I bet the CCTV footage now been shown was actually re-shot recently with actors in place of the policemen.After all, if they can fake the moon landings then this should be a dawdle.
THIS
or some members of the police lied in order to fuel their own political agenda as the CCTV looks most unlike their account.
Not quite sure i can go as far as feel sorry for a Tory though but it looks like he has been wronged and seriously so by the plod.
never mind it being against a Tory, this is the police force looking to get MP's sacked to suit their own political agenda, all the idiots who were involved in this including the federation berks who lied about the constituency meeting should be jailed.
This does kind of make the issue of whether the word "pleb" was used insignificant, as the police now seem to be fabricating witness statements against politicians.
I saw a different angle on the Despatches prog. Journalists artistic/creative licence and reporting yet again.
this is the police force looking to get MP's sacked to suit their own political agenda
It does rather look like it. The police should have no political agenda, IMO.
G4S shares are looking tike a hot tip for the mornings trading 😀
I look fwd to you being as impartial on a lefty bashing thread Cpt oh sod it I will aim high and go for wendyball 😉
[img] 
[/img]
Who would believe it the police federation and the met more dishonest than a Tory MP .
Why didn't Mitchell own up to what he said in the first place?
The Tories and the met not getting on is surely a good thing.
Mr Mitchell said he would never use the words which he was accused of using
Well I never found that too hard to believe. He's just to oiky to know the proper meaning of the word 😉
It makes you wonder why the Met didn't quickly state the copy of the alleged police log was false, and that the alleged witness statement differed from the actual log/ officer statements
I think this is going to hit quite a few in the Met
The Fed etc are not looking good either, and some people in his own party are probably ducking for cover as well
It does rather look like it. The police should have no political agenda,
I agree, sadly the tories dont..
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/police-crime-commissioners/
Lying dishonest police officers in collusion with a dishonest press. The police got away with in Leveson and they think the can carry on leaking info. This time for there own agenda at least rather than money. Either way it shows a level of dishonesty that is condoned within the met (and other forces) at senior level, why should the gate jockeys at number 10 be different. All they had to do was open the gate for the tory bloke on a bike, whats so difficult about that? Were they anti tory or anti bike? What stupid mess.
The Eton Mess always look for scapegoats when in trouble.Were all just gags to them.
Sorry FAGS that is
deadlydarcy - Member
Difficult one this for right wingers. Not sure whether to masturbate or flagellate.Posted 11 hours ago # Report-Post
Knock yourself out DD,it's xmas,go for both.
PS; How 'bout them Munstermen? 😉
This is what I don't understand. The press officer taped the meeting with the Police Federation reps. The Fed rep admitted to Despatches that one element was talked about in the meeting (agreed) but then the Despatches reporter didn't give the whole context/or rest of the interview and selectively added himself (not a recording) more information to give the impression that it was also said by the federation at the meeting.
The CCTV clearly shows 3-4 blurred out members of the public at the top of the picture at the edge of the security gate but Despatches kept on saying 'there aren't crowds of people around the gate'. No but there was a group with 1-2 people walking past.
Too many inconsistencies and finally who do I trust? A Politicians word or a Police officers? We all know the former are known for truth.
Knock yourself out DD,it's xmas,go for both.
Oh don't you worry, it's a regular activity for me.
welcome to fatherhood DD 😉
but then the Despatches reporter then added a falsehood to put a negative spin to the determinant of the Police Federation
did you watch the same program?
police fed in the meeting "thank you for your candor"
police fed to press outside "he refused to confirm what he said"
police fed when confronted with the tape, no answer
refresh your memory here
http://order-order.com/2012/12/19/mitchell-cctv-cop-conspiracy/
Catholicism ensured both activities featured regularly for years Stoner. 😛
Interesting that Binners and Co from earlier in the thread have all gone quiet?? 😳
The CCTV clearly shows 3-4 blurred out members of the public at the top of the picture at the edge of the security gate but Despatches kept on saying 'there aren't crowds of people around the gate'. No but there was a group with 1-2 people walking past.
I think this was pointed to show that both the police statement and witness statement were inconsistent in exactly the same way, as they both mentioned a "crowd of people".
Heres the Channel 4 report.
http://www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-police-cctv-downing-street
Coppers stitching up a cabinet minister because they arent happy with changes to police pay and conditions. Lets have the buggers in court.
Good work by Michael Crick on that one.
Andrew Mitchell may be an a-hole, but no excuse for the police making stuff up to oust him.
There seems to be very little concern hereabouts that a breach has opened in the body politic of the nation.
We are now living in a country where a police conspiracy has been uncovered against the government of the day.
Is nobody else worried about this, or is it just me?
a police conspiracy has been uncovered against the government of the day.
Id class it more as a spiteful shit-stir by the policeman's union that has backfired on them. Its not "The Police", it's not even "The Met", it's a Union having a pot shot at a government they dont like.
Not really of "coup" proportions though.
Something amiss here.
Is there not the possibility that "the police officer" witness and "member of the public" witness are, in fact, one and the same?
Which would indicate that it was actually an undercover officer, and that he/she has strangely been represented as being a witness in both camps.
So, Police keen to protect
a)the identity of an undercover operative and
b)the fact that they have undercover cops looking like the public milling around Number 10 and beyond?
