Sunday, 30 December 2012

Plebgate Shock! Mitchell May Be Lying

Here is another take on the video 'evidence' released by Mitchell and his cronies.


Posted by Lex Ferenda at 17:16
Labels: , ,

29 comments:

  1. Anonymous30 December, 2012 18:23

    Interesting stuff.Make sure you check the brakes on your car later Lex!!!
    Jaded

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous30 December, 2012 18:31

    Best to reserve judgement until the grassy knoll footage has been doct.....erm, released.

    ReplyDelete
  3. DCI Broxted30 December, 2012 19:28

    Here is another theory, Mitchell was telling the truth, plod lied (comme d'habitude) and were found out in a lie. Happy New Year, 2013 promises to be a beauty, we already know you lot have stockpiled stuff ready for Kick Off. "Let's commence, Comrade Vasilievsky"!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Scary Mary31 December, 2012 00:28

    Oh gosh, what a load of nonsense in that video - it showed what? That people walked by? The police log was that people were gathered outside and were visibly shocked by Mitchell's behaviour, not 'a drunk wandered by a few times and 2 people also walked by and stepped one step to the right" Dirty plod.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Brontosaurus31 December, 2012 11:24

    @ Scary Mary - It shows that the police log account could be perfectly correct and Mitchell's cronies produced a biased and dishonest account of it - you ignorant bigot!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dr MTG31 December, 2012 12:31

    Dear Scary Mary

    Your comment was fair and I apologise for Brontomoron's insult. The latter is a plod with a mind so crammed with pablum, that it construes a critique of police as a criminal offence. Sadder than this is his failure to comprehend the ultimate consequence of withheld support.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous31 December, 2012 13:20

    How dare anyone disagree with the policing expert MTG!!I won't hear of it.
    Amazing how someone can tell a person is drunk from poor CCTV.That sort of presumption is what we are up against.
    Jaded.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Dr MTG31 December, 2012 14:15

    "How dare anyone disagree with the policing expert MTG!!I won't hear of it."

    A plumber should not be called to deal with the turbid and putrid contents of the Station's pedestal when an amateur flush may be all that is required, WC Jaded.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous31 December, 2012 15:09

    Did you get a new thesaurus for Xmas Melvin from the other residents of the mental home? You are making less and less sense with every post.

    Can't stay long,got my second job to go to.Shall I be a pole dancer or a vicar today? Which will have the Daily Mail foaming at the mouth the most?
    Jaded.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous31 December, 2012 16:58

    @ Jaded
    Comments from those critical of police inspire your one and only idea - that they are mad. On a temporary basis, your gift for repetition may pass for intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous31 December, 2012 18:56

    Melvin, can you imagine Jade as a "Ladyboy" at 1 am tomorrow morning shouting "Me so horny, me love you long time" in an inebriated state?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous31 December, 2012 19:13

    Careful Broxted,we already have your DNA.
    Jaded.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Dr MTG31 December, 2012 20:35

    "Melvin, can you imagine Jade as a "Ladyboy"

    Dear DCI Broxted,

    You are one smart detective to have collated Jaded's pains in concealing transvestism and non-traditional 'activities'. It is not my field but her obsession with mental health is a significant negative.

    Have you assimilated the clues which point to Jaded as a candidate for long-term sick leave?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anonymous31 December, 2012 20:58

    Jaded you have the PNC there and we are at a distinct loss, what is the nearest match? Serious scientific question BTW.
    MTG, Jade is indeed a "Suitable case for treatment" and my next conference paper will mention this...if I am not arrested by plod for researching police corruption, isn't that a coincidence? OK off to quaff a nice Bordeaux, truce for 12 hrs, Happy 2013!

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anonymous01 January, 2013 19:25

    Melvin,if the straight-jacket fits...
    Jaded

    ReplyDelete
  16. Dr MTG01 January, 2013 19:30

    The sleeves seem way too long but I am a slave to fashion, dear.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Referee (dying breed)01 January, 2013 20:33

    I get the impression that what matters to people is finding a view of this that supports their own bias, rather than uncovering the truth.

    Whatever stance any of you take regarding the Police and (versus?) "Society", you either support the rules of evidence or not. In this latest test of public confidence in the police, the visual evidence appears to contradict the word of an officer of the crown. But this is not yet tested in court, so what is there to say?

    Are we being invited to believe that this was all just an SWP plot, with a sinister network of video studios with extensive faculties dedicated to producing false images? Who really believes that the officer's notebook tallies with the CCTV images we have been seeing?

    Those who publicly stand by the rules of law and of evidence should welcome an enquiry.

