This is frightening, no matter how tough you are.

[blackburn_stevie]

http://tinyurl.com/jw8rhxh

This is the video that will make most parents squirm. 

It's what happened when a man (vetted and given the job) tried to entice single boys and girls out of a Park or Swing area away from their parents. If you didn't see it earlier today on the News, take note and pass it on to all parents and other folk with responsibility over kids.

[lhasa.two]

Clear cut case?!

No court case... mostly speculation and a lot of "he said", they said".

I suspect too much hubris on the part of Mitchell who was possibly having a 'bad day',  he then wrongly took it out on the policeman who was also having a bad day!   But, you don't swear at the police - in my book - under any circumstances. The police should not have taken it any further other than give Mitchell a quick verbal clip round the ear.

It certainly wasn't worth all the media hype deception and the huge costs involved. It's another nail in the coffins of both MPs and the Police imv.

[cee-dee]

Yes, it's "He said"/"no I didn't" all over again but there was more to it than just that:-

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24548645

[upthecreekyetagain]

Blimey CD - if you define that as a 'clear-cut case' then I hate to think what you would consider a complex one

The correct answer is of course that whilst we can all make a personal judgement based on information in the public domain all the parties are innocent of any wrong doing unless and until they are found guilty in a court of law.

[cee-dee]

Well, it's clear-cut enough to see that the cops overstepped the mark and that they did LIE.

Just on the one point, they said there were people around but the CCTV proved that there wasn't.

[upthecreekyetagain]

Those are judgements being made on the information you have received second or third hand - not ones I disagree with by the way

I remember the thread on here about the time that Andrew Mitchell resigned - the consensus then if I remember correctly was that he was lying, (there were just a few of us who argued there wasn't the information available to prove this).

Neither you nor I have all the information that would be presented in a court of law nor at a disciplinary hearing and without this we could be making the same mistake that many made when the matter was first reported.

[cee-dee]

Well on the one point alone, it was reported quite clearly that the police were saying that people were around and when the CCTV was shown, it was quite clear there wasn't.

On that point alone the police LIED. You can't get clearer than that?

[lhasa.two]

This is the transcript of Mitchell's meeting with the police.

http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%2...

Assuming his transcript has been accurately transcribed.

I see absolutely nothing there that implies any innapropriate behaviour by the police. In fact Mitchell, in my view, is being particularly obtuse when it comes to them explaining and expressing their requirement to investigate the officer because it lays open a possible claim of perverting the course of justice should it go to court. Mitchell also uses the word S... a few times to, so to say he doesn't use language like that isn't exactly true... Also why didn't he just tell them what he said on the day, instead of saying he wanted to draw a line under it all. How could the police challenge the officer if they did not have Mitchell's actual statement of what he said? If the police officer really felt he heard him use the word 'pleb' then what can the police do in terms of a reprimand, nothing it seems to me because it's Mitchel's word against the officer' s word. 

This so reminds me of the Chris Huhne case... where he denied what he did up to the 11th hour and wasted tax payers money in the process. My gut feeling is that Mitchell did use the word 'pleb'.  He did after all read history at Cambridge so it would be in his lexicon of vocab... 

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Well on the one point alone, it was reported quite clearly that the police were saying that people were around and when the CCTV was shown, it was quite clear there wasn't.

On that point alone the police LIED. You can't get clearer than that?

---

Have we seen transcripts of the actual statement the police officers made regarding members of the public being present - there are reports of what it is claimed they said but that of course is not quite the same thing.

Likewise with the CCTV - only the bits during the actual confrontation have been shown - were there members of the public present prior to the events in question that moved on unnoticed by the police officers before AM arrived?

If the police did lie does that mean that AM didn't use the word 'pleb'?

Difficult to be definitive about exactly what happenned nor to say one party or both parties have told lies or told the truth as they saw it.

Definitely NOT a 'clear-cut case'

[cee-dee]

The bloke was pretty clear in saying he wanted an end to the matter as he didn't want to go down the road of action against the cops.

It's almost like a woman battered by a bloke and she's being pushed to press charges......

The fact is that the police said there was a crowd of shocked tourists looking on when the CCTV proves that there was only one person nearby. On that fact alone, the police lied.

