Friday, December 21, 2012

David Cameron is a Dangerous Joke of a PM.

It's going to take a bit more than a suck up publicity seeking kiss to bury your attitude towards the police and the general public Mr Mitchell!

What the hell is David Cameron up to?  Is this Tory controlled coalition a proper Government or just a dangerous joke? Not only do we have one of the nastiest, duplicitous, disingenuous, spiteful, trouble making incompetent government's in the history of the country, but we have a prime minister that lurches from one crisis of his own making to another - equally of his own making!

It seems to me that the prime minister is going out of his way to placate the former Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell, after sitting on this video (which doesn't actually prove a thing).

Is this why are we wasting all this time on Andrew Mitchell, and holding an investigation and pulling THIRTY detectives away from proper duties, to get to the bottom of something even David Cameron obviously wanted to kept hidden?

It turns out that dithering David Cameron our dangerously incompetent joke of a PM, knew about the Mitchell tape 3 months ago, and knew about it while the whole thing was playing out, and he did precisely nothing. Why? Why do nothing then, but look at the tape now and start demanding an inquiry?

One of the main things that Mitchell has pushed about this tape, is (he states) the lack of people who witnessed the incident. If there was a lack of people, then why has he left it until he has seen the tape before commenting on it? Why didn't he comment on it before? Mitchell was there, he would have seen the number of people present and he picks now to comment and not before? Why?
Is it perhaps because he was a hell of a lot angrier than he cares to admit and didn't notice how many people were actually outside the gates at the time of the incident? I counted 2 officers, 3 people outside the gates and two people at the side gates a total of 7 people and there was also someone looking in through the railings on a later clip.

Same thing with the prime minister, Cameron had seen this tape, he knew what the police were saying about people standing there being "visibly shocked", why did he not mention the so-claimed "lack" of people?

I've watched this footage and depending which footage you watch, there are clearly more than just a couple of people present at the time of the incident and Mitchell had plenty of time to say what is claimed he said. If police protection offices fabricated their evidence, then why would they include the part about the number of members of the public present? Especially, when they above all would know the whole things would have been caught on film and they would be found out? It doesn't make any sense at all.

Why is Cameron claiming now that the whole thing is extraordinary when he has known about it all for three months?

The leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband asked the PM to order an inquiry in order to get to the truth. Why when he had seen this tape did David Cameron flatly refuse to hold an inquiry?

Does Channel 4 and Andrew Mitchell think the public are all stupid "plebs" and think we would not notice the bus, the shadows and the minutes and seconds on the CCTV clock have been blocked out? Why did they do this? Is it because the scene outside the gates is not the time when Andrew Mitchell actually emerged from inside them? It is plainly obvious that there were quite a few people milling about outside and passing up and down at the time Mitchell goes through the gate and at that time the clock disappears from the shot, yet the CCTV footage shows us only a couple of people? What the hell is going on here?

UPDATE: (you are best off doing this on mute so Mitchell's voice does not distract you from observing the monitor)

  • Look at the video timing at around 0:57 when Mitchell leaves the gates in a huff with his bike.
  • The CCTV camera date and time stamp disappear
  • Clearly there are about three people walking towards Mitchell from the left nearish the road, they actually pass as Michell goes out.
  • There is clearly someone (maybe two people) walking near the gates towards Mitchell from the left 
  • There is also what appears to be a person (maybe two people) walking very near the gates towards Mitchell
  • And when Mitchell passes through the gate these people appear to stop and walk backwards then disappear! 
  • Were these people looking and listening to the carry on between Mitchell and the police?
  • There is also what appears to be about a 3 second time discrepancy, at about 0.55 on the video clip timer there is a shadow of a largish person beginning to walk into shot from the left (towards Mitchell) he then disappears and Mitchell walks through the video timer is showing 0.58. (Do this in mute and in freeze frame, because you have more control over what you are seeing)
  • Now FF video to around 1:26, here you see clearly a man walking briskly from the left towards Mitchell but he stops.
  • Now look at the main CCTV date stamp and time on the video as Mitchel is leaving through the gate, it says 19:36 59.
  • Now the camera cuts back to Mitchell and when the video footage is shown again, Mitchell is pointing to one person ambling about outside the gates, the CCTV time on this footage in the top left hand corner of your screen clearly shows the clock has been deliberately obscured. AND where is the man we can clearly see walking towards Mitchell as he is leaving the gates? On the footage outside it is almost deserted and this man is nowhere to be seen. yet previously as Mitchell is passing through the gates, we can clearly see there is quite a bit of pedestrian activity.

