Making false statements to an MP isnt what you would expect from a police officer. It doesnt affect in any way the original report.

Thankfully, rlsomeone has taken the time to examine C4s video evidence and blow apart their assertion of exonerationrl

Looks like selective editing has, as I always suspected, been at play

In Mitchell's defence he is using a bike and that's great for the environment. He'll need to do a bit more though to cancel out fracking.

Would C4/Dispatches deliberately edit the CTTV (or use edited CCTV provided to them) to give a false impression? Essentially fabricate evidence against the police? It would seem an incredible thing to do, particularly after the whirlwind of controversy surrounding Newsnight recently. ESpecially as it would seem to be relatively easy to show that it had been selectively edited. But I suppose stranger things have happened.

No doubt there are an army of technical experts employed by the Met, the Police Federation and the Government, working on the coverage to prove whether or not its genuine. I wouldn't like to be the head of C4 if its proven to be misleading.

Don't know the answer to that one but I did find (in my opinion) their presentation to be very scripted, almost too scripted, almost as if someone else had scripted it, like someone in the Mitchell Support Group for instance - the insistence that nothign could have happened because the figures were too far away from the camera, out of focus and occasionally not even in camera shot was not the sort of conclusion that I'd expect an investigative documentary crew to come up with.

Its the reason for my scepticism over the whole affair, that and the unwillingness of Cameron to get involved, as he could easily, theres no doubt that the video had been edited but I don't think it was CH4, they were just guilty of spoon-feeding the whole thing to the public and stirring the mud up again to the embarassment of those who had hoped that it was all resolved.

you mean someone on the internet who hates the tories, agrees with what you hope actually happened.

No, I meant exactly what I had written, that's why I wrote it.

But thanks for confirming your apparent inability to comprehend the written word

no, you wrote it because they agreed with what you dearly hoped happened. did maggie run over your dog or something?

It was written by someone calling themselves 'Steve Pleb Walker' - obviously someone who is highly independent and in no way desperate to save face after extracting every last ounce of political capital out of the affair in the months leading up to the recent revelations.

It wouldn't be much of a defense for C4 if they hadn't actually edited the coverage, just spoon fed the public.

Surely, post Saville & McAlpine, the programme would have been subject to review at a very high level within C4? I just can't understand why they would choose to take on the police on a matter where the evidence can be so easily verified, one way or the other. Only a moron would believe that they could put out doctored coverage and not expect the police to be all over it.

It's also easier for a broadcaster to take on the police than the state. Let's be honest with ourselves though, you don't even have to watch [iThe Thick Of It[/i these days to understand just how much the government tries to shove its propaganda down our throats. They continually lie and distort the news in order to remain in favour with the electorate. It's been done for centuries so it's a bit naive of us to think they wouldn't get involved in press releases. In fact, the vast majority of political news stories come from press releases these days.

You don't think that the particular presentation of the video in the Dispatches program had been handed to CH4 in that particular format then, video and commentary ?

Especially since its since been reproduced word for word in various news publications since ?

You could be right, maybe I am too cynical these days, but it was an easy program to make for CH4, everything provided on a plate, no investigative journalism to do, the script written for them, they didn't have to spend days on editing and proofing and supporting the story, why they never even asked why the most obvious thing, audio, was missing.

Still waiting for the proper video.

I think I'm equallly cynical, but I generally only believe conspiracy theories if: a) only a few people are involved; b) the rewards for the participants are great enough to justify the risks they're taking;and c) the participants genuinely believe they will not be caught out.

This particularly conspiracy theory definitely passes test a). Its debatable whether or not it passes test b). But it clearly fails to pass the "Will we get away with it?" test. They would have to complete idiots to think that they could put out doctored footage, accusing the police of lying, and not have that footage subject to rigorous tests.

I still wouldn't rule it out, because people do stupid things. But if it is proven that C4 had doctored the footage, or simply broadcast it without checking if it had been doctored, it would make the BBC's failings over McAlpine seem like small beer.

Please can you send the links to Mitchell's quotes where he accepted he made threats.

Mitchell maintains that according to the police log book all the "toxic" phrases were spoken while he was wheeling has bike from the main gate to the side gate and through to the pavement where several members of the public witnessed the fracas and were "visibly shocked"

The CCTV proves that these so called members of the public it would seem were "invisibly shocked" as they were nowhere to be seen! So this part of the police log was incorrect and a fabrication/lie.

The same footage does not show Mitchell to appear either angry or in a temper or display any aggressive bodily behaviour consistent with the police allegations.

I do not hold any brief for Mitchell and as I have only seen him on TV, where he appeared normal (or as normal as a politician can appear). So I cannot judge how likeably/unlikeable he is. But more importantly in the absence of clear evidence of guilt I have to say he is innocent until proven guilty.

To find him guilty or fail to give the benefit of doubt simply because he is from another class background or holds different political views is a sad reflection on how predjudice can distort justice.

Furthermore there is sufficient evidence and circumstantial evidence to cause grave concern regarding the behaviour of the police in this. Sending a mallicious email which contained lies and fabrications is a criminal offence and should lead to dismissal. That this fabrication mirrored the official log has more than a whiff of conspiracy. Who was responsible for leaking the log to the media and why? If the log was correct why was Mitchell not arrested and charged? Why did the Police Federation make a false statement regarding Mitchell?

The police log contained a false statement regarding the "visibly shocked" members of the public witnessing the event.