Quote: SmokeyTA "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.'"
The only false argument is yours. Please read my post as I did not mention the word "pleb"
However seeing as you keep mentioning "pleb" you should understand that it was this word that was seized upon by the Police Federation, opportunist Labour politicians and the parts of the media as they played their class war card. It has since been regarded as "plebgate" and without this word there would have been no story.
Your whole argument is based on accepting 100% of the police version of events with a complete disregard for any denials from Mitchell. In the light of the recent news for you to stick with this stance can only be down to your political bias and if so your views are prejudiced.
The only thing that Mitchell has apologised for is the use of the "F" word and even that he says was not said to the faces of the officers but more a muttering as he went into Whitehall. All the rest he has denied so for you to state he largely agrees with his accusers is plainly incorrect yet you keep repeating your errors.
You think that the use of an everyday swear word is a more serious offence than the following which in my view is now the real issue which really is serious:
1. A serving police officer, who was an off duty colleague of the 2 officers who made the now dodgy log, sent an email to the Whips office pretending to be a member of the public who had witnessed the event. This email contained an almost duplicate version of the police log and was what caused a Cabinet Minister to resign. This 'lying policeman' has since admited to not being there and fabricating his whole witness statement.
2. An element from the Met leaked the police log to parts of the media for clear political reasons.
3. The Police Federation lied with regard to a meeting with Mitchell
4. The CCTV footage has brought the police log into disrepute because it disproves the police statement in the log that "the members of the public looked visibly shaken". A police log has to be 100% accurate or it cannot be believed.
On the back of Hillsborough, and several other serious instances where the police have lied and broken the public trust I am not confident that an in-house Met enquiry will get at the truth.
