***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 5 *****
Channel 4 News blows holes in the story
www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-police-cctv-downing-street
Now what!!! ???
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 28 Apr 14 at 01:10
|
>> www.channel4.com/news/andrew-mitchell-plebgate-police-cctv-downing-street
>>
>> Now what!!! ???
>>
As I alluded/predicted two days ago:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=12759&m=286710
"... can lead to a low ranking pleb Police Officer getting in to trouble. "
p.s. You might very well think that perhaps I know a lot more, but perhaps I don't; I couldn't possibly comment. ;-)
Last edited by: John H on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 20:18
|
|
Perhaps the one thing more certain to bring a shower of crap down on you than getting up old bill's nose is getting up the hooter of a vengeful cabinet minister.
|
If a copper has sent the email as a 'witness' as alluded to by the Channel 4 report, he'd better pack his toothbrush.
And his "Big Bubba-proof" underwear.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Tue 18 Dec 12 at 22:59
|
|
Another scowly face for God know's what AC. Rather think you have upset a vengeful cabinet minister yourself or at least some self appointed censor.
|
>>Another scowly face for God know's what
I had assumed that someone was doing it simply to devalue the process. The Mods will know, because its identified to them who did it. They would also know if its one person just messing around or a variety of people at different times suggesting some kind of validity.
There doesn't seem to be any logic to the targets, either by author or point of view.
|
>> The Mods will know, because its identified to them who did it.
You'd have thought so wouldn't you.
Yes, we can look at the log stats, but it would be like looking through a needle in a haystack. Each and every entry would have to be looked at (and there are a lot to look through).
Perhaps Stephen knows a quicker way; I certainly don't.
|
Surely it sends the report, with the username, irrespective of whether or not a comment is put in.
I bet Stephen gets them.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 19 Dec 12 at 02:05
|
|
So long as the Report Message feature continues to work well I will live with the red faces. Overuse of the face will eventually get it to be ignored.
|
The report must go to someone, who presumably can decide whether to act on it or not, otherwise what is the point of the feature?
Or is it just intended as a warning to fellow forumites - avert your eyes from this post, you may find it grossly offensive?
I'm miffed that AC seems to get so many red faces for being so innofensive. Even Zero picks up very few, despite trying hard. Is it the ultimate accolade, the main qualification for which is never having asked for it?
|
|
Anyone noticed that AC has a red face for his contribution to the nuclear transport / protester discussion?
|
|
Yes. It must have been meant for his daughter! I gave him a thumb to cancel it out, which probably annoyed him more as he collects the faces. Sticks them on the side of the Cruiser.
|
>> The report must go to someone, who presumably can decide whether to act on it
>> or not, otherwise what is the point of the feature?
If you use the "report message" button, then yes the mods get an email, but if you use the red circle, we only get an email if you add a comment.
|
>> Surely it sends the report, with the username, irrespective of whether or not a comment
>> is put in.
Nope. It updates the stats, but we only get an email if someone leaves a comment.
"You may add an optional comment for the moderators of this site.
Leave this field blank to simply rate without commenting."
>> I bet Stephen gets them.
He hasn't mentioned it.
|
>> think you have upset a vengeful cabinet minister yourself or at least some self appointed censor.
Just a creep it seems. Indiscriminately slapping them on posts.
|
However. Despite the 326 posts on this subject:-
There is no escaping the fact that, regardless of whether Mitchell used the expression 'pleb' or not, he brought about his own downfall.
When he was told he could not take his bike through the main gate, if he had said 'ok' and taken it through the pedestrian gate none of this would have happened.
He chose to argue. He chose to use foul language to the police. In short he chose to behave like a complete pig.
As a result, he has lost his job. One police officer has been arrested. Another individual has been arrested. All because one man would not respond to a reasonable request by a police officer in uniform.
|
" All because one man would not respond to a reasonable request by a police officer in uniform."
He did respond to the request and left by the side gate. He just wasn't very happy about it and whatever version of words you chose to believe were used by him they were they were pretty mild by what the police must hear every day of the week.
