Tory Chief Whip 'Plebgate' Thread

[Qualtrough 10]

I cannot believe some people on here are still sticking it to Andrew Mitchell for something he didn't say.

 

I'll refer you again to the original PC. Do some research.

[puisseguin 10]

Looks like the first police officer has decided to fall on his sword...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25682652

 

I was just wondering if Mitchell will call him as a witness in the libel case. He's already pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office. I doubt he will want to ad perjury to his CV, if asked "Who was it gave you the details and asked you to lie about witnessing the events in Downing Street?"

[Obelix 11]

I was just wondering if Mitchell will call him as a witness in the libel case. He's already pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office. I doubt he will want to ad perjury to his CV, if asked "Who was it gave you the details and asked you to lie about witnessing the events in Downing Street?"

 

That was more or less the sort of question I was thinking of yes..

[I1L2T3 10]

I was just wondering if Mitchell will call him as a witness in the libel case. He's already pleaded guilty to misconduct in public office. I doubt he will want to ad perjury to his CV, if asked "Who was it gave you the details and asked you to lie about witnessing the events in Downing Street?"

 

How would that change the original account as recorded by the PC on the gate?

[puisseguin 10]

How would that change the original account as recorded by the PC on the gate?

 

Oh that's very simple. Unlike the police a court will want to get to the bottom of this rather than cover it up.

 

So I expect the first thing to crop up is the question. "Here is the CCTV footage filmed of the incident. Could you fit your report of the conversation in as it happened?"

 

Then

 

" Why do you think so many of your fellow officers have lied in order to discredit the minister"

 

" As a police officer I assume you know the penalty for perjury"

 

"I would like to call PC Keith Wallis to ask why he made up the tale of witnessing the events"

 

They can also call the 3 officers from the Police Federation and ask them why they lied, and the reporter from the Sun and ask who in the police provided the leaked documents. Indeed all the 11 suspended officers under investigation could be brought in and questioned under oath.

 

I think it will be good fun.

Edited January 13, 2014 by puisseguin

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

But woefully expensive to the public purse- as is (are?) all the shenanigans to date.

[Wildcat 10]

How would that change the original account as recorded by the PC on the gate?

 

Ministry of Truth makes an interesting point about the way memory works and that it is quite possible both Keith Wallis and Andrew Mitchell's account is as accurate as their memory allows.

 

http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2014/01/10/plebgate-and-the-illusion-of-memory/

 

I suspect Andrew Mitchell did use the word "pleb", but he is never going to admit to it and no one will be able to prove he did.

 

Andrew Mitchell is however hardly exonerated by this incident by his own admission he "did not treat the police with the respect they deserved".

 

As for police falsifying information... quelle suprise

[Qualtrough 10]

The original PC maintains his stance even if a load of daft bandwagon jumpers turned it into a circus.

 

If you look at what both say was said they sound similar phonetically. Mitchell's words may have been misheard with other voices and traffic din in the mix, particularly if he said it under his breath. This would explain why both are so adamant.

[Jeffrey Shaw 90]

Andrew Mitchell is however hardly exonerated by this incident by his own admission he "did not treat the police with the respect they deserved".

Maybe the officers then present in Downing Street deserved little.

Certainly the three senior officers who seem to have been less than honest deserve none.

[I1L2T3 10]

Oh that's very simple. Unlike the police a court will want to get to the bottom of this rather than cover it up.

 

So I expect the first thing to crop up is the question. "Here is the CCTV footage filmed of the incident. Could you fit your report of the conversation in as it happened?"

 

Then

 

" Why do you think so many of your fellow officers have lied in order to discredit the minister"

 

" As a police officer I assume you know the penalty for perjury"

 

"I would like to call PC Keith Wallis to ask why he made up the tale of witnessing the events"

 

They can also call the 3 officers from the Police Federation and ask them why they lied, and the reporter from the Sun and ask who in the police provided the leaked documents. Indeed all the 11 suspended officers under investigation could be brought in and questioned under oath.

 

I think it will be good fun.

 

Are you saying this was a planned conspiracy, even before the incident in Downing Street?

 

I can't rationalise your response in any other way.

[Anna Glypta 10]

The original PC maintains his stance even if a load of daft bandwagon jumpers turned it into a circus.

 

If you look at what both say was said they sound similar phonetically. Mitchell's words may have been misheard with other voices and traffic din in the mix, particularly if he said it under his breath. This would explain why both are so adamant.

 

But only if they compared stories before submitting identical reports.

[I1L2T3 10]

But only if they compared stories before submitting identical reports.

 

There is only one official police report.

 

Then there is the disgraceful conspiracy against Mr Mitchell that the report was used to fuel.

 

The subsequent conspiracy is proven without any doubt. There are two versions of the original event - one from the police one from Mitchell - and is the fallout from dispute over the differing versions that forms the essential basis of the libel cases.