You just can't do that as a leader of a business though can you - if you have two parties at loggerheads with each other both telling stories completely at odds with each other AND you have sufficient cctv evidence (not those pathetic clips that are in the public domain) to absolutely beyond any doubt show what happened, then you get both party's to sit down in a meeting room and you lay everythign on the table and you thrash it out between you all, clear the air, make a decision as CEO and then get on with the important jobs.

He's desperately trying to stay out of this and his office is spoon feeding snippets to the press every day, the only ones who aren't making any comments at all are the Met and the Diplomatic Protection Squad - what the hell have they got up their sleeves ?

Sooner or later Cameron will have to stand up and get involved and bring things to a head, problem is that the time to do it quietly without any fuss or even a mention in the press (it didn't appear for days afterwards) is long gone and one or other of the chiefs heads will roll at the end of all this.

I agree with all you've said but what I would take issue with is the quality of the cctv in this specific case, I just do not believe that the cctv shots in the public domain are the only ones available for if they are then the security of our government is at high risk - if any gated enclosed compound in the UK deserves (and will have) the highest quality video and audio gathering devices it will be the gate at the end of Downing Street and what we see in the public domain is the stuff that they'd normally throw away during an investigation, quite why anyone would release that to the public media as part of their campaign of innocence is beyond me other than the fact that they think we're idiots and will swallow it - the media have certainly done that, especially CH4 who's presentation of it read directly from Mitchell's PR machine.

There has been a huge change in the way that government behaves in the last decade and most of it is down to the instant sharing of information outside of the normal channels of TV news and print media (which as we know can be carefully controlled by both parties), its not sufficient as a PM to have newspaper owners in your pocket these days for they are now almost irrelevant when small pressure groups can whip up 100,000 signatures on an online petition overnight and force a vote in parliament over issues as bizarre as chopping trees down and shooting badgers, with this and twp political party's to appease the PM has very limited powers these days, hence the reason why he is desperately trying to keep a distance between himself and Mitchell.

Not really that surprising. As many have pointed out, the evidence is suspect rather than conclusive. As things stood it was Mitchell v the police. And Mitchell did admit to using inappropriate language. If Cameron had sided with Mitchell it would have become the government v the police on an isuue where the Chief Whip had admitted using bad language. Never going to happen.

Good summary of the situation.

You really can't see this affair ending well for anyone TBH.

Reading this thread sadly proves that there are still many who choose to perpetuate the old ‘class war’ at every opportunity. These dinosaurs display a common trait for character abuse (which only highlights their prejudice and in certain cases envy) as they pursue their rigid political dogma at all costs. Then as facts emerge that throw doubt on their so quick to judge prejudiced views, they totally fail to consider or acknowledge any possibility that an injustice may have occurred.

In this affair we still await the full facts which we hope will prove who is telling the truth and who is lying. So to form opinions set in concrete without knowledge of the facts is both unwise and unfair.

However what is now clear is that this scandal has become a crisis for the police with a poll suggesting that public opinion has swung in Mitchell’s favour, with more people believing his version of events than the police’s version and where there are discredited elements of the politicised police union (the Police Federation) who appear out of control. A Police Federation spokesman allegedly lied about a meeting with Mr Mitchell.

What also is looking increasingly of grave concern is that if a government minister can be “fitted up” and found guilty, without a thorough check of the allegations, what chance for an ordinary member of the public.

For a serving police officer of the diplomatic protection unit to fabricate evidence against a cabinet minister and send by email to the deputy chief whip is a very serious situation. As the contents of this email echoed the official police log it throws suspicion on this same log which is further challenged by the CCTV footage. The police log claimed “there were several members of the public present, as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate” and “The members of the public looked visibly shocked” The police account has to be 100% reliable which it plainly is not. Had this come to a trial the case would have been thrown out.

Meanwhile Mitchell is preparing to sue individual and parts of the media.

Top post.

He told you this did he?

He should sue, if he is sure that there is no more evidence...

This is Camerons worst christmas nightmare, a senior member of his party at odds with the police over christmas, both sides squaring up for a fight, not all of the information yet released to a baying media who are happy to jump ship and join the other side day by day depending on who has the juiciest story, and yet Cameron could stop all of this tomorrow but is too weak to do so ...

How?