There is something really very odd here, why have they occluded the CCTV clock?

It looks very much to me that Mitchell has studied this tape and believes that not much can be deduced from it, so he has chanced his arm, in order to get himself back into the Government. In fact the only thing that can be deduced from this tape is the sudden disappearance of the date stamp and time and blocked out camera timings.
If the tape which has emerged now is found to have been tampered with, David Cameron is in a whole shed load of serious trouble and it is going to take more that Andrew Mitchell kissing WPC's for the camera to explain just what mess the prime minister has created - yet again!

Mitchell swore at police and that was totally unacceptable for a man of his experience, in his position and it is not the first time that he has lost his temper wither. If Cameron brings him back into the cabinet, yet again he will be demonstrating how beneath contempt he holds the public!

I do not like Andrew Mitchell and I do not trust him and why should we trust him? In fact why should we trust any of this government?  Mitchell is the man who when he was Overseas Aid Development Secretary was severely criticised over his decision to grant £16m in aid on his last day in office as Overseas Development Secretary before becoming the Tory Chief Whip, a move that was actually backed by David Cameron and the Foreign Office. He also faces question because Mitchell is known to have forged a strong political relationship with the Rwandan President, Paul Kagame, while the Tories were in opposition!
Britain originally put a block on the our annual contribution of £37m to Rwanda, because Kagame's forces are facing accusations of arming the M23 rebels in the DRC and because of other atrocities, including mass rape! Mitchell has been known to have a close relationship with Rwanda through Project Umubano and has visited the country eight times in six years! These serious issues have not been cleared up.

In 2010, Mitchell a former City banker, was found to have sizeable investments in two properties that are registered in the British Virgin Islands. The firms, which own hotels and shops in Britain  are able to reduce corporation tax by registering outside of this country. It's thought that Mitchell's off shore investments are worth at least £270,000.

In September 2012, it was discovered that Andrew Mitchell accepted donations to his office totalling £11,000 from Brompton Capital, and offshore tax haven of Jersey. Brompton Capital is also the biggest corporate backer of the Liberal Democrat party of which Nick Clegg has accepted £770,000 since the 2010 general election.

There are three government ministers who use offshore trusts, Jeremy Hunt (who Cameron rewarded with a promotion for misleading the House and making dodgy deals with Rupert and James Murdoch over BSkyB take-over bid - and another minister that Cameron refused to hold an inquiry into and HUnt avoided paying £100,000 in tax to the Treasury just before the last election), Philip Hammond, Chancellor George Osborne (apparently £4.5 million offshore trust), and  David Cameron's late father made the family's fortune in offshore trusts and of course Andrew Mitchell.

Andrew Mitchell is a bad tempered bully and while he protests that "pleb" is not a word he would use, Kevin Maguire a Daily Mirror journalist has written  that at least one person who does not want to be named has told him they have heard Mitchell using this word before.

Apparently according to the Daily Mail, on being appointed Tory Chief Whip, Mitchell strode into the office throwing his weight about saying there were going to be changes mad around there and astonished people by launching into a class-war attack on his working-class predecessor, Patrick McLoughlin! He said: "For far too long this place has been run like a sergeant's mess, I want it to be run like an officer's mess"

So why should I trust that any of the above are going to tell us the truth about what happened and why all the faux concern by Cameron now, when he knew 3 months ago?

