Quote ="Lord Elpers"..You are quite wrong to suggest Mitchell hasn't stated what he actually said...'" This is the transcript of his meeting with the Police Federation representatives ... www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%20of%20meeting.pdf">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... eeting.pdf ... in it he denies saying "f'ing pleb", "f'ing moron" or "you should know your f'ing place". He admits swearing at the police. He does not describe the conversation as you or I would in terms of "... I walked to the gate and I said this and then he said that and then I said etc etc ..." instead he denies certain words and admits to some others such as telling the police he was the Chief Whip and his office is at No.9 (like they wouldn't know that). The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given. Many times he says that he does not want to say that the policemen were lying and he also says that he is not asking the Federation reps to choose between two recollections but to draw a line under it (he repeats many times that he wants that line drawn under it). Quote ="Lord Elpers"...If you do not keep up to speed with all the evidence wouldn't it be better to refrain from making judgements? '" My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript). Quote ="Lord Elpers"...Most politicians act like t0$$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.'" Do I? Where have I said or implied that? Sounds like you've already decided that the policemen are guilty ... that's OK is it?

Quote ="Lord Elpers"..You are quite wrong to suggest Mitchell hasn't stated what he actually said...'" This is the transcript of his meeting with the Police Federation representatives ... www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%20of%20meeting.pdf">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... eeting.pdf ... in it he denies saying "f'ing pleb", "f'ing moron" or "you should know your f'ing place". He admits swearing at the police. He does not describe the conversation as you or I would in terms of "... I walked to the gate and I said this and then he said that and then I said etc etc ..." instead he denies certain words and admits to some others such as telling the police he was the Chief Whip and his office is at No.9 (like they wouldn't know that). The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given. Many times he says that he does not want to say that the policemen were lying and he also says that he is not asking the Federation reps to choose between two recollections but to draw a line under it (he repeats many times that he wants that line drawn under it). Quote ="Lord Elpers"...If you do not keep up to speed with all the evidence wouldn't it be better to refrain from making judgements? '" My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript). Quote ="Lord Elpers"...Most politicians act like t0$$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.'" Do I? Where have I said or implied that? Sounds like you've already decided that the policemen are guilty ... that's OK is it?

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" ONE QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"So no conspiracy there. In fact no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy anywhere. And the people harking on about police conspiracies aren't after 'truth and justice'. They're just desperate to score political points..'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" ONE QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"So no conspiracy there. In fact no evidence whatsoever of any conspiracy anywhere. And the people harking on about police conspiracies aren't after 'truth and justice'. They're just desperate to score political points..'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" SECOND QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"My superior critical skills enable me not to see conspiracies where there is no evidence of any, and to realise that what's being investigated is (in one case) the conduct of a Police officer and (in the second) an unspecified offence that took place just a few days ago..'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" SECOND QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"My superior critical skills enable me not to see conspiracies where there is no evidence of any, and to realise that what's being investigated is (in one case) the conduct of a Police officer and (in the second) an unspecified offence that took place just a few days ago..'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" THIRD QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"Moreover, he fails to mention that the three West Midlands officers have been accused of exploiting media interest in the incident and not any involvement in fabricating evidence. There is not even a hint of any grand conspiracy..'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" THIRD QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"Moreover, he fails to mention that the three West Midlands officers have been accused of exploiting media interest in the incident and not any involvement in fabricating evidence. There is not even a hint of any grand conspiracy..'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" FOURTH QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"What hasn't happened is the uncovering of any conspiracy whatsoever, which is what your new best friend asserted in his discredited ">OP.'"

Quote ="Kosh"Feel free to quote one. Go on - I challenge you. Just one will do. I'll ">wait.'" FOURTH QUOTE Quote ="Kosh"What hasn't happened is the uncovering of any conspiracy whatsoever, which is what your new best friend asserted in his discredited ">OP.'"

Quote ="Kosh"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.'" What Portillo said was that he was 100% sure Mitchell would never have used the word "Pleb" in the context the police alleged. You failed to report that Labour MP Diane Abbott and the LibDem spokeslady each made clear on the same programe just how serious this case is and that if a posh boy MP can be "fit up" then what chance a poor black guy who the police stop in the street. And that these same police officers who have been proven to have lied and given false statements are the same ones that will be in court on another day giving evidence against some sole in the dock.