Mitchell really should challenge the cops account but no-one can force him. The actions of the cops now is bad, they're supporting someone who clearly lied and all that about making notes immediately whereas Mitchell made his notes 2 days later has little to do with honesty because the CCTV proves that ONE item which the cops noted was a LIE.

[cee-dee]

Some indisputable FACTS.

Mitchell hasn't been arrested and he's not on bail whereas 5 members of the police have been arrested and are on bail as are another three people.

[lhasa.two]

---

@upthecreekyetagain wrote:

---

@cee-dee wrote:

Well on the one point alone, it was reported quite clearly that the police were saying that people were around and when the CCTV was shown, it was quite clear there wasn't.

On that point alone the police LIED. You can't get clearer than that?

---

Have we seen transcripts of the actual statement the police officers made regarding members of the public being present - there are reports of what it is claimed they said but that of course is not quite the same thing.

Likewise with the CCTV - only the bits during the actual confrontation have been shown - were there members of the public present prior to the events in question that moved on unnoticed by the police officers before AM arrived?

If the police did lie does that mean that AM didn't use the word 'pleb'?

Difficult to be definitive about exactly what happenned nor to say one party or both parties have told lies or told the truth as they saw it.

Definitely NOT a 'clear-cut case'

---

In answer to cee dee, those points were not discussed in the transcript though and the 3 officers attending that meeting were not from the Met, they were from the IPCC. They may well have had the info about the CCTV and who was around at the time but it wasn't discussed at that meeting but extracts from that meeting transcript have been posted on the Beeb web site in support of Mitchell, which actually I don't think is right because the two things are separate.  

If I recall there was a lot of press coverage flying around and we all know how mistakes can be made there! I would like to know who managed the CCTV footage , the police or Downing Street, either way it can be doctored - I'm not saying it was btw but wearing my doubting Thomas hat... 

Well you are right creeky, so we won't probably ever know the whole story as it's really not a clear cut case.

[lhasa.two]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

The bloke was pretty clear in saying he wanted an end to the matter as he didn't want to go down the road of action against the cops.

He over apologised in my view, just a bit too much grovelling and more than once. Of course he didn't want it to go to court, he'd probably have to resign as an MP.  

It's almost like a woman battered by a bloke and she's being pushed to press charges......

I have no idea what you mean by that!

How I see it is they were giving him a chance to make absolutely sure he didn't use the word 'pleb'. 

The fact is that the police said there was a crowd of shocked tourists looking on when the CCTV proves that there was only one person nearby. On that fact alone, the police lied.

That's assuming the CCTV wasn't doctored which it could have been. I don't know about the tourists.

Mitchell really should challenge the cops account but no-one can force him. The actions of the cops now is bad, they're supporting someone who clearly lied and all that about making notes immediately whereas Mitchell made his notes 2 days later has little to do with honesty because the CCTV proves that ONE item which the cops noted was a LIE.

You don't know the policeman 'clearly lied', it's just his word against Mitchell.

Why didn't Mitchell tell the IPCC police that he had recorded their meeting and offer to give them a transcript?  I can perhaps understand he wanted to make sure nothing he said could later be misconstrued but it's nonetheless a deceitful act not to admit he recorded the meeting until now. If he really was sorry... it would have stood stronger ground inmv, than anything he actually said which frankly was embarrassing to read.

I don't for a moment think the police have acted well in this saga, particularly in the early days and they certainly have a lot of ground to catch up on in the PR department from recent history. But I do think it's wrong of the Beeb to take bits out of that meeting out of context and use it to blame the police when it's two different areas of the force and two different elements of the investigation.

---

[cee-dee]

From what you say, I don't think you've watched the CCTV footage or looked in to the "history" of the story.

From the time Mitchell cycled down Downing Street to the time he was let out through the side gate was less than a minute. The time spent at the main gate was so short, he'd hardly have had time to say all the things alleged to have been said.

As to the CCTV itself, there's footage from 2 cameras, one in Downing Street and one outside. Neither show any crowd of shocked tourists. The CCTV is official footage which is time and date stamped.

What Mitchell did was to cycle from Number 9 up to the main gate where he asked the cops there to let him through. They refused saying he'd have to use the side gate. He protested saying he was usually allowed through and had gone through the main gate a couple of times already that day. The cops refused and he pushed his bike to the side gate and one of the cops let him out.

