Do you trust the police?

[IC1967]

Wikipedia has a lot of in depth information on the incident and backs up what I say. It does not back Billy up and nowhere does it mention the word 'conspiracy' that he is so fond of using. Maybe he should have checked Wikipedia before making himself look so foolish. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate

[Filo]

Wikipedia has a lot of in depth information on the incident and backs up what I say. It does not back Billy up and nowhere does it mention the word 'conspiracy' that he is so fond of using. Maybe he should have checked Wikipedia before making himself look so foolish. Here is the link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate

That doesn't answer what I asked you, have you binned wikipedia?

[IC1967]

You'll have to explain what you mean in more depth. I am a great advocate of Wikipedia and regularly use it to source accurate information (unlike Billy).

[Filo]

It's an easy question Mick, yes or no?

[IC1967]

I haven't got a clue what you are on about. Please explain what  the meaning of your question is. I must be missing something. You asked the question I thought you asked and I used Wikipedia straight away so why are you asking me again? Weird.

[Filo]

I haven't got a clue what you are on about.

Does wikipedia not give you a straight answer to my question Mick?

[IC1967]

Interesting. Michael Portillo has heard arrogant tory toff Mitchell use the term pleb in the past.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnNFJiprhw

[RobTheRover]

Sorry, I'm not reading 10 pages of Mick's drivel, but examples like this are everywhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBuzUoinGok

I know a few coppers and they are sound fellas, and I would trust them completely, but every profession has a few bad apples that need weeding out.

[IC1967]

What are you on about. You are behaving in a very weird way. I'm totally baffled as I'm sure are other readers of the forum.

[Filo]

A simple question and you're baffled Mick.

You surprise me, I'm sure you've stated in the past that you answer all questions directed at you

[IC1967]

I do as long as they are not silly. You are being very silly. Explain what you are on about and I'll give you a no nonsense answer (which is more than I can say for Billy whenever he's asked a question).

[BillyStubbsTears]

Give him his due. He carries on blathering.

Mick. My position on Plebgate is very simple. The fact that the CPS have no brought conspiracy prosecutions is not proof that no conspiracy occurred. They have not brought conspiracy prosecutions in the Orgreave, Hillsborough or Lawrence cases, despite strong prima facie evidence of large and detailed criminal conspiracies.

Draw your own conclusions.

The fact is that several police officers who had nothing to do with the events in Downing Street took it upon themselves to disseminate lies about what was supposed to have happened, including claiming that they were present when they weren't and saw and heard things that they couldn't have. Several other police lied during questioning. One has been convicted, 2 have been sacked and five others have been bailed.

Now. It might just be a coincidence that several coppers took it upon themselves to lie. It might just be that they didn't conspire between themselves. Just like it might be a coincidence that 31 coppers at Orgreave wrote exactly the same lies in their reports when in some cases they weren't even present.

It'd be some coincidence though wouldn't it.

[IC1967]

So you are also saying the CPS is involved in a conspiracy as they've reviewed all the 'evidence' and concluded that there is no evidence of a conspiracy?

This is how you answer a question. Yes. At least that's what I think your answer is after trying to make sense of your waffle.

Whatever happened to your belief in innocent until proven guilty?

I don't believe you've even tried to answer this question. From what you've previously said I think it's obvious that you believe in guilty until proven innocent based on conjecture, circumstantial evidence and coincidence. I'm glad you are not a member of the legal profession.

Look, it's very simple. Just apologise and we'll move on. You should realise when you've made a monumental mistake and stop exacerbating the situation.

[IC1967]

Let's not forget that Mr Mitchell started it!!! The CPS were clear. There is no evidence of conspiracy. Billy is making it up/guessing.

Some officers have been disciplined. The fact remains Mitchell throughout has refused to say what he did actually say. The CPS also said C4 video could not be relied upon because it was edited footage but was presented as the real thing.

The CPS verdict was that either version of events could be true and there was no independent evidence either way.

