Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

spain also drive them out they get no benefits in spain

http://news.sky.com/story/1383546/migrants-prefer-germany-to-uk-figures-show

why do they breed like rats when they can not feed them only by begging
that is one good thing about this gov stopping benefits
ll child allowances should be fazed out . all housing benefits stopped

12 months ago the gov bastard liars said immigration was falling now we have the figures over 260000 came in the last 12 months . you can not believe the liars in power in the uk all bloody liars

GF.

P51836

Sounds like the same numbers of "partners" for the indigenous population.

Come on all you GB lovers I know your out there, what did you think of the link?

Stephen Dorrell MP faces calls to resign over conflict of interest

The veteran Conservative MP is starting a job as an adviser with a private firm targeting a £1billion NHS contract whilst still in his seat in the House of Commons


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/11264425/Stephen-Dorrell-MP-faces-calls-to-resign-over-conflict-of-interest.html



Dr Clive Peedell, National Health Action party co-leader, told the Daily Mirror: “Stephen Dorrell admits his new job is ¬incompatible with being an MP. If that’s the case, he should resign immediately or give up the new role.

“This also makes it clear why Mr Dorrell suddenly resigned as chair of the Health Select Committee. Clearly a better offer came his way.

“This case demonstrates everything that is rotten about our -political system.”

By Dan Hodges
1:40PM GMT 01 Dec 2014
The Plebgate libel case has been amazing to watch, because of what it revealed about the attitude of the British judiciary towards police officers

Andrew Mitchell probably did call PC Toby Rowland “a pleb”. That was the verdict reached by Mr Justice Mitting at the Royal Courts of Justice last Thursday.

The ruling was unambiguous. “I am satisfied at least on balance of probabilities that Mr Mitchell did speak the words alleged or something so close to them as to amount to the same, including the politically toxic word 'pleb'", he wrote in a written judgment. In Justice Mitting’s eyes, Rowland’s account of the notorious events at the gates of Downing Street had been accurate. Andrew Mitchell’s had not.

I long ago stopped being objective about the Plebgate affair. In part that was because over the course of writing about it I got to know Andrew Mitchell, and came to see him as a friend, rather than a literary subject. He told me with passion and conviction he had never uttered the word “pleb”, and I believed him.


But the main reason I lost the capacity to bear dispassionate witness was because of the gross and manifest injustice perpetrated by the British police service against someone who was not just an individual citizen, but a minister of the Crown. For me, Plebgate was never about the word “pleb”. It ceased to be about that the moment the scale of the conspiracy – and it was a conspiracy – against Andrew Mitchell became known. The serving police officer who lied about witnessing the altercation, and was subsequently jailed. The Police Federation representatives who misrepresented their meeting with Andrew Mitchell in an effort to get him sacked. The other serving police officers who colluded with the Federation in a bid to use Plebgate to undermine the government of the day, and who were subsequently dismissed from the force.

My view of Plebgate was shaped by a single, obvious truth. If that could happen to the Government chief whip whilst he was walking up Downing Street, what chance does a kid from Brixton have? What chance, frankly, do any of us have?

Over the weekend I got my first opportunity to read Mr Justice Mitting’s judgment in full. It was an amazing read. Amazing not because it shed new light on that great conspiracy I referred to, but because of what it revealed about the protagonist who had no part in that conspiracy, PC Toby Rowland. Amazing also because of what it revealed about the attitude of the British judiciary towards the police officers whose evidence they are asked to adjudicate upon on a daily basis. And amazing because of the implications for you, me and anyone else if we’re ever in court, challenging the word of a serving police officer.

A lot was made last week about Justice Mitting’s observation that PC Rowland must have given a truthful account of the events of that evening because he is "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in a temper.” Justice Mitting also made an additional, less well publicised observation. “He [Rowland] is not an imaginative man. He can be inflexible when challenged, both on duty and in the witness box, and defensive when he believed himself to be the subject of criticism, actual or prospective.”

Lacking in wit. Lacking in imagination. Inflexible. Defensive to criticism, real or imagined. That was Justice Mitting’s less than flattering view of PC Toby Rowland.

But he also made a further observation. “He was and is well suited to his job, an armed uniform protection officer.”

Justice Mitting then went on to analyse, in detail, PC Rowland’s evidence. When I was reading the Twitter response to the verdict, I saw a number of tweets to the effect that the judge had identified inconsistencies in Mitchell’s account, but believed PC Rowland had broadly been consistent in his own.

But when I read the actual judgment, I saw that was only partially true. Inconsistencies in Mitchell’s evidence were identified, in particular relating to the timing of the altercation of the gate, and also a conversation he had subsequently had with the MP John Randall, in which he claimed not have actually remembered what he said to PC Rowland.

But in fact, the judge did identify a number of inconsistencies in PC Rowland’s evidence. Though he clearly did not regard them as material, nor sufficient to undermine PC Rowland’s credibility as a witness.

