it in an attempt to discredit Mitchell": I have made the point that there is no report out there of what was said that has witnesses to it, thus making it a word-against-word situation.







Try writing in English next time. There might be more chance of someone understanding it.







I considered them hilarious in their pettiness and stupidity, and subsequently in your apparent inability to remember something that you'd posted only a page previously.

He will have to prove his reputation has been damaged...

Off on your tangents once again or is it an attempt at a smoke screen to hide your blunder.



The argument you made against Mitchell ie:







This argument equally applies to original allegations made by one PC in the police log. Therefore all of those that jumped in so quickly to pronounce Mitchell guilty of the allegations did so without evidence, by your own argument. And so he should be regarded as innocent.



That you made this point in an attempt to discredit Mitchell, yet have never made the same point to discredit the allegations, shows a lack of balance and prejudice which has been common to those who have posted against Mitchell.

PLODGATE LATEST SCORE



As the game moves into extra time the police side scored a couple of own goals yesterday with 2 Officers sacked for gross misconduct over the "Plebgate" scandal.



The one who sent the ficticious email claiming to be a witness at the gates continued to lie to the investigators until they proved he was not at the gates with the CCTV footage (which also failed to show the "visibly shocked members of the public) after which he pleaded guilty to what Mr Justice Sweeney, who jailed Wallis for 12 months, said he had been guilty of "sustained, and in significant measure, devious misconduct which fell far below the standards expected of a police officer".



The other officer dissmissed was the one that leaked a copy of both the police log and the false email account to The Sun.



So in the game so far we saw in the first half a spat between a Government team player and a Police team player which resulted in the Government player retiring injured and claiming he was kicked when he was down. The government player was made to look a bit pedestrian but claimed foul play. The VT was inconclusive and the score was allowed to stand with benefit of the doubt going the the police side.



Early in the game the police had started well with concerted attacks and they showed a good kicking game around the rucks and had the crowd behind them. But as the game went on the police displayed some very poor handling and a shaky defence with gaps opening up all over the field. In the second half the police game plan fell apart and there was a lack of honesty about their play with the result that the ref started to penalise their foul play and the crowd deserted them, apart from few fanatics.



Two police players were given red cards in the second half with one of them suspended for 12 matches and both have since been banned from the game for life. They have several other players due to be up before the disciplinary committee with further bans expected.



The game is curently in extra time and may even need a replay before a final result .





[urlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26358662[/url

Since my last 'match report' two more suspended players from the police team have been shown the red card and have finally been sacked for gross misconduct one in April and another at the end of May.



The boss of the disgraced Police Federation has also fallen on his sword as his colleagues failed to accept his attempts to make some necessary changes.



And now the very lastest news revealed in emails sent by various Plods is that there was a plot to get Mitchell. Now a court dossier seen by the Sunday Times "reveals a complex web of electronic communications between a group of at least six DPG officers, suggesting conspiracy and collusion on an even greater scale" It appears they also deleted emails indicating their role in the affair and lied to investigators.



It appears that there was a long running feud between Downing Street police guards and cabinet ministers working at No 10. "The spats had produced a formal complaint on June 7th 2011 [more than a year earlier from No 10's head of security John Groves to the inspector in charge of safe-guarding Downing Street. In it Groves referred to "incidents where cabinet ministers (including Andrew Mitchell) have either been not allowed access....or not have been recognised/identified within a reasonable time period" Groves added that "Members of HM cabinet are entitled to unfettered access to Downing Street any time day or night....and I expect that any reoccurance, especially if this involves Andrew Mitchell will result in a letter of complaint from the cabinet minister to your commissioner"



By September 2012 the issue had become a running sore and on September 18 Mitchell was once again stopped at the gates but had been allowed through. The court documents show that the following morning a DPG officer wrote to his boss asking "for backing when DPG officers were going to refuse him [permission to use the main gates on future occassions, as was bound to happen" later that same evening came the infamous 'plebgate' altercation



The court documents reveal a text from one of the recently sacked officers in which she says they "warned that they [Gillian Weatherley and another DPG officer would pursue the campaign against Mitchell and would not let it stop as the Police Federation needed their help. PC Weatherley also texted to another individual baosting that she had dealt with the chief whip and could 'topple this Tory government' "



So having been told to allow Mitchell unfettered access in and out of Downing Street some officers planned in advance to effectively set a trap for political reasons.

