***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 4 *****
Sticks and stones etc is my motto. What harm does it do whatever anyone says to you?
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 01:09
|
>> Sticks and stones etc is my motto. What harm does it do whatever anyone says
>> to you?
>>
None
But in this media lead world where news is what is easily understood and dumbed down.. and where the Chief Whip acted like a right cock, he's fair game. And he lied as his first statement denying he swore...
Bout time the Police investigated how the Sun got hold of the police reports . given the Leveson enquiry into police leaking to the Sun, I would have thought they might have learned summat..
Obviously not.
|
>> Bout time the Police investigated how the Sun got hold of the police reports .
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/sep/24/andrew-mitchell-pleb-row-sun
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour-and-watt/2012/sep/24/andrew-mitchell-davidcameron
>> I would have thought they might have learned summat..
>> Obviously not.
>>
The copper in question may now wish he had asked his Union to call it a day.
The Sun claims that two coppers have verbatim notes. For their sake, I hope the two coppers have not made the classic error of writing down exactly the same notes. If these two plebs are found to have colluded in writing their notes, it is they who will end up in hotter water than their master Chief Whip.
|
|
you certainly seem to have a thing about the police federation.
|
>> you certainly seem to have a thing about the police federation.
>>
and all Union chiefs who exploit their members for their own personal agenda.
p.s. anyone who has seen the current C4 series "999 - what's your emergency" can't possibly have anything but utmost admiration and respect for the Police and Ambulance services.
|
|
in this case which chiefs and what agenda?
|
>> I hope the
>> two coppers have not made the classic error of writing down exactly the same notes.
>> If these two plebs are found to have colluded in writing their notes, it is
>> they who will end up in hotter water than their master Chief Whip.
>>
Why? It's common practice to discuss the event as you write notes. It's a known fact and been accepted by the courts for donkey's years.
|
>> Why? It's common practice to discuss the event as you write notes. It's a known
>> fact and been accepted by the courts for donkey's years.
>>
But it shouldn't be accepted should it? Police officers are witnesses. Each should present an honest account of what happened from his perspective. The court can then draw an appropriate conclusion from the potentially differing accounts. Once they collaborate on an 'agreed line' they're risking a perjury charge wile examined under oath.
Same as if two 'witnesses' to alleged Police malpractice agree to over egg their experience and 'injuries'.
|
>> Once they collaborate on an 'agreed line' they're risking
>> a perjury charge wile examined under oath.
It's only perjury if you lie under oath.
There's a stated case from many moons back that said that it's perfectly natural for police witnesses to discuss their evidence and make sure they get it right.
If a court decides otherwise, then an instruction will go out..and they'll all have to comply.
|
>> There's a stated case from many moons back that said that it's perfectly natural for
>> police witnesses to discuss their evidence and make sure they get it right.
>>
Key phrase is 'many moons back'. The era of Denning, Goddard or Manningham-Buller
Almost unthinkable that a modern court considering a Magistrate's stated case, let alone a full Court of Appeal or Supreme Court bench, would condone witness collaboration.
|
>>
>> There's a stated case from many moons back that said that it's perfectly natural for
>> police witnesses to discuss their evidence and make sure they get it right.
>>
Does that apply to any witnesses?
Many years ago I was mugged in Charing Cross Road at lunchtime. A passerby came to my aid, the police were called, and the attacker was arrested.
later while waiting outside Bow Street magistrates court to give evidence, I was sitting next to the chap who had helped me. "There he is" he remarked. I was relieved to have my memory corroborated, because I could not, unprompted, have honestly sworn to the man's identity - it all happened so quickly.
An aside to that story: The policeman at the court explaining the procedure to me said I should address the magistrate as Your Worship on the first occasion, and thereafter as Sir.
When I got into court it was a lady magistrate. I panicked, not knowing the female form of "Your worship", or whether "Madam" is correct usage, and just mumbled.
"Sir" is defferential, but "Madam" sounds like a store manager addressing a woman accused of shoplifting.
|
>> Why? It's common practice to discuss the event as you write notes. It's a known
>> fact and been accepted by the courts for donkey's years.
>>
Because when you are reporting a "conversation", unless you are transcribing from a recording, it is extremely unlikey (impossible, in my view) for two people to write down accurate, let alone identical, copies of the alleged conversation - even if asked to so one minute after the event.
If they did so, I would smell a rat and discount their honesty.
BTW, the Union man is clearly exploiting these allegedly so-called plebs for his own ends. ;-)
|
|
does mitchell say, something like youv'e not heard the last of this , iam going to see your superior. so bobby goes off and writes up full report to help cover himself
|
>>There's a stated case from many moons back that said that it's perfectly natural for police witnesses to discuss their evidence and make sure they get it right.
And when several hundred attempt to do it at a mass death at Hillsborough it reeks of cover-up.
I thought you said lessons were learned after that?
Differing accounts can introduce doubt, sometimes reasonable, but that's for the prosecutors/courts to decide, not for the investigators of crime.
If the statements/notes are made at the time of the potential offence, and the officers were all present at the offence then a degree of collaboration is unavoidable - modifying statements at a later time is fraught with such issues.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 24 Sep 12 at 22:12
|
>> does mitchell say, something like youv'e not heard the last of this , iam going
>> to see your superior. so bobby goes off and writes up full report to help
>> cover himself
>>
but if the other bobby boobs and writes up an identical report, they are then shown up to be real plonkers.
|
At the moment they are being accused of being liars.