Quote ="Kosh"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.'" What Portillo said was that he was 100% sure Mitchell would never have used the word "Pleb" in the context the police alleged. You failed to report that Labour MP Diane Abbott and the LibDem spokeslady each made clear on the same programe just how serious this case is and that if a posh boy MP can be "fit up" then what chance a poor black guy who the police stop in the street. And that these same police officers who have been proven to have lied and given false statements are the same ones that will be in court on another day giving evidence against some sole in the dock.

Quote ="El Barbudo"This is the transcript of his meeting with the Police Federation representatives ... www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%20of%20meeting.pdf">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... eeting.pdf ... in it he denies saying "f'ing pleb", "f'ing moron" or "you should know your f'ing place". He admits swearing at the police. He does not describe the conversation as you or I would in terms of "... I walked to the gate and I said this and then he said that and then I said etc etc ..." instead he denies certain words and admits to some others such as telling the police he was the Chief Whip and his office is at No.9 (like they wouldn't know that). The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given. Many times he says that he does not want to say that the policemen were lying and he also says that he is not asking the Federation reps to choose between two recollections but to draw a line under it (he repeats many times that he wants that line drawn under it). My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript). Do I? Where have I said or implied that? Sounds like you've already decided that the policemen are guilty ... that's OK is it?'" From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof and even though doubts quickly appeared regarding the dodgy police log you never displayed any balance in your postings which appear soley based on political prejudice and class. Mitchell does not have to give a word perfect account of what was said. He has clearly and consistently stated that he did not say the offending words he was accused of and although he has admitted to using a swear word this is not the issue. I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my opinion. Police investigating themselves is sadly no longer reliable and it was left to Mitchell and journalists to prove so many police to be liars. Now this affair is moving from police lies and leaks to the more serious conspiracy and cover up charges with weak Chief Constables in the frame. Yet none of this seems to trouble you as you persue your political agenda

Quote ="El Barbudo"This is the transcript of his meeting with the Police Federation representatives ... www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%20of%20meeting.pdf">www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/fi ... eeting.pdf ... in it he denies saying "f'ing pleb", "f'ing moron" or "you should know your f'ing place". He admits swearing at the police. He does not describe the conversation as you or I would in terms of "... I walked to the gate and I said this and then he said that and then I said etc etc ..." instead he denies certain words and admits to some others such as telling the police he was the Chief Whip and his office is at No.9 (like they wouldn't know that). The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not given. Many times he says that he does not want to say that the policemen were lying and he also says that he is not asking the Federation reps to choose between two recollections but to draw a line under it (he repeats many times that he wants that line drawn under it). My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript). Do I? Where have I said or implied that? Sounds like you've already decided that the policemen are guilty ... that's OK is it?'" From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof and even though doubts quickly appeared regarding the dodgy police log you never displayed any balance in your postings which appear soley based on political prejudice and class. Mitchell does not have to give a word perfect account of what was said. He has clearly and consistently stated that he did not say the offending words he was accused of and although he has admitted to using a swear word this is not the issue. I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my opinion. Police investigating themselves is sadly no longer reliable and it was left to Mitchell and journalists to prove so many police to be liars. Now this affair is moving from police lies and leaks to the more serious conspiracy and cover up charges with weak Chief Constables in the frame. Yet none of this seems to trouble you as you persue your political agenda

Quote ="Lord Elpers"From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof ... '" That is a lie or you are mistaken. Which is it? Quote ="Lord Elpers"I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my ">opinion.'" You don't see the contradiction there?

Quote ="Lord Elpers"From the start it is you who judged Mitchell guilty without any proof ... '" That is a lie or you are mistaken. Which is it? Quote ="Lord Elpers"I have stated from the start that a man in this country is innocent until proved to be guilty. And it is for the prosecution to prove that guilt. The same goes for the police and I do hope they have their day in court, however there is real evidence already in the public domain to not only to cast doubt on the word of several police officers but audio tapes, video tapes and an email trail clearly show that several police officers are guilty in my ">opinion.'" You don't see the contradiction there?

