Quote: Lord Elpers "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.'"
Nor does it make it untrue. What it does do is ensure it isnt simply hyped up internet gossip.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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”'"
The only quote i bothered to find, as i said it was widely reported.
Quote: Lord Elpers "Mitchell has repeatedly “outright denied” the contents of the log (F word excepted) see him on the Channel4 prog and every newspaper.'"
But not that he didnt say words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' Both statements that Mitchell said words to the effect of 'you havent heard the last of this' and the words 'you havent heard the last of this' werent the words he used could be true.
Quote: Lord Elpers "Of course you aren’t because it throws doubt about the temper tantrums and witnesses that were alleged by the police'"
Im not because it shows nothing either way. It is you who seems to be hiding behind the frankly ridiculous argument that because the video doesnt prove the polices account it disproves it. A child could probably explain the logical fallacy you have fallen into.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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.'"
No they arent, that's just misguided nonsense.
Quote: Lord Elpers "Did I make up the CCTV that shows not witnesses at the gate being “visibly horrified”?'"
You make up that it is relevant.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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?'"
You make up the relevance this has.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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?'"
innocent until proven guilty young sir, be consistent.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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.'"
The west midlands police federation. I would like you to clarify why you are consistently trying to conflate the West Midlands Police federation, the metropolitan police, the officers who were present and the officer who was?
Quote: Lord Elpers "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?'"
Only if as well as thinking the police were involved in some kind of conspiracy they were also mentally retarded. They are serving police officers, im pretty confident that if they were looking to create some corroborating evidence which would stand up, having another officer e-mail someone unconnected with police wouldnt be high on their list of options.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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.'"
innocent until proven guilty squire. It is your assertion, it is up to you to prove it.
Quote: Lord Elpers "You are wrong. rlhttp://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.'"
Fine, that is still completely superfluous to the actual issue.
Quote: Lord Elpers "Exactly. The visibly shocked witnesses were invisible to the CCTV because like the lying policeman they were not there at all.'"
Or just not on the cctv.
Quote: Lord Elpers "See evidence above or wait for the court case.'"
It isnt evidence.
Quote: Lord Elpers "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.'"
Only you has brought up the possibility that his resignation was an acceptance of guilt.