    Also, how would the tabloids and the police react to any affiliated (i.e. real) Trade Union seeming to interfere with government, whether by crashing into an MP's office or publishing uncorroborated notes which are then acted on in public? This is what the Police Federation have done. How would officers react to demonstrators wearing T shirts saying “kill me; I'm Blair Peach”?

    Policing is clearly arduous and sometimes dangerous, and it is best done when when we are all subject to the same law, and the same laws of evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Lex Ferenda02 January, 2013 00:08

    @ Referee - Some commentators on this blog and elsewhere have such deep rooted prejudices that they will always swallow, hook line and sinker, any view that maligns the police.
    My understanding of the facts of this case are that an officer wrote an account of an altercation he had with Mitchell. That written account should never have been made public and whoever released that report needs to be identified and disciplined.
    Mitchell and the anti police brigade would like you to believe that the visual evidence appears to contradict the officers account. The CCTV images released are those obtained and edited by Mitchell and his cronies. No one is suggesting the images have been doctored, but only selected excerpts have been released, some of which are not even timed. The dialogue that was given alongside these excerpts was biased and wholly unreliable when taking account of what these extracts was trying to prove.
    The video subject of this post has used those excerpts, in a different way to Mitchell's supporters, and has tried to show that the officers perception and account is still plausible. There is no proper evidence to dispute the officers account. If the full CCTV were released we could all get a better informed perspective.
    I don't understand your argument regarding the Police Federation. If it became public knowledge that a minister had sworn at and abused a postman I don't think that we would be surprised if the post office union demanded their resignation. How is that getting involved in politics? Police arrests of other MP's is irrelevant to this case other than the fact that it may be one of the reasons this Government has decided to shaft British policing, something all decent law abiding people should be concerned about.
    If someone wants to wear a T shirt bearing the slogan 'Kill Me, I'm Blair Peach' I don't think it will provoke any reaction. Why should it?
    You rightly state that the standard of evidence to prove guilt should be high but the police are found guilty of all sorts of wrongdoing based on nothing more than conjecture.


    ReplyDelete
  19. Referee02 January, 2013 20:05

    Hello Lex,

    The point in your last para is well taken, and I am reassured by your previous 2 paras. My experience as a trade union rep over some years was that unions are just as much whipping boys as the police have been. Also, one profession after another has been vilified in popular culture, and I am sick of it. At some point, trust will have to be earned – and given – to get the country into gear.

    Not being anyone's tame fish, I always try to avoid swallowing anything whole. If others just want to air prejudices, that's up to them, but I won't ignore the fact. This blog is good because it encourages rational exchanges across arguments – something we are supposed to have in this country.

    The fact that the notebook has become public indicates to me (from my TU experience again, here) that unidentified persons are manipulating the situation. As I said, the "evidence" has not been tested - by all means let us see ALL the camera saw. This is the first I have heard of the video being edited; in fairness, a full version should be released. But, to repeat, do we really believe there is some conspiracy to tamper with evidence here?

    The interference in politics that I detect is that the government was clearly embarrassed enough to have Mr Mitchell removed - without me (or you) being called to the ballot box. Actually, I'm a “Pleb and proud of it” too, but I didn't wear that slogan on a march against a government policy. Instead, I earned the title of “the enemy within” many years ago, when people didn't used to die on marches. One thing I never did was try to embarrass an particular politician in this way: more naïve times, perhaps.

    "Police arrests of other MPs" is a factor in this because it has helped set the (to my eye, very low) tone of this affair. I am still not certain whether a serving PC should set foot inside the commons office of an MP when on duty at all - perhaps a legal eagle could tell us.

    I did not actually say that standards of evidence should be high in so many words, but you picked up on my implication that they should be. I think that unless a definitive video and a definitive notebook can be produced which are in full agreement, preferably with corroboration from a 3rd party, we shouldn't actually believe a word of any of it.

    I call myself “Referee” because of a comment in a recent crime series - “The world needs referees”.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lex Ferenda03 January, 2013 00:46

    @ referee - what we need are some politicians with some moral fibre. Real leaders who inspire and are an example to us all.
    Our MP's have been exposed as a bunch of crooks lining their pockets and filling their homes and second homes with fraudulently obtained goods. We are now paying for a hugely expensive watchdog to monitor MP's expenses. The outcome of which is that the greedy toads are now claiming more than they were before the scandal was exposed.

    We have a Government who know that they will not be in power for more than one term. Consequently they are more concerned with their next boardroom consultancy job than leading the country out of the mess Brown and Blair left us in.

    The banking crisis showed us that greedy, overpaid executives, who actaully believe that they deserve their gross salaries and bonuses, are actually arrogant and incompetent but exempt from any consequences.

    More recently a number of banks have been exposed blatantly breaking the law regarding money laundering. Instead of executives facing court and a few years porridge they are being allowed to bribe various governments and the whole thing is swept under the carpet.

    I don't believe for one second that the exposure of the account of the altercation with Mitchell was a conspiracy to damage the Government. This gives the police too much credit. No senior officer would risk their career in this way. The release of the account was almost certainly the work of a single officer of junior rank frustrated by an arrogant Government who show contempt for all of those around them, not just the police. The idea that we are all in this together is so farcical it makes you want to weep.

    This Government has been undermining the police since they came into power. There has been a concerted and well orchestrated campaign to leak and highlight bad news stories to damage the reputation of the police to ensure there is little public support while the Government puts in place its program to privatise the majority of police functions. Even this report of Mitchell's alleged gross behaviour toward the police has been turned around to suggest that the police are dishonest and corrupt and require reform. No matter what the inquiry shows the evidence to be, that damage has been done. The fact that people are unaware of the fact that the video 'evidence' released by Mitchell's cronies is selected clips and not the whole picture is a good example of what they have achieved. Far better than the Police Federations pleb 'T' shirt camapign.

    There is nothing in law to prevent the police arresting an MP in the House of Commons.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr MTG03 January, 2013 07:38

    Gosh, lex. Are you suggesting key parts of the Establishment are working outside the law, corruptly serving themselves and tampering with evidence that could otherwise implicate them in wrongdoings and worse still...framing innocent police?

    Something must be done immediately I tell you!

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan03 January, 2013 14:48

    Somewhat more worrying to me is why there are but two CCTV cameras filming one of the main entrances of one of the most important buildings in the country. Were it up to myself, I'd have a few wide-angle cameras surveying the whole area, plus a few more looking up and down the street outside so that suspicious individuals lurking back out of the way of these cameras could be noted.

    I would also stick a few hidden cameras in odd places, at odd angles just to catch out any smartarse who plots a route through the visible CCTV; I would also have at least two units recording sounds as well as video.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Lex Ferenda03 January, 2013 14:55

    That is the point Dan. There are other cameras. We have only seen clips from the few that Mitchell and his cronies want you to see.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anonymous04 January, 2013 02:06

    Welcome back Lex,

    This new footage does seem to show the MP is lying.

    How silly of that guy/PC to write an untruthful email- if thats what happened.

    Either way- seems like a storm in tea cup.

    Of course some MPs are arrogant - and regard others as plebs- whilst embarrassing I would not necessarily call it a resignation offence really thought I understand the escalation and PR issues.

    Or maybe my expectations of MPs is now so low nothing surprises me anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jess04 January, 2013 02:07

    last post form me, Jess

    ReplyDelete
  26. Unknown04 January, 2013 06:12

    The general idea of a police officer’s job is to maintain peace and order in the communities that they are assigned to. It is their utmost priority to prevent crimes and improve the safety level for all the residents living in the area. The average police officer salary range in the country is $35,600 to $59,880 every year. Police Officer Wage

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anonymous04 February, 2013 20:26

    Come on just admit it for once, you've found some of the bad minority, you acknowledge their existence so u were bound to see them sooner or later.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Anonymous07 February, 2013 15:28

    Maybe if the police didn't falsify reports and lie so much people would believe them.

    Whether or not Mitchell called the officer a pleb or not it does highlight the issue of police thinking that they can put on a uniform, harass, dictate and tell everyone what to do which, is probably what happened.

    The real scandal here is the Justice system. If anyone else called a police officer a pleb then they would probably be cautioned or arrested if they contined being abusive.

    However, in this case it costs the tax payer £4 million in public enquiry fees which, gets paid to jobsworth judges and hereditary peers.

    Nice going. I think I will just exile myself and let you all get on with it. I would rather live in a place with no laws...

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lex Ferenda08 February, 2013 00:12

    Anonymous 1528 - where is the evidence that the police falsified a report in this case?

    The rules of Downing Street are that vehicles go through the double gates and bikes and pedestrians go through the side gate. Mr Mitchell wanted to go through the double gates and didn't like being told to use the side gate. He admits he swore at the police in frustration regarding this. The issue is simply did he use the word pleb or not.

    It is the job of the police to protect people and uphold the law. Sometimes that means telling people what to do. The spoilt brats we produce nowadays don't like being told what to do. Not even Cabinet Ministers.

    Can you be arrested for calling a police officer a pleb? Perhaps you can give us the Act and Section that covers that? A nice judge decided quite recently that swearing in front of a police officer is not an offence as the police should be used to it and so cannot be offended by it.

    Try going to a place with no laws. Take out some extra life assurance before you go because you won't live long.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)