Not sure but do you think the last Conservative PM, Tony, should be arraigned on War Crime charges for his part in the murder of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians?

The question was how many MP's actually have been sent to jail recently from each of the main parties.



I have not seen all the evidence so cannot answer your question.

Your question was a straw man of epic proportions.



My reference to Aitken and Archer was prompted by their desire to take to the courts to "prove" their innocence (IIRC they also availed themselves of legal aid funding too).



The closest you could find a Labour politicia in a similar situation in the last 50 years would be Tommy Sheridan and even his conviction for perjury may yet be in some doubt, given the involvement of a former Tory Press Officer now being investigated for his role in the Sheridan case.

'A senior police officer has blown the whistle on what he claims was a conspiracy by Scotland Yard protection officers to "stitch up" the cabinet minister at the centre of the Plebgate affair. In a witness statement subsequently given to the Metropolitan police, the officer names a police colleague whom he alleges "orchestrated" the plot to bring down Mitchell



After doubts emerged about the evidence against Mitchell, Scotland yard began an enquiry, Operation Alice. Eight people have been arrested including five other Met officers, for allegedly fabricating evidence or leaking it to the media.



According to the whistleblower, the "genesis" of the Plebgate incident was in a confrontation between Mitchell and the officers at the Downing Street gates on September the 18th last year - the night before the Plebgate row itself. Mitchell is believed to have jabbed his finger at one of the officers, demanding that he open the gates. The Whistleblower stated said to the other officers:'Right, we can stitch him up'"



The whistleblower then went on to state that the word "plebs" was added by the named officer to the original police log of the conversation that Mitchell was said to had with the officer who was guarding the gates on September 19. The whistleblower also claims that officer X went on to "orchestrate" the writing of two bogus emails sent by a second diplomatic protection officer the following day'



Lord Macdonald, a former director of public prosecutions, last month said that if the word "pleb" had been fabricated by officers it would be like a missile "heading straight for the heart of the Metropolitan police"



Source: The Sunday Times

Still no video or audio evidence yet then ?

Or the full backing of Mitchell's boss and a reinstatement ?



Strange that, you'd think they'd have sorted it by now...

It's a shame the other thread on 'Plebgate' (shouldn't really call it that now should we) was locked. There were some cracking posts from Him and Kosh on there about there definitely not being a stitch up.

Are there? Then find them and post them or stop lying and retract your comment.

Has Mitchell finally announced what he actually did say yet? No. And he won't. Ever.

Have you answered any of the questions put to you on numerous other subjects yet? Are you able to answer them?

Each day this week Plebgate has made the headlines and the story is now moving rapidly from police conspiracy to police cover up. From Plebgate to Plodgate!



Eight people, including four police officers, have been arrested and bailed over the September 2012 row at the Downing Street security gates. The Crown Prosecution Service is currently considering charges.



On Sunday it emerged a new senior police whistleblower has come forward and he confirms there was a police conspiracy against Mitchell.



On Tuesday, the IPCC questioned the "honesty and integrity" of the officers, and said West Mercia Police had been wrong to conclude they had no case to answer for misconduct.



The Independent Police Complaints Commission yesterday ruled there was evidence those officers set out to deliberately discredit Mr Mitchell and they should face gross misconduct proceedings



Association of Chief Police Officers' chairman Sir Hugh Orde said the incident demonstrated the "critical" need for a fully independent police investigation system.



He said: "What I am clear on is it requires an explanation from the leaders of those three police forces - all of whom have very clearly said they want to come to the home affairs select committee and be held to account in an open and transparent forum by elected MPs, to explain their side of the story."



Home Secretary Theresa May said the IPCC's report "made troubling reading



Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz said David Shaw, chief constable of West Mercia Police, would be summoned before MPs next week to explain why misconduct hearings had not been held.



BBC home affairs editor Mark Easton said the issue of public trust in the police service in England and Wales was central to the row.



What made the matter so troubling, was the suggestion that when entrusted with investigating wrongdoing, police chief constables had not taken appropriate action.



So we now await possibly three Chief Constables 'up before' the Home Affairs select committee to answer charges of why they are so weak and fail to stand up to the Police Federation who are a union out of control.

Food Banks for the hungry.

Pensioners freezing to death this winter.

A million kids under 25 with no employment.



......And millions of pounds being spent on this bollox!

At the moment the police are feeling the heat but it still looks like Mitchell acted like a t0$$er.

He claims that he didn't say the word "Pleb" but admits that he did [uswear[/u at police officers... as though that's all right then.

So far, he hasn't actually stated what it was that he DID say.

I might have a bit more sympathy for him if he'd come right out and tell us

I can only wonder why he hasn't.

The current hullabulloo is all about the separate interview that took place several weeks later, certainly looks like the police officers concerned tried to stitch him up and have been rumbled and in the course of doing so have dropped their chief constables in it too.