If the police in question are such a load of pathetic wimps that they are upset by the occasional harsh word then they all deserve to lose their jobs. What a load of fuss about nothing.
|
>>One police officer has been arrested. Another individual has been arrested. All because one man would not respond to a reasonable request by a police officer in uniform. <<<
On the face of it this could be probably the best outcome from the incident. If the individual is capable of (badly) fabricating a story here, what else would he be prepared to do when not subject to such close press/police scrutiny? Did he fall into the MENSA grouping for IQ, I guess not.
Will the PC loose his job/pension or has he managed a timely resignation?
|
>> He did respond to the request and left by the side gate. He just wasn't
>> very happy about it and whatever version of words you chose to believe were used
>> by him they were they were pretty mild by what the police must hear every
>> day of the week.
But you do not expect, nor can you condone or excuse such words or behaviour from a member of the cabinet, who supposedly should know better. He should be out.
You should also expect that the police be truthful in recounting all that transpired, and anyone caught lying for any reason should be out, possibly on the back of criminal charges.
A tale of two wrongs.
|
|
Thwarted ex-military guy lets out an expletive en passant: so what? The man is a cabinet minister, not a vicar! As for behaviour, the video doesn't seem to show a confrontation. AM seems to be targetted by BiB. We'll see what emerges in due course. Maybe.
|
"But you do not expect, nor can you condone or excuse such words or behaviour from a member of the cabinet, who supposedly should know better. He should be out. "
I neither excuse or condone but have been around long enough to know that nearly everyone is capable of being annoyed enough to swear or make a sarcastic remark and that cabinet ministers, being human, are no different. It's about time that we as a nation just grew up a bit.
|
>> "But you do not expect, nor can you condone or excuse such words or behaviour
>> from a member of the cabinet, who supposedly should know better. He should be out.
>> "
>>
>> I neither excuse or condone but have been around long enough to know that nearly
>> everyone is capable of being annoyed enough to swear or make a sarcastic remark and
>> that cabinet ministers, being human, are no different. It's about time that we as a
>> nation just grew up a bit.
I disagree, if a member of the public was caught doing the same thing, someone like the chief whip or any member of the cabinet would have no problem publicly crucifying him. Live by the sword etc.
We will have to leave at the disagreement stage, I wont convince you and you wont convince me.
|
>> We will have to leave at the disagreement stage, I wont convince you and you
>> wont convince me.
>>
Blimey!
|
>> if a member of the public was caught doing the same thing, someone like the chief whip or any member of the cabinet would have no problem publicly crucifying him.
Really? When did you last hear of a cabinet minister publicly crucifying 'a member of the public' for getting shirty with an annoying copper? In the very unlikely event that a minister would comment on something so completely piffling, something that happens probably 100 times a day nationwide, he might easily sympathise with the shirty citizen, especially now that the government is in a squabble with the BiB.
Superficially persuasive, fundamentally wrong on closer examination. Rubbish.
|
>> I neither excuse or condone but have been around long enough to know that nearly
>> everyone is capable of being annoyed enough to swear or make a sarcastic remark and
>> that cabinet ministers, being human, are no different. It's about time that we as a
>> nation just grew up a bit.
>>
I don't mind people being sarcastic at me but I draw the line at swearing at me. I would consider anyone who swore at me - like the Chief Whip admitted to doing to the police - to be an ignorant uncouth oik not worthy of being an MP and certainly unworthy of holding any office of state..
And yes I did work for a MD who swore a lot at everyone... and eventually made my choice and left to a better job.
Last edited by: madf on Mon 31 Dec 12 at 13:00
|
Many MPs are ignorant, uncouth oiks.
Many are not fit to be MPs.
Quite a few oiks are "elevated" to the Lords.
|
>> Many MPs are ignorant, uncouth oiks.
>> Many are not fit to be MPs.
>> Quite a few oiks are "elevated" to the Lords.
