Plebgate- Who Lies (Hardest) Wins.
27 Wednesday Nov 2013
Posted in Uncategorized
%d bloggers like this:
By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. This includes scrolling or continued navigation. more information
The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.
Pingback: Plebgate- Who Lies (Hardest) Wins. | Welfare, D...
An investigation set up to enquire into the circumstances of Mr Mitchell’s exit from Downing Street apparently required a squad of 30 or more seconded detectives (presumably they actually were detectives) because of the quantity of work involved. It has taken about 12 months to complete. This over a conversation that appears not to have been longer than 30 seconds.That the Officer who is alleged to have had the conversation with Mr Mitchell has not even been interviewed makes the conduct of the enquiry a complete nonsense; it therefore hasn’t been fully investigated yet because of this omission. Like it or not, the officer is at least a witness and a first-hand one at that. Whilst we might assume that we know what the officer might say, how can anyone be sure unless he’s been asked under oath (on a statement form)? What if his evidence goes as follows: “I verballed the guy because I’d been told/paid to by senior officers/Labour MPs/the media”. This is complete conjecture and we may never be allowed to know his version of events, but as there appear to have been two (suspected) conspiracies in respect of the circumstances surrounding the initial allegation, what would be stopping a 3rd or 4th? That said (don’t laugh), Mr Mitchell should complain at once to the IPCC at the misconduct of the ‘enquiry’. Perhaps of equal interest are the comments of Bernard Hogan-Howe as reported by The Guardian on December 18th, 2012. (search: ‘will be a surprise/Hogan-Howe’). Perhaps the public should be told of the circumstances to which the Commissioner was referring; why would we be ‘surprised at what happened’? I’ve not met anyone who has been remotely surprised by what has been made public in the past 36 hours. Does the IPCC know of his opinion and have they asked him to explain his comments? If they do know, can the tax-paying public, whose financial input into this debacle is not insignificant, be allowed to share that ‘surprise’? An unsurprising aspect of the enquiry is that it’s findings were made public on a day when MSM outlets would be almost totally pre-occupied with the publication of Scotland’s white paper and it’s content.
Left my comment on SC blog. Thanks for the re-blog Mike.
Regards, Pete.