Quote ="Lord Elpers"What Portillo said was that he was 100% sure Mitchell would never have used the word "Pleb" in the context the police ">alleged.'" Indeed he did. That was an opinion. His claim to have heard him use the word in private was a claim of fact. Maybe you can tell the difference? Quote ="Lord Elpers"You failed to report that Labour MP Diane Abbott and the LibDem spokeslady each made clear on the same programe just how serious this case is and that if a posh boy MP can be "fit up" then what chance a poor black guy who the police stop in the street. And that these same police officers who have been proven to have lied and given false statements are the same ones that will be in court on another day giving evidence against some sole in the ">dock.'" As far as I'm aware, the seriousness of police honesty and reliability hasn't ever been questioned. By anyone. As to your multiple quotes earlier - not one of them proves the allegation made. But I don't expect you to be able to understand that as your critical thinking skills have been proven to be third rate at best on numerous occasions.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"What Portillo said was that he was 100% sure Mitchell would never have used the word "Pleb" in the context the police ">alleged.'" Indeed he did. That was an opinion. His claim to have heard him use the word in private was a claim of fact. Maybe you can tell the difference? Quote ="Lord Elpers"You failed to report that Labour MP Diane Abbott and the LibDem spokeslady each made clear on the same programe just how serious this case is and that if a posh boy MP can be "fit up" then what chance a poor black guy who the police stop in the street. And that these same police officers who have been proven to have lied and given false statements are the same ones that will be in court on another day giving evidence against some sole in the ">dock.'" As far as I'm aware, the seriousness of police honesty and reliability hasn't ever been questioned. By anyone. As to your multiple quotes earlier - not one of them proves the allegation made. But I don't expect you to be able to understand that as your critical thinking skills have been proven to be third rate at best on numerous occasions.

[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24584328Did anyone think you could trust anything Portillo says?[/url



Frankly, now saying he "misspoke" means you cannot trust anything he says on this subject at least.

Quote ="El Barbudo"That is a lie or you are mistaken. Which is it??'" The truth lies in your answer to the following question I posed to you Quote ="Lord Elpers" ... To publish in print an untruth about someone which will do harm to that persons's reputation by tending to bring them into ridicule or contempt of others is libel... '" Quote ="El Barbudo"There you go then. This being Andrew Mitchell, there was no "bringing" involved, he was already there. '" and you had previously stated about Mitchell Quote ="El Barbudo"Obnoxious fool and bully sounds about the right sort of personality (if that's the right word) for that ">role.'" These were one eyed and prejudiced comments. You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. So do not pretend you didn't side with the police version rather than Mitchell's. Y Quote ="El Barbudo"ou don't see the contradiction there?'" There is no contradiction. Mitchell was the accused yet no proof has been offered to back up the dodgy police log. Until this happens his innocence should be presumed. However there is now plenty of evidence against the police version of events with 8 people arrested so far. But these are two very different cases now. Of course the police officers are innocent until proven guilty in court. But the big difference is that in their case we have already seen sufficient evidence to know several police officers have lied which is way beyond doubt. Be honest you had him banged to rights because he was a posh Tory boy and for no other reason.

Quote ="El Barbudo"That is a lie or you are mistaken. Which is it??'" The truth lies in your answer to the following question I posed to you Quote ="Lord Elpers" ... To publish in print an untruth about someone which will do harm to that persons's reputation by tending to bring them into ridicule or contempt of others is libel... '" Quote ="El Barbudo"There you go then. This being Andrew Mitchell, there was no "bringing" involved, he was already there. '" and you had previously stated about Mitchell Quote ="El Barbudo"Obnoxious fool and bully sounds about the right sort of personality (if that's the right word) for that ">role.'" These were one eyed and prejudiced comments. You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. So do not pretend you didn't side with the police version rather than Mitchell's. Y Quote ="El Barbudo"ou don't see the contradiction there?'" There is no contradiction. Mitchell was the accused yet no proof has been offered to back up the dodgy police log. Until this happens his innocence should be presumed. However there is now plenty of evidence against the police version of events with 8 people arrested so far. But these are two very different cases now. Of course the police officers are innocent until proven guilty in court. But the big difference is that in their case we have already seen sufficient evidence to know several police officers have lied which is way beyond doubt. Be honest you had him banged to rights because he was a posh Tory boy and for no other reason.