Either we approve of the Hillsborough cover up or we don't.
If we don't, then this accusation has to be investigated with the accuser standing up and being counted.
Pat
|
>> At the moment they are being accused of being liars.
>>
No, it is possible for both sides be telling the truth.
One side says one thing was said (because they are relying on their hearing words said in a rant in an open public space) and the other side says he did not use those words because either he really did not say them or due to his raging mind cannot genuinely remember having used those words.
What we have is a written account by two police officers (apparently legally allowed to collude to write virtually identical statements) of what they "think" they heard against an MP who says he had not used the words “attributed “ to him.
Now the MP did not have the benefit of making "accurate" notes within an hour of the incident, with or without the aid of a colluding colleague to jog his memory.
The only way anyone can find out what was actually said is if someone made a recording of it - members of the public were around with their cameras and phones and someone may have captured the exchange.
p.s. As I mused in my first post www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=11959&m=266669&v=e
it seems that was the case:
"... last Wednesday evening, Mr Mitchell was speaking to a female Pc, who is named in the log, “demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall.” The Chief Whip was told that it was “policy” for cyclists to use a pedestrian gate but claimed that he “always used the main gates” and initially refused to do otherwise.
A colleague of the female officer who wrote the incident report continues: “After several refusals Mr Mitchell got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him.
“There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr Mitchell said: 'Best you learn your f------ place . . . you don’t run this f------ government . . . you’re f------ plebs.’ ”
The Telegraph says
"The Cabinet Office released a letter from Sir Jeremy Heywood to Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, ruling out an investigation. He said the police sergeant involved had been spoken to by senior officials at No 10.
“There clearly remains a genuine difference of views about what words were actually used,” the letter said. “I have subsequently discussed the matter with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Bernard Hogan-Howe.
“Like the Prime Minister he is obviously very disappointed at the lack of respect shown towards the police and agrees that the behaviour fell short of what the police should expect, in particular from members of the government”.
The letter added that the police officer involved did not wish to pursue the matter further, concluding, “the Prime Minister nor I see any purpose in a further investigation”."
Last edited by: John H on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 08:20
|
>>: 'Best you learn your f------ place .;. you don’t run this f------ government ;. you’re f------ plebs.’”<<
'plods' would fit the 'p word' space in the context very well. Possibly more insulting, but in regular use?
Could be a good defence?
Last edited by: pmh on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 09:18
|
>> >>: 'Best you learn your f------ place .;. you don’t run this f------ government ;.
>> you’re f------ plebs.’”<<
>>
>> 'plods' would fit the 'p word' space in the context very well. Possibly more insulting,
>> but in regular use?
>>
>> Could be a good defence?
Isnt there a possible charge under section 5 of the public order act in there somewhere?
|
|
In reply to John H. You're right. There are hundreds of thousands of interactions between the Police and the public every day. The vast majority are dealt with properly and thouroughly with niether party feeling justifiably aggrieved. I reply to Zero he was given a PO warning according to the report in the Telegraph.
|
I reply to Zero he was given a
>> PO warning according to the report in the Telegraph.
Do you have to accept your guilt to get a warning?
|
>> Do you have to accept your guilt to get a warning?
>>
No. It's more of a 'do that again and I'll arrest you' sort of thing.
Recent case law is that use of the word in contexts such as 'I ain't got no effin weed' is unlikely to give a copper the rquisite level of offence.
Calling him an effin see u next tuesday however would still be a fast track to the cells.
|
Never mind the swearing and the word "pleb". It's the "Best you learn your place" which, if truly said, is the most unacceptable thing he is purported to have said. I remember some years ago Prince Charles being caught out saying similar to a female secretary who wanted to discuss the prospect of promotion to a more senior role with him.
This attitude is rife amongst our ruling caste. It is they, the supposed public servants, who need reminding of their place. Police officers are very well aware of their place in general and do an splendid job on the whole.
|
>>This attitude is rife amongst our ruling caste
Is it? High handedness is an affliction of some types in any sort of authority. Including police officers.
Power corrupts, et cetera. Though the Prince Charles thing was slightly different, his remarks were not addressed to the secretary and he was rather caught in the crossfire of sex discrimination employment tribunal in which the female secretary's principal complaint was that she had been sexually harassed by a bloke who turned out to be gay (I don't mean the last bit was the complaint).
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4019673.stm
An erstwhile boss of mine, whose dad was a miner, said something along the lines of 'best know your place' to me once. I believe he meant well by it though tact wasn't his strong suit, to put it mildly. He was, and is, a good friend and as it happened I did get his job when he left ;-)
Sometimes people are too keen to be offended, though that doesn't excuse rudeness or bullying.
|
>> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/4019673.stm
Thanks for the link, I'd been struggling to find a report about it.
|
Perhaps Mitchell had been thinking of "All things bright and beautifull" especially the verse now generally omitted:
"The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate."
Alternative arrangement : # Greystone, by W. R. Waghorne, in Songs for Little People (Danielson and Conant: 1905) tinyurl.com/c7kngj4 :)
|
> This attitude is rife amongst our ruling caste. It is they, the supposed public servants,
>> who need reminding of their place.
