tonyh29 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Fuller version of C4 piece now available here. Interesting show... It does seem to suggest Mitchell was telling the truth all along , though it is of course pretty much a one sided view we are seeing on that show .... Wasn't Howe on the radio this morning saying the police version of events was correct , for example ..... I wonder what happens next ? It does look like a stitch up though , be interesting to find out who is behind it I should imagine there will be a few people apologising to Mitchell over the coming weeks .. Probably a few members on this forum ought to be amongst them :-) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 That is a pretty strong thing to be publishing (and people "like" it) as correct me if I am wrong but no charges have been made nor has anyone been found guilty of what you are claiming. I see you are on a "crusade" now against Stephen Fry, interesting. I missed this post earlier .... it would seem there is plenty of evidence beginning to emerge for what I was "claiming" .. Go back in this thread to the time it broke , I raised it as a concern then , it smelt fishier than the contents of Baldricks apple crumble .... And I'm not NOW on a crusade against Stephen Fry , I've been on it for years :-) However , the inferral that I'm on a crusade against him because he is gay is unwarranted ( and a little cheap ) , most regular readers of OT know my view about the twitter type campaigns where people jump on bandwagons because they are told to and how Stephen Fry fits into the equation 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Interesting show Indeed. It raises a few more questions for me. This footage was just sat around in the cabinet office and the foreign office for the last 3 months doing nothing? If it so clearly demonstrates the veracity of Mitchell's account (I'm not sure it does by the way as he was going on about body language and what, apparently. we could 'quite clearly see' - which was mostly the back of his head) why did Downing Street not release it whilst it was publicly supporting Mitchell? Could it be because it's now when doubt has been cast over the police side of the story by the source of the email and so on that they are seeking to take advantage of the moment and push things which seem to be stretching it a little further their way (Mitchell spoke about 'crowds of people' when the log quoted on the other page mentioned several members of public)? Also intrigued by the fact that Mitchell (or rather his press officer) made a recording of his meeting with the Police Federation (and it would appear did not tell them) and that also only sees the light of day now. These feel like cards being played at what the government hopes is the most opportune time for them and I just wonder what the purpose is. Is it the preparation for a real fight with the Police Federation? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It does seem to suggest Mitchell was telling the truth all along , though it is of course pretty much a one sided view we are seeing on that show .... It's interestingly one-sided. I think the programme makers believe him, and have presented the programme accordingly. Things like allowing him three times, uncorrected, to claim the police log says there were crowds of people watching (which is simply untrue, if you can believe the Torygraph version of what they say is the verbatim log); the presenter saying that if you look at the cctv "You don't see anybody on the other side of the gate, really..." (I counted seven over the course of the piece); cutting the interview with the Police Fed guy to present him as being caught out in a falsehood. They have a good story about the false witness, together with being given exclusive access to the cctv footage (why them, I wonder, and why exclusive). They have taken that story in the direction of saying it undermines the original police account, without actually demonstrating that it does so. To do that, they should have done things like timed whether the police account of the exchange could have taken place in the time recorded; looked a bit more critically at Mitchell's claim that the body language shows an exchange was not occurring, side by side with his claim that he uttered the insulting phrase under his breath (ie not as part of a conversational exchange, and quite possibly as he was walking); looked at the unredacted footage to see if any of the passers-by were looking across at the gates as they passed; discussed the passer-by who doubled back, stood in front of the gates, and looked in; and so on. Strangely, they don't follow what seems like the more obvious angle, which is that someone other than the officers on duty have seen the report of the incident, realised it was politically damaging, and decided to do something with it. That seems the better story, and it is this which I think the government is pursuing. As for the footage, I don't think it tells us anything either way. The police log is not obviously false, though it reads like they have painted themselves in the best light, and you have to wonder who actually speaks in language like "I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance". I take it as the usual rendition of what they tried to convey rather than the exact words used (a bit like Hansard). The key parts are the claim that "several" people were "present" (seven passing by, one of whom doubled back and stood to observe something) and that they were visibly shocked (which Mitchell presents as a claim that there were "crowds of people, deeply shocked, watching and listening"). I'm clear that Mitchell has misrepresented the police log, at least the version I've read, and I strongly suspect the police have tidied up their side of the conversation. I don't think anyone can tell from this whether the original claim is true or false. It does look like a stitch up though , be interesting to find out who is behind it I suppose someone from the Police Federation, though it would be far more entertaining if it were someone within the tory party. I should imagine there will be a few people apologising to Mitchell over the coming weeks .. Probably a few members on this forum ought to be amongst them :-) I don't think you're being serious there, are you Tony? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Indeed. It raises a few more questions for me. This footage was just sat around in the cabinet office and the foreign office for the last 3 months doing nothing? If it so clearly demonstrates the veracity of Mitchell's account (I'm not sure it does by the way as he was going on about body language and what, apparently. we could 'quite clearly see' - which was mostly the back of his head) why did Downing Street not release it whilst it was publicly supporting Mitchell? Apparently it was reviewed by Jeremy Heywood when he investigated the incident, and was though inconclusive. Which it is. Could it be because it's now when doubt has been cast over the police side of the story by the source of the email and so on that they are seeking to take advantage of the moment and push things which seem to be stretching it a little further their way (Mitchell spoke about 'crowds of people' when the log quoted on the other page mentioned several members of public)? Also intrigued by the fact that Mitchell (or rather his press officer) made a recording of his meeting with the Police Federation (and it would appear did not tell them) and that also only sees the light of day now. These feel like cards being played at what the government hopes is the most opportune time for them and I just wonder what the purpose is. Is it the preparation for a real fight with the Police Federation? Yes, I think that's right, though I think the government's concern is the Police Fed, and Mitchell's concern is himself. The overlap between those two issues will not be great enough to prove the original story untrue, is my guess. I suspect we're going to see the Fed rightly given a hard time if its members are seen to have engaged in lying to further a political agenda. If that spills over into taking action against the officers on duty at the time, without producing some actual evidence that they lied, I can imagine some very big problems between the police and the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I don't think you're being serious there, are you Tony? Well , I'm not suggesting people pick up the phone and ring him personally ... but after all the outrage towards Mitchell for the use of the word pleb , if it turns out he didn't say it , then surely the pages or disgust aimed towards him were totally unfounded , and thus an admission that the posters may have jumped the gun and got it wrong , would be the honourable thing to do surely ?? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Well , I'm not suggesting people pick up the phone and ring him personally ... but after all the outrage towards Mitchell for the use of the word pleb , if it turns out he didn't say it , then surely the pages or disgust aimed towards him were totally unfounded , and thus an admission that the posters may have jumped the gun and got it wrong , would be the honourable thing to do surely ?? If it turns out that the two officers on duty lied about this, then I'll be happy to recognise that he didn't in that situation use a word which I believe nevertheless reflects the view of a great many people in the upper echelons of the tory party towards others. I will still view him and others as nasty, rancorous, vindictive thugs who treat people like shit through their social and economic policies. The use of the word pleb is one illustration of their attitude, not the reason for believing they hold those attitudes. However, it's a pretty big leap from finding the false witness, to showing that the original two officers lied as well; Michael Crick seems to have skated over this, and would do well to spend a bit more time on it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 If it turns out that the two officers on duty lied about this, then I'll be happy to recognise that he didn't in that situation use a word which I believe nevertheless reflects the view of a great many people in the upper echelons of the tory party towards others. I will still view him and others as nasty, rancorous, vindictive thugs who treat people like shit through their social and economic policies. The use of the word pleb is one illustration of their attitude, not the reason for believing they hold those attitudes. However, it's a pretty big leap from finding the false witness, to showing that the original two officers lied as well; Michael Crick seems to have skated over this, and would do well to spend a bit more time on it. wow , top rant ... the use of the word pleb would indeed be an illustration of their attitude ... if only they had used it 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Well , I'm not suggesting people pick up the phone and ring him personally ... but after all the outrage towards Mitchell