>>
>>
Those lower classes with their funny regional accents who have made a success of their lives are really annoying aren't they?
|
|
As has been demonstrated may times, ignorance, uncouthness and oikishness are by no means the prerogatives of the "lower classes".
|
Thumbs from me Roger, well said.
Pat
|
>> As has been demonstrated may times, ignorance, uncouthness and oikishness are by no means the
>> prerogatives of the "lower classes".
>>
Yeah, but ..
.... They are exceptions that prove the rule.
Boom boom, heh heh. :-)
|
As you well know Roger unlike ignorance an oik is a term use to describe exclusively those perceived as socially inferior. It originates from public school slang.
You did not say they they were uncouth or ignorant you said they were oiks.
For the sake of clarity let us have a list of those MPs and member of the house of Lords who you believe to be an oiks
|
>> As you well know Roger unlike ignorance an oik is a term use to describe
>> exclusively those perceived as socially inferior. It originates from public school slang.
>>
>> You did not say they they were uncouth or ignorant you said they were oiks.
>>
>> For the sake of clarity let us have a list of those MPs and member
>> of the house of Lords who you believe to be an oiks
>>
>>
>>
Be fair (and learn to read the thread:-)
I called them oiks.. not Roger.. Altoi' he is perfectly capable of standing up etc...
Most MPs are honourable. All those who abused and continue to abuse expenses are Oiks..
And:
Anyone think Ed Balls is not an Oik? If he looks one and talks like one, he is one...
|
madf, I think CG is at odds with the world tonight and wants to end 2012 in a strop:)
Just turn the other cheek, then he'll have to have a proper flounce!
Pat
|
>> madf, I think CG is at odds with the world tonight and wants to end
>> 2012 in a strop:)
>>
>> Just turn the other cheek, then he'll have to have a proper flounce!
>>
>> Pat
>>
Thanks Pat
I'll show him my right buttock cheek this time :-)
|
>> Be fair (and learn to read the thread:-)
>>
>> I called them oiks.. not Roger.. Altoi' he is perfectly capable of standing up etc...
I suggest you read the thread. He wrote:
"Many MPs are ignorant, uncouth oiks.
Many are not fit to be MPs.
Quite a few oiks are "elevated" to the Lords."
|
>> I don't mind people being sarcastic at me but I draw the line at swearing
>> at me. I would consider anyone who swore at me - like the Chief Whip
>> admitted to doing to the police - to be an ignorant uncouth oik not worthy
>> of being an MP and certainly unworthy of holding any office of state..
>>
No, he didn't swear at them.
He swore, but it was not directed at the plebs.
Last edited by: John H on Mon 31 Dec 12 at 15:25
|
>> No, he didn't swear at them.
>>
>> He swore, but it was not directed at the plebs.
>>
>>
And the Police are expected to ignore it, hence the need for 'shocked bystanders'.
|
>> When he was told he could not take his bike through the main gate, if
>> he had said 'ok' and taken it through the pedestrian gate none of this would
>> have happened.
>>
If the pleb had allowed the MP through like he has always been before, none of this pleb at the gate nonsense would have happened.
|
>>>If the pleb had allowed the MP through like he has always been before, none of this pleb at the gate nonsense would have happened.<<
...and that is why the world is not such a nice place to live in these days.
You allow someone/amyone a concession too often and they think it is their right.
When you no longer allow it, it is you who are wrong in the eyes of everyone.
Can you blame the clipboard and uniform warriors for doing it by the book, however petty it may seem?
Pat
|
|
Riding through a gateway doesn't involve a "concession" to be given, does it? These officers carry loaded weapons. Now call me old-fashioned, but I'd expect them to be level headed, and not start arguments that divert their attention from the protection of the Govt. I think they may come to regret this farce when they are back to being woodentops.
|
|
So its all the fault of the police? Riiiiiight!
|
>> So its all the fault of the police? Riiiiiight!
The original incident may be. The phenomenal fuss about it certainly is.
I have no idea what Mitchell is like, but he has convincing defenders. Old Bill has looked well shifty right from the start.
|
>> I think they may come to regret this farce when they are back to being woodentops.