The arrogant toff wanted the main gates opening so he could get through with his bike more easily. The gates are there for a reason. They are there to keep Downing Street secure from terrorism threats. It is breathtakingly arrogant of him to even ask the officers to break the rules for his convenience and pose a massive security risk.

He then swore at the officers. Most people  get locked up for swearing at the police. Not Mitchell. What a prick. And this is the tosser that Billy seeks to defend.

IMHO he should have been prosecuted for abusing the police and for lying to the CPS. Does Billy mention any of the above? Of course not. All he wants to do is slag the police off no matter what the circumstances.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Your powers of logic are as flawed as ever. There is no justification whatsoever in anything I wrote for you assuming that I think the CPS is involved in a conspiracy. None at all. Once again, you decide what you want your conclusion to be before you engage your brain.

The issue in all of the earlier cases is that evidence that the police gave to the CPS was either withheld or fabricated. I have no idea what evidence was presented to the CPS in the Plebgate affair at the time of their decision, but there certainly seems to be string prima facie evidence in the public domain now of a concerted effort by several coppers to propagate lies about the case.

As for your stupid juvenile obsession about who started what, it is as irrelevant as most of what you post.

If you rode your bike on the pavement, would that justify the police claiming that you were toting a gun and threatening to shoot the Queen?

[IC1967]

So do we finally have an answer to the question? You don't believe the CPS is involved in the 'conspiracy' you allege even though they have all the 'evidence' that your mate Dan Hodges blogs about.

I can only conclude that you think you know more than they and the IPCC do. Is this the case?

[IC1967]

Whatever happened to your belief in innocent until proven guilty?

I'll try yet again.

[IC1967]

This officer sums it up quite nicely on the police forum:

The outcome of the investigation clearly isn't what Mitchell wanted to hear and he is now showing his true colours.

Its interesting that the CPS used the terms 'insufficient evidence' when describing the lack of evidence of a conspiracy or that PC Rowland lied in his initial account. I suspected all along that this would be the outcome and if there was any inkling of a conspiracy or that PC Rowland lied he and others would have been thrown to the wolves. Maybe it would have been more appropriate for the CPS to state that there was no evidence of a conspiracy and no evidence that PC Rowland lied.

As for the PC who is to be charged, if the allegations are true, I have absolutely no sympathy for him and his actions have done horrendous damage to the Police in this country. What the hell was he thinking? Unfortunately he has given Mitchell plenty of ammunition as he has now come out and directly called PC Rowland a liar and is also trying to taint every officer with dishonesty with his claim that 'if the police could make false claims against him in Downing Street, they could do it to anyone, anywhere, at any time'.

It would also be nice to hear The Fed come out and lambast Mitchell in view of the his attempt to taint every officer with dishonesty, but I won't hold my breath and I sincerely hope PC Rowland is consulting with his legal rep as Mitchell has now completely overstepped the mark by questioning his integrity. 




http://www.policeuk.com/forum/index.php?/topic/18494-pleb-man-plebgate/page-11?hl=plebgate

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

I didn't bother answering your stupid question because I thought its stupidity was so self evident that even you would realise it. But since I appear to have over estimated you again, here we go.

The point is that in all the cases I've noted, there is strong prima facie evidence that police engaged in concerted attempts to pervert the course of justice and/or frame people. What I'm asking for is precisely that police who appear to be involved in that should be prosecuted so that the courts can decide on their guilt.

Clear enough? Or do you need it spelling out further?

[IC1967]

So again after reading your waffle I conclude that you do believe in guilty until proven innocent (especially if you are a police officer).

You say they should be prosecuted if they 'appear' to be involved. Really? Regardless of the strength of evidence against them? So conjecture, circumstantial evidence and coincidence are good enough for you to warrant a day in court (as long as you are a police officer)?

Thank goodness there are systems in place to weigh up the evidence before people are taken to court. Like I said earlier it's a good job you are not involved in the legal profession.

