PLEBGATE: Randall & Mitchell (Not quite deceased after all)

Although there are yet more layers to be revealed in this seamy affair, it shows us just how little effect the Leveson Whitewash is going to have

randallJohn Randall…clearly miffed by Mitchell’s renaissance

Sorry to be back yet again on the subject of Andrew Mitchell, but what I’m trying to do here is join up dots the MSM either can’t be bothered to – or doesn’t want joined up in the first place.

Can we all please note that thoroughly bent Plod made his claims about Mitchell’s behaviour (which he hadn’t witnessed in the first place) ‘in an email seemingly from the officer to a Conservative MP, John Randall, who is also the deputy chief whip’. Not to Tom Watson or Simon Hughes or George Galloway  or Vladimir bloody Putin, but to John Randall, a Tory whip who had previously been answerable to said Andrew Mitchell – a man described to me by another Tory at the outbreak of this farce as “a man whose past behaviour has left him somewhat bereft of friends”. A man who, not long ago, Randall said must either fall on his sword – or he would resign.

Question: do we believe the cop-leaker told Randall the news ‘because he was his local MP?

Answer: we very much doubt it. He told Randall because he presumably thought Randall stood to gain from Mitchell’s hoped-for downfall. Or knew that, for one reason or another, Randall wanted his boss’s career to be ruined.

Question: Was this purely about job promotion as far as Randall was concerned?

Answer: We very much doubt it.

Consider some of the facts in the case. In March 2003 – while in Opposition and during  generally pro-Iraq War period in the Conservative Party – John Randall’s disapproval of British involvement in the Iraq War led him to resign as an Shadow Minister as a matter of conscience.

In contrast, as the Battle for Tripoli raged in 2011, the rather more gung-ho International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell (heavily behind his boss Cameron) said he supported Allied aid for Libyan rebels, and that the Government had ‘outlined steps to ensure a smooth transition’ to peace once Gadaffi fell.

In Cameron’s September 2012 reshuffle, Andrew Mitchell became Chief Whip. On his final day in the IDS job, Mitchell authorised the payment of £16 million of previously suspended aid to Rwanda – half of Britain’s annual aid there. The aid had been suspended in July, along with other governments’ aid, over concerns about Rwanda’s alleged support of the rebel March 23 Movement in east Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mitchell’s successor reversed the decision.

On 30 November 2012, the International Development Select Committee published a report criticising Mitchell for restoring the funding, stating “We do not understand how [Mitchell] reached the conclusion that support for the March 23rd Movement had ceased”. To be honest, I don’t either.  What I do know is that Mitchell worked for Lazard, one of the world’s largest investment banks, where he cooperated closely with British companies seeking large-scale overseas contracts. This bank just appointed Lord Mandelson as its Director of Business Ethics. This is a bit like Mossad appointing Hitler as its Director of Legal Nazi Kidnapping.

This morning, Daniel Hannan published a piece about the Mitchell affair in the Daily Telegraph blogs section. Criticising the cops quite rightly for being grubbily involved in messy Westminster politics, Dan nevertheless managed to avoid mentioning either Newscorp (to whom the cops leaked the news in the first place) or John Randall (the man rung by the same as yet unnamed Plod – who told The Sun hacks to splash it on their front page the next day.)

In a rather parallel manner, Andy Coulson splashed a double page spread in the News of the World telling a pack of lies about the unlawful killing of innocent Brazilian student Jean Charles de Menezes by Met Police officers on 21st July 2005. The NotW was also a Newscorp newspaper, as is The Sun.

There could be any one of (at my count so far) nine different explanations as to what this ‘Plebgate’ saga was and is all about really. But the things to hold on to are these:

1. Conservative politicians continue to draw attention away from what is at issue here with near-sociopathic ruthlessness.

2. The Met Police continues to try and cover up what even Number Ten now admits was some kind of fit-up.

3. Despite a Leveson Enquiry designed to haul Newscorp’s dirty linen before the public eye, the influence of the tentacular Murdoch empire of corruption and illegality continues to ensure that lies are printed to order on behalf of its political and police cronies. These demons have not even been knocked back: like the MPs caught fiddling their expenses, for the tabloid hacks it is once again Business as Usual.

And just to complete the full set, guess which Tweedle Dum & Dee couple have been tweeting and stomping about in support of Sndrew ‘Thrasher’ Mitchell over the last 36 hours? Why, Jeremy Hunt and Boris Johnson of course.