>>
I do think that 'woodentops' is a very silly expression.
:-(
|
|
It's a police description. By CID of their constables ordinaire...
|
|
I always thought it a nickname for a certain army unit. Don't think I've heard it used in terms of the police.
|
>> I always thought it a nickname for a certain army unit. Don't think I've heard
>> it used in terms of the police.
>>
The pilot episode of the police series The Bill was called The Wooden Tops.
I accept that I am sad for knowing that !
|
|
Don't be, might be the tiebreaker in a pub quiz one day ;-)
|
OK, rationally, I can see fault on both sides. As for appropriate consequences, well, that's way above my head.
However, I have a long term disrespect for the police. Are you shocked? Disappointed? Offended? Good, because that is exactly how they made me feel.
One Saturday night, long ago I was driving home with two pals in the car. We had had a good evening and were returning from a party. A police car pulled us over and we were "invited" to get out of the car. We were dragged up an alley by the two occupants of the police car and those of a following police van. what followed was nothing less than gratuitous violence on the part of the police officers. We were beaten to the ground, kicked, spat on and insulted verbally in the strongest terms. i suffered broken ribs and one of my friends took a kick to his face which broke his nose.
After a while they evidently received a call on their radios to inform them that the perpetrators of the crime they thought they had apprehended us for had been found elsewhere.
They told us to be on our way and using the foulest of language threatened us that if we lodged a complaint that it wouldn't go well for us. We had done nothing wrong but at 18 or so years of age we were frightened enough not to escalate things and claimed injuries from a rugby match earlier in the day to excuse our condition to those who cared.
Sure it was a different time. "Life on Mars" and all that.
I shall never forgive them though and spare me the "honour" of the police officer speech.
|
I have had one bad experience with the police where I got slapped about a bit.
I've had many where I was at fault and they were fair and courteous. I've had some where I was totally obnoxious and was still treated reasonably.
Of course there are idiots, but rather less these days I suspect. But the majority of them are decent people trying to do a decent job, like most of the rest of us.
|
>> the majority of them are decent people trying to do a decent job, like most of the rest of us.
Yes. But there are 'bad nicks', stations full of bad apples with a bad-apple canteen culture.
By some miracle I have never suffered physical violence at the hands of the police even when I was asking for it. But I've met them often enough to know that they aren't all nice by any means, and that some are shamelessly criminal. Hardly surprising though, since they are in the crime business along with the toerags of all sizes.
|
"But I've met them often enough to know that they aren't all nice by any means, and that some are shamelessly criminal."
In other words, the police are just like anybody else. MPs, journalists, vicars, teachers, plumbers, doctors, solicitors, you name it. Mixed bunch in every walk of life.
Likewise, in every walk of life, even those who are OK often feel a duty to stand up for and excuse the actions of the dishonest - and even help cover them up. Group loyalty, institutional mindset, call it what you will.
|
|
Aw shucks I feel better about them already. Those guys !
|
>> I feel better about them already. Those guys !
Yeah, horseplay can get out of hand sometimes. Broken ribs though Humph, can you still feel the breaks when the weather changes?
They jumped to conclusions about you because you were young and there were three of you in a car. If you had been young and black with the bunch you met, you might never have been seen again... but one doesn't want to exaggerate. Real horror stories are quite rare although they do occur.
A Jamaican friend, now dead, but a person of great presence and authority, waded in one carnival and saved the life perhaps, anyway the ribs and features, of a uniformed copper having the living whassername kicked out of him by a bunch of young blacks who had got him on the ground. He was very disapproving of the youths being of an earlier, less paranoid generation. I still miss the old boy although he often gave me a hard time. A true mensch.
|
>> They told us to be on our way and using the foulest of language threatened
>> us that if we lodged a complaint that it wouldn't go well for us. We
>> had done nothing wrong but at 18 or so years of age we were frightened
>> enough not to escalate things and claimed injuries from a rugby match earlier in the
>> day to excuse our condition to those who cared.