Those inconsistencies were the following:

1) PC Rowland gave differing accounts of where Andrew Mitchell’s “pleb” outburst had occurred. In his notebook he gave one account. In an email to a senior officer later that evening he gave a different account. In a subsequent interview with a senior officer he gave a third. In the first it was by the pedestrian gate. In the second it was as he was walking to the gate. In the third he couldn’t quite be sure. This was significant, because where the words were spoken affected the timing of the incident, and explained why none of the other officers present heard Mitchell’s angry outburst.

2) PC Rowland claimed he had made his police notebook entry of the incident immediately after it occurred. Mr Justice Mitting’s ruling states that “the CCTV footage shows, as he accepted in cross-examination, that he could not have done.”

3) Immediately after discussing the incident with his colleagues, PC Rowland walked into the police box at the end of Downing Street and picked up a telephone. He could be seen doing so on the CCTV, and Justice Mitting estimated the call lasted 40 seconds. 40 seconds is a long time. Count it. Even though that was the first call he made to anyone after the incident, Justice Mitting says in his ruling “He (PC Rowland) has no recollection of the call or to whom it was made. Telephone records have not established the number called.” No recollection of who he phoned. Where he phoned. Why he phoned. None at all.

4) PC Rowland claimed that after the incident he had gone into Number 10 Downing Street and confirmed with a colleague that it was indeed Mitchell who had been involved in the altercation. His colleague had shown him a photo, he said. As Justice Mitting states, “The undisputed evidence of one of them, Mr Wilds, is that they did not have a photograph of Mr Mitchell so that PC Rowland could not have confirmed his identity by that means.”

5) The fifth inconsistency is the most significant, and infamous, of all. In his police notebook, PC Rowland, wrote “There were several members of the public present, as is the norm, opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr Mitchell said: "'Best you learn your f*****g place ... you don't run this f******g government ... you're f******g plebs". The members of the public looked visibly shocked and I was somewhat taken aback by the language used and the view expressed by a senior government official.”

Justice Mitting’s view of this evidence is as unequivocal as his ruling on Mitchell’s use of the word “pleb”. “I am not convinced that PC Rowland did see members of the public or even a member the public visibly shocked,” he writes. Not just that PC Rowland didn’t see any shocked members of the public, but that he didn’t see any members of the public at all. But Justice Mitting then goes on to add a further comment on this inconsistency. “Embellishment of a true account by a police officer on the defensive is, of course, not acceptable, but it is understandable if done for that purpose. Invention of the core account would be misconduct of quite a different order,” he says. It’s worth rereading the first half of that statement again, because it reflects the view of a High Court judge, sitting in a British courtroom, in 2014. “Embellishment of a true account by a police officer on the defensive is, of course, not acceptable, but it is understandable if done for that purpose.”

According to Justice Mitting, PC Toby Rowland is a witless policeman. He is an unimaginative policeman. He is an inflexible policeman. He is a defensive policeman. He is the sort of policeman who makes important phone calls, then forgets who he phoned and why. He is the sort of policeman who claims to have been shown photographs of people, where no photographed actually exists. He is the sort of policeman who claims to have made an official record in his notebook, when video evidence shows he did not. He is the sort of policeman who claims to have seen several shocked members of the public standing by the gates of Downing Street, when he could not. He is the sort of policeman who wrongly threatens to arrest a member of Her Majesty’s Government in the heart of Downing Street.

And yet PC Toby Rowland, according to that very same judge, is a credible, reliable witness who “was and is well suited to his job, an armed uniform protection officer”.

Andrew Mitchell fought the law, and the law won. Is it any wonder?

The Telegraph

Rotten about the Tories for sure, the NASTY PARTY.

THE CONSERVATIVE PART A PARTY OF LIARS CROOKS AND SCUM

any one who votes and supports this conservative party of evil scum must be evil them selves they are evil they work for the devil

should they not rename the party the hitler party

I don't believe Mitchell said pleb. I still think it was a stitch up.

He lost his case, because Thrasher was an arrogant little man full of self conceit and attempting to abuse his position, which he was not fit to hold.

To lose one's temper, is acceptable, but lying and trying to divert attention from his abuse of a person attempting to do his job is not acceptable.

It was the "abuse" which was the problem, trying to evade, or interpret the action subsequently was a diversion. If he had been less arrogant he would have apologised on the "spot" or later, the whole event would have been lost in history.

I, like the public in general. have little pity for him.


Probably the same will apply to Cameron and Osborne and few more, after they lose the election in May and the books are opened for examination.

or the devil party

Mitchell lied and still lying a nasty peace of evil scum

Tanker is the closest to Hitler on here.

hays the problem with your post is I help people you and this gov want to kill them off
the torys will not win the next election .people like you must be evil to support them
so that tells me you are not of this country

have i missed anything new on here during the day?
i suspect not :-)