It was worthy of Kafka. McKaill said (words to this effect) 'Mitchell didn't tell us all we needed to know, er...because we should've pressed him harder, we didn't ask him the full range of questions'
When asked why - if that was the case - they had 'thanked Mitchell for his candour' at the end of the meeting, they said 'ah well, we were thanking him for his candour on the subjects we raised, not on the ones we didne.'
And then of course they marched out of the Mitchell meeting and panned Mitchell for not answering their questions! You couldn't make it up, but they obviously did!
Helen Blackwood put a question the 3 police fed officers had great difficulty answering, as to why they ended the meeting saying the only outstanding issue was the integrity of the Met Officers but when they step outside the meeting their opinion had suddenly changed and demanded Mitchell resign.
Here's what those officers said to Mitchell...
Det Sgt Stuart Hinton: Well I think you’ve actually said what you haven’t said, what you have said rather than what the police are saying There is nothing more that I’d like to talk to you about the other matters but we are at an impasse and it is not an impasse of our own making.
Mitchell: What do you mean by that?
Hinton:Because other officers have made a false statement it is not of our making and we are bound by our own code of conduct as professional police officers because otherwise we would be conducting misconduct offences as well.
Hinton: And I appreciate that you agreed to meet and we appreciate your apology and we accept (t)hat you apologised absolutely but what we can’t get past unfortunately is to use the political expression we may have bad apples which now we have to address.
Sgt. Chris Jones: I was hoping that we wouldn’t have discovered people perhaps in our ranks that are untruthful...
...I had my fingers crossed very tightly behind my back hoping and wishing that there would be a bona fide explanation for this. In our world it does happen but here are two sides to every coin and it is always good to hear the other persons account and then the world becomes a clearer place and you see the world through someone else’s eyes.
Reading what those 2 officers said to Mitchell how could the chief constables say with conviction the officers had no intention to mislead the public in their interviews.
And how could they honestly say Jones state of mind after the meeting was that Mitchell had said what the Met officers had stated?
Helen Blackwood put a question the 3 police fed officers had great difficulty answering, as to why they ended the meeting saying the only outstanding issue was the integrity of the Met Officers but when they step outside the meeting their opinion had suddenly changed and demanded Mitchell resign.
Here's what those officers said to Mitchell...
It's not surprising they were so incoherent given the MPs had them over a barrel. It was an embarrassing performance by those three and they should be handing in their resignations forthwith for that alone!
At long last the unapologetic arrogance and dishonesty of the police, has strongly entered the collective consciousness of politicians. Now they know what ordinary bods have known for decades.
Because they were running out of time it was all a bit rushed towards the end which was a pity.
The police side appeared to be completely outclassed by the MP's.
They wouldnt need much rope to hang themselves.
By attending and immediately saying sorry they thought they could avoid digging a bigger hole for themselves but it did nothing because the apologies were worthless.
Police and politics dont mix and the hearing was proof of that.
They should stick to being police and not try to take on politicians in contrived situations like that.
It was worthy of Kafka. McKaill said (words to this effect) 'Mitchell didn't tell us all we needed to know, er...because we should've pressed him harder, we didn't ask him the full range of questions'
When asked why - if that was the case - they had 'thanked Mitchell for his candour' at the end of the meeting, they said 'ah well, we were thanking him for his candour on the subjects we raised, not on the ones we didne.'
And then of course they marched out of the Mitchell meeting and panned Mitchell for not answering their questions! You couldn't make it up, but they obviously did!
Is that really a correct summary? Their stance is that Mitchell in essence didn't ask questions that weren't put to him, and on that basis Mackaill said he should resign? That is exactly what your summary means, and it would be laughed out of a primary school playground; a five year old would see the absurdity.
What about misconduct proceedings at this point? Is the CPS still considering going after them for misconduct? If they get free pass after such blatant falsification it's going to be a real slippery slope.
Who is ultimately in charge of all of this? Considering that the investigating appointed Officer was overruled on his final report, by it seems a lower ranked officer, who exactly is running the show. Can the Home Secretary take over and insist there is an investigation?
Is that really a correct summary? Their stance is that Mitchell in essence didn't ask questions that weren't put to him, and on that basis Mackaill said he should resign? That is exactly what your summary means, and it would be laughed out of a primary school playground; a five year old would see the absurdity.
What about misconduct proceedings at this point? Is the CPS still considering going after them for misconduct? If they get free pass after such blatant falsification it's going to be a real slippery slope.
I think the CPS are just looking at the Downing Street incident.
It's not surprising they were so incoherent given the MPs had them over a barrel. It was an embarrassing performance by those three and they should be handing in their resignations forthwith for that alone!
In this video at 2hrs 20secs Helen Blackwood asks her question which the officers had great difficulty answering that Mitchell must have been confused by what THEY said to him inside and compared to what THEY said to the media.
If they could not apologise for what they said outside, then an apology is due for what they said inside?
It is clear the evidence they relied on and took as fact was that printed in the Daily Telegraph on 24 Sep 2012. An Inspector, Det. Sgt. and Sgt. each with 20 years service gleaned all the facts they needed by reading a newspaper.
Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, who seems a decent fellow, says they "mislead" the media. That's a nonsense. He doesn't give any reason for why he thinks they "mislead" and didn't "lie". Hey, wonder why? Because there is no difference.
I told you the officers would wriggle out of making any apologies . The whole issue will fizzle out with ambiguities and leave Mitchell high and dry.