There is no issue of him being barred from entering or exiting Downing Street, he was not prevented from doing so, the issue is his reaction to being told to use a specific gate which was all of three yards away and designed for pedestrian access - not an unreasonable request to make but by his own admission he made a response that would have any one of us being "spoken to" by any police officer anywhere else.

A heck of a lot of people on this forum were slating Mitchell and backing the police when this all kicked-off.



The same people now appear to be eating a rather large slice of humble pie.

Interesting that you continue to argue against Mitchell when all the evidence that is coming out makes it look more and more like a political conspiracy by a group of police officers who were in cahoots with the discredited Police Federation. This same Police Federation were running a hate campaign against this government because of budget cuts. Because the cuts have not caused crime to rise, as was histerically claimed by the Fed, has undermined their case and caused the hate campaign.



This same group, with their huge secret bank accounts, are now financing an action against an individual member of the public (Mitchell) for calling the officer a liar. This in itself is a very dangerous precedent

He isnt innocent in the matter by his own admission, if you find it interesting that I am not ignoring that as you seem happy to do then what can I say, Im sure he'll fund his own defence given that he has previously threatened lagal actions of his own.

Mitchell was riding his bike, a vehicle in law, he was within his rights to exit the main gates as he always had done. There is a lesser security risk exiting on bicycle than when a motor vehicle exits, to deny him that exit is plainly stupid and shows an agenda, it's pretty simple really.

So do you think that his reaction to a simple request to use a gate three yards away was acceptable and that by his own admission using verbal abuse towards a police officer is justifiable ?



And do you therefore think that his boss should reinstate him and why do you think he hasnt so far ?

In December 2012:





















On Sunday 1 June 2014:

Poor old boys in blue, running a campaign, according to some, to try and discredit a Tory government minister.

Oh for the days of Maggie and Home Secretary Leon Brittan when their wage packets were full and as much overtime as they liked circa 84/85.

My heart bleeds for them, no really, it does.

They didn't need to discredit Mitchell, he did the job on himself by his own admission by losing his temper and swearing at a police officer over an innocuous request to walk a few yards and use a side gate - he showed a remarkable lack of self control and respect for the police - not the sort of personality you would want as chief whip of your party in government, he had to go and hasn't been invited back by his leader or the shadows who really pull the strings.



The most ridiculous part being that the word "pleb" (if used) would be the least foul part of the outburst that he admitted to.

Oh trust me old boy, I aint putting it all down to a grand conspiracy theory.

More about how much it's continuing to cost the public purse trying to get to the truth (who really gives two fooks) about what one jumped up little t0sspot might of said, or not, to another bunch of t0sspots!

He is innocent in the matter until proven guilty. This has been my position from the start. You persist in ignoring the facts in favour of the media storys which were spread by police several of whom have been proven to be liars with 4 sacked and one in prison. You have sided against Mitchell for reasons which I can only imagine are political.



1. He (Mitchell) was not charged with anything by the police

2. He has never said he swore at the police.

3. He admitted to using the f-word as an adjective and in a context that is now commonly used and excepted. He apologised for this and this apology was excepted. This was never the issue in the matter anyway.

4. He has consistently denied using the specific words (Pleb etc) spread by certain members of the police to the media.

5. He lost his job due to a high profile campaign by members of the police and the police federation which spread lies and half truths

6. There is now plenty of evidence to suggest he was 'fit' up



Yes he will fund his own defence and may have to sell his house to raise the money. What is of concern to many is that the deep pockets of the police federation are being used to fund a private action against Mitchell for alleged slander/libel. This slander/libel is using the word liar against a police officer.



Imagine you have wrongfully been accused by the police of saying or doing something. You know full well the accusation is not true and you know the police officer is lying. In this case it must be your right to say so. It cannot be right to be intimidated by threats of being taken to court and sued for libel privately by the officer and who is funded by a wealthy union. You know the officer lied and you quite rightly stated the officer was lying.

Everything else is irrelevant other than the facts above, his behaviour was not as expected by the Chief Whip of a party, especially one who had been in the job a matter of days, whether he left or was pushed is not known but Cameron accepted his resignation as he knew that the position was untenable, irrelevant of the subsequent revelations and news stories which have been led by PR from both sides.



He is still not employed in a position of control within the party and that in itself speaks volumes, I expect this to change when his party are re-elected though as these sort of things only count in five year cycles, you can go to jail as an MP and be welcomed back into the fold int he next term as if nothing happened.