It appears that Cameron only wants inquiries when it suits him to have one and not for the purpose which they should be held, they should not be held for his personal benefit, they are supposed to be held to get to the truth, but maybe this is the problem? Perhaps Cameron doesn't want us members of the public to know the truth about him and his elitist government, of liars, cheats, tax dodging incompetent hypocrites? We have a cabinet full of people that scrounge off of the tax payer, claim hundreds of thousands of pounds in expenses, live the life of O'Riley, dodge paying their taxes and yet think they can rule us?

If that is not treating us like "fucking plebs" and total idiots, I really don't know what is.

Andrew Mitchell has said: "he has no confidence in Met Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe." 

When asked if Mitchell will be brought back into the Government, David Cameron said: "let's get to the truth of the matter first".

Quite apart from the fact that if Cameron brought Mitchell back into the government after he admits swearing at police officers in the street setting a really bad example on law and order, it seems to me that these two short statements speak volumes.

Andrew Mitchell appears to be trying to preempt what the police investigation may turn up. While also the prime minister, wants to get to the truth of matter first.

Seems to me when Andrew Mitchell shouted at police officers "you haven't heard the last of this" he was right, we haven't. This story will have a few more twists in it before it is done, and I reiterate, David Cameron,  is going to regret Andrew Mitchell  reigniting this, which is probably why the prime minister has tried so hard to keep the whole thing under wraps, which is why he ignored the video in the first place! This could get very,very serious for the prime minister.


Colin said...

Another thoughtful & measured article Gracie.
When do you find the time to produce all this stuff?

Nick said...

Gracie is good Colin and a darn sight better then the government

Andrew Mitchel must have said something untowards and that's the bottom line.
he may not have said pleb but just swore none the less

it is a dismissal offense in where people are working at places like the house of commons the bank of england the royal family residences etc in where you have sworn in public and has been heard by the public and as i say that's the bottom line

should you be a person who has outbursts in public then you are advised in your interview for a position above that you not take up that position

so the sacking of Andrew Mitchel if he did swear is correct

prickly said...

Whatever words the man used, nothing excuses his arrogant behaviour, and nothing 'exonerates' him!

Gracie Samuels said...

His own admission of guilt is what is damaging him, yet he and his cronies are now rewriting history and presenting Mitchell as the wronged party!

If I had behaved this way on a hospital ward, or in the street my feet would not have touched the ground, i would have been out.

Zeno said...

I've been looking at this as well, but not managed to analyse the two CCTV videos as well as you have. I commented on skwalker's blog about this.

It's too late tonight to take in everything you've said, but one brief comment for now. You said:

"The CCTV camera date and time stamp disappear"

I think there is a simple explanation for this: Channel 4 zoomed in to Mitchell and the gate and this meant that the timestamp, etc dropped off the screen.

Gracie Samuels said...

It could have been Zeno. IMO Ch4 rushed this footage out, trying to be the first to air it, I don't necessarily blame them for this after all their business is news, and in news scoops matter.

However, since it was aired this anomaly and others have cropped up and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Ch4 should now have the footage forensically examined and then publish their findings.

1. There is still a time delay of at least 3 seconds.

2. The clock on the footage outside Downing street is deliberately occluded.

3. The number of the passing bus has been deliberately occluded.

4.During the time clock being occluded, Mitchell points to a single person ambling around outside, yet Mitchell does NOT emerge from the gates at that time, so this cannot be used as evidence. In fact it would not be inadmissible in a court. It could be any old time.

Ch 4 presented this video along with Michael crick as if it proved something, when in fact it proved absolutely nothing, except that there was plenty of time for Mitchell to have said what he he was accused of saying - with time left over (something ch4 just skipped over only mentioning in brief that there "hardly" seemed enough time to say those words and note *NOT* that there wasn't time to say them)

Ch4 also needs to explain the close relationship between Michael Crick and Andrew Mitchell, in fact according to what Crick told me, he was due to have met Mitchell for lunch that day, but it was supposedly cancelled 3 weeks before. But there was a report in the Sun newspaper that Mitchell was off to meet Crick for dinner that very evening.

If Michael Crick and Ch4 put this footage into the public domain the way they did and then IMO tried to influence public opinion with subliminal type reporting, then they need to be held to account and must explain the way they presented that footage and the questions that their handling of the footage has now made arise.