By clearly and concisely explaining that the word ‘pleb’ is a massive red herring.

The facts not under dispute is that a senior minister, failed to follow an instruction from the police, and proceeded to swear at them. If Mr Mitchell wants to claim he was ‘stitched up’ with the police claiming he used disrespectful ‘toxic’ language then at some stage he needs to explain why he made it so damn easy by swearing at police, threatening them that it would be taking it further and not just doing what he was told like an normal member of the public.

The whole problem with the is that Mitchell had to resign because he was accused of acting as though he was better than the public and was disrespectful to the police, regardless of whether he said pleb or not, regardless of whether people were watching, regardless of anything else he is trying to argue now, he was, and doesn’t dispute, that he was acting in a manner that would like lead to the arrest of a member of the public and was disrespectful to the police.

The fact he is totally dismissing this, and now has the brassbollox to act as if he is the victim simply makes him appear exactly like the kind of person he is accusing the police of stitching him up to look like.

Read the answer above.


The fact that Cameron is desperately trying to ignore the whole debacle while the press are constantly whipping the story along, having taken both sides to date shows that he doesn't have quite so much control over his close friends in the media as he thinks he had, and that he doesn't seem to have any control over his own senior members who are doing the whipping along nicely themselves.

Unless that is, there is a third agenda and he really does want to indict the Met Police - unlikely given the party's previous but you never know.

I note you use the word "fact(s)" as though you actually know them. You have chosen to believe one side due I assume to your political bias. You fail to acknowledge that your so called "facts" are in fact only allegations made by 2 police officers against a Government Minister. That Mitchell swore is not disputed but he has stated that it was not so much in the face of the officers but muttered "I thought you guys were supposed to f****** help us" as he wheeled his bike into Whitehall. In the current era it would be difficult to claim this was an insult against public decency when the same word can be heard on our TVs most nights.

I do not think you are correct either to claim that Mitchell "failed to follow instructions from the police" as the CCTV footage shows he did go through the pedestrian gate.

You also fail to see that his resignation was brought to a head by the "toxic" email from a "member of the public" that was stated to have witnessed the event. That this "toxic" email has now been proven to be a total lie and "in fact" sent by a police colleague of the two boys in blue at the gate.

The Channel 4 News report has totally devastated the police account as has the CCTV footage. When you add to this the "fact" that someone from the police sent a copy of the police log to the press, you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to smell an 'elementary' rat.

The police have plenty of 'form' with regard to lies and falsifying reports and have a 'motive' due to cut backs to police budgets yet you would deny him the chance to state his innocence.

Heaven help us if the press are gagged.

It is well reported that his lawyers are "trawling through more than 1000 articles and dozens of tweets" Maybe internet forums too! He plans to donate any damages to a hospice in his constituency.

This is the false argument you and others have been tricked into.

Whether he said pleb or not is absolutely irrelevant.

His behaviour wasn’t ok, these are facts not disputed, not by anyone, not even him, its why he apologised. He apologised for his behaviour because it was wrong, because it was disrespectful, because he knows he shouldn’t behave like that. Pleb isn’t some magic word, it didn’t make his behaviour any worse, it wasn’t the point which took his behaviour from acceptable to unacceptable,

Mitchell swore at police, he didn’t follow instruction and threatened that ‘this wouldn’t be the last of this’. He doesn’t dispute that version of events. That is what’s wrong. It isn’t a stitch up, he hasn’t been fitted up by the police, this isn’t a trick. This is what happened and nobody disputes this. Nobody tricked him into that, nobody forced him to do it, nobody made it up, he accepts that he did those things.

You say he isnt being given the chance to state his innocence, the reason for this is he accepts he isnt innocent.

Mitchells frankly ridiculous defence seems to be that a silent video proves that he didn’t say a particular word, and therefore a series of events he largely agrees happened, didn’t happen in the way he largely agrees. If Mr Mitchell thinks that swearing at police, threatening them, and not following their instructions is respectful, but calling them a pleb way beyond the bounds of acceptability, he may prove he isn’t an example of the ‘toxic’ image the tories accuse people of portraying of them, but he will also prove he is disrespectful of police officers, a whiner, generally quite stupid, and quite frankly so out of touch he might as well be setting up a branch of the bullingdon club in The Sudan.