Particularly most LabLibCon politicians; supposed to be our representatives: think they are our masters.
Bad cess to 'em!
|
|
Ah, but do you expect this to change if your favourite party gets a foot in the door?
|
|
I understand that the mouthy one said to one of the officers "I'll have your job for this". Interesting concept - I doubt that he could handle a policeman's job!
|
>> I understand that the mouthy one said to one of the officers "I'll have your
>> job for this".
Did he? Were you there?
It is all alleged words. He has denied words attributed to him.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 14:30
|
Noone denies Mitchell was inappropriate with PC Plod.
PC Plod has nothing to gain except losing his career if he over-eggs the words attributable to Mitchell.
On the balance of probabilities I'd expect PC Plod's report is not far from what was actually said.
Saying those words doesn't mean Mitchell is a bad guy, but his wiggling since the event will likely cost him his job as the story isn't going away to his (and Dave's) satisfaction.
|
Mitchell could have killed this stone dead in 24 hours, by admitting what he said, publicly apologising and being contrite.
Instead he lied, denying all and then used weasel words.
So what he said is now irrelevant. it's his behaviour... which is being judged in public. It's all of his own making.
As for what PCs wrote and heard , it's an irrelevance now. Mitchell comes over as arrogant and a liar - and with zero awareness of the consequences of his first action and his subsequent attempts to lie/deny and dig his hole deeper.
Unedifying to watch but fascinating to hear and see a man bury his own career
|
>> Mitchell could have killed this stone dead in 24 hours, by admitting what he said,
>> publicly apologising and being contrite.
+1
|
>> Mitchell could have killed this stone dead in 24 hours, by admitting what he said,
>> publicly apologising and being contrite.
Can't happen. He's better than us. To show weakness would be to undermine the Establishment.
Bluff, bluster, try to sweep under the carpet, but if he has to sacked then OK, leave him in the shadows for 2 years, then bring him back over a G&T at the club and have a(nother) good old snigger at the plebs.
|
I have to say I do quite often make off-colour comments in lame attempts at humour, and sometimes laugh at tasteless or politically incorrect jokes etc.
I am however mindful of my company when doing such stuff, and I know when to behave in a grown up manner.
Seems some of politicians are simply too stupid or arrogant to differentiate.
But I don't see this as a resigning issue, not on it's own. Not even with the implicit character flaws it might suggest, even though the apparent lying isn't a good trait for someone in government (but not that rare I reckon).
And btw I'm not a Whip supporter, not sure I'd even heard of him before this fuss.
|
I don't think he should be sacked because of this....because that means the media have in effect, sacked someone.
Yes he was rude..but that was minor.
Does anyone else out there think they are 'better than the minions'? Yes, of course, there are loads of them, it's an unfortunate but common human trait and the higher some people go up their ladder, the worse they become.
I can remember some fool, in the mid to late 80's, when I'd put some police cordon tape across the whole of Victoria Street in Westminster...walk up to it, lift it up and carry on regardless. I'd been desperately trying to prevent people doing that and was failing miserably, because I was on my own and reinforcements hadn't turned up yet (suspect package in shop doorway..and only the night before, i'd turned up to the same in the Army and Navy store doorway opposite, which was a genuine IRA bomb, but only the detonator went up). My exasperated "Oi" from across the street caught his attention at which point he proudly advised me that he was the chairman of whatever and was going to an important board meeting. My response was "You can still get blown up mate, now get behind the tape like everyone else". His reaction was incredulity. Not that there might be a bomb, but that someone as lowly as me would speak to him like that. Now I accept my manner wasn't as professional as it could have been, but the principle is there...when you are important (or believe you are important) you don't like doing as you are told.
The reality is of course, you still take a crap every morning just like everyone else.
The police officers in this matter will have a bemused WTF reaction to all this. His antics would have been water off a duck's back to them..and a chuckle at his buffoonery.
|
Exactly.....and that's why I questioned Camerons judgement in appointing him in the first place.
I have been a long time labour voter and have been wavering for a few years now.
I really, really wanted to believe Cameron was better, more honest, younger and in touch with the working class.
From what I've seen, I've got more forsight in my little finger than his lot have and more self control.
Nick Clegg, I'm watching you now.
Pat
|
Clegg is even more of a self-serving professional politician than Cameron and that's saying something.
Mitchell is just a bell-end.
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 17:31
|
>> Clegg is even more of a self-serving professional politician than Cameron and that's saying something.
Not sure about that. The consequence of supporting the coalition could well be the end of any ambitions beyond his present post, and he must know that. The Lib Dem voters who see it as a sell out on tuition fees etc don't seem to accept that they didn't actually win the election.
|
Nick Clegg did an unusual thing when he admitted making - as part of a collective decision of course - an unfulfillable promise to the voters. A few of these are made but they are seldom admitted or apologised for. And I thought it sporting of him to go along with the very funny musical send-up.
Perhaps the poor much-maligned fellow has started a new strain of light-touch, lightweight politics. It will make a pleasant change from our usual political diet of scaremongering, open menace and pompous evasion.
|
|
An astute political move AC. He made a Faustian pact with Cameron. Paid the price for it. Now that Dr Cable is back in favour maybe we'll see more of his moderating influence from now on. A friend of mine, a former Tory councillor, who quit the party a few weeks ago. Good move.
|
>> He made a Faustian pact with Cameron. Paid the price for it.