>>
>> Sure it was a different time. "Life on Mars" and all that.
>>
Sure I think most of the generation on here have had run ins with the old bill when in our youth, I certainly did when I was running with a soccer hooligan crowd, mixing it with some of the more nastier aspects of the met, (like the SPG) but I am grown up enough to realise that we probably came over as exceptionally obnoxious and stroppy ( I got pulled every time I went out as a 19 year old kid in a brand new capri - must have been pretty galling for them), and I don't carry those events around with me like baggage.
I think the legal system is pretty rubbish in general tho.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 2 Jan 13 at 00:35
|
|
I was stone cold sober, polite, and driving a Wolesley Hornet. But yes, baggage...
|
>> I was stone cold sober, polite, and driving a Wolesley Hornet. But yes, baggage...
Yes a Woolsey Hornet would leave me mentally scarred.
|
>> polite
Polite eh? Big mistake.
'You taking the urine son? Trying to outponce us are you? C'm'ere up this alley where it's nice and dark...'
But thinking back, cold and formal doesn't work either when they're in that sort of mood or feeding frenzy.
'You don't need to know my first name constable. Just call me sir or Mr whatever.'
'Withholding information are we Spadger? Come with us.'
Heh heh... anxious, sweaty days.
|
|
I know AC, I really do but I suppose I would resultantly always nonetheless be at least wary of any witness statement unless it could be corroberated in an entirely non-partisan way. To loosely return to the thread...
|
>> we probably came over as exceptionally obnoxious and stroppy
What, even you Zero? You are just trying to whitewash your fellow hooligans by pretending to be as rough as them. Admirable of course, but wasted effort. We know what you're really like.
(Smarmy smirk).
|
>> However, I have a long term disrespect for the police.
Are they all like that?
>> I shall never forgive them though and spare me the "honour" of the police officer
>> speech.
Do no police officers have any honour?
|
Of course you are right WP and it was all a very long time ago. The individuals concerned are all almost sertainly now retired if not dead and are irrelevant to topical discussion. I suppose all coins have two sides in the end and we all do well to remember to recognise that.
Anyway ! It's the first morning of the year, the sky is for once blessedly blue and all is well.
Happy New Year !
Time for some positivity from me I think...Where's me bike?
:-)
|
Another arrest.. tinyurl.com/a5w6kfj
The arrested officer was part of Scotland Yard's diplomatic protection group and was not present during the incident at the Downing Street gates in September last year.
He was arrested at his London workplace by officers from the directorate of professional standards and is currently in custody at a central London police station.
In a statement, the Met said: "The allegations in relation to this matter are extremely serious and it is therefore vital that a thorough and proportionate investigation is carried ou
|
Further arrests including a serving Constable:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22919576
|
One officer charged with misconduct in public office. Five subject to disciplinary process.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/nov/26/plebgate-police-officer-charged-andrew-mitchell
|
|
I hope they don't forget to do all the scoping that was required in the early stages of this saga.
|
Not my favourite person this Andrew Mitchell but it looks more and more he has been set up by our constables.
He won't be the first one..>:)
|
>> looks more and more he has been set up by our constables.
He sort of asked for it, Dutchie. And so did the old bill. The Nigerians call it a 'roforofo fight': both parties end up bleeding, muddy and with torn clothing, but no clear winner.
|
|
True A.C To big for his boots on his bike.I don't think many of his tory friends like him.
|
|
These factors excuse the police?
|
I have no doubt he was a nasty obnoxious git and deserves a slapping, I also have no doubts that ole bill cooked up a load of cobblers afterwards to justify/embellish/deflect blame. They also deserve a slapping.
No-one comes out of this well.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 26 Nov 13 at 16:37
|
I am reminded of a comment on the Hola Massacre. During the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya there were 15 terrorist prison camps. In that at Hola 127 prisoners were considered hardcore. The camp commandant gave orders to club 88 of them into submission. 11 died and the remaining 77 received serious and permanent injuries. One of the colonial officials was called Huggins and his wife, Lady Huggins, said publically that, well, yes, some of the prisoners died but they were very bad men and would not have been allowed back in their villages. So that was all right.
|
"No-one comes out of this well."
