Excellent point my fellow conspiracy theorist



Well he has admitted to using the F-word towards a police officer. Now you don't have to be The Mentalist to suggest that when people use the F-word towards a police officer it's usually because they are in a rage or have lost their temper. In what non-temper related scenarios would one use the F-word when speaking to a police officer?

I'm not saying he should have resigned btw. That's for the Conservatives to decide and if they've fallen prey to a media backlash then they only have themselves to blame. When you tell lies and deliberately mislead the public (every government has done since I was born) as often as politicians do then you can't be surprised that the general public decides not to believe a word they say. Not saying that's right but when a political party fails to promote fairness in society they can't be surprised to find out they're judged as harshly as the people they continue to neglect. It's like beating on a person and then turning to them for sympathy. When you have a political ethos mired in punishment, not rehabilitation, then society will reflect that back to you.

Where have you been these last years. The f word is part of the majority of the populations regular language and on TV most nights. It is certainly not just used just in temper.

I would be tempted to use the f word as an adjective if an officer was being deliberately obstructive and would certainly let him know he wouldn't hear the last of it if I intended to report him. It is not a police state just yet.





So logically you would also agree then that the police who regularly tell lies and deliberately mislead the public should also not be believed too?

I never said that they are not "real", but for the purposes of an investigation by either party they are virtually useless being as they do not prove or disprove anything.

I do not doubt that there is very clear cctv in HD and audio recordings of what took place, all properly timestamped and I would be absolutely stunned if the hierachy in the Tory party have not viewed these - no-one will convince me that the total extent of cctv in Downing Street is the three camera angles submitted by Mitchell and his supporters - what they are is the sum total of what they were able to request in their role as government employees rather than the Met Police or the PM.

Frankly if it were me who was being accused of saying something to a police offier that I absolutely knew I had not said and my very well paid, and more importantly to my well acknowledged ego, very prestigious office, was at stake then I would raise merry hell in order to obtain the evidence especially as his PM seemed to be very supportive of him in the early weeks when the press were very anti-Mitchell (don't forget that the press have attacked from both sides in this and the Labour Party were just doing what its is they all do for a living) - frankly if it were me I'd be formally requesting that my PM gathered all of the available media, viewed it, and then absolved me.

Mitchell is absolutely convinced that he has been wronged, his boss can prove it easily, but seems very reluctant to do so.





The evidence to date is not conclusive at all for either party, the footage that counts will be - to one or the other.

Someone is sitting on that evidence, the PM has the wherewithal to demand it, the Met handle security for HM Gov on Downing Street but HM Gov own the properties, own the street and will have paid for the security measures that exist and for their upkeep and maintenance, they will own copyright to the recordings and are within their rights to demand the recordings I don't understand why Cameron has let this drag on for as long as it has and be built up into something that can either drag him down or drag the Met down and if he drags the Met down then he'll be the first PM who can't depend on his own Police force for support, his dithering has created a mountain out of a pimple on a molehill, we're not even bothered that the Minister used the "f" word against a police officer, its the "p" word FFS !

If this were a dispute between a private company and its security providers then there would have been a board room meeting weeks ago, a banging of heads together and the matter forgotten - then again that is using common sense.

He was leaving work on his bike and had to go an extra couple of yards. That's hardly provocative enough to generate using the F-word to a police officer. Add into that the fact that this is the party of 'Law and Order' who constantly harp on about respect, morals, being a good citizen etc. and I think you can understand why I'm finding it a bit hard to put, effing at a police officer, down to a lazy choice of adjective. Even if I take it from the point of view of him being stressed out, it is still a police officer and he's had to walk an extra twenty or so metres. Is that a sackable offence? Probably not for me but if it wasn't why let him resign? Perhaps, because of Mitchell's reputation, the Conservatives own first reaction was to believe he said exactly what was first reported. Why then hold the public accountable for a political decision by the Conservative Party? It's quite possible that factions in the Conservative Party itself pushed for it.



You've probably answered your own question there about the police. We know the police have corrupt officers but on a per head basis they fall well below politicians. It may be wrong but when politicians behave like criminals (and let's face it, what else is corruption) why would the public choose to believe them over a man who is just trying to do his job according to how he's supposed to do it?

