Quote: JerryChicken "rlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210655/Andrew-Mitchell-CCTV-footage-calling-police-plebs-inconclusive.htmlrl You know what that is - carefully leaked political spin. I've been around too long to swallow this as the only evidence that Cameron has been presented with, a distant 40 second shot with no audio that "experts" have been unable to decipher mouthed comments from. Sorry, but that is Bull-droppings being carefully fed to a media who they want to bring back onside, if the event had been a terrorist attack then they'd have produced the real tapes, the HD ones that could be used as rushes for the next Hollywood blockbuster shot from several carefully located camera angles, camera positions that were picked by the experts that they employed to provide cctv to the home of the British Prime Minster. FFS I could provide a video clip of the quality in that report just buy nipping down to Maplins and buying a £50 kit. Cameron forced Mitchell to resign and he didn't do it on a complete lack of evidence, in the meantime the Met Police Commissioner who presumably has seen the real security video evidence seems to back his officers rlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20771199rl'" Give it up Jerry Chicken, he's been well and truly stitched up. I know you hate Tories but please show some common sense. Look at this video.... www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-r ... eo-footage

Quote: JerryChicken "rlhttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2210655/Andrew-Mitchell-CCTV-footage-calling-police-plebs-inconclusive.htmlrl You know what that is - carefully leaked political spin. I've been around too long to swallow this as the only evidence that Cameron has been presented with, a distant 40 second shot with no audio that "experts" have been unable to decipher mouthed comments from. Sorry, but that is Bull-droppings being carefully fed to a media who they want to bring back onside, if the event had been a terrorist attack then they'd have produced the real tapes, the HD ones that could be used as rushes for the next Hollywood blockbuster shot from several carefully located camera angles, camera positions that were picked by the experts that they employed to provide cctv to the home of the British Prime Minster. FFS I could provide a video clip of the quality in that report just buy nipping down to Maplins and buying a £50 kit. Cameron forced Mitchell to resign and he didn't do it on a complete lack of evidence, in the meantime the Met Police Commissioner who presumably has seen the real security video evidence seems to back his officers rlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20771199rl'" Give it up Jerry Chicken, he's been well and truly stitched up. I know you hate Tories but please show some common sense. Look at this video.... www.channel4.com/news/plebgate-r ... eo-footage

Like the crowds that were gathered outside the gates?

Well he has called for a full enquiry, which you wouldn't do if you had things to hide.

Its a bluff, as is the police commissioners statement, one of them is wrong, the one who is correct will be the one who holds the actual evidence (not the bull-poop they've released to the press), or the one who controls the terms of any enquiry.

Don't forget, the Hillsborough enquiry held up a false premise just by denying evidence to the contrary.

It's very difficult to guess what's going on here. I don't even think it's a simple as the apparent police v politician(s). What is for sure that what incidents like this show is that we are not really any wiser about such matters in our so called democracy with its so called free press as the folk of places like North Korea.

Even though he's admitted losing his temper?

rlhttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20775071rl

Mitchell resigned because the Police said he had said something and a member of the public witnessed it. Without that witness it's his word against the police (still not great press for an MP).

The CCTV suggests elements of the police log were not right.

Recordings suggest the Police federation had recolection issues with their Mitchell interview.

If it wasn't a tory toff, you'd be shouting about a fit up.

The CCTV doesn't prove or contradict anything. It shows Mitchell wheeling his bike through the gate while talking to a policeman. I'm at a loss to understand why this CCTV footage is thought to be so important. What did anyone expect to find out from CCTV with no sound?

Regardless of whether its an arrogant posh boy Tory toff or not, I'm still wondering why he's not charged with breaking Section 5 of the Public Order Act.

The log suggests that it was sometime before Mitchell left via the sidegate and a long (relative) discussion was had. The CCTV shows Mitchell got off the bike straight away and walked out.

The log says Mitchell refused several times to use the side gate. The CCTV suggests that didn't happen.

The log states there was a crowd outside the gate. The CCTV shows there wasn't.

Mitchell admits to saying 'I though you was supposed to ing helping us'.

The CCTV would suggest that there was no heated argument, no stand up row, etc, etc.

No it doesn't. The log states"Whilst on duty at *** tonight (Wed 19th Sept) on a 1400-2200 hrs between the hours of 1800-2000 I had to deal with a man claiming to be the chief whip and who I later confirmed to be such and a Mr Andrew MITCHELL.

Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr MITCHELL refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates.

I explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was to use the side pedestrian gates and that I was happy to open those for him, but that no officer present would be opening the main gates as this was the policy we were directed to follow.

Mr MITCHELL refused. Repeatedly reiterating he was the chief whip. My exact explanation to Mr MITCHELL was "I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance".

After several refusals Mr MITCHELL got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him." [/i

Note the last sentence. "AFTER several refusals Mr Mitchell got off his bike". The CCTV only starts at the point he gets off his bike, we can't see the period before that. It also doesn't state he walked straight out, it says he headed to the gate.


Yes the log does say that but that is not contradicted by the CCTV since the CCTV only shows things after the point he gets off his bike.


No it doesn't. The log states"There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said
Which is backed up by the CCTV as several people can be seen outside the gate and some look in the direction of Mitchell.


The police log does not back this up.


The CCTV shows Mitchell roughly hauling his bike toward the gate while saying things to the police officer which attracted the attention of passers by. It does not show anything prior to him getting off his bike.

The CCTV does not contradict anything in the police log.

From what I am hearing on the radio / reading in the press, the whole thing was supposed to have been witnessed by a diplomatic protection officer who gave a statement.

It has now transpired that this person was not even at the scene and their statement was a pile of lies. They have been arrested for perverting the course of justice, or something to that effect.

So, if a copper who wasn't even there can claim he was, I don't think it would be too difficult for one who was there to attribute something to Mitchell that was never even said.

Either way, the police's version of events has lost all credibility.

Odd that it's taken three months to come up with a short CCTV clip that proves nothing either way, don't you think? Even odder that this is apparently the first time Mitchell has seen any CCTV at all. Convenient that it has no sound and fails to cover a crucial part of the confrontation.

I call shenanigans.