rlDowning Street Suspected 'Gigantic Conspiracy' Over Plebgate, But Did Not Investigaterl

Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary no less, seems to suggest that the video "evidence" that has been released to public view is the sum total of all video and audio evidence.

We should all sit down and shake our heads if that is so, apart from any miltant extremists who will be too busy stockpiling fertiliser and detonators anyway.



No wonder a four man IRA cell managed to lob a few home made mortars into the garden of 10 Downing St through the roof of a Transit van - and then disappear before anyone saw them.

You cannot back up your statements and you clearly are unable to admit that you may have made a mistake in your hasty judgement against Mitchell.

You say you were only “bothered to find” a quote which was nothing more than hearsay yet you are “bothered” to continue your folly.

Please state the names of the witnesses? And please quote the statements of these third parties witnesseses?

What is relevant about the CCTV is that it disproves part of the police log.
So you think that it is not relevant that a false statement was made to verify the log by a police colleague of the officer who wrote the police log.

The leak is being investigated so we shall soon see. But as this log is made and kept by the police I ask you to suggest who else may have sent it to the media?

I don’t think I have suggested that the West Midland Police Federation, the Met , the officers who wrote the log and the one who gave false evidence are all together and the same. In fact I clearly have separated each as a separate and relevant piece of evidence and circumstantial evidence which points at a stitch up.

I am not usually a believer in the grassy knoll conspiracy theories. However todays headline has the chief civil servant saying that “Andrew Mitchell could have been the victim of a ´gigantic conspiracy’

rlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/10/andrew-mitchell-victim-jeremy-heywoodrl

I think it to be more likely that it is PC Plod showing “peaked cap syndrome” and then trying to cover his backed up by the anti-government union showing self interest and opportunism above fairness and truth.

The Labour front bench led by Red Ed and Mrs Balls have gone a bit quite on this issue after gobbing off so much...wonder why this could be?

No it is not fine and not superfluous! The Police Federation having led the calls for Mitchell to resign put unfair and extra pressure to bring about that resignation by briefing the media with a downright lie.

The CCTV that has been released (from different angles) covers that actual area and time of the allegations in the police log and although not perfect shows clearly enough that there were not the witnesses at the gate as per the police log. So most relevant.

Finally for you to mention “innocent until proven guilty” is a joke coming from someone who has only believed internet hearsay and then made a guilty judgement and then continued to post this hearsay stating it as fact.

I only hope you are never called to do jury service

So perhaps all your anti Cameron comments were null and void then?

Not at all, I have yet to hear him make a statement on the affair, as I have also to hear him admit that the total cctv coverage of the whole of Downing Street consists of three badly positioned poor quality slightly out of focus non audio supporting cameras, and I have yet to hear him explain why he accepted Mitchells resignation when his chief civil servant admits that they all suspected a conspiracy but didn't bother to investigate or gather in any or all information with immediate effect - unless of course just two weeks into the job Cameron realised that he'd made a terrible mistake in selecting Mitchell, its not like he hasn't got a track history in selecting bed fellows who take everyone else for fools is it ?

No, quite frankly Cameron is keeping his distance but he's swimming against a vortex here, sooner or later, whichever way the Met eqnuiry goes, he's going to have to make a statement of explanation and as his senior advisors have admitted all along, no-one is going to come out of this smelling of roses.

You appear to have followed the headlines, without further reading. From the article you linked to"We accepted there were unanswered questions including the possibility of a gigantic conspiracy or a small conspiracy. Those were unanswered questions. But we decided, on balance, to let matters rest as they were, decide to stick by Andrew Mitchell, keep him in post and move on."[/i

So there may have been a "gigantic" conspiracy, equally there may also have been a "small" conspiracy or even no conspiracy at all

And at present that potential conspiracy relates to the emails not the police log.

Update on the "plebgate saga"

The police officer who wrote the original pocket book entry about the incident and later the log book entry was arrested on Friday, and suspended from duty, on suspicion of leaks to the press.

She is the 3rd serving Met police officer to be arrested in connection with plebgate and the leaks. A 4th individual ( a relative of one of those arrested) has also been arrested.

The female officer's arrest comes 24 hrs after another diplomatic protection officer was arrested over the leak.

The Met is also carrying out a misconduct investigation into 4 other officers from diplomatic protection 3 of whom have been placed on restrictive duties.

Update on rlC4 Dispatchesrl tomorrow night

The sooner Mitchell gets knocked down a few pegs the better - arrogant egotist.

Quote: Dally "Sounds like Mr Mitchell could possibly get a handsome defamation settlement if he goes for it.'" You might be right Dally. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... n-plebgate

Quote: Dally "Sounds like Mr Mitchell could possibly get a handsome defamation settlement if he goes for it.'" You might be right Dally. www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013 ... n-plebgate

Don't know why don't you call him to explain the error of his ways.

I'm sure he will listen to you over his practising solicitor.

Because a lawyer has never taken a case he thought he might lose just for the fat fee. No sirree...

People sue and fail all the time. Even people with ever-so-expensive lawyers. On the face of it suing a newspaper for printing what everyone at the time thought was a genuine Police report appears doomed to failure, but strange things can happen in libel cases. Either way it will further damage his public image, which he claims to be so concerned about.

No..... I think he intends to sue for reporting something that was not correct. You cannot just repeat other peoples libeleous statements and report it as fact. Great care has to be taken with the written word and unless you have proof it has to be made clear the story is only alleged.

To publish in print an untruth about someone which will do harm to that persons's reputation by tending to bring them into ridicule or contempt of others is libel. There are some quite good examples earlier in this thread.