At least part of this story is about a battle for what’s left of the Tory Party’s soul.

Stay tuned.

Catch the full strength of grubby Newscorpness at the Hackgate page here.

27 thoughts on “PLEBGATE: Randall & Mitchell (Not quite deceased after all)

  1. “At least part of this story is about a battle for what’s left of the Tory Party’s soul.”
    It hasn’t had one in living memory.

  2. ” Lazard, one of the world’s largest investment banks…This bank just appointed Lord Mandelson as its Director of Business Ethics”

    .Well, at least this proves surrealism isn’t dead.

  3. Well said.

    This “bystander cop” nonsense is a smokescreen to get Andrew Mitchell back into International Development so he can ensure even more British taxpayers money greases the palms of Paul Kagame under the guise of “humanitarian aid”.

    The REAL story here is the links between Mitchell, Kagame and British companies “large-scale overseas contracts”. THAT’S what the police should be investigating.

  4. This heap of initially insignificant horse shit looks as if it might have the legs to bring about something quite dramatic. The e-mailing copper might even have a case in suggesting – even at this early stage – that he would never get a fair trial because of the way it’s been played out in the media. Whatever DID happen to sub-judice? BTW, who was the Government clown who was supposed to have investigated this episode in the first place? It certainly shows that there’s still a place for efficient investigative journalism post-Leveson.

    • The e-mailing copper hasn’t got a leg to stand on. If you read his email (published yesterday in The Times), asking a lot because it is so badly written, he quite plainly libels Andrew Mitchell. He claims he was there at the time, which he was not, and heard the whole altercation, which he could not have done. I hope Mitchell sues him.

      This matter is not ‘sub-judice’ because no one has as yet been charged with an offence. The Police are investigating the . . . . Police.

      The important point here is who falsified the Downing Street Security Log. That Police Officer also made a note of ‘events’ in his/her Pocket Book, so that is false too. Why did they do this ? Was there any collusion in these events ?
      Who leaked this confidential Log to the press, thus compromising the security of the residence and the personal security of the Prime Minister.
      How did the ‘e-mailing copper’ get hold of the Security Log, which one assumes he did because his email repeats almost word for word that log. Remember the email was written before the security log appeared in the Press, so he had prior access to this document. How.
      What role did the Police Federation play in all of these events ?
      Why did the Cabinet Secretary fail to notice on the CCTV footage the huge crowds who witnessed these events ?
      And finally when are the dishonest and incompetent Police Officers involved in this matter going to be dismissed ?

      • Andy, you are doing what they hoped would happen and assuming the Downing Street police log is false. What people have to remember is the Downing Street police log and the subsequent email (whomever it was from) have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The email is a smokescreen to get Andrew Mitchell back into government.

      • Liz727,
        You are doing ‘what they want’ – not looking at the facts.
        The Email was sent by a serving Police Officer who is a member of the Diplomatic Protection Squad. It was sent BEFORE the Security Log was published in the Press. So where did this officer get it from ?

        You might also care to reflect that Bernard Hogan Howes has not challenged the veracity of that published Log, so we must assume that it is genuine. So the Email and the Log have everything to do with each other. One was created from the other.

        This all looks to me like a conspiracy by a number of Police Officers to discredit a Minister of the Crown. I look forward to a number of Police Officers being dismissed in the very near future.

    • Sub Judice…… there is no court case or prosecution involved and, being as how this involves the ‘elite’ – there is never likely to be. (An internal police diciplinary is the maximum that will come out of this, and maybe a well funded resignation or two.) Telling lies to an MP or a journalist is not a criminal offence (yet). That no investigation of the source was undertaken shows the lack of forethought when there is a collusion to do down a particular target………anything hits the headlines (the inaccuracies are, weeks later, printed upside down in Russian in the bottom margin of page 3, in a light grey coloured text) and the ‘story’ has had the desired efffect.

      That said – by reputation (admitedly mainly from MSM reporting) Mitchell does appear to be a bit of a ‘Madam’ and I would bet a pound to a penny that he holds a personal opinion that anyone whom he does not have to answer to, or is (in his own mind) superior to, is……….. ‘a Pleb’ ! That said, I’d bet the same stake that 99% of our Westminster ‘representatives’ hold the same views !