Quote ="El Barbudo"He admits swearing at the ">police.'" No he doesn't. What he admits to is saying as he walked away from them towards the gate was...."I thought you lot were supposed to f...ing help us" This is not swearing at the police but using a swear word as an adjective. And lets not get carried away this word is now part of our common language used every day on TV and published in papers and books. Quote ="El Barbudo"The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not ">given.'" This full conversation lasted 40 seconds and he has given his version in bits. The key bit being his utter denial of using andy of the 3 toxic phrases. Quote ="El Barbudo"My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript).'" Get real ...if swearing in the above way means you are a t0$$er then so are 99% of the population including I guess 99.99% of the police.

Quote ="El Barbudo"He admits swearing at the ">police.'" No he doesn't. What he admits to is saying as he walked away from them towards the gate was...."I thought you lot were supposed to f...ing help us" This is not swearing at the police but using a swear word as an adjective. And lets not get carried away this word is now part of our common language used every day on TV and published in papers and books. Quote ="El Barbudo"The full conversation (and tone), or even an attempt at it, is not ">given.'" This full conversation lasted 40 seconds and he has given his version in bits. The key bit being his utter denial of using andy of the 3 toxic phrases. Quote ="El Barbudo"My comment of it looking like he acted like a t0$$er is backed-up by his own admission of swearing and his own (possibly selectively) fragmented and scanty account of the conversation (see the transcript).'" Get real ...if swearing in the above way means you are a t0$$er then so are 99% of the population including I guess 99.99% of the police.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"No he doesn't. What he admits to is saying as he walked away from them towards the gate was...."I thought you lot were supposed to f...ing help us" '" Quote ="Lord Elpers"This is not swearing at the police but using a swear word as an adjective. And lets not get carried away this word is now part of our common language used every day on TV and published in papers and ">books.'" Yes it is, the comment was directed at the PC involved. No amount of bluster will get away from this.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"No he doesn't. What he admits to is saying as he walked away from them towards the gate was...."I thought you lot were supposed to f...ing help us" '" Quote ="Lord Elpers"This is not swearing at the police but using a swear word as an adjective. And lets not get carried away this word is now part of our common language used every day on TV and published in papers and ">books.'" Yes it is, the comment was directed at the PC involved. No amount of bluster will get away from this.

Quote ="Big Graeme"Yes it is, the comment was directed at the PC involved. No amount of bluster will get away from ">this.'" Nor will it erase the small matter of Cameron accepting Mitchells resignation and not defending him at the time, or since, over what was said at the gate. Lets reiterate - a few weeks previous Mitchell was Camerons personal appointment to the Chief Whips office, an office at No9 Downing St and all that goes with it, a favoured appointment to someone who came with a reputation for being a strict disciplinarian, obviously a feature that Cameron decided that he needed within his party. Just a few short weeks later he is expunged from the records - you don't do that to an old mate unless you have good reason to - and he has never discussed the issue of what happened at the gate since.

Quote ="Big Graeme"Yes it is, the comment was directed at the PC involved. No amount of bluster will get away from ">this.'" Nor will it erase the small matter of Cameron accepting Mitchells resignation and not defending him at the time, or since, over what was said at the gate. Lets reiterate - a few weeks previous Mitchell was Camerons personal appointment to the Chief Whips office, an office at No9 Downing St and all that goes with it, a favoured appointment to someone who came with a reputation for being a strict disciplinarian, obviously a feature that Cameron decided that he needed within his party. Just a few short weeks later he is expunged from the records - you don't do that to an old mate unless you have good reason to - and he has never discussed the issue of what happened at the gate since.

Therein lies the problem Lord Elpers.



They are so blinded by their political and Tory hating agenda that they are unable to view events from a balanced objective perspective to the extent that they disregard facts as if they don't even exist. Utterly pointless to try and argue with them.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"SECOND QUOTE '" This is brilliant - "superior critical thinking skills" Quote ="Kosh" My superior critical skills enable me not to see conspiracies where there is no evidence of any, and to realise that what's being investigated is (in one case) the conduct of a Police officer and (in the second) an unspecified offence that took place just a few days ago.. '" icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> Epic fail from the forum's most pompous poster.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"SECOND QUOTE '" This is brilliant - "superior critical thinking skills" Quote ="Kosh" My superior critical skills enable me not to see conspiracies where there is no evidence of any, and to realise that what's being investigated is (in one case) the conduct of a Police officer and (in the second) an unspecified offence that took place just a few days ago.. '" icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> Epic fail from the forum's most pompous poster.

