Where have you been these last years. The f word is part of the majority of the populations regular language and on TV most nights. It is certainly not just used just in temper.

I would be tempted to use the f word as an adjective if an officer was being deliberately obstructive and would certainly let him know he wouldn't hear the last of it if I intended to report him. It is not a police state just yet.





So logically you would also agree then that the police who regularly tell lies and deliberately mislead the public should also not be believed too?

I never said that they are not "real", but for the purposes of an investigation by either party they are virtually useless being as they do not prove or disprove anything.

I do not doubt that there is very clear cctv in HD and audio recordings of what took place, all properly timestamped and I would be absolutely stunned if the hierachy in the Tory party have not viewed these - no-one will convince me that the total extent of cctv in Downing Street is the three camera angles submitted by Mitchell and his supporters - what they are is the sum total of what they were able to request in their role as government employees rather than the Met Police or the PM.

Frankly if it were me who was being accused of saying something to a police offier that I absolutely knew I had not said and my very well paid, and more importantly to my well acknowledged ego, very prestigious office, was at stake then I would raise merry hell in order to obtain the evidence especially as his PM seemed to be very supportive of him in the early weeks when the press were very anti-Mitchell (don't forget that the press have attacked from both sides in this and the Labour Party were just doing what its is they all do for a living) - frankly if it were me I'd be formally requesting that my PM gathered all of the available media, viewed it, and then absolved me.

Mitchell is absolutely convinced that he has been wronged, his boss can prove it easily, but seems very reluctant to do so.





The evidence to date is not conclusive at all for either party, the footage that counts will be - to one or the other.

Someone is sitting on that evidence, the PM has the wherewithal to demand it, the Met handle security for HM Gov on Downing Street but HM Gov own the properties, own the street and will have paid for the security measures that exist and for their upkeep and maintenance, they will own copyright to the recordings and are within their rights to demand the recordings I don't understand why Cameron has let this drag on for as long as it has and be built up into something that can either drag him down or drag the Met down and if he drags the Met down then he'll be the first PM who can't depend on his own Police force for support, his dithering has created a mountain out of a pimple on a molehill, we're not even bothered that the Minister used the "f" word against a police officer, its the "p" word FFS !

If this were a dispute between a private company and its security providers then there would have been a board room meeting weeks ago, a banging of heads together and the matter forgotten - then again that is using common sense.

He was leaving work on his bike and had to go an extra couple of yards. That's hardly provocative enough to generate using the F-word to a police officer. Add into that the fact that this is the party of 'Law and Order' who constantly harp on about respect, morals, being a good citizen etc. and I think you can understand why I'm finding it a bit hard to put, effing at a police officer, down to a lazy choice of adjective. Even if I take it from the point of view of him being stressed out, it is still a police officer and he's had to walk an extra twenty or so metres. Is that a sackable offence? Probably not for me but if it wasn't why let him resign? Perhaps, because of Mitchell's reputation, the Conservatives own first reaction was to believe he said exactly what was first reported. Why then hold the public accountable for a political decision by the Conservative Party? It's quite possible that factions in the Conservative Party itself pushed for it.



You've probably answered your own question there about the police. We know the police have corrupt officers but on a per head basis they fall well below politicians. It may be wrong but when politicians behave like criminals (and let's face it, what else is corruption) why would the public choose to believe them over a man who is just trying to do his job according to how he's supposed to do it?

My opinion itself, is the guy swore at a police officer and resigned because his party couldn't handle the political fallout which, if they had any credibility, probably wouldn't be as big an issue e.g. Brown calling that woman bigoted. I'd certainly say it's less of an issue compared to something like when the UK Border Agency guy was sacked by the Home Secretary without any sort of disciplinary procedure, costing the taxpayer at least £100,000 (effectively a deliberate breaking of employment law). 'Plebgate' is insignificant news but people buy into it because the narrative fits with how the Conservative Party behaves.

They are certainly not useless and while not conclusive either they do cast doubt on the police log.




