Ting! Ting!

The case of who said what in Andrew Mitchell v the police seems determined to run and run.  No-one has answered the most important questions:

Is it normal to divert cyclists to the pedestrian gate?  If not, was there any special reason why this should have been done? If not then whatever was said, Mr. Mitchell was in the right and the policeman had exceeded his duty and authority.

If it is normal then who has decided to inflict the danger of cyclists onto a pedestrian area when they are normally expected to stay on the roads with other vehicles?