My opinion itself, is the guy swore at a police officer and resigned because his party couldn't handle the political fallout which, if they had any credibility, probably wouldn't be as big an issue e.g. Brown calling that woman bigoted. I'd certainly say it's less of an issue compared to something like when the UK Border Agency guy was sacked by the Home Secretary without any sort of disciplinary procedure, costing the taxpayer at least £100,000 (effectively a deliberate breaking of employment law). 'Plebgate' is insignificant news but people buy into it because the narrative fits with how the Conservative Party behaves.

They are certainly not useless and while not conclusive either they do cast doubt on the police log.




There maybe other cctv but also maybe not. But if there were something that supported the police log I feel sure the police would have released it by now




This is based on your assumption that there is clear evidence being withheld. If indeed there is fresh evidence available I feel sure that Mitchell's legal team will have put in place the demands for sight of it in order to further their forthcoming libel prosecutions to all and sundry.




Again your point is based on your assumption that there is further proof available which until substantiated is pure speculation. Perhaps the boys in blue forgot to turn on the other cameras or had them pointing in the wrong direction or is that the PM's fault as well?




Not conclusive... but enough to throw doubt on the police version.




Again you make an assumption and then treat it as fact as you continue your agenda against Cameron. As for depending on police support, I think that went out of the station window when the new Government outlined their budget cuts. Interestingly the crime rate has gone down during these cuts which shows the police scare spin about losing front line officers was not valid.




This was always a storm in a teacup which started with the police leaking a dodgy log was hyped up by the government`s enemies. I will not be suprised to see one or two members of the police lose their jobs over this and a tighter control made over the Police Federation.

If you have read Mitchell's version of the affair you will know that he regulary uses the main gate as when on his bike he is not a pedestrian. He stes that he had been in and out of the main gate several time that day. If he is to be believed the officer just refused to open the gate for him for no reason repeating "No" to his various requests. It did sound like the officer was just being awkward and using his power for no other reason. I am no fan of politicions but an elected member of the government should not have been treated so rudely if Mitchell is telling the truth.




Well recent events have shown the police to be equally as bad if not worse than politicians so why would you believe them first...and would you have done if the politician had been from the Labour party?




Well you certainly have bought into it and have also chosen to gloss over the police's lies and poor behaviour....nothing to do with political bias I suppose?

So do you seriously think that the three poor quality camera shots (without any audio) are the sum combined total of Whitehall and Downing Street security surveillance ?

I had better security on my last house.

Anyone thinking the rozzers overstepped the mark in this case should've tried visiting Knowsley Road in the early 80s for a CC game

It isnt hyped up gossip on the internet, it was widely reported throughout the media

No, words to the effect are actually an outright confirmation of not only what he said but the actual meaning intended. It is a description of intention, not the actual words used. If anything, this strengthens my argument.

You have taken that statement out of of context. Which is pretty idiotic. You would have thought he would have outright denied what sources close to him have agreed was said if he didnt say it wouldnt you .

But im not using the CCTV footage as evidence that he did lose his tempter or displayed anger. You are, despite the fact it proves nothing either way.
Third parties can give evidence, they are generally called witnesses.

Because none of these things are proven to have happened. You have quite clearly and obviously made them up.

He wasnt used as a witness to corroborate the police log. Your premise is wrong.

Please provide evidence for your assertion or retract it.


The statement was that Mr Mitchell told them nothing new, not that he told them nothing. Stop making things up.



how do you walk invisibly?
Because it isnt.
The presumption of innocence has been given. Mr Mitchell hasnt been fired and hasnt been prosecuted. He chose to resign his post.

You could well be right although respect works both ways which is something that politicians and people who hold power tend to forget. I've seen it from managers throughout my working life. You treat people how you expect to be treated yourself. That's a simple, common rule that it appears neither party was able to adhere for whatever reason that is i.e. a playground spat between two knobheads. It's more complicated than that I know but these are grown men arguing over somebody leaving Downing Street on a bike and yet one is running the country and the other is supposed to be protecting his valuable service. What does this incident say about both?



It makes no difference what their political allegiance is in the same way that it didn't matter with the expenses scandal.



I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. I'm pretty sure that I've based my opinion on what happened i.e. he admitted swearing and he resigned. It appears to be you who wants to blame the police and the media for a choice made by Mitchell himself and/or his party. Again, I'm not sure how anybody else is accountable for a Conservative Party decision.