Lord Elpers wrote:If much of what I say is possibly true then Mitchell should be presumed innocent until there is proof of guilt. Which is my whole point.

Now lets look at your "vital facts"

The officer (not plural) indeed has not been charged with anything. I understand that the year long police enquiry didn't even question him under caution which tells you something about policemen investigating policemen.

You do not know if the PC acted honestly or dishonestly.

Only if you believe the PC at the gates version.

It may not show the entire story but it does show Mitchell at the gate (when the PC's report stated the Pleb etc allegations took place) with no "visibly shocked members of the public" which is sufficient to at least cast doubt on the police log.

No they did not say "Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant" you are embellishing what the CPS report stated. Remember the CPS can only work with the evidence (or lack of) that the police give them.

No the officers have not been fully exonerated. Because the police did not supply sufficient evidence for the CPS to have an odds on chance of winning a prosecution they are not going to prosecute.

The police enquiry found a PC (or WPC) leaked the police email report (log) to the media but because there was no evidence that a payment was asked for or received they decided not to prosecute. Quite how a serving police officer can leak a confidential report about a senior cabinet minister and not be charged shows just how out of control the police now are.

Because it was another officers partner who introduced the word "moron" to the press therefore they cannot be considered for misconduct in a public office.

So please don't make out they were all fully exonerated.

It should be noted that Mitchell's lawyers do not agree with the CPS conclusions including the evidence against the PC at the gate


I think most of us know why they conducted such a high profile campaign against Mitchell. The Police Federation have been actively against the cut backs to the police budget and so any government minister was a fair target in their eyes. Particularly since having campaigned that the budget cuts would lose front line officers and crime would rise they are now smarting as crime has continued to fall since the cuts and their arguments were shown to be wrong.


Once again you are quite wrong. Mitchell made a full page account of the confronation covering what he said and what the PC said, in the Sunday Times in December 2012. He was also interviewed by the Police Fed reps for 45 minutes during which time he aswered every question they asked. Finally Mitchell has never been charged with anything.

Wrong again the CPS report did not say "changed repeatedly"

He has not admitted to swearing at the police, only using a 'swear' word to enhance a comment. You do not know that the police were only doing their jobs. Mitchell's account claims the PC was being deliberately difficult and obstructive.


Pure conjecture

You do not know he has not told the entire truth. It was not the allegations that caused him to resign but the high profile media frenzy which culminated in the Police Fed PC's misleading report to the TV news cameras.

Don't hold your breath

Lord Elpers wrote:If much of what I say is possibly true then Mitchell should be presumed innocent until there is proof of guilt. Which is my whole point.

Now lets look at your "vital facts"

The officer (not plural) indeed has not been charged with anything. I understand that the year long police enquiry didn't even question him under caution which tells you something about policemen investigating policemen.

You do not know if the PC acted honestly or dishonestly.

Only if you believe the PC at the gates version.

It may not show the entire story but it does show Mitchell at the gate (when the PC's report stated the Pleb etc allegations took place) with no "visibly shocked members of the public" which is sufficient to at least cast doubt on the police log.

No they did not say "Mitchell's story has yet to be consistant" you are embellishing what the CPS report stated. Remember the CPS can only work with the evidence (or lack of) that the police give them.

No the officers have not been fully exonerated. Because the police did not supply sufficient evidence for the CPS to have an odds on chance of winning a prosecution they are not going to prosecute.

The police enquiry found a PC (or WPC) leaked the police email report (log) to the media but because there was no evidence that a payment was asked for or received they decided not to prosecute. Quite how a serving police officer can leak a confidential report about a senior cabinet minister and not be charged shows just how out of control the police now are.

Because it was another officers partner who introduced the word "moron" to the press therefore they cannot be considered for misconduct in a public office.

So please don't make out they were all fully exonerated.

It should be noted that Mitchell's lawyers do not agree with the CPS conclusions including the evidence against the PC at the gate


I think most of us know why they conducted such a high profile campaign against Mitchell. The Police Federation have been actively against the cut backs to the police budget and so any government minister was a fair target in their eyes. Particularly since having campaigned that the budget cuts would lose front line officers and crime would rise they are now smarting as crime has continued to fall since the cuts and their arguments were shown to be wrong.


Once again you are quite wrong. Mitchell made a full page account of the confronation covering what he said and what the PC said, in the Sunday Times in December 2012. He was also interviewed by the Police Fed reps for 45 minutes during which time he aswered every question they asked. Finally Mitchell has never been charged with anything.

Wrong again the CPS report did not say "changed repeatedly"

He has not admitted to swearing at the police, only using a 'swear' word to enhance a comment. You do not know that the police were only doing their jobs. Mitchell's account claims the PC was being deliberately difficult and obstructive.


Pure conjecture

You do not know he has not told the entire truth. It was not the allegations that caused him to resign but the high profile media frenzy which culminated in the Police Fed PC's misleading report to the TV news cameras.

Don't hold your breath