Quote ="Ajw71"Therein lies the problem Lord Elpers. They are so blinded by their political and Tory hating agenda that they are unable to view events from a balanced objective perspective to the extent that they disregard facts as if they don't even exist. Utterly pointless to try and argue with ">them.'" Bothered answering any of the direct questions you've been repeatedly asked in a number of threads?

Quote ="Ajw71"Therein lies the problem Lord Elpers. They are so blinded by their political and Tory hating agenda that they are unable to view events from a balanced objective perspective to the extent that they disregard facts as if they don't even exist. Utterly pointless to try and argue with ">them.'" Bothered answering any of the direct questions you've been repeatedly asked in a number of threads?

Quote ="Lord Elpers"...These were one eyed and prejudiced comments. You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. So do not pretend you didn't side with the police version rather than Mitchell's...'" "not even-handed in your comments"? So, because I didn't declare that he was innocent, therefore I was saying that he was guilty? That's the logic of a twerp. Quote ="Lord Elpers"...There is no contradiction. Mitchell was the accused yet no proof has been offered to back up the dodgy police log. Until this happens his innocence should be presumed. However there is now plenty of evidence against the police version of events with 8 people arrested so far. But these are two very different cases now. Of course the police officers are innocent until proven guilty in court. But the big difference is that in their case we have already seen sufficient evidence to know several police officers have lied which is way beyond doubt...'" If you are going to presume innocence, you cannot prejudge .. and you have pre-judged the police, no presumption of innocence shown at all. Your guess may well turn out to be correct but it remains a pre-judgement, regardless of any pompous declarations to the contrary. Quote ="Lord Elpers"...Be honest you had him banged to rights because he was a posh Tory boy and for no other ">reason.'" At no time have I said he is guilty of anything other than being a t0$$er and that [uIF[/u he had the nasty bullying qualities that someone had ascribed to him in that thread then he was perfect for his role as Chief Whip. (A quote from which you carefully stripped the context.) In the old thread to which you keep referring, you will of course have noted where I actually said that (posh tory boy) Cameron's knowledge (or otherwise) of Latin was [unot[/u something about which to blame him. Your high horse is way too high for you, you are confusing your own bombast with devastating logic ... and it ain't.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"...These were one eyed and prejudiced comments. You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. So do not pretend you didn't side with the police version rather than Mitchell's...'" "not even-handed in your comments"? So, because I didn't declare that he was innocent, therefore I was saying that he was guilty? That's the logic of a twerp. Quote ="Lord Elpers"...There is no contradiction. Mitchell was the accused yet no proof has been offered to back up the dodgy police log. Until this happens his innocence should be presumed. However there is now plenty of evidence against the police version of events with 8 people arrested so far. But these are two very different cases now. Of course the police officers are innocent until proven guilty in court. But the big difference is that in their case we have already seen sufficient evidence to know several police officers have lied which is way beyond doubt...'" If you are going to presume innocence, you cannot prejudge .. and you have pre-judged the police, no presumption of innocence shown at all. Your guess may well turn out to be correct but it remains a pre-judgement, regardless of any pompous declarations to the contrary. Quote ="Lord Elpers"...Be honest you had him banged to rights because he was a posh Tory boy and for no other ">reason.'" At no time have I said he is guilty of anything other than being a t0$$er and that [uIF[/u he had the nasty bullying qualities that someone had ascribed to him in that thread then he was perfect for his role as Chief Whip. (A quote from which you carefully stripped the context.) In the old thread to which you keep referring, you will of course have noted where I actually said that (posh tory boy) Cameron's knowledge (or otherwise) of Latin was [unot[/u something about which to blame him. Your high horse is way too high for you, you are confusing your own bombast with devastating logic ... and it ain't.