He hasn't sold his soul to the devil or to anyone apparently. Anyway Cameron isn't the devil, just the PM. And the apology and song have detached young Clegg from the government. Perhaps that isn't enough though. You don't have to be in the government to get gyp from all and sundry about nothing in particular.
>> Now that Dr Cable is back in favour
Vince Cable is cool. What's he a doctor of though? The mind boggles a bit. The Terrorflag had a piece today saying he was the ugly face of capitalism or anti-capitalism or something. Looked like a load of cobblers to me. But then most things do.
|
|
Cable should re-defect to the socialists, which is where he belongs.
|
>> Cable should re-defect to the socialists, which is where he belongs.
Yer rarse ... Rastaman them love freedom man ... (sucks teeth significantly) ...
Cha!
|
>> >> Cable should re-defect to the socialists, which is where he belongs.
>>
>> Yer rarse ... Rastaman them love freedom man ... (sucks teeth significantly) ...
>>
>> Cha!
Are you some sort of non-patrial? ;-)
Last edited by: Roger on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 22:20
|
|
Heard by members of the public in the area and recorded by police, in writing. Does it for me. Police describe the matter as "Unresolved"
Last edited by: Meldrew on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 18:53
|
Whilst on duty at *** tonight (Wed 19th Sept) on a 1400-2200 hrs between the hours of 1800-2000 I had to deal with a man claiming to be the chief whip and who I later confirmed to be such and a Mr Andrew MITCHELL.
Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr MITCHELL refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates.
I explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was to use the side pedestrian gates and that I was happy to open those for him, but that no officer present would be opening the main gates as this was the policy we were directed to follow.
Mr MITCHELL refused. Repeatedly reiterating he was the chief whip. My exact explanation to Mr MITCHELL was "I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance".
After several refusals Mr MITCHELL got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him.
There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said: "Best you learn your f------ place...you don’t run this f------ government...You’re f------ plebs." The members of public looked visibly shocked and I was somewhat taken aback by the language used and the view expressed by a senior government official. I can not say if this statement was aimed at me individually, or the officers present or the police service as a whole.
I warned Mr MITCHELL that he should not swear, and if he continued to do so I would have no option but to arrest him under the Public Order Act, saying "Please don’t swear at me Sir. If you continue to I will have no option but to arrest you under the public order act".
Mr MITCHELL was then silent and left saying "you haven’t heard the last of this" as he cycled off.
I forward this to you as all officers were extremely polite to Mr MITCHELL, but such behaviour and verbal expressions could lead to the unfortunate situation of officers being left no option but to exercise their powers.
I write this for your information as Mr Mitchell’s last comments would appear to indicate that he is unhappy with my actions.
I have recorded this fully in my pocket book.
|
allegedly :-)
I give him 'til Friday.
|
So who decided it was 'policy' not to open gates for cycles and if there's a rationale for that why was it not explained?
The nearest I've ever come to Mitchell's outburst was four years ago when London Midland trains decided that folding bikes were to be folded and carried from station entrance to train and vv. That's about 150yards minimum carrying 12kg in one hand and a briefcase in the other. Only one Inspector enforced it at Northampton with no rational explanation except 'it's a new rule; any arguments to customer services'. Users at other stations were less lucky but everybody who contacted customer services got a different account of the rationale - which turned out to be undue bending to members of a user group at MK with bees in their bonnets. .
Eventually sense and arguments that the rule was creating delay at barriers prevailed but the bone head who wanted to enforce it had a field day.
|
>> So who decided it was 'policy' not to open gates for cycles and if there's
>> a rationale for that why was it not explained?
In such matters once you start it never stops. You spend your whole time explaining and getting into arguements about such matters. Starting with one usually brings them out of the woodwork.
>>
>> The nearest I've ever come to Mitchell's outburst was four years ago when London Midland
>> trains decided that folding bikes were to be folded and carried from station entrance to
>> train and vv.
The vv?
That's about 150yards minimum carrying 12kg in one hand and a briefcase
>> in the other.
A free bit of extra exercise, what you complaining about ;-)
|
>> The vv?
V V as in vice versa.
|
>> So who decided it was 'policy' not to open gates for cycles and if there's
>> a rationale for that why was it not explained?
>>
James Landale, BBC deputy political editor, said on the evening news that he has in the past ridden his bike through The Gates, and has never been asked to use the pedestrian gate.
Simon Jenkins has this article today (partial quote below):
www.standard.co.uk/comment/comment/put-andrew-mitchell-in-charge-of-our-citizens-freedom-8175337.html
"...
Anyone who has seen the Guantánamo Bay mock-up that is the entrance to Downing Street sees only a gate-guarding, gun-toting, ramp-working, overtime-consuming armoured camp. It is an inner bailey within the paranoid outer bailey to which Tony Blair and David Cameron have reduced central Westminster. All that we have learned from Mitchell’s outburst is that at last someone has noticed.
Early last month I tried to cross St James’s Park bridge to my office. I had just set foot on the bridge when a youth covered in badges raced up and ordered me back. “Off bridge! Off bridge!” he cried in broken English. I asked why. “Off bridge!” he shouted. I then decided to cross the bridge by walking over it. The young man pleaded with a convenient policeman (ubiquitous in St James’s Park but nowhere else), who explained politely that “the Army is coming” and the bridge had to be “secured” first.