There maybe other cctv but also maybe not. But if there were something that supported the police log I feel sure the police would have released it by now




This is based on your assumption that there is clear evidence being withheld. If indeed there is fresh evidence available I feel sure that Mitchell's legal team will have put in place the demands for sight of it in order to further their forthcoming libel prosecutions to all and sundry.




Again your point is based on your assumption that there is further proof available which until substantiated is pure speculation. Perhaps the boys in blue forgot to turn on the other cameras or had them pointing in the wrong direction or is that the PM's fault as well?




Not conclusive... but enough to throw doubt on the police version.




Again you make an assumption and then treat it as fact as you continue your agenda against Cameron. As for depending on police support, I think that went out of the station window when the new Government outlined their budget cuts. Interestingly the crime rate has gone down during these cuts which shows the police scare spin about losing front line officers was not valid.




This was always a storm in a teacup which started with the police leaking a dodgy log was hyped up by the government`s enemies. I will not be suprised to see one or two members of the police lose their jobs over this and a tighter control made over the Police Federation.

If you have read Mitchell's version of the affair you will know that he regulary uses the main gate as when on his bike he is not a pedestrian. He stes that he had been in and out of the main gate several time that day. If he is to be believed the officer just refused to open the gate for him for no reason repeating "No" to his various requests. It did sound like the officer was just being awkward and using his power for no other reason. I am no fan of politicions but an elected member of the government should not have been treated so rudely if Mitchell is telling the truth.




Well recent events have shown the police to be equally as bad if not worse than politicians so why would you believe them first...and would you have done if the politician had been from the Labour party?




Well you certainly have bought into it and have also chosen to gloss over the police's lies and poor behaviour....nothing to do with political bias I suppose?

So do you seriously think that the three poor quality camera shots (without any audio) are the sum combined total of Whitehall and Downing Street security surveillance ?

I had better security on my last house.

Anyone thinking the rozzers overstepped the mark in this case should've tried visiting Knowsley Road in the early 80s for a CC game

It isnt hyped up gossip on the internet, it was widely reported throughout the media

No, words to the effect are actually an outright confirmation of not only what he said but the actual meaning intended. It is a description of intention, not the actual words used. If anything, this strengthens my argument.

You could well be right although respect works both ways which is something that politicians and people who hold power tend to forget. I've seen it from managers throughout my working life. You treat people how you expect to be treated yourself. That's a simple, common rule that it appears neither party was able to adhere for whatever reason that is i.e. a playground spat between two s. It's more complicated than that I know but these are grown men arguing over somebody leaving Downing Street on a bike and yet one is running the country and the other is supposed to be protecting his valuable service. What does this incident say about both?



It makes no difference what their political allegiance is in the same way that it didn't matter with the expenses scandal.



I'm not sure how you've arrived at that conclusion. I'm pretty sure that I've based my opinion on what happened i.e. he admitted swearing and he resigned. It appears to be you who wants to blame the police and the media for a choice made by Mitchell himself and/or his party. Again, I'm not sure how anybody else is accountable for a Conservative Party decision.

The weird thing about this incident is that nobody investigating it seems to be asking the bleedin obvious questions. But this is normal nowadays. These includeeither[/i daily riding through an opened gate, or else getting off his bike and going through the side door. The previous day's video (or the last day he came and went, if different) would, I suggest, conclusively prove who is lying about at least one key issue. We have no need to guess, or take anyone's word for it. It either happened before, in which case it's on tape, or it didn't, in which case that's also on tape.

I asked you to substantiate the many claims you have made that Mitchell admitted threatening the police officers. You have been unable to do this. Because something is widely reported does not make it to be true.



The only quote you came up with was from someone like yourself who had believed the police version which is now in doubt. Therefore your argument and statements are not based on fact but just repeating media spin and inaccurate internet comments from people like yourself. Mitchell has consistently claimed the police log is false with the exception of the F word as you well know because it is “widely reported in the media”



Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper.



Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police



Third parties are only witnesses if they actually witnessed it first hand ....and as nobody other than the police liar has come forward as a witness then all you quotes are hearsay and so irrelevant.



Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”?

Did I make up the fact that a serving policeman gave a false account of the event (using the same words and phrases as in the police log) and has been arrested?

Did I make up that the media were sent a copy of the police log and that this “leak” is being investigated by the Met. If it wasn’t a policeman who leaked this confidential log then who was it?

Did I make up that a spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie.



His email wasn’t used as evidence because it was later found to be false. As it contained the exact words and phrases as the official log and as this policeman falsely claimed to be at the gates with his cousin and witnessed the “toxic” phrases (when he wasn’t there at all) it is therefore quite reasonable to sumise he was trying to corroborate the police log. If not then what was the purpose of his email and why did the police log claim there were witnesses at the gate when the CCTV proves otherwise?



The police are investigating the leak. I ask you again if the confidential police log was not sent by a policeman then who was it sent by? Remember that your whole argument is based on what you have read from this same leak.



You are wrong. rlhttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19922023rl

A spokesman for the Police Federation after their meeting with Mitchell, announced to the press that Mitchell refused to tell them exactly what he said he had no option but to resign. NB This meeting was later found to have been taped by a Conservative press official and proves this statement to be a lie.



Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all.



See evidence above or wait for the court case.



Where did you post that he may be innocent?

There was huge pressure for him to resign especially when the email hit the media from a member of the public that witnessed everything and which fully corroborated the police log (before it turned out to be false.) Add to this the police federation lying that he had refused to tell them exactly what he had said and the Labour party front benchers calling for his head every night on TV. He was in a terrible position and did not defend himself very well and the pressure got to him but his resignation does not prove guilt.

This is where I struggle to swallow the story.

He was asked to be chief whip of the party, a very senior figurehead position, presumably with David Cameron's agreement, probably with his nomination - therefore at that point you have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him indeed.

A matter of a few weeks later he is involved in some sort of incident at the gates to Downing Street, the sort fo kerfuffle that you or I would laugh off later and would not be worthy of noting in any ordinary police officers book, but a log has to be kept at the security office and so it was.

At that point you still have to assume that David Cameron thought very highly of him as he never asked him to resign at any point over the next few weeks.

When the whole media thing broke you also have to assume that Mitchell and Cameron spoke about it, they may even have had formal meetings with Ministers and senior party members and its reasonable to assume that Mitchell protested his innocence at those meetings as he does now - and still Cameron was not asking for his resignation and presumably still thought that he was the ideal man for the job.

In David Camerons position you can instantly snuff out all of the press speculation and antics, if you want to stop all of this silly distraction from your serious parliamentary duties you do what any CEO of a private company would do, you review the evidence, and if the evidence is exactly as Mitchell insists, and if he is being set up by the Metropolitan Police, then you do something about it and letting your trusted Chief Whip resign as if guilty is not the thing that you do - you might not want to wash all of this in public but you'd certainly call in the Metropolitan Police Commisioner and show him the evidence, then get the whole affair carefully airbrushed away.

But he didn't do any of that.

I think few will come out of this smelling of roses. The timing of the resignation occured when not all the evidence was available. But what did for him was the escalation of calls for his resignation and mounting pressure from the media, Red Ed and Mrs Balls, the Police Federation (comments after their meeting with Mitchell that said he refused to say what he had said) the eye witnessed email that was so damming in corroborating the police log and not helped by Mitchell's own pathetic aplology and unconvincing denials on TV.

When all this furore came to a head the PM asked the Cabinet Secretary Sir Jeremy Heywood to conduct an investigation which was done with his typical civil service bungling aplomb as he failed to look at the police log and collate all the evidence. So Mitchell felt he had no choice but to fall on his sword which with hindsight was too soon as much of the case against him started to crumble....... but all to late for him.

How difficult would it be to walk twenty yards to the security office and demand that the police log and the cctv for the night in question be delivered to your office NOW ?

Those two items alone would prove or disprove the case, then its back to business.

Probably in the same way that Tony Blair thought very highly of Gordon Brown