Quote ="Ajw71"Therein lies the problem Lord Elpers. They are so blinded by their political and Tory hating agenda that they are unable to view events from a balanced objective perspective to the extent that they disregard facts as if they don't even exist. Utterly pointless to try and argue with ">them.'" At least Lord Elpless puts forward a case, albeit a flawed one ... you, on the other hand, just pop up from behind his coat tails and blurt the equivalent of "Yah Boo". Answered any questions yet sonny?

Quote ="Ajw71"Therein lies the problem Lord Elpers. They are so blinded by their political and Tory hating agenda that they are unable to view events from a balanced objective perspective to the extent that they disregard facts as if they don't even exist. Utterly pointless to try and argue with ">them.'" At least Lord Elpless puts forward a case, albeit a flawed one ... you, on the other hand, just pop up from behind his coat tails and blurt the equivalent of "Yah Boo". Answered any questions yet sonny?

Has he gone again? That was quick.

Quote ="El Barbudo""not even-handed in your comments"? So, because I didn't declare that he was innocent, therefore I was saying that he was guilty? That's the logic of a twerp..'" 'Don't play the slippery eel with me my man' I never suggested you should have declared “that he was innocent” what I actually said was ; “You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. My comment is true and none of your weasel words can alter the fact that you never even hinted that there could be a potential injustice. From the beginning there were enough obvious doubts that surfaced with leaks to the press, fabricating evidence, false pretences by police, a police union running an out of control political agenda etc. You did not need to be Hercule Poirot to smell a rat. Yet you and the other members of your leftie back slappers club never saw fit to even consider that Mitchell could be innocent of the allegations. This lack of an even handed comment with so many clear doubts about Mitchell’s guilt rather gives a big clue to your leanings. The majority of posters on this subject have from the very start spoken against Mitchell and in favour of the police account for what I have to assume was for blind political reasons as the so called police evidence started to crumble for the start. Most, if not all, your comments on the subject have been made against the few posters who pointed out the possibilities of a stitch up. Are these the words and actions those of a person with a questioning mind or of someone whom opinions are fixed in prejudice. Quote ="El Barbudo"If you are going to presume innocence, you cannot prejudge .. and you have pre-judged the police, no presumption of innocence shown at all. Your guess may well turn out to be correct but it remains a pre-judgement, regardless of any pompous declarations to the ">contrary.'" But I did not prejudge Mitchell but spoke out against those that did. As for the police I have did not pre-judged them either but expressed doubt regarding the Mitchell guilt. As events progressed I have taken into consideration (as with Mitchell) the evidence produced. In the police case there is clear evidence that some of them lied, one of them pretended to be a member public who was a witness at the gates when in fact he was an off duty police colleague who was nowhere near at the time but still happened to use exactly the same words as reported in the police log. Another one leaked the police log to the press. While the three Police Federation representatives lied to the TV cameras and it would seem also lied to the Home Affairs Select Committee too. Anyone who watched their sorry performance would be hard pressed to believe a word they said. So I have made my ongoing comments on the evidence available and I think my logic has been consistent throughout, while yours is as dodgy as your usual postings are pretentious. Perhaps your beard has hidden your sense of justice as well as your face. icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" /> Quote ="El Barbudo""At no time have I said he is guilty of anything other than being a t0$$er and that [uIF[/u he had the nasty bullying qualities that someone had ascribed to him in that thread then he was perfect for his role as Chief Whip. (A quote from which you carefully stripped the context.) '" So unless you know Mitchell personally on what evidence you are basing your character assassination? Again you show bias and a lack of an even handed approach. No mention that Mitchell for two years was Secretary of State for International Development and attracted much praise from MP's of all parties. Look back over my comments on both threads and tell me if the doubts I expressed were justified? I have not argued that Mitchell is innocent because of course I do not know that. But I have argued that there is enough doubt to suggest the police version is dodgy and that there is some evidence of a conspiracy aginst Mitchell Just so we do know which side of the fence you are on with the benefit of hindsight answer me these if you will? 1. Do you still believe the police log version of events at the Downing St gates? 2. Do you believe the police Federation account of their meeting with Mitchell? 3. Do you think it possible that there was some kind of conspiracy against Mitchell?