At that moment soldiers duly rounded the bend and marched over the now-safe bridge. It was notable that the first six were black, the next dozen white men and the last group white women, all three abreast. This bizarre formation turned left in the direction of the Olympic beach volleyball arena. The policeman told me he thought they were going to fill the empty stands. I realised that the youth, who wore no uniform, had been acting with full authority under the Olympic statute of 2006. He could have had me arrested for interfering with “security”.
The casual inconvenience now imposed by anonymous officials in the name of health, safety and counter-terrorism is out of all proportion to the risks. It has become a blanket authoritarianism, where the single word “security” silences all. Every click up of the ratchet is justified by some undefined risk.
The Scotland Yard bureaucrats whose gate-opening rule precipitated Mitchell’s outburst can only have been imitating Apocalypse Now. They saw an al Qaeda tank packed with explosives racing down Whitehall, summoned by a fiendish spy reporting from inside Downing Street that the Chief Whip was about to wheel his bicycle through a gap in the gate. The tank would then ram through the gap, rear up over the armoured ramp and demolish No 10. And all because of Mitchell and his bike. Anyone murmuring that this was a bit over the top would have been sent packing to cries of “You can’t be too safe.”
My local high street was recently closed because a cyclist had been nudged by a car and fallen off. The street had to remain shut until the hospital reported to the police if his injury was “serious”, in which case the road would have to stay closed as a “crime scene”. For hours, chaos reigned over an ever widening arc of west London. Such absurd inconveniences are repeated daily across the capital and no one considers the cost or inconvenience to the public.
....
If Mitchell has to resign, which would be daft, he should appoint himself the representative of citizen freedom. "
|
>> Heard by members of the public in the area
>>
Not a single one has come forward to say they were there.
|
>>Not a single one has come forward to say they were there.
How do you know that?
I'm sure there isn't CCTV with audio at the entrance to Downing Street after all.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 23:54
|
It's true that you used to be able to walk through Downing Street from the park. Then later you couldn't, and later still it became obvious from a distance that you couldn't even think about it.
No more than changing times though surely? John H is wrong to blame the paranoia of recent governments. A Thatcher associate and henchman was blown up in the House of Commons underground car park for God's sake. And the IRA aren't the only people who might want to blow ministers up. I'd opt for the SAS if I were them. Trained blokes with guns anyway.
Fussily closing roads and getting in everyone's way for no good reason is a pain, I agree. It can only get worse though as long as the young are in charge.
:o}
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 26 Sep 12 at 01:11
|
>> No more than changing times though surely? John H is wrong to blame the paranoia
>> of recent governments.
>>
Not me, Guv. It woz him - Simon Jenkins.
p.s. Latest news:
" .. The two women police officers at the centre of the Mitchell row were unceremoniously moved from Downing Street duties when they returned to work yesterday ... "
So their Downing Street jobs have been taken from them. It could turn out to be a good or a bad career move to have got in the the limelight.
|
"It could turn out to be a good or a bad career move"
Can't argue with that (although I'm sure someone will :-) )
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 26 Sep 12 at 10:12
|
>>were unceremoniously moved
I wonder what would have been ceremonious moving?
|
>> I wonder what would have been ceremonious moving?
>>
That would have been done with a medal awarded to them for gallantry for standing up to the nasty Tory Eton snob, and early retirement and pension granted to them due to all the stress and PTS-disorder that they have suffered; all done in the full glare of publicity, with an announcement by the Queen made in the all the media, and repeated every hour for a week by the Sun and all the various Police Unions who want Mitchell sacked.
|
>> >>Not a single one has come forward to say they were there.
>>
>> How do you know that?
>>
>> I'm sure there isn't CCTV with audio at the entrance to Downing Street after all.
>>
>>
So what do you think now?
|
What is going on in this country?
Thought police everywhere.
If they don;t like him, don't vote for him. But sack him for a joke? Stupid joke. Stupid thing to say.
But when does the control stop?
|
>> What is going on in this country?
>>
>> Thought police everywhere.
>>
>> If they don;t like him, don't vote for him. But sack him for a joke?
>> Stupid joke. Stupid thing to say.
>>
>> But when does the control stop?
Not a matter of control. Yes why not sack him, sack him because we found out what his attitude really is towards his constituents and the police, sack him for lying about it afterwards, sack him for being bad at his job (which basically is just to appear believable and electable ) and sack him for being a crap whip (which he is judging by the growing rebelliousness of the party)
So given all that, whats your reasons for keeping him?
|
>>So given all that, whats your reasons for keeping him?
None. The man is a tit.
However, if sacked he should be sacked for a sackable offence and he should stay sacked. Not shuffled around until the media have forgotten him and then put back in.
That's my objection. If the absolute statement is that in the UK swearing at a copper gets you fired, then so be it. For everybody.
If its just undesirable, then vote him out if on balance he is a bad deal. Why all the moral outrage, particularly when it comes from those really no better in any way (media, other politicians, grandstanding representatives of this, that or the other).
I do not find it sad the the shadow member for whatever stands up and says that the government minister for x should be fired for some outrage. What makes me sad is that the electorate do not seem to see through it.