Just a thought.
It would be interesting to hear what the 'nephew', should they exist in real life, has to say.
Id class it more as a spiteful shit-stir by the policeman's union
Said like a true oppressor of the plebs 😉
Not sure how much they were involved in this initially and they may well have bene hoodwinked by those there
Was there any actual proof that the CCTV was from that actual day?
Was it not provided by the govt?
Probably just being a bit conspiracist now but it would be funny of both were fake
[quote=Junkyard ]
Was there any actual proof that the CCTV was from that actual day?
Was it not provided by the govt?
Probably just being a bit conspiracist now but it would be funny of both were fake
When I made that comment earlier in the thread I was actually joking.....
It's an interesting one this. Politicians (the party in power at least) always fiercely defend the police, almost without question!
Now that one of their own has now found themselves on the receiving end of a somewhat liberal interpretation of 'the facts' from a police source, I wonder if it'll lead to them being a bit more stringent about 'evidence' put before them, and the constant police demands for more powers?
It's ironic that this is coming out on the same day that the Hillsborough inquests could be quashed
i know you were but i think i may be going all kaeasae on this 😯
Scurries of to You Tube
Now that one of their own has now found themselves on the receiving end of a somewhat liberal interpretation of 'the facts' from a police source, I wonder if it'll lead to them being a bit more stringent about 'evidence' put before them, and the constant police demands for more powers?
i really, really doubt it
just wait till g4s take over diplomatic protection duties, even the torries would be hesitant about that?
OK - reading between the lines, here's my take
Mitchell approaches gates
Jobsworth plod refuses to open them, in a computer says no style.
mitchell exasparatedly mutters "FFS, your supposed to 'king help us" or similar
Plod says "watch your lip sonny or I'll nick you, now jog on " or similar
When Mitchell leaves the gate, he passes the partian shot of "you've not heard the last of this"
Plod goes into CYA mode as he thinks he's going to get a bollocking, but embellishes the story just a little bit too much.
what happens next, god only knows, but the inference is that the plod who wrote the letter to the other MP pretending he was an innocent bystander had either seen the police log, as the wording was so similar, or was the plod responsible for leaking the log to the press.
As always, its the cover up that gets you in the end!
Who leaked the CCTV footage?
This is a simple story, assuming the CCTV pictures are genuine.
First, the attending police officer's account has to be questioned because it claimed that there was a crowd outside the gates, there wasn't, and the body language does not indicate that Mitchell was ranting, although difficult to read much into that. But if the officer's recollection re the crowd was wrong, why should be rest of his account be trusted?
Second, a police officer who was not there but claimed to be with his nephew regurgitated the log book story and embellished it further in an email to his local MP, who happened to be the Deputy Chief Whip. He did not mention his employer. (Only one person stopped outside the gates, so it is pretty safe to assume no one was there who complained.)
Third, Mitchell explained what happened to the Police Federation in a taped meeting, yet the Police Federation still persisted in saying he needed to come clean to them.
So, third point is damning, second point has no link to Police Federation but it does appear that the false witness might have been put to it, in which case who by? And on the first, how accurate is the report and if it is not, why is it not, did someone encourage embelishment?
[URL= http://gifsoup.com/view/1065464/dumb-kid-bangs-head-on-table.html ][IMG] http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1065464&t=o [/IMG][/URL]
(at the Met, not the forum)
imho z11s probably closest to the truth there
dont forget it was another torry mp (who didnt like him either) in mitchells office who escalated it by passing the police report on to downing street
copper probably didnt realise who much of a sh!tstorm he was gonna create
I think there's only one thing for sure! Nobody involved in this is telling the whole truth. But then, when it comes to politicians and an politicised police force, you'd be lucky to find a single person shocked by that!
what happens next, god only knows, but the inference is that the plod who wrote the letter to the other MP pretending he was an innocent bystander had either seen the police log, as the wording was so similar, or was the plod responsible for leaking the log to the press.
Wouldn't be surprised if plod on duty knew the guy who sent the email in. Probably gave him enough details. Doubt it was leaked and went that way to the emailer.
Who did the initial investigation into the email claim? Was it the police?
Who leaked the CCTV footage?
I would imagine that Mitchell obtained it to try and clear his own name under a data protection act application for video of himself, a right all of us have - and since the police officers faces are all blanked out in the video, that would be normal procedure for DPA release CCTV video
best tenner he's ever spent I reckon 😆
[quote=breatheeasy said]
Wouldn't be surprised if plod on duty knew the guy who sent the email in. Probably gave him enough details. Doubt it was leaked and went that way to the emailer.
Who did the initial investigation into the email claim? Was it the police?
The Email copper is a member of the same diplomatic protection group that the coppers on duty at the time of the incident.
Wouldn't be surprised to see the police federation pulling all the strings on this one.
Zulu-Eleven - Member"Who leaked the CCTV footage?"
I would imagine that Mitchell obtained it to try and clear his own name under a data protection act application for video of himself, a right all of us have - and since the police officers faces are all blanked out in the video, that would be normal procedure for DPA release CCTV video
best tenner he's ever spent I reckon
But if you were sure the situation didn't happen as reported and knew there was a strong possibility it was captured on CCTV then why resign [i]before[/i] reviewing the footage?
That's the weird thing for me.