However this is nothing to do with the cover up that is apparent from the actual incident itself, we are still being asked to believe that the main gates to Downing Street, the ones that were erected to protect the most senior government officials from IRA attacks (they just went around the back instead), the gates that are the only thing that stands between slaughtering the PM and the Chancellor or the whole bloody Cabinet for that matter - those gates are not covered by any video or audio recordings other than two cameras who's locations makes it obvious that their principal purpose is not to cover security at the main gate at all but probably just to act as access control to two other buildings.



If anyone believes that to be true then you are a fool, somewhere there exists good quality cctv with audio from the main gate and security office and on those recordings will be the full story. As the man in charge of the whole thing David Cameron will have had access to those recordings the very next morning and the fact that he didn't immediately put a stop to the whole stupid affair speaks volumes for what those recordings must show, the fact that he didn't support Mitchell's behaviour on that night on the next day or since speaks volumes and the fact that he has never yet commented on that evening also speaks volumes.



Mitchells PR team have been good but the story revolves around the evidence that they have been sitting on for nearly 12 months now.

You may just recall that this bollox, as you call it, was created by certain police officers and their lies. Having read you previous comments of the subject it is no surprise to find that seeking justice is not something you aspire to.



It does not seem to trouble you at all that police officers have made false statements and with gathering evidence of a police conspiracy that is now increasingly looking like a police cover up at the highest level. The non independent enquiry by the police into alleged police misconduct has been dragged out in the hope it would all go away. Quite why the Deputy Commissioner, who is running the Operation Alice enquiry, chose to interview over 700 of the DPG officers is a mystery and one reason why is has taken so long. (by May the cost was £144k) Not only is it a worry about police corruption but that they cannot even solve what should have been a simple case/enquiry.

Here speaks another of those that were so quick to find Mitchell guilty, yet in the face of mounting evidence of a stitch up still finds it impossible to admit maybe just maybe you could have been wrong.



You are quite wrong to suggest Mitchell hasn't stated what he actually said. He did this at the meeting with the police union before he resigned, you know the one where three police officers came out from the meeting and lied about what he said on national TV which was the reason that he felt he had to resign. He later released a statement of what he had said to the Sunday Times which I quoted from at the time on the other thread.



If you do not keep up to speed with all the evidence wouldn't it be better to refrain from making judgements?



Most politicians act like t0$$ers yet you select this as more serious offence than police officers lying and give false statements, or of mounting a conspiracy against a democratically elected MP or of a police cover up at the highest level.

Get over yourself.

Police officers habitually make false statements, it's the way it works.

£237,000 and counting\at Sept end.



Money well spent.

Has he let you rim him yet?

Well at last one of the critics who had Mitchell down as guilty without evidence, finally acknowledes a possible stich up.



This current hullabulloo, as you call it, is not just about the police federation officers who lied on national TV and called for Mitchell's resignation making it a key factor leading to Mitchell's actual resignation. It also covers:



1. News of a senior police whistleblower who has made a statement to the effect that there was a conspiracy against Mitchell that was hatched the night before the Plebgate incident and that a named officer added the words "F..ing Pleb" to the police log.



2. The IPCC questioned the "honesty and integrity" of the officers, and said West Mercia Police had been wrong to conclude they had no case to answer for misconduct.



3. Home Affairs Select Committee chairman Keith Vaz said David Shaw, chief constable of West Mercia Police, would be summoned before MPs next week to explain why misconduct hearings had not been held.



4. News that an internal report that found no misconduct case to answer by police over a meeting with "Plebgate" MP Andrew Mitchell had initially proposed disciplinary action, it has emerged. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said police chiefs had overruled the recommendation.





As for dropping their Chief Constables in it, I think it rather looks like they have dropped themselves in it with poor decision making and a hint of cover up and it clearly suggests that they dare go against this out of control union.











[url=http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/multimedia/archive/00367/VIDEO_Plodgate_367256a.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article3895193.ece&h=576&w=1024&sz=184&tbnid=DeTWS760iu_u9M:&tbnh=119&tbnw=212&zoom=1&usg=__3uxis_eGNolN9sFwyli-p9Qh5kU=&docid=aeFCmWf4YfMscM&sa=X&ei=QftfUpOWO9Oihgft2oGABQ&ved=0CEAQ9QEwCAThis[/url



This image along with the ones that cover the time when Mitchell arrives goes through and departs the gate show clearly that the police log is wrong. There are no "visibly shocked" members of the public at the gates at the time stated in the log. That there is now also evidence that the "visibly shocked members of the public" turned out to be none other than yet another lying police colleague from the Diplomatic Protection Group who despite being off duty and no where near Downing Street at the time still sent in an email in an attempt to coroborate the exact words "f..ing Pleb" recorded in the log.