If every MP or other politician was voted for on the basis of their policies, and always voted out again if they didn't do what they say, iresspective of haircut, bed-partner, sense of humour or pregnancy of wife, then this sort of stuff wouldn't happen.
The trouble is, Cameron, this tit in particular, and all party political tits in general, know that the issue isn't really whether or not he abused a copper, its all about who manipulates the media publicity the most successfuly, irrespective of the truth.
He'll get fired, or not, depending on the media publicity.
The criteria should be whether or not he committed a dismissable offence.
|
Well I think he should be sacked, as I said, for being bad at his job (which is to appear electable and to know how to handle the media)
Your right he will be semi sacked by the wrong people for the wrong reasons in the wrong way.
|
|
Thanks for your elaboration on your initial response Mark. He was the head of some Charity or other - doubt whether they would want to be associated with him I work for a charity now and there is a lot of sensitivity around the public persona of staff and their behaviour - which I understand. As you say if he's been sacked it must have amounted to gross misconduct or some breach of their code of ethics. Still as you say a tit. I've been a life-long conservative by nature. Recent events (not just isolated to the public titisim) have persuaded me that they're not for me anymore.
|
>>have persuaded me that they're not for me anymore
The trouble though, RP, is this;
There is a difference between what the politics of a party are purported to be and the politics of the idiots currently in position.
The principles and beliefs, practices and approach of the conservative philosophy work for me. Because of that, the politics of the Labour Party do not. Consequently I'm not really going to switch support to another party.
The further difficulty is that so rarely are the people in power particularly devoted to the ideals of that party. They are far more devoted to the idea of being in power.
Consequently, IMO, Blair wasn't really Labour, but he was the thing most likely to be elected.
ditto Cameron. ditto the Poodle.
Now I don't see how we're going to tackle this. It must be just as frustrating to a natural Labour voter as it is to me.
The only thing I think we can do is ignore the puff, and the haircuts, and the grandstanding. Ignore those after their Warhol 15 minutes. Ignore the media who are trying to sell. And simply concentrate on one thing; is this person doing what I believe they should do and what I want them to do and what they promised to do.
And then we all vote according to that.
Not according to what any newspaper or TV station says, not according to who has the prettiest wife or the most macho husband, not young kids, a love of cars, supports the appropriate football team or anything else.
Do their ideals agree with mine.
have they said they will do what I believe to be correct
Do I wish to support them with MY vote.
But if we don't care enough to vote (what was the turn out last time) then why should they care enough to tell the truth.
Remember, more than anything they wish to be in power. If they think the ONLY way of doing that is fulfilling on their promises and behaving how they should, then they will do so.
But right now, it is far far more important to their chances of re-election to manage the media than it is to follow their commitments.
and if you didn't vote, then be quiet.
and if you voted according to what one section of the media or another said about someone's niceness, then be quiet.
and if you voted according to some vested interest, then be quiet
and if you voted, without understanding what you were voting for/on/about, then be quiet.
And if you do not put the good of the country in front of your own benefit, then why would you be surprised that a politican doesn't either, and you should be quiet.
If you voted according to your beliefs and principles, and will be vocal if your politician lets you down, then you should speak and expect to be heard.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 25 Sep 12 at 23:58
|
>>It's getting very silly now...
Now? as opposed to how sensible it was before?
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-19727001
>>
>> It's getting very silly now...
>>
They look very fighting-fit, no flab on the plebs.
Looks like Spiked was right:
www.spiked-online.com/site/article/12907/
"The Dianafication of the police force
From police cuts to Plebgate, where does the Old Bill get off presenting itself as a poor little put-upon victim?
....
Bereft of traditional forms of authority, the police force now appears to be trying to gain a semblance of authority and dignity through casting itself as the victim, whether of cuts, of vicious gun-wielding murderers, of the abusive public, or even of bully-boy government officials throwing insults at them in Latin. Such a tactic will invariably backfire, and policemen stand to lose even more of their standing in the community. After all, who wants objects of pity patrolling the streets? You don’t have to want a return of corrupt head-banging Gene Hunt types ruling the streets to think the police need more backbone. This cop-out by increasingly thin-skinned coppers will benefit no one. "
Last edited by: John H on Wed 26 Sep 12 at 13:24
|
Why Mitchell should have been arrested!
tinyurl.com/cbmrcqn
|
>> Why Mitchell should have been arrested!
>>
>> tinyurl.com/cbmrcqn
>>
No, not really.
S5 is useful for the persistent PITA who won't go away or is intent on rigging up the local police officer (to the detriment of good order, because one clown being excessively vocal can easily invoke the herd mentality and the next thing is you have a load more joining in. When does that become a public order control issue that you can't control?).
You have to give a warning for the person to desist. They stop, no action taken. They carry on, in they come or they get an £80 ticket.
Andrew Mitchell's circumstances were different. He was warned and he desisted. Plus there wasn't a street full of inebriated chief whip's intent on being a nuisance.
Last edited by: Westpig on Thu 27 Sep 12 at 08:20
|
>> Andrew Mitchell's circumstances were different. He was warned and he desisted. Plus there wasn't a
>> street full of inebriated chief whip's intent on being a nuisance.
>>
"The Metropolitan Police has issued a card, designed to be kept behind a warrant badge, telling officers to do nothing if they are abused by a member of the public.