I think this is exactly what they are aiming for. Sow so much confusion and leave so many loose ends and ambiguities that the matter becomes impossible to trace.
I think this is exactly what they are aiming for. Sow so much confusion and leave so many loose ends and ambiguities that the matter becomes impossible to trace.
No confusion about this afternoon's business, Vaz warned the Police Federation witnesses about making false statements and told them that their answers had been unsatisfactory.
Is that really a correct summary? Their stance is that Mitchell in essence didn't ask questions that weren't put to him, and on that basis Mackaill said he should resign? That is exactly what your summary means, and it would be laughed out of a primary school playground; a five year old would see the absurdity.
What about misconduct proceedings at this point? Is the CPS still considering going after them for misconduct? If they get free pass after such blatant falsification it's going to be a real slippery slope.
I think that's what they were saying, but all three of them were all over the place and didn't seem too sure themselves. Try to catch it when it's shown in full, see what you think.
This is from Version A of the investigation report, it's Sgt Chris Jones speaking to ITV before the meeting with Mitchell..
“I’ll be just asking him to give us his version of events and tell us precisely what he did say. If he avoids the subject or if he dances ‘round it … then, and we didn’t resolve the matter then I think he does need to go.”
From what the officers said to Mitchell, the only way the matter could be resolved was by Mitchell accepting he said everything that was in the so called police duty report.
Even if Mitchell had given a detailed second by second account of what happened and what was said but did not include the words in the police report, fed reps would have left with the matter still resolved, due to the integrity of their colleague being in doubt.
The police fed reps opinion on what happened in Downing St was based on the contents of the police report the Telegraph printed.
Often yesterday and in written evidence submitted by the police they referred to media interviews Mitchell did in subsequent months after the meeting in October 2012 as evidence he hadn't given a full account to the fed reps.
Yet I don't recall anyone yesterday referring to media reports on the eye-witness email and arrests which cast doubt on the police duty report.
The PF reps told Mitchell in the meeting they would have to report the officers who had the confrontation with him in Downing Street. They were obliged to report a possible case of misconduct. ie the officers falsified their notebooks. Mitchell said he didn't want it to escalate that far. He wanted to draw a line under the incident.
Comments
I guess the one who might is Mackill ?
Who's decision will that be ?
Be fair they had a meeting with the press;)
Here's what those officers said to Mitchell...
You would think they would take their time considering everyone's position.
And how could they honestly say Jones state of mind after the meeting was that Mitchell had said what the Met officers had stated?
It's not surprising they were so incoherent given the MPs had them over a barrel. It was an embarrassing performance by those three and they should be handing in their resignations forthwith for that alone!
Watch the whole disaster unfold:
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Main/Player.aspx?meetingId=14006
The police side appeared to be completely outclassed by the MP's.
They wouldnt need much rope to hang themselves.
By attending and immediately saying sorry they thought they could avoid digging a bigger hole for themselves but it did nothing because the apologies were worthless.
Police and politics dont mix and the hearing was proof of that.
They should stick to being police and not try to take on politicians in contrived situations like that.
When available, the minutes will appear here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/home-affairs-committee/publications/
Is that really a correct summary? Their stance is that Mitchell in essence didn't ask questions that weren't put to him, and on that basis Mackaill said he should resign? That is exactly what your summary means, and it would be laughed out of a primary school playground; a five year old would see the absurdity.
What about misconduct proceedings at this point? Is the CPS still considering going after them for misconduct? If they get free pass after such blatant falsification it's going to be a real slippery slope.
I think the CPS are just looking at the Downing Street incident.
In this video at 2hrs 20secs Helen Blackwood asks her question which the officers had great difficulty answering that Mitchell must have been confused by what THEY said to him inside and compared to what THEY said to the media.
If they could not apologise for what they said outside, then an apology is due for what they said inside?
It is clear the evidence they relied on and took as fact was that printed in the Daily Telegraph on 24 Sep 2012. An Inspector, Det. Sgt. and Sgt. each with 20 years service gleaned all the facts they needed by reading a newspaper.
Inspector Jerry Reakes-Williams, who seems a decent fellow, says they "mislead" the media. That's a nonsense. He doesn't give any reason for why he thinks they "mislead" and didn't "lie". Hey, wonder why? Because there is no difference.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=69282266&postcount=3828
The words are categoric and not open to interpretation. The words are a lie by any rational interpretation.
I think this is exactly what they are aiming for. Sow so much confusion and leave so many loose ends and ambiguities that the matter becomes impossible to trace.
But eight officers have been arrested and Keith Starmer is reviewing the evidence against them now.
No confusion about this afternoon's business, Vaz warned the Police Federation witnesses about making false statements and told them that their answers had been unsatisfactory.
I think that's what they were saying, but all three of them were all over the place and didn't seem too sure themselves. Try to catch it when it's shown in full, see what you think.
From what the officers said to Mitchell, the only way the matter could be resolved was by Mitchell accepting he said everything that was in the so called police duty report.
Even if Mitchell had given a detailed second by second account of what happened and what was said but did not include the words in the police report, fed reps would have left with the matter still resolved, due to the integrity of their colleague being in doubt.
Often yesterday and in written evidence submitted by the police they referred to media interviews Mitchell did in subsequent months after the meeting in October 2012 as evidence he hadn't given a full account to the fed reps.
Yet I don't recall anyone yesterday referring to media reports on the eye-witness email and arrests which cast doubt on the police duty report.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24537521
In the end the PF reps didn't report their colleagues to the Met. They changed their minds.