The police log of the "event" was leaked to the press, if it hadn't have been leaked, the event would never have resulted in the subsequent furore. A cop was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office for the leak.

The issue was further confounded by two emails sent to John Randall purporting to be from a civilian who witnessed the event when in fact they'd come from a cop who wasn't even on duty at the time. Another cop was arrested for that.

Now, who's lying?

[upthecreekyetagain]

I have seen the CCTV footage CD - I remember posting a link to it on the original thread anout AM when others were "finding AM guilty" based purely on "reported facts"

There most certainly is no sign of the "alleged" tourists but as I said earlier that doesn't prove anyone is lying unless you have all the evidence to hand.

Do you have a transcript of the police statement where the officer allegedly claimed the existence of these tourists?  Do we know exactly how the claim was phrased or are we just relying on second and third hand reports.  All of these would be available at a court or disciplinary hearing as well as the verbal evidence from the officers concerned and full copies of any video evidence.

Finding someone guilty of lying without these is making exactly the same mistake as those insisting that the verdict in the LeVell case means the girl was lying.

[cee-dee]

No, I've not seen the original notes. What was supposed to have been said was the result of the actual logs being given to newspapers and it was on that basis officers were arrested.

Mitchell has admitted he swore at the cops (out of order but not surprising considering that he'd been allowed through the main gate before) but denied using the word "plebs".

There's no denial that what was reported (the crowd) wasn't true because two cameras prove that there was no "crowd of shocked tourists".

It's not been denied that the comment about the "crowd of tourists" was made?

It's not been denied that logs were handed to the press?

It's not an offence for a Cabinet Minister to ask to be allowed through a gate that he's passed through before but it's stretching things to threaten him with a Public Order offence when faced by a couple of biased jobsworths who insisted he use the side gate. It would have been quicker for them (not just Mitchell) to have let him through the main gate because that's where they were standing.

It IS an offence to hand police logs to an unauthorised person and it IS an offence for a Police Officer to purport to be a civilian and to falsley claim to have been a witness. You can't get away from those offences, they happened, officers have been arrested and ought to face a Court.

Mitchell himself says that he now realises he was wrong in saying he just wanted an end to the matter. It would have been ended except for the cop handing the log to the press and later another cop falsely claiming to be a witness.

There were no cameras to prove or disprove the allegations in the LeVell case.

[cee-dee]

I've found the reported log. I've left out the alleged words of Mitchell:-

“There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said: "I removed this bit because of the alleged language. CD" The members of public looked visibly shocked and I was somewhat taken aback by the language used and the view expressed by a senior government official”.

[upthecreekyetagain]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

No, I've not seen the original notes. What was supposed to have been said was the result of the actual logs being given to newspapers and it was on that basis officers were arrested.

A number of assumptions being made there although I note that you have used the conditional "What was supposed to have been said" - precisely my argument - what was said, the context in how it was said and comments from those who "supposedly" said it has not been tested.

Mitchell has admitted he swore at the cops (out of order but not surprising considering that he'd been allowed through the main gate before) but denied using the word "plebs".

There's no denial that what was reported (the crowd) wasn't true because two cameras prove that there was no "crowd of shocked tourists".

It's not been denied that the comment about the "crowd of tourists" was made?

It's not been denied that logs were handed to the press?

It's not an offence for a Cabinet Minister to ask to be allowed through a gate that he's passed through before but it's stretching things to threaten him with a Public Order offence when faced by a couple of biased jobsworths who insisted he use the side gate. It would have been quicker for them (not just Mitchell) to have let him through the main gate because that's where they were standing.

It IS an offence to hand police logs to an unauthorised person and it IS an offence for a Police Officer to purport to be a civilian and to falsley claim to have been a witness. You can't get away from those offences, they happened, officers have been arrested and ought to face a Court.

And until then they are innocent of those offences and will remain so unless or until they are found guilty - this whole thread has been about the presumption of innocence and yet now you want to find people guilty based on reported "facts"!

Mitchell himself says that he now realises he was wrong in saying he just wanted an end to the matter. It would have been ended except for the cop handing the log to the press and later another cop falsely claiming to be a witness.