for the use of the word pleb , if it turns out he didn't say it , then surely the pages or disgust aimed towards him were totally unfounded , and thus an admission that the posters may have jumped the gun and got it wrong , would be the honourable thing to do surely ?? What complete and utter BS Tony. So by your reasoning already that a member of the Gvmt swore at a police officer, something he has admitted (and something that a leading Tory member has said should be an arrestable offence). In the Tory media (and don't forget that) he has been extensively reported as using words such as pleb. He resigns from his post and then at at time that is very politically convenient so called "evidence" occurs that is spun out (and see Peter and Snowy's posts above) which apparently makes him innocent? Add to that the many comments from even within his own party about him as a person and for all of that you are expecting what exactly? Ridiculous comment IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 wow , top rant ... the use of the word pleb would indeed be an illustration of their attitude ... if only they had used it He may well not have used it. Thousands of police have falsified statements for many, many years. It's part of the culture. It's entirely possible these two lied as well. My point is that his actions in actively supporting government policies say quite enough about him to form a view about him and his attitudes, regardless of whether he muttered the word pleb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It does look like a stitch up though , be interesting to find out who is behind it I suppose someone from the Police Federation, though it would be far more entertaining if it were someone within the tory party. I agree with both parts of Peter's comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Here's a good one. Tory MP proposes that people on benefits should be banned from buying certain items. Said MP last year claimed, looking only at the "accommodation" section of expenses (there are several other categories) for his rent, council tax, electricity, and TV licence. Two comments on him, both from right wing sources. A Spectator columnist: Is this the nastiest Conservative MP in Britain? Despite strong competition, Alec Shelbrooke is the new front-runner for the coveted title of Nastiest, Most Stupid Tory MP 2012... And Tim Worstall: Oh do **** off you appalling little fascist ...It’s one of those little dividing lines between the more ghastly of the authoritarians and the civilised people. We do indeed say that there are those who really don’t know what’s best for them. Those significantly mentally deficient for example. Children. The French. But when we start adding the poor, or the pesantry, or the citizenry in general, to that list of those who should only get what they’re given or allowed to have, then we step over that line from civilisation into that ghastly authoritarianism. You know, the Jonny Porrits of this world who insist that there are just too many damn peasants who won’t do what they’re told. Or this **** of a Tory MP who seems to think that those on benefits are not adults. You know, free people at liberty, free to take whatever liberties they like with the meagre incomes that they have. Myself, if I ran the Tory Party, I’d chuck him out for even mentioning, let alone proposing, this particular little bill. And anyone who had the temerity to vote for it. Won’t happen of course: for there are these sorts of authoritarians in all of the political parties more’s the pity. He looks well-fed as well, judging from his Bunterish visage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Two comments on him, both from right wing sources. It would appear that the writer of the Spectator article is getting roasted by a lot of commenters for being a 'leftie' and Worstall has never struck me as being a bad person (just an absolute adherent to the idea that the market solves everything). Read a lot of the stuff below the line and I think that, unfortunately, you'll see that this MPs 'idea' is not without its supporters (I dare say there would be a number in the Labour party, too). I do wonder whether this particular MP is aware of Universal Credit, though; you'd have hoped that he'd have kept up to date with one of the apparent flagship policies of his own party unless, of course, his aim (with what I guess was a private member's bill) was just to add to the appalling Tory 'hard working families' (was it Gordo who kicked that one off?) v 'those who don't want to work' campaign. Edit: I did him a disservice to imply that he may not have been aware of Universal Credit but the text of his 10 minute rule motion (available to peruse here) would suggest that he hasn't really understood it all that well. That's without getting on to the matter of practicality or the issue that Worstall brings up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 It would appear that the writer of the Spectator article is getting roasted by a lot of commenters for being a 'leftie' and Worstall has never struck me as being a bad person (just an absolute adherent to the idea that the market solves everything). Read a lot of the stuff below the line and I think that, unfortunately, you'll see that this MPs 'idea' is not without its supporters (I dare say there would be a number in the Labour party, too). Yes, they don't know what to do. There is confusion in the ranks, and no leadership. Tories hate that. It may be one thick MP's personal vendetta, as presented by the