Quote ="El Barbudo""not even-handed in your comments"? So, because I didn't declare that he was innocent, therefore I was saying that he was guilty? That's the logic of a twerp..'" 'Don't play the slippery eel with me my man' I never suggested you should have declared “that he was innocent” what I actually said was ; “You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements. My comment is true and none of your weasel words can alter the fact that you never even hinted that there could be a potential injustice. From the beginning there were enough obvious doubts that surfaced with leaks to the press, fabricating evidence, false pretences by police, a police union running an out of control political agenda etc. You did not need to be Hercule Poirot to smell a rat. Yet you and the other members of your leftie back slappers club never saw fit to even consider that Mitchell could be innocent of the allegations. This lack of an even handed comment with so many clear doubts about Mitchell’s guilt rather gives a big clue to your leanings. The majority of posters on this subject have from the very start spoken against Mitchell and in favour of the police account for what I have to assume was for blind political reasons as the so called police evidence started to crumble for the start. Most, if not all, your comments on the subject have been made against the few posters who pointed out the possibilities of a stitch up. Are these the words and actions those of a person with a questioning mind or of someone whom opinions are fixed in prejudice. Quote ="El Barbudo"If you are going to presume innocence, you cannot prejudge .. and you have pre-judged the police, no presumption of innocence shown at all. Your guess may well turn out to be correct but it remains a pre-judgement, regardless of any pompous declarations to the ">contrary.'" But I did not prejudge Mitchell but spoke out against those that did. As for the police I have did not pre-judged them either but expressed doubt regarding the Mitchell guilt. As events progressed I have taken into consideration (as with Mitchell) the evidence produced. In the police case there is clear evidence that some of them lied, one of them pretended to be a member public who was a witness at the gates when in fact he was an off duty police colleague who was nowhere near at the time but still happened to use exactly the same words as reported in the police log. Another one leaked the police log to the press. While the three Police Federation representatives lied to the TV cameras and it would seem also lied to the Home Affairs Select Committee too. Anyone who watched their sorry performance would be hard pressed to believe a word they said. So I have made my ongoing comments on the evidence available and I think my logic has been consistent throughout, while yours is as dodgy as your usual postings are pretentious. Perhaps your beard has hidden your sense of justice as well as your face. icon_wink.gif" alt="icon_wink.gif" title="Wink" /> Quote ="El Barbudo""At no time have I said he is guilty of anything other than being a t0$$er and that [uIF[/u he had the nasty bullying qualities that someone had ascribed to him in that thread then he was perfect for his role as Chief Whip. (A quote from which you carefully stripped the context.) '" So unless you know Mitchell personally on what evidence you are basing your character assassination? Again you show bias and a lack of an even handed approach. No mention that Mitchell for two years was Secretary of State for International Development and attracted much praise from MP's of all parties. Look back over my comments on both threads and tell me if the doubts I expressed were justified? I have not argued that Mitchell is innocent because of course I do not know that. But I have argued that there is enough doubt to suggest the police version is dodgy and that there is some evidence of a conspiracy aginst Mitchell Just so we do know which side of the fence you are on with the benefit of hindsight answer me these if you will? 1. Do you still believe the police log version of events at the Downing St gates? 2. Do you believe the police Federation account of their meeting with Mitchell? 3. Do you think it possible that there was some kind of conspiracy against Mitchell?

As Plodgate continues to put the Plebgate scandal in the shade, this weeks news is that two of the police officers from the discredited Police Ferderation (aka police union) who gave such unbelievable evidence to the powerful home affairs select committee recently are to be hauled back before them this week as it appears that they lied to the Commons committee too. The 3rd police officer may also be recalled.



The Labour MP & Chairman of this committee Keith Vaz has expressed sharp criticism of the police saying “the narrative of what we have seen could rival any great work of fiction. At every level, instead of being transparent, we have uncovered a process that obstructs the truth. If this can happen to a cabinet minister, what hope is there for anyone else?”



In the report publish over the weekend the committee describes the evidence the three provided to the MP’s as “misleading, possibly deliberately so, and lacking in credibility” It also says it was “contradictory, inconsistent and providing little or no insight into their actions”



The report accuses the three officers of showing little remorse and failing to recognise the impact of their actions on Mitchell. “We are appalled at the stubborn and unashamed refusal of an apology” by these three officers the report says. In the course of the inquiry the committee received evidence that directly contradicted a number of answers given by the two recalled men.



It appears they lied once again and if they do not now correct the record they will be in prima facie contempt of parliament with a possible prison sentence to face.



The three officers also face a new enquiry by the flawed Independent Police Complaints Commission as they found the original police enquiry to have “procedural irregularities” which cleared their colleagues of deliberately lying. At least two may face a hearing for gross misconduct.



Meanwhile back at the Plebgate scandal, the Crown Prosecution Service is considering whether to bring criminal charges over the Downing Street altercation. The eight people arrested including 5 Metropolitan police officers have been re-bailed.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"'Don't play the slippery eel with me my man' I never suggested you should have declared “that he was innocent” what I actually said was ; “You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements....'" icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> Oh very good, I love the way you accuse and then do exactly the same. Quote ="Lord Elpers"But I did not prejudge Mitchell but spoke out against those that did. As for the police I have did not pre-judged them either ...'" Give over, you called them liars when it was yet to be proven either way. Quote ="Lord Elpers"...So unless you know Mitchell personally on what evidence you are basing your character assassination? '" Based on the blend of his own admissions and his lily-livered refusal to make a complaint. Quote ="Lord Elpers"1. Do you still believe the police log version of events at the Downing St gates?'" Some of it is borne out by Mitchell, so I'd guess that at least some of it is correct, just how much I guess we'll never know. Quote ="Lord Elpers"2. Do you believe the police Federation account of their meeting with Mitchell?'" You mean the transcript of that meeting or what they said immediately afterwards? I have no reason to doubt the transcript (I don't think Mitchell has cast any doubt on it either). What they said afterwards was probably misleading, unlike you I am not accusing them of lying. Quote ="Lord Elpers"3. Do you think it possible that there was some kind of conspiracy against Mitchell?'" Of course it's "possible". It does seem to me that whilst the police federation members have something to answer and the truth of the conversation at the gate of Downing Street may well never be settled, Mitchell is being made out to be an innocent victim of a random conspiracy when, even by his own admission of swearing at police officers [isimply because he wasn't allowed to cycle out of the main gates[/i, he was acting like a t0sser.

Quote ="Lord Elpers"'Don't play the slippery eel with me my man' I never suggested you should have declared “that he was innocent” what I actually said was ; “You were not even handed in your comments and never suggested that Mitchell could be innocent or that there may be doubt about the police statements....'" icon_lol.gif" alt="icon_lol.gif" title="Laughing" /> Oh very good, I love the way you accuse and then do exactly the same. Quote ="Lord Elpers"But I did not prejudge Mitchell but spoke out against those that did. As for the police I have did not pre-judged them either ...'" Give over, you called them liars when it was yet to be proven either way. Quote ="Lord Elpers"...So unless you know Mitchell personally on what evidence you are basing your character assassination? '" Based on the blend of his own admissions and his lily-livered refusal to make a complaint. Quote ="Lord Elpers"1. Do you still believe the police log version of events at the Downing St gates?'" Some of it is borne out by Mitchell, so I'd guess that at least some of it is correct, just how much I guess we'll never know. Quote ="Lord Elpers"2. Do you believe the police Federation account of their meeting with Mitchell?'" You mean the transcript of that meeting or what they said immediately afterwards? I have no reason to doubt the transcript (I don't think Mitchell has cast any doubt on it either). What they said afterwards was probably misleading, unlike you I am not accusing them of lying. Quote ="Lord Elpers"3. Do you think it possible that there was some kind of conspiracy against Mitchell?'" Of course it's "possible". It does seem to me that whilst the police federation members have something to answer and the truth of the conversation at the gate of Downing Street may well never be settled, Mitchell is being made out to be an innocent victim of a random conspiracy when, even by his own admission of swearing at police officers [isimply because he wasn't allowed to cycle out of the main gates[/i, he was acting like a t0sser.

Why hasn't Mitchell been charged? He's admitted committing a crime.

Quote ="Him"Why hasn't Mitchell been charged? He's admitted committing a ">crime.'" Steady on. What crime?

Quote ="Him"Why hasn't Mitchell been charged? He's admitted committing a ">crime.'" Steady on. What crime?