  5. For what my opinion is worth, I class people into 4 categories : wealth creators, wealth facilitators, nice to haves and parasites. I believe that the majority of those who are in pubicly funded positions are parasites; for example, what wealth does Mr Patten create by being DG of the socialist bbc? For that matter, what wealth did Mr Entwistle create, or would have created if he hadn’t been compulsorily retired? I believe nothing and consequently, they should be paid for what they are worth for our nation; ie. nothing. So, it might be shabby, Mr Patten, to question the severance payment to Mr Entwistle, but more to the point, who is questioning the money you are being given for doing absolutely nothing? As for the police, there are too many parasites at the top of that national organisation; Mr Ian Blair being the most infamous of them all, but let’s not forget Cressida Dick and her appointee Ms Akers.
    My 14 year old nephew was asking me recently about what was going on in our country and my only reply was that we are a most corrupt and immoral country and that’s not what I was born into. 60 years of socialism has most certainly transformed my country and it is into one that is what we used to look down on as being uncivilised, undemocratic, violent and corrupt. Everything that my antecedents fought against.
    I wish I could wash the filth away.

    • You obviously do not know your own country read Pitt the younger,Walpole,Salisbury,Gladstone Disrealli,not forgetting the crown heads before them, all well before socialism mate

    • John in Cheshire,

      For the sake of accuracy, if you are 60 then you have lived in a UK that has had 37 years of Tories and about 23 years of Labour/New labour.

      Just wondering where you get your 60 years of Socialism from?

    • For your family Christmas quiz (worth 3 mince pies): Why, exactly was ‘the most infamous of them all, Sir Ian Blair’ obliged to resign? [And it has absolutely nothing to do with what his namesake got up to in the swinging 60's (or 70's)].

  6. Thirty police are working on the investigation into claims that an officer gave false evidence over the “plebgate” affair, Scotland Yard says.

    • Whilst one artificially sympathetic policeman is visiting 90 year old Mrs. Grimbottom who was beaten with a baseball bat in her home having just collected her pension………. the pepetrators are suing for damages (after slipping over during their escape) as she had not cleared up the ice in her hallway (formed overnight) due to her heating being turned off when she went to bed !

  7. If Mitchell has been fitted up why did he apologise for swearing at the police if that video is the source for a fit up the one I saw only showed him riding off thru the side gate what happened before that?

    • He was fitted up in the sense that his swearing in frustration was blown up out of all proportion so that he appeared to have contempt for ordinary people and to be abusing the police. The newspapers knew that swearing on its own wasn’t a story so the ‘pleb’ angle had to be introduced, which always at best looked like Chinese whispers. The sad thing is that I, and many other people, didn’t believe the incident as reported at the time, but the press chose to swallow what they were told by the police/News International, and were either too lazy or corrupt to do their jobs properly.

  8. Hard to figure out who’s shafting who in this, although no doubt Lord Muckhelping’s publisher could provide a list.. Make’s sense that ‘banking’ is in it somewhere, or at least politics with a small p – is there any other kind now? We need to see Newscorpness turned into Newscorpses.if we are to find out.

  9. Mitchell was for the chop one way or another. Being supported by Camoron was the kiss of Judas for “love police” Mitchell in addition to there not being a “proper” investigation at the time – I wonder who prevented that. More police investigating this shit storm than there were investigating paedophiles at the BBC, tells us something.

  10. The real story here is whether The Sun paid for information that led to their story. I don’t believe for a moment that if the off-duty police officer lied, he did so because of some left-wing axe to grind. It simply isn’t a good enough reason to put your career on the line. Maybe he was simply a convenient patsy and isn’t guilty of anything – I don’t know.
    In my view, it is mostly likely that Mitchell was targeted by the newspapers because either a) They wanted revenge on the government as a whole for setting up Leveson or b) Mitchell has information on them, and this was a warning – which would explain why Mitchell didn’t fight the rather bizarre claims against him more vigorously.
    It’s up to the newspapers what they do but I certainly won’t buy the Telegraph again, under their current ownership, after their hysteria about this incident – it was obvious at the time Mitchell had been stitched up but their chose to believe he was guilty as ‘charged’. And I’ve not bought a News International newspaper since they cynically started supporting Labour in the 1990s.

    • You forget that the ‘off-duty police officer’ who lied used as the basis for his lies the Downing Street Security Log, which it seems is itself a tissue of lies. This off-duty officer is a member of the Diplomatic Protection Squad, but one has to ask how did he get hold of a document that was, according to Bernard Hogan Howe, a ‘confidential document’. The answer to much of this seems to be self evident.

  11. Pingback: PLEBGATORELLA: “Oh yes he is! Oh no he isn’t!” | A diary of deception and distortion

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s