Lord Elpers wrote:Well perhaps this is because you keep making points that are irrelevant to the main issue...which is justice or in this case a possible injustice and even more worrying police corruption and another white wash by police investigating themselves. Now this is the point that you keep failing to address for what I can only imagine to be political reasons.
I have mentioned this point several pages back and several times since, Mitchell has his evidence in the public domain that he was apparently the victim of a police conspiracy.
The point that you are swerving is that its only the second installment of the story, he and his team are now very careful about NOT mentioning what was actually said on the fateful night and so is David Cameron for he does not mention it either - the public domain evidence of what happened on that night cannot be the only evidence that Cameron was presented with for you would not insist on your Chief Whips resignation on the strength of that alone.
Quote:You also completely miss the other main point here which is that Mitchell has never been charged with any offense. It was the politically motivated and malicious leaking of the confidential police log to the Sun, followed by fabricated evidence by police, and then a high profile campaign by the police Federation and Labour front benchers to get him sacked.
None of which has helped him get his job back, why did he resign and why did Cameron accept so quickly on the strength of three poor quality non-audio videos that show a different storyboard to what was described, is Cameron so in hock to Murdoch that he bows to one of his news rags so eagerly and swiftly ?
Quote:The evidence is clear enough. The police ‘log’ reprinted in the Daily Telegraph cited ‘several members of the public’ ...etc
All of which is the police conspiracy element and does not address the issue of what was said, and what happened in those forty ro so seconds that caused Cameron to accept the resignation so swiftly, christ, this is a Prime Minister who leaves his kids in a pub, you'd think he wouldn't be all that worried about a Minister who uses one "F" word in a sentence after a long day in office.
Quote:There are in fact three recordings of evidence in the public domain.
Again, you speak of the conspiracy and not of the actual event, we've covered the conspiracy from top to bottom and most of the evidence is in the public arena, the pertinent evidence of what was recorded at the gate is not for no audio recording exists in the public domain.
You also mention again that most of the resultant outcry came from The Sun, do you think that Cameron jumped to attention when Murdoch shouted his name and started stirring things ?
Quote:Question why wouldn't the police use it if indeed it justified the police log. No amount of political pressure would prevent that sort of cover up. The police would have loved to leak a story thet the PM was suppressing the truth no wouldn't they?
And finally you reach the pertinent part.
I've done a Google streetview of Downing Street, you should do too, its quite revealing really if only for the fact that the Google car was allowed through the gate and a short way up Downing Street.
The streetview shots clearly show the three cctv camera positions which supplied the extremely cheap amateur tapes, two are on the Whitehall facing wall of the two government buildings that are adjecent to the security gate and the other is actually on the wall of the security lodge 20 or 40 yards into Downing Street, unless they are very covert there appears to be no other security coverage on the main entrance to the seat of government , I'm trying not to believe that this could be the case or that we rely totally on the type of cctv image that, if you'd produced them on your home door entry camera you'd be taking the kit back to Maplins for a refund, but I'm starting to believe that the public domain films could be the be all and end all of the protection offered to the whole of the cabinet when they meet at No 10 every week.