sources I quoted. On the other hand, and probably more likely, it may be a more sophisticated part of a wider strategy to address the problem identified in the repulsive taxdodging Lord Ashcroft's recent research about UKIP. He tries to be nice, but clearly regards them as a bunch of bar-room bigots with little between their ears. Coming from the likes of him, that's especially damning. ...The single biggest misconception about the UKIP phenomenon is that it is all about policies: that potential UKIP voters are dissatisfied with another party’s policy in a particular area (usually Europe or immigration), prefer UKIP’s policy instead, and would return to their original party if only its original policy changed. In fact, in the mix of things that attract voters to UKIP, policies are secondary. It is much more to do with outlook. Certainly, those who are attracted to UKIP are more preoccupied than most with immigration, and will occasionally complain about Britain’s contribution to the EU or the international aid budget. But these are often part of a greater dissatisfaction with the way they see things going in Britain: schools, they say, can’t hold nativity plays or harvest festivals any more; you can’t fly a flag of St George any more; you can’t call Christmas Christmas any more; you won’t be promoted in the police force unless you’re from a minority; you can’t wear an England shirt on the bus; you won’t get social housing unless you’re an immigrant; you can’t speak up about these things because you’ll be called a racist; you can’t even smack your children. All of these examples, real and imagined, were mentioned in focus groups by UKIP voters and considerers to make the point that the mainstream political parties are so in thrall to the prevailing culture of political correctness that they have ceased to represent the silent majority... ...In our research, discussion among UKIP voters and considerers was dominated by what they saw as the twin themes of immigration and welfare much more than by Europe... ...These voters think Britain is changing for the worse. They are pessimistic, even fearful, and they want someone and something to blame... ...For some of them, this simplicity does not matter. They have effectively disengaged from the hard choices inherent in the democratic process, though they still want formally to take part in it. They say that being remote from power means UKIP can say what they really think, though there is a tacit acknowledgment that it also means they can say what they like and never be called on it. Not only does it not matter that UKIP will not get the chance to deliver its policies, that is part of the attraction: their diagnosis cannot be gainsaid. But this apparent realpolitik drive towards dim bigots is modified by the realisation that it will cost them votes in another direction. Not principle, then, but arithmetic. Where voters are driven towards UKIP by a deeper unease simply with the way life has changed in modern Britain, there are clearly limits to how far the Conservatives want to share their view. The Tories said once before that Britain was becoming a foreign land; we told those who agreed that if they came with us we would give them back their country. As we found, there is no future in that kind of approach for a party that aspires to govern, or appeal beyond a disgruntled minority. We cannot “dog whistle” to them that we share their view, in the hope that nobody else will notice. Ashcroft is clearly one of the brighter Tories. Which in itself is a damning verdict on those left behind in this race of the halt and the lame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Another arrest in the Mitchell saga 23 year old man The plot thickens .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I would really like to see DC step in and say that Entwistle isn't getting his £450,000 payout for resigning after 54 days. If he wants to challenge it he is welcome but he aint getting rewarded for failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 It has nothing to do with Cameron and I also believe Mr Entwhistle has received the payment so the Beeb would have to look at suing him for some/all of the money (which Patten says they have taken legal advice on in the light of the Pollard report) - of course he may decide to give some or all of it back but I doubt it and that would be a different matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Yes, I did read afterwards it has already been paid. Disgusting tbh that he would dare to quit his job and then not immediatly decline a huge taxpayer funded payoff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 Yes, I did read afterwards it has already been paid. Disgusting tbh that he would dare to quit his job and then not immediatly decline a huge taxpayer funded payoff. Not quit exactly. They asked him to go, and didn't have grounds to dismiss him - or not grounds that would have stood up at a tribunal. They had to negotiate a payment, and agreed a figure less than it would have cost to fight it. The outrage of the MPs and press is entirely fake - they know the beeb would have paid out more if they tried to sack him for a lower figure. In that case, they would have paid him the same or more, paid lawyers lots as well, and wasted weeks. Patten is right on this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted December 20, 2012 Share Posted December 20, 2012 I would willingly sell my house and all its contents to help the BBC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts