Joined: May 25 2002 Posts: 37704 Location: Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Kosh wrote:Odd that it's taken three months to come up with a short CCTV clip that proves nothing either way, don't you think? Even odder that this is apparently the first time Mitchell has seen any CCTV at all. Convenient that it has no sound and fails to cover a crucial part of the confrontation.
I call shenanigans.
Strange that only one clip has a clock running too
The older I get, the better I was
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
The Video Ref wrote:From what I am hearing on the radio / reading in the press, the whole thing was supposed to have been witnessed by a diplomatic protection officer who gave a statement.
It has now transpired that this person was not even at the scene and their statement was a pile of lies. They have been arrested for perverting the course of justice, or something to that effect.
So, if a copper who wasn't even there can claim he was, I don't think it would be too difficult for one who was there to attribute something to Mitchell that was never even said.
Either way, the police's version of events has lost all credibility.
No the policeman arrested has not been arrested for perverting the course of justice. He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A very different offence. The officer arrested made no official complaint to police about the incident and so has not fabricated evidence. He allegedly lied to an MP about the fact he heard was what reported in the police log. And is rumoured to have released the log to the press.
Why do you think an officers conduct, who wasn't present and has had no input into the police handling of the incident or the recording of the log, has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of the police log.
The Tories must be desperate to get Mitchell back, they're really going for this but it's going to backfire because nothing so far has contradicted the police log.
No the policeman arrested has not been arrested for perverting the course of justice. He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A very different offence. The officer arrested made no official complaint to police about the incident and so has not fabricated evidence. He allegedly lied to an MP about the fact he heard was what reported in the police log. And is rumoured to have released the log to the press.
Why do you think an officers conduct, who wasn't present and has had no input into the police handling of the incident or the recording of the log, has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of the police log.
The Tories must be desperate to get Mitchell back, they're really going for this but it's going to backfire because nothing so far has contradicted the police log.
The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie:
Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell.
Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.
Him wrote::lol:
No the policeman arrested has not been arrested for perverting the course of justice. He was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office. A very different offence. The officer arrested made no official complaint to police about the incident and so has not fabricated evidence. He allegedly lied to an MP about the fact he heard was what reported in the police log. And is rumoured to have released the log to the press.
Why do you think an officers conduct, who wasn't present and has had no input into the police handling of the incident or the recording of the log, has any bearing whatsoever on the contents of the police log.
The Tories must be desperate to get Mitchell back, they're really going for this but it's going to backfire because nothing so far has contradicted the police log.
The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie:
Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell.
Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.
Joined: Jun 19 2002 Posts: 14970 Location: Campaigning for a deep attacking line
The Video Ref wrote:The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie:
Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell.
Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.
Once again, how does the arrest of an officer who wasn't present and didn't contribute in any way to the police log affect the credibility or validity of the police log? Which parts of the log are now in doubt and why?
For some reason none of the Tory apologists can answer this question.
The Video Ref wrote:The exact offence is irrelevant. The fact is a serving police officer has been arrested. We are being told his claim to have witnessed the incident is being investigated as a lie:
Clearly this casts doubt over the credibility of the whole 'case' against Mitchell.
Anyway, keep your lid on. I remember you working yourself into a complete lather over the whole Osborne / train ticket affair. Which turned out to be a complete non-story.
Once again, how does the arrest of an officer who wasn't present and didn't contribute in any way to the police log affect the credibility or validity of the police log? Which parts of the log are now in doubt and why?
For some reason none of the Tory apologists can answer this question.
Him wrote:Once again, how does the arrest of an officer who wasn't present and didn't contribute in any way to the police log affect the credibility or validity of the police log? Which parts of the log are now in doubt and why?
For some reason none of the Tory apologists can answer this question.
You are quite right. They have him bang to rights.
It's quite normal pretend to be a witness just to make sure. Normal police procedures I suppose.
Well normal if you are a police apologist? I suppose the fabrication of evidence isn't an issue anymore.
So you don't think it's dodgy? You don't think it's strange that a police officer pretends to of witnessed the events? You don't think it's shakey in the slightest? All above board?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 64 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
