Anyone could say that phrase, it doesn't mean he was looking to use political power to gain retribution - that is just made up rubbish.

The 'fairly clearly implied threat' - erm what?

The phrase 'Im the prime minister of the united kingdom and I will secretly have you murdered by MI5' could be said by anyone, it takes on a more sinister tone if it were the prime minister saying it.
Im not sure how you needed this explained to you, but that would be a threat, which was implied, fairly clearly. HTH

It is? Where exactly?

A quick search using the words "Andrew Mitchell to sue" throws up absolutley nothingg

Please tell me where Mitchell has said 'I'm a cabinet minister and I will be getting you sacked in the morning' or words to that effect?

Just didn't happen.

It was reported on the front page of The Sunday Times yesterday.

If you want to pretend saying 'you havent heard the last of this' isnt a threat then go ahead, you will look like a moron but crack on.

Meanwhile the rest of world see's the almost cartoonish image of someone uttering that threat.

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.

no my argument is based on what is accepted to be true by both parties. What is accepted to be true by both parties makes Mr Mitchell look like an arrogant knob whose behaviour fell well below the standards expected of a senior government minister.

Even in hypothetical land where we accept everything bar what is mutually agreed is truthful on Mr Mitchells side and false on the police's side, Mr Mitchell still acted like an arrogant knob, and his behaviour still fell well below the standards expected of a senior government minister.

So "well reported" that not a single news agency or digest has picked up on it?

I did find one quote of Mitchell's in The Sunday Times

Obviously wanton plagiarism isn't a sin in Mitchell's privileged world either.

And if you are wondering if I have an anti-tory bias, you need look no further than Ny Bevan's quote in my sig

What, muttering one swear word in exasperation after a long day at work. On a scale of 1-10 of immoral conduct with 1 being low and 10 being high, it's probably a 1, maybe a 2 because police were involved.

Hardly 'well below the standards expected of a senior government minister'.

you can try and rewrite history, but when your tribal politcs has led you to defend someone's behaviour as not below the standards expected when they themselves have admitted culpability then you should probably re-examine how you are forming your opinions, whether they are truly held opinions concluded through a logical examination of evidence or simply the regurgitation of someone else's propaganda to give you a sense of belonging.

I just said it was immoral. Just not 'well below the standards expected'.

That would be an exaggeration. Something which you seem prone to.

Yep, that would draw a line under it. Nobody would be bothered about all the other issues that this has raised? The concerns expressed by the likes of Chris Mullin would be completely ignored?

If you truly believe that the carefully edited CCTV footage is conclusive proof that Mitchell has been exonerated, then you're away with the fairies

The only thing that has been "accepted to by true by both parties" is that Mitchell used the f word, but no agreement on the way it was used. There is no proof of any of the other allegations made by the police against Mitchell. But there is proof that some of the statements made by the police are fabrications and lies.....but not a mention from yourself that this behaviour not only fell below the standards expected of the police but are serious criminal offenses.

You do not know how Mitchell behaved as you were not there and the police statements have been proven to be false in part at least. Yet you still make final judgements and resort to calling him an arrogant knob...a name you may have heard yourself a few times I would guess.