There were no cameras to prove or disprove the allegations in the LeVell case.

---

[cee-dee]

Whether Mitchell lied in saying he did not use the word he's accused of saying isn't the issue, he might have done, he might not.

The facts as we (and everyone else?) know them is that someone leaked the police log to the press and someone else sent two emails to Randall making the same allegations whilst claiming to be a civilian and a witness. Clearly the sender of the emails is a liar because he wasn't a civilian, he was serving police officer. Also, he wasn't there either so he lied on that score too.

The fact that a whistleblower has turned up claiming the cops said they were going to stitch up Mitchel shouldn't come in to it because it goes back to "He said this"....... "No I didn't."

How many times have you seen me say that eyewitness evidence is the most unreliable and shouldn't really be regarded as evidence unless it gives a pointer to the finding of hard evidence? Many cases keep proving me right.

Go back to the facts as has been established (in one way or another) and it's clear enough that the evidence given about people being nearby was lies. The act of passing on the log and the sending of the emails hasn't been disputed therefore it's admitted as fact.

Whatever the truth of the rest of it, the credibility of the witness evidence is destroyed by the lies.

[lhasa.two]

---

@cee-dee wrote:

From what you say, I don't think you've watched the CCTV footage or looked in to the "history" of the story.

From the time Mitchell cycled down Downing Street to the time he was let out through the side gate was less than a minute. The time spent at the main gate was so short, he'd hardly have had time to say all the things alleged to have been said.

As to the CCTV itself, there's footage from 2 cameras, one in Downing Street and one outside. Neither show any crowd of shocked tourists. The CCTV is official footage which is time and date stamped.

What Mitchell did was to cycle from Number 9 up to the main gate where he asked the cops there to let him through. They refused saying he'd have to use the side gate. He protested saying he was usually allowed through and had gone through the main gate a couple of times already that day. The cops refused and he pushed his bike to the side gate and one of the cops let him out.

The police log of the "event" was leaked to the press, if it hadn't have been leaked, the event would never have resulted in the subsequent furore. A cop was arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office for the leak.

The issue was further confounded by two emails sent to John Randall purporting to be from a civilian who witnessed the event when in fact they'd come from a cop who wasn't even on duty at the time. Another cop was arrested for that.

Now, who's lying?

---

Yes, I did see the CCTV footage and did know all about the story as it was 'front page' news for days, unfortunately.

Mitchell admitted he swore at the policeman - fact - according to his transcript with the IPCC police, that's why he apologised. 

He denied he called him a pleb. He also apologised to the policeman for swearing at him which was accepted although he did not retract that Mitchell called him a pleb. Now either Mitchell did call him a pleb and he's not owning up to it or the policeman is either lying or falsely heard what he thought was the word pleb. We still don't know because Mitchell has only said  that he swore at him. So it makes it very difficult to know who is telling the truth. I suspect then that the police would not take it further, ie to a court because you have an intractable situation where two people do not agree and neither is giving in and no witnesses to prove it either way. 

You say: The CCTV is official footage which is time and date stamped.

Who owns the CCTV, the Government or the Police? We don't know, so we don't know for sure if it's been edited or not.

Ah, and there you have it... the Press.

I agree, if it had not been leaked to them then this event would not have had the air time it had.

I don't have an answer for why the policeman sent the email or why it was leaked to the press, both inappropriate actions on their parts. These 'transgressions' have already been dealt with by the police internally.

Fact - if Mitchell had not sworn at the policeman in the first place this would not have happened. 

He needs to remind himself of the words 'civil' and 'servant'.  

 As it is, it's taken up far too much parliamentary time (yesterday) when there are more pressing problems in the country...

[cee-dee]

Is there any need for these long quotes when the posts concerned are only just above?

If we're going down the route of "If Mitchell hadn't sworn......" we might as well also go down the road of "If the cops had opened the gate for him in the first place.........."

There's been no question about the CCTV footage being edited. As far as I'm aware, it was "Downing Street footage" from the cameras there and the one outside DS was on the Foreign Office.

The "transgressions" have not been dealt with because 8 people are still on bail. They're not "transgressions", they're offences = Misconduct in a Public Office for a start.