Plebgate

I'm aware there is already a thread relating to this subject, www.abovetopsecret.com.... However that thread carries the foregone conclusion, "Now it turns out the Police made the whole story up". With no audio or close-up video for lip readers to study how can we arrive at such a definite conclusion? Judging from the attention given to this story by the mainstream media it is more important than war, Fukushima or the contribution our constables make to road safety. Surely we must get this right.

My attention is drawn to the intensity with which Andrew Mitchell's defenders make their case, the rather dubious claims that the words used can be interpreted from the body language seen, and most of all the timing. At Christmas, police, who have already lost time with their families this year due to various major events, are again expected to do the least desirable jobs society has to offer. There is a growing awareness of the complex campaign being waged against our constables intended to aid the introduction of a private police force serving the needs of the 'elite'. Frequently it is said, "Morale is at an all time low". Pressuring police at this time of year is likely to result in occasional loss of self control resulting in incidents that can be used as ammunition against the office of constable in general.

The Telegraph has asked, "....whether it is in fact part of a complex conspiracy aimed at bringing down a member of the government." I counter that by asking is this part of a complex conspiracy aimed at bringing down the office of constable? It is in the interests of all 'plebs' to get to the bottom of this. A private police force serving the 'elite' would make our lives hell if we gave them the chance to gain a foothold. I suspect as with many issues the truth lies somewhere between the two opposing stories.

Watch for the excited insistence that a certain interpretation of the limited evidence is undoubtedly the correct view.

Merry Christmas.

Is Andrew Mitchell and his supports lying or is it the police. Really hard one to call as both politicians and police are not exactly renown for their truth telling abilities.

I do find it odd that one week he's apologising to the police and the general public then a few months later he's claiming it's all a conspiracy by the police to remove him from power. If he was so innocent then surely he should have stood his ground at the start of this fiasco.

reply to post by Hopeforeveryone


That's the one point I felt I'd left out. Funny that the school bully should be so sensitive that he felt he had to resign. I'd be more likely to wave two fingers and carry on.

reply to post by Kester


I suspect that he did say something offensive to the policeman on the gate but is using a tiny discrepency to weasel his way back into politics. Also i wouldn't be surprised if after all the police cuts and the coming cuts, the police federation decided to flex a bit of muscle and frame the conservative whip to let the conservatives know that they can make their lives difficult.

What makes it difficult for me to get to the bottom of this story is both parties are dishonest and have agendas. It might have even been a warning from Murdoch ! We know his news corporation has used police for stories, why not a bit of political blackmail ?

Got to love UK politics, so murky ! cash for questions anyone ? hehe

reply to post by Hopeforeveryone


PC Beverley Lodge of Lancashire Constabulary has asked local parish council chiefs and businesses for donations so they can buy a car to patrol Skelmersdale. Maybe they can borrow Mitchell's bike to tide them over till they've raised enough.

Hmmm. Maybe it was cash strapped coppers who tried to nick my bike from my back garden last night.


The point is most people probably don't realise the police cuts really are affecting the ability to respond when a call for help comes in. Those police who strongly want to protect the public will have to be inventive to get this fact acknowledged.

I have posted this in the other thread but I've linked the two bits of footage for you on this one

My question is why blur out the minutes of the street side camera's DTG?

www.bbc.co.uk...

video.uk.msn.com...

I've looked at this footage and have noticed that the BBC have cut it to suit Mitchel’s story (they initially had the uncut footage in their site but that was taken down after the first day and now the new cut footage is shown)

They cut it to remove the member of the public who walks past then back towards the gate and would have been the key witness to back the police claim that there were members of the public within ear shot. Now, he stops and POP! he just dissapears. It wasn't like that the first day the aired that story on the BBC site but just the next day when I went to look again the clip was not working, when it came back the cut was made.

Also, the outside camera on the street has the minutes of the DTG blurred out so we can’t verify if it was the actual time Mitchel left downing st as we can’t see him leave on that angle.

They have deliberately blurred out part of a DTG so we can’t verify if Mitchel actually was leaving at exactly that time. The people and vehicles don’t appear to match as they go up and down the street from the two angles and the BBC have changed the footage since it was first aired.

If Mitchel didn’t say what he reportedly said then I think he would have been yelling that from the top of his voice from day one and would have refused to stand down from his post over something he didn’t say. But now after the CCTV footage comes out to CH 4, the media are backing him all the way and even chopping bits of CCTV footage and blurring out part of a DTG to help his version of events, he's got some more wind in his sails.

Police and politicians………….I wouldn't trust either to tell the truth

reply to post by harry1sg


Q/ How do you know if a politician is lying ?

A/ Their lips move

Always liked that joke, even back in the early cretaceous when i first saw it on Max Headroom !

I've got a feeling this news story will disappear into the undergrowth as both parties involved realise just how dangerous and dodgy they're being.

reply to post by harry1sg


Thank you.

Who first claimed crowds of witnesses? Wasn't the claim made that several people walked by? Crowds and several are two different words.

Also here we're told "...you don't see anyone on the other side of the gate really..." I find that choice of words very odd as if we're being instructed not to see the pedestrians who pass by.


Also Mitchell's use of the term "alleged logbook" seems odd. It may be inaccurate but it is or it isn't a logbook. Toxic is also a strange word to use. His claim that the cctv "...doesn't look as if there's any discussion at all..." is ridiculous. No audio and no close up of the faces, no way to tell.

reply to post by Kester


if you go by the outside street camera then you have a pair of people walking buy as the chap who stopped half way and comes back again.

Police poetic licence would stretch that to a few or a several but 3 is 3 none the less.

Also, why did that chap walk halfway and then come back towards the gate? maybe he could hear a bit of an altercation going on and he came back for the sake of being nosey?

I do get the feeling that the media are steering us towards Mitchels version of events. I really would like to know why or who blured out the DTG minutes on that other camera angle though, I think i'll drop an e mail to ch 4 and see if they want to send me a polite get stuffed responce?

reply to post by harry1sg


I agree it is very much a case of being steered towards accepting a version of the story rather than a presentation of what is available. I see far too much assertion that the silent video tells us more than we see. The excitability shown by some of the characters in this probably stems from the enormity of the lie. It is clearly very important to manipulate the emotional response of the public.

I really don't like Mitchell's watered down version that "I thought you guys were supposed to f***ing help us". No they're not. They're supposed to be impartial and keep the peace. Private security may be meant to help those who employ them but our constables are here for all of us. That's what I'm fighting for.

This topic is already being discussed here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Please add further comments to the ongoing discussion in the above linked thread.
Thanks

**Thread Closed**