The memory aid states: ‘The courts do not accept that police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as ‘f***, c***, b*******, w******.’ "
Swearing at Police is not a crime:
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8902770/Swearing-at-police-is-not-a-crime-judge-rules.html
However, Met chief says there are other "opportunities":
"Mr Hogan-Howe was speaking on LBC Radio’s Nick Ferrari show. Asked by the presenter whether he would still direct his officers to arrest people who swore, he said: “I still think there are opportunities for that arrest to happen.”
The Commissioner explained that a suspect who swore could be arrested for other offences.
“Quite often they are threatening in their behaviour,” he said. “They are being aggressive or moving towards you, waving their arms about or making threats as well as using abusive language.” "
|
>> “Quite often they are threatening in their behaviour,” he said. “They are being aggressive
>> or moving towards you, waving their arms about or making threats as well as using
>> abusive language.” "
>>
It is all subjective.
There is still a need for an offence like that...to make the inevitable Richard Cranium go away.
The Judge's direction hasn't changed a great deal.
Do we really want our police force listening to torrents of abuse from low life locals? Is that what you pay them to do?
|
There is often a never-quite-answered question in discussions like this:
Does the offence of offending, harassing, etc, have an absolute meaning, or does it depend on evidence that someone was actually offended, harassed?
As the only bystanders who seem actually to have come forward were police officers, can it be argued that there is a higher level of abuse etc necessary to offend a police officer over, say, a maiden aunt?
Perhaps it could be argued that the job of being a police officer means being pretty thick-skinned, perhaps even not offended by anything?
|
>> Does the offence of offending, harassing, etc, have an absolute meaning, or does it depend
>> on evidence that someone was actually offended, harassed?
>>
>> As the only bystanders who seem actually to have come forward were police officers, can
>> it be argued that there is a higher level of abuse etc necessary to offend
>> a police officer over, say, a maiden aunt?
>> Perhaps it could be argued that the job of being a police officer means being
>> pretty thick-skinned, perhaps even not offended by anything?
>>
There has to be someone present and that someone might have been offended. Until recently a police officer could be that person.
The recent court judgement was, in reality, that the police officer could not be that person. Courts over the years have more and more presumed that police officers are used to a degree of low banter.
|
Some years back, at Horseferry Road Magistrates Court there was a Stipendiary Magistrate (District Judge nowadays) who was hearing a public order matter.
The officer's evidence stated that an old lady was offended by the language.
The magistrate said " I don't suppose this lady is here at court is she"? When told she was, he had her sworn in and said..."Congratulations madam, I've been waiting to speak with you for 25 years".
His name was Crowther, very strict, but very fair. Rumour had it that he was Leslie Crowther's brother, but I have no means of verifying that.
|
The full judgement in the case John H mentions is here.
www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/daniel-harvey-v-dpp.pdf
Absence of others likley to be offended and way in which F word used are key.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 27 Sep 12 at 10:14
|
Mistakes can happen but tasered twice? I'm blind it's a walking stick shouts the poor fellow.
Do coppers have a hearing test in Chorley.>:)
|
>>Do coppers have a hearing test in Chorley.>:)
I'm more surprised that the copper didn't arrest the blind man for walking without due care and attention"
The Mac cartoon in the Mail is spot on!
BTW, I think the copper should receive some form of punishment for this. It seems to have been totally reckless. If I knocked down someone I would be expecting a trip to the beak and probably 3 to 6 months.
|
The test for Mitchell was always going to be the return of Parliament this week.
Several commentators thought views at the 1922 committee on Wednesday would do for him. In fact they're reported as being muted ans supportive.
Whip's role is akin to combining shop steward and headmaster. The pupils have giggled and flicked ink pellets at him, the brothers barracked him in the tea break. No respect = position untenable.
Replacement, George Young, is a safe pair of hands. And another cyclist with IIRC a Brompton in his fleet.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 20 Oct 12 at 14:12
|
I've got too many bikes. I'm hanging on to them though. I reckon they'll be worth a bit in due course. Y'know, when there's no recognisable equivalent of today's economy left. People are going to need bikes...
:-)
|
>> I've got too many bikes. I'm hanging on to them though. I reckon they'll be
>> worth a bit in due course. Y'know, when there's no recognisable equivalent of today's economy
>> left. People are going to need bikes...
>>
>> :-)
And racks to put them on, I would hang on to my bike racks as well, make a good hedge in the pension pot - if you have one.
|
Has he been set up? The police wouldn't lie would they?
|
|
The police never lie, you have to believe it or the rule of law means very little if the people who are upholding it cannot be trusted.
|
I trust real coppers, i don't trust the high rankers social cimbers and political stooges as far as i can throw them.
Do real coppers ever make the highest ranks any more, or are fast trackers placed and earmarked from the early days.
I'd really like to hear an answer from our contingent of feet firmly on the ground current and ex officers.
|
>> I trust real coppers, ...
>>
... like those at the Heysel Stadium disaster.
|
>> >> I trust real coppers, ...
>> >>
>>
... like those at the Heysel Hillsborough Stadium disaster.
Last edited by: John H on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 20:28
|
|
The Rank and File went there to do a job of work, and most likely some will still carry the mental scars of the tragedy - the senior Officers in charge were the culpable ones (or so it seems). Don't blame the troops.
|
"Do real coppers ever make the highest ranks any more, or are fast trackers placed and earmarked from the early days.
