In which case you need to tear up your SBLBSC membership card pronto!

Perfect for the discerning Sin Bin lefty back slapper in your life.

Perfect for the discerning Sin Bin lefty back slapper in your life.

Mintball wrote:Perfect for the discerning Sin Bin lefty back slapper in your life. I need to up my lefty post quotient to get one of those

Mintball wrote:Perfect for the discerning Sin Bin lefty back slapper in your life. I need to up my lefty post quotient to get one of those

Poor research once again.

Firstly the accusation that has kept being posed by some of your fellow members of the SBLBSC ( ) is that Mitchell has refused to state publically exactly what he did say. This accusation is false as I have explained. You and your colleague's ignorance of this fact is perhaps because the ST is not freely available on the internet, however that does not alter the fact that Mitchell's full account has been in the public domain for 14 months. As it turns out what he said was irrelevant to the allegations which he has consistently refuted. And as such the police, federation and media have not pursued this line further.

Now turning to the point you now make, which is at a tangent to the question I answered but interestingly agrees with my case:

It is interesting that you now say:
"He gave what he claims is an account. Unless he can offer supporting evidence it remains nothing other than what he claims he said. It may be accurate: it may not be. But the point is that there is, at this juncture, no corroborative evidence."

Well you will have to agree that this also applies to the PC at the gate too who filed the log. Which is precisely the main point I have made from the start. Unless there is evidence to prove Mitchell actually made the Pleb remarks then he has to be viewed as innocent. It is for the prosecution to provide the evidence and not Mitchell as he has not been charged with anything.

I have said before that either one of Mitchell or the PC at the gate is lying through his teeth (or perhaps both may not be telling the whole truth) but that is not the issue in the absence of proof.

Having made this statement can we assume you finally agree with my argument.

I have not slighted you professionally - unless you are offended that I pointed out the amount of time you spend on this forum which is there for all to see.

Again I have not said that anyone who disagrees with me is obviously a leftie. What I commented on was that most who have taken sides against Mitchell have left wing views which they express daily on this forum for all to see too.

You really should be more accurate in your reporting!

What would you like to know about The Times or Sunday Times archives, I have access to all of them.

I don't "now" say anything that I have not previously said or that contradicts anything that I have previously said.



I've never suggested otherwise. Thus your point is pointless.



Which has nothing to do with anything, even if you could actually work such a thing out. Which you can't.

Actually, I was thinking more of the following little gems from a page or so ago that you now appear to have forgotten:











No sweeping generalisations there about anyone who has disagreed with you on this thread, oh no.





I'm not "reporting", here, any more than you're flogging property.

HTH.

Mintball wrote:Perfect for the discerning Sin Bin lefty back slapper in your life.

Mintball wrote:Perfect for the discerning Sin Bin lefty back slapper in your life.

As a non-member (I think) of the SBLBSC can I ask what the fook you're talking about?

Guilty? Innocent?

The issue seemed to focus on whether Mitchell called the police "plebs". I have scoured the Statue books yet can find no such offence as "Calling someone a pleb".

I have scoured the news reports yet can find no report of any criminal charges pending against Mitchell for anything he allegedly said.

The question is thus simply, What did he say? There is no "presumption of innocence" whatsoever in this context. Indeed, albeit in the sphere of civil law, not criminal, Mitchell is going to court, suing Newsgroup for libel as he denies saying what they reported. In that case, it is actually positively up to him to prove he was libelled, so the burden of proof is actually on him. As the courts have given the Sun effectively a free punt, this may be no easy task for him.

Sure you don't. I do not recall you stating this point before so of course it wouldn't contradict anything you previously said but as you have had 14 months to have made this point in favour of Mitchell and you only choose to make it now but against Mitchell then I think the word "now" is appropriate.

Let us remind ourselves what you just said:



You made this point against Mitchell. This point applies equally to the police log where the same point can be made in favour of Mitchell. How come you never made this point over the last 14 months?




No you never suggested otherwise but if you have always believed this to be an important point why have you remained silent over the last year and never thought to apply it to the police log? You only now have used it in an attempt to discredit Mitchell without any comment that it equally applies to the police version of events.

This may wish to dismiss this as pointless but I believe you have been hoist with your own petard as your point confirms my original argument.




Well I am so glad you enjoyed them but they seem do to have touched a nerve

You don't "recall" what you wrote a page earlier on this thread.

Let us remind ourselves what you just said:



Given your inability to remember something that you yourself posted only hours earlier ...



Learn to read.



"Why have you remained silent"? What bumptious twaddle. Are you fantasising that you're in an old B&W Hollywood courtroom drama?

I rethink that's what this is – your fantasy of being Clarence Darrow.

I haven't "used it in an attempt to discredit Mitchell": I have made the point that there is no report out there of what was said that has witnesses to it, thus making it a word-against-word situation.



Try writing in English next time. There might be more chance of someone understanding it.



I considered them hilarious in their pettiness and stupidity, and subsequently in your apparent inability to remember something that you'd posted only a page previously.