GMR the existence of the CCTV cameras would have been pretty common knowledge, both with the police and government officials given its location.

To think that no one had even considered to check it prior to this last week, when it was bizarrely enough released (apparently from an official source) to a news company rather than to the police is, i would suggest naive in the extreme.

I personally think there is a lot more to this and how it has been structured than has been reported, or even suggested as yet.

See how much mileage the government get out of this at the point when they are trying to reform the police service...

As I understand, a PC submitted an internal memo to his boss to say there had been an altercation with the MP, to give the 'heads up' in case of repercussions. That sounds proper to me. Subsequently 'someone' leaked that the incident had taken place and followed up with the text of the report. The integrity of the report was not challenged and the press focus was on the single use of one word, not the overall incident. The leaking was not appropriate, and the press focus skewed the public perception of the incident.
Someone then saw fit, allegedly, to 'back up' the PC. If asked for - wrong for both parties to the arrangement; if unsolicited, wrong for the perpetrator. Still no discussion on the integrity of the original police report.
Various people and organisations then took it upon themselves to throw fuel on the fire, for their own interests and nothing to do with the veracity of the report in toto. Thus the core issue remained obscured by clouds and the MP was able to wriggle and squirm about a piece of detail. At no time, as best I know, did the reporting Officer or the Metropolitan Police seek to treat the incident as other than 'internal'.

Now the video...... It seems to start as the MP is walking from the main gate towards the side gate. Something has attracted the attention of a member of the public walking past, as he (?) stops and goes back towards the gate, seemingly interested by something going on .

A guess..... As MP proceeds towards the gate from No 10 he hails the officers to open the gate so as not to impede his stately progress. PC calls back that is not going tp happen. MP continues (no Bradley Wiggins, after all) still encouraging the officers to be good chaps. On reaching the gate a short, sharp exchange (3 words per second) before MP realises he must do as he is told, so passing shot....

Personally, I am rather suspect of the CCTV produced - the quality is way below what I would expect for such a critical site. Also odd that the shots from outside have no time/date reference.....

This will go on a while, but my issue is more about the press management of the story and the naughtiness with the leaking of the official reports...... And making up an email based on a public report is not exactly rocket science.....

Nobody is disputing this. I would imagine that it was overlooked (and it does happen) in the furore of getting an MP.


But it does happen. And don't you think that all the news channels would have thought of what you thought of? Then again you could be a genius. But I'll stick to believing that all the News channels got that covered.



Have you ever heard of Occam's razor? "The simplest answer is the correct one?"



They will get a lot of mileage out of it if what is suspected at the moment is correct. If it is wrong then the finger will be pointed at the government.

It still makes me someone who questions rather than simply accepts.

But as I said, I didn't simply accept. I went with all the available evidence that is known; or at least know to the public. And on that I drew my conclusions. And it seems I am not the only one who came to similar conclusions. No doubt if you are right you will come back and say I told you so, if wrong you will disappear for a while

Wrong about what? I haven't said anything about what happened one way or the other. (do keep up).

I merely said that I found it interesting that when a few blurred images were shown on TV with a voice-over, some people seemed to accept it straight away. And I found that interesting. I have no knowledge or proof of who those people shown in the video are, and thus haven't said anything about who they are or who they aren't. You have obviously made your mind up and are going along with what you've been told. Even though there are absolutely no recognisable faces in the footage. Fair enough, that's up to you.

But that is it, they didn't accept straight away. They were checked before they were aired.

It isn't a case of making my mind up but looking at the evidence that was available to the public.

What we do know is that nobody came forward other than some police officer (who now said he lied). Secondly; according to the police report a "crowd of people" heard the fracas. But the CCTV pictures showed only one person walking by (but not close by). We also can check the times the CCTV was taken to back that up. Granted the CCTV could have been doctored but at this moment in time there is no proof of that. Or anybody saying that that is the case.

Nobody is hinting that the CCTV images were doctored, only conspiracy people.

Is that all the evidence? I doubt it....... The press have an agenda, as do the politicians. Now even the police are having to be careful with their words....

Can't beat 'the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth'

Well as you don't believe anyone, there isn't a problem!

Some of the press have an agenda (like selling papers) but not all the press and media. I am sure some of the media checked their sources and facts.

Maybe if the police didn't fabricate evidence and have a chain of bad policing episodes and corruptions (like Hillsborough) they might not have had to be so careful. As for the "truth, and nothing about the truth" maybe somebody should have told the police that.

Checked, as in ensuring the email truly came from a witness as opposed to exposing it as some sort of wind-up?

'The Police'........ I doubt the beat PC in Hungerford feels involved, but there we go. As mentioned previously, this whole fuss emanates from someone, somewhere, releasing an internal report that as yet is not proven malicious, enhanced or otherwise false.....

As for who I believe....... "In God we Trust. Everyone else is a suspect"

According to the writer of the email he had admitted that he wasn't there, that is why he was arrested.



Guilty by association. They wear their uniform as a mark of unity, upholding the law and treating everybody as an equal. One bad apples can affect the whole bunch. There are a lot of good police officers out there who do a brilliant job and are totally honest. But that doesn't stop the public associating them as all the same.




I think it has been proven (at least with the evidence that we have seen) that the internal report was malicious and intended to damage the Tory party. Of course there might me some evidence out there that disputes the CCTV and backs up the report, but I doubt it.





If there was a god of course, but as there isn't.............

As Dave Allen used to say - "May your god go with you".

The only thing that goes with me is my dog (which is God backwards). Merry Christmas to you.

If only you could prove it.

I can, I met Him and he told me He doesn't exist... so there!!!!

Good answer.

Inspiration from above

Oh dear, that ol' chestNUT.
There is overwhelming evidence of the supernatural. The problem is, he has yet to be seen, apart the deceased, who unfortunately, are not able to 'prove' it. Anyway, who said it was a 'he'?

Click any link below:

No

There

Bloody

Isn't