You keep going on about your theory about other CCTV/audio tapes without a shread of proof and as though this theory somehow disproves the actual evidence of 3 VT tapes that contradict the dodgy police log. I do not see why audio tapes at the gates would protect the PM from terrorists so why have them? So in your logic and conclusion is flaky in the extreme. Have you not considered that if there were audio tapes at the gates then both the police and Mitchell would know about them and one or other or at least Operation Alice would have used them.



David Cameron fully backed Mitchell in PM's question time yesterday as did the Home Secretary the day before.







Mitchell evidence backed up by the reporters of Channel 4 news and the Sunday Times has been in the public domain since last year but they have been waiting for Operation Alice, other internal police enquiries and the Crown Prosecution Service to conclude.

Wrong.



I haven't had Mitchell "down as guilty without evidence" as I have not yet seen the evidence. I have been spoon fed two videos which in turn were leaked to Channel 4 along with a script by Mitchells PR team, we are supposed to believe that these poor quality recordings with no audio, of the type that can be installed by any householder who knows how to wire up a plug, are the full extent of security recording at the main gates of Downing Street.



I for one do not eat such horse.









As part of my job I regularly visit high security nuclear power stations, the last one being a visit to Sellafield where I spent almost an hour going through security checks, having my photo taken and being subject to a recorded interview as to my purpose for being on site, only then was my host allowed to come to the gate to collect me - this is how security works on sensitive government sites and I've had the same when we used to visit prison sites some years ago.



Please don't try and tell me that the main gates at Downing Street do not have cctv or audio recording - the images provided by Mitchells PR team are some distance away and are incidental to the main gate security, they are either its all they could obtain or more likely the more precise recordings hold the real evidence.









They both spoke of the later interview when the West Mercia police look to have tried to set him up but ended up being set up themselves and then went on to try and organise a cover up, Cameron has not fully backed Mitchells behaviour at the gate at all, in fact he has never spoken of it.



Lets get this straight, Mitchell was in the job only for a few weeks before all of this kicked off, he was one of Camerons personal appointments and was given a very high rank at a time when public opinion of "posh schoolboy government" was a very sensitive issue for Cameron and Osborne and indeed Clegg. What happened at the gates and whatever language was used turned into a big embarrassment for Cameron and called into question again his judgement of characters, if after revieving the proper evidence there could have been a way for Cameron to have kept Mitchell in the job and vindicated his (Camerons) own personal judgement then he would have declared it publically - as it is he shut up at that point and has remained silent ever since, washing his hands of Mitchell at his forced resignation.



Cameron knows the truth of what was said and THAT is why he hasn't already passed his judgement in public and reinstated Mitchell with immediate effect.







I've covered this above, the Channel 4 report was spoon fed to them by Mitchells team, video and probably script and all, it certainly wasn't investigative and no-one since questioned why the only cctv is of such crap quality or how there was a gap in the original release, all they focused on was the obvious flaw in the written log, which is exactly what I would do if I were trying to side-step an issue.

Camoron was quick to demand an apology from the rozzers.



Has he apologised to Mitchell yet for sacking him?

Or for ever doubting him ?



Probably not being as Mitchell has yet to make a complaint to the police.



So much of this story has been buried, so much invented, its not the same story at all.

Has Ajw71 accepted the challenge yet of proving his claims?



It is remarkable how much such an obviously educated political intellect avoids direct questions, isn't it?

Of course not. He's disappeared. Like he always does when he knows he's cocked up. But probably then moves on to another identity...

What really does grate with me is the fact that until a "trusted" government minister (if a whip can be termed such), cried about being fitted up by the old bill, the Westminster bubble was quite happy to let things plod (no pun intended) along as they always have done.



There's no doubt the police have been politicised and there's even less doubt that they have been found capable of influencing how investigations and trials were progressed. Were it you or I, we'd no doubt be charged with perverting the course of justice but some of these fookers seem to be totally above the law they are supposed to uphold.



The IPCC is not fit for purpose, even worse is asking one bunch of rozzers to investigate another bunch of rozzers. The Met has long been held up as epitomising everything that is wrong with policing, from corruption to institionalised racism. The sad fact is the politicians have allowed this to continue until one of their own is portrayed as a victim.



Look at the case of Daniel Morgan and you'll see something that is far, far worse than anything that Andrew Mitchell has ever endured.

Not to mention that it is beyond doubt that Andrew Mitchell actually did something wrong and probably committed an offence that other people have arrested for. So, whilst the police actions need investigating (and as you point out, it's difficult to have confidence in their investigations of themselves - see Ian Tomlinson) I have little to no sympathy for Andrew Mitchell.

Feel free to quote one.



Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do.



I'll wait.

BTW - I caught part of 'This Week' last night and Portillo let slip that he'd heard Mitchell use the word 'in private'. He then had to flub around trying to claim it wasn't in a 'bad context'. Yeah, right.