[IC1967]

Billy. You need to watch Line of Duty on ITV tonight. Here you will get the true picture of how the police investigate alleged police 'corruption'.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

No. You're jumping to the wrong conclusion yet again (how many times now? I've lost count). What I believe is that when there is strong prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the police should investigate and if the evidence is strong enough, formal legal process should see the alleged miscreants prosecuted. In the case of Orgreave, that prima facie evidence has been in the public domain for 30 years that there was a concerted attempt to pervert the course of justice. But the police never investigated this. And nothing was ever passed to the CPS for consideration. So the formal legal process did not crank into gear. We'll see if it finally does when the IPCC get off their arses and investigate the case. They have been sitting on it now for 18 months, but eventually, they'll get round to it.

So there you go Mick. What I believe is NOT that someone is guilty until proven innocent. I believe that where there is strong evidence of serious wrongdoing, legal action should follow. Not that it should be brushed under the carpet and forgotten about. Because that erodes trust in the integrity of the police, Which is finally back to where we started.

But hey. You'll carry on thinking that you think you know what I think. Nothing I actually write will change your mind, so it's probably pointless me trying to explain to you..

[IC1967]

What I believe is that when there is strong prima facie evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the police should investigate and if the evidence is strong enough, formal legal process should see the alleged miscreants prosecuted.

Oh, so you have changed your mind then. Here's what you wrote earlier today, 'What I'm asking for is precisely that police who appear to be involved in that should be prosecuted so that the courts can decide on their guilt'.

So how have you come to your conclusion that there was a conspiracy when only one officer has been prosecuted and sent to jail? Have you got a crystal ball that looks into the future that has shown you that more officers will be prosecuted and a conspiracy will be proved? Do you know more than the CPS? Are you just expressing an opinion that you can't back up yet?

I'd be grateful if you could highlight each question and then answer each one succinctly. It is incredibly boring reading a load of old waffle that skirts around the issue and then trying to work out if you've answered the question which you invariably don't (unlike myself).

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

For crying out loud, how many times? Do you actually read anything that I write before you spout off again?

The prima facie evidence in the Plebgate affair is the fact that several officers appear to have been involved in spinning a lie to the press, and others lied whilst being questioned by Met Officers. It is strange to say the least that these should all choose to spin a similar tale individually, and entirely on their own initiative. On the balance of probabilities, it seems much more likely that there was collusion between the officers to spin the story.

Some of this evidence (such as the sacking of two officers for gross misconduct) has come out since the CPS made its original decision.

[IC1967]

You seem to be back tracking. You seem now to prefer the word collusion rather than conspiracy. Is this the case? Can you please answer my previous questions and this one succinctly and highlighted as I have requested.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

As ever, you spiral down into a meaningless w**k over semantics. Whether it is technically "collusion" or "conspiracy" is neither here not there. Both would be criminal offences. But if it makes you happy, then choose whichever word you wish. If it is technically not conspiracy then I prostrate myself in front of you and crave your indulgence.

Does that make you feel good Mick?

Now. About the dozen or so outstanding questions of mine that you have studiously avoided for months?

Actually, f**k it. I've reached exhaustion point in dealing with you again. Chalk it up as a win for mind-numbing attrition if that makes you feel good.

[IC1967]

Once again you fail to answer my questions. This is not a surprise because you know if you did you would look even dafter than you already do (if that's possible).

So what do you do? You spit your dummy out and throw a tantrum because I've got you bang to rights and you can't wriggle out of the mess you've created for yourself.

I will chalk it it up as another victory (one of the many I've had over you) for commonsense and facts over hard left propaganda.

In future just think very carefully before you spout any further leftie drivel. I will be waiting to pounce.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Yes Mick. Good boy. Well done. Nighty night.

[IC1967]

Are you going to bed early because you've been a naughty boy?

[redwine]

He's not a naughty boy, he's  the Messiah