I'd really like to hear an answer from our contingent of feet firmly on the ground current and ex officers."
Depends on your interpretation of 'real coppers'. Are we talking thief takers with a proven track record of nicking villains, someone who started at the bottom and climbed the greasy pole because of their proven ability or someone who swore in as a Constable and then fast tracked.
At the moment you would still have to start at the bottom but there is a school of thought that better Managers could brought in from the private sector as they 'manage' not nick villains.
Bye and large the majority of the high fliers have been selected for the fast track and their career paths have been like butterflies by moving from one position to another to 'develop' themselves. They are a certain breed, can 'talk the talk' and articulate themselves well in interview.
As someone said to me the other day bosses have not been promoted necessarily on merit but because they wanted to be promoted and then entered into the process of examination and assessment.
|
=
>> As someone said to me the other day bosses have not been promoted necessarily on
>> merit but because they wanted to be promoted and then entered into the process of
>> examination and assessment.
And of course, like everywhere else, the Peter Principal applies.
|
|
The Peter Principal? Prey please enlighten me Z
|
>> Prey please enlighten me Z
Yes, me too. And the word is probably 'principle'
|
|
That will teach me to copy and paste :O
|
>> The Peter Principal? Prey please enlighten me Z
The Peter Principle is a belief that, in an organization where promotion is based on achievement, success, and merit, that organization's members will eventually be promoted beyond their level of ability. The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.
|
|
Aah yes. I've heard that. In our case it is 'promoted above their level of competence'. Same thing.
|
>> The principle is commonly phrased, "employees tend to rise to their level of incompetence.
You missed the implied bit...that's where they spend the rest of their career, in the job they can't do properly ;-)
|
>> Depends on your interpretation of 'real coppers'. Are we talking thief takers with a proven
track record of nicking villains, someone who started at the bottom and climbed the greasy pole because of their proven ability
Thats my definition of a real copper, got hands dirty at the coal face and or led from the front.
>> As someone said to me the other day bosses have not been promoted necessarily on
>> merit but because they wanted to be promoted and then entered into the process of
>> examination and assessment.
Many thanks for that, what i expected has become the norm then.
I expect the increasingly rare old school copper at the top sticks out like a sore thumb, about as welcome as a dose o' clap at high level meetings where the majority are of the chosen variety i expect..:-)
|
It is a mistake to believe that someone who is a good copper will necessarily be a good manager of coppers.
That, amongst other things, is what happened to the steel, coal, car and bike industries and many manufacturing companies.
The required skill set is entirely different. This is one of the most significant mistakes that most car dealership groups currently make; that a good salesman will be a good manager of salesman.
>>I expect the increasingly rare old school copper at the top sticks out like a sore thumb
Yes, although a couple of good clues may well be his complete unsuitability and incompetence.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 21:00
|
"It is a mistake to believe that someone who is a good copper will necessarily be a good manager of coppers."
Which is why of course the armed services have never adopted this policy and always had an officer corp. There are of course a few army officers that have risen through the ranks and have the sill set required but it would be impossible to run an army without a body of officers selected for their ability to manage men. The police force is no different.
|
>> through the ranks and have the sill set required but it would be impossible to
>> run an army without a body of officers selected for their ability to manage men.
Sergeants mostly manage the men, officers merely direct policy and strategic direction.
|
|
A high proportion of "other ranks" who were commissioned during WW1 proved to be far more reliable than the chinless ones - in fact one of the most successful General Officers of that conflict came through the ranks. Lots of commissioned former squaddies in today's army.
|
"A high proportion of "other ranks" who were commissioned during WW1 proved to be far more reliable than the chinless ones - in fact one of the most successful General Officers of that conflict came through the ranks. Lots of commissioned former squaddies in today's army."
All no doubt true but no country in the world would create an army without a trained officer class or a requirement that all the officers had to rise through the ranks . It wouldn't work
Why should the police force be different?
|
>> All no doubt true but no country in the world would create an army without
>> a trained officer class or a requirement that all the officers had to rise through
>> the ranks .
But they do. All officers work their way up the ranks, they just start in a different place to those below them. Some never make it much higher than that starting place. No reason why a proportion of those below cant work their way to that starting point and higher if they have the required capabilities.
|
"But they do. All officers work their way up the ranks, they just start in a different place to those below them. Some never make it much higher than that starting place. No reason why a proportion of those below cant work their way to that starting point and higher if they have the required capabilities. "
I don't disagree. But to believe that the only decent and efficient officers were those that had risen from the rank of private would be as foolish as believing that no enlisted man ever had the skill needed to become an officer.
|
I said...
>>It is a mistake to believe that someone who is a good copper will necessarily be a good manager of coppers.
Not that they cannot be, not that they will never be, not denying that some are, but that it is a mistake to assume that BECAUSE they are a good copper, that they WILL be a good manager of coppers.
And the vast majority would not be. Any more than a manager of coppers would make a good copper. Its a different skillset. Now, it is quite possible for one person doing a particular job to have a skillset suited to another job, but it is not frequent.
Its called a "generalisation". Two particular things are true of a generalisation;
1) They are usually true
2) They are not always true
|
|
Friend of mine started as a miner in the Nottinghamshire coalfield, joined the RAF and went on to be the Commandant of the Empire Test Pilot's School.
|
Chief whip swears at police. - madf