So, who do we dislike/distrust the least, then - the police or the politicians?
Banana republic - here we come!
|
>> Banana republic - here we come!
After the banana revolution needed to smash the banana monarchy we have now you mean Haywain? How tiring it sounds. Enough to put a man off bananas.
|
|
Well, he was in the army, and selected as a whip. Can't imagine he'd be suffering fools gladly. As for a few salty phrases - the PC's involved must never have been in a disciplined service. Poor darlings.
Last edited by: NIL on Tue 26 Nov 13 at 17:48
|
>> Well, he was in the army, and selected as a whip. Can't imagine he'd be
>> suffering fools gladly. As for a few salty phrases - the PC's involved must never
>> have been in a disciplined service. Poor darlings.
>>
So, it's ok to go up to a stranger and use obscene language?
|
>>
>> So, it's ok to go up to a stranger and use obscene language?
>>
Depends what team he plays for.
|
|
Muttered imprecations en passant are quite different to the slant you try to give. They didn't warn him. They didn't caution him. There were no charges. Yet the police chose to make the matter public through the press, and embellished the story. Now of course, the Met "evidence" to the IPCC is that there was no conspiracy. On their own heads be it.
|
>> Muttered imprecations en passant are quite different to the slant you try to give. They
>> didn't warn him. They didn't caution him. There were no charges. Yet the police chose
>> to make the matter public through the press, and embellished the story. Now of course,
>> the Met "evidence" to the IPCC is that there was no conspiracy. On their own
>> heads be it.
If any good comes of this it will be a realisation at a senior level in the governing party that (a) police are capable stitching people up and (b) when such allegations are in play they should not be investigating themselves.
|
>> No-one comes out of this well.
Fair dos though Zero. It does look as if Andrew Mitchell is a fairly nasty and silly person who has asked for trouble, and as if the police have blotted their copybooks with their usual brilliance and also seem to be in trouble.
Doesn't make anyone look good, don't you agree?
|
And of course like any scheming politician he is now exploiting the xxxx up from the Police perspective to totally exonerate himself from any wrong doing.
I am at a loss to understand why the Police went down the route they did.
|
|
Other than standing round in the cold all day must have numbed their brains.
|
|
It's really caused a lot of damage to the Police. They're now at the mercy of the two political parties and Policing in the UK will never be the same again. In a bad way. This stupid lot from the Federation have caused themselves, their Forces and the Profession untold damage - they really need to re-consider their futures and should quit - but they won't they'll stick it out....
|
And Mitchell is rubbing his hands.
Its all playing to the bigger picture. Every opportunity is being exploited to discredit the Police and has been for some time. A total revamp is in the wings. Regionalisation is raising it's head again. The publics' perception is being manipulated.
I saw a clip from one of those all party public committee inquiries the other day regarding crime statistics. Some ex copper with an axe to grind was taking delight in telling the committee that figures were being massaged. Well 'no carp Sherlock'. Figures have always been manipulated and that's because of the performance requirements set by the Home Office.
|
>> And Mitchell is rubbing his hands.
>>
>> Its all playing to the bigger picture. Every opportunity is being exploited to discredit the
>> Police and has been for some time.
That would be a seriously dangerous and stupid thing to do if it were true.
Isn't it just the press doing its usual destructive work?
There's always another load of manure on the way isn't there?
|
>> That would be a seriously dangerous and stupid thing to do if it were true.
Oh it's true all right. It's called divide and conquer (make sure the public don't revere the police like they used to).
I can only think the main reason is money. For quite some time, the British way was to support (in a financial sense) the Old Bill, something along the lines of ensuring a degree of quality etc...
Well PCSOs instead of PCs started the rot...
...and it's now carried on with all sorts of other things.
I'm not sure if the Tories think the Old Bill became too close to New Labour (the top echelons certainly did) or whether it's just a save some money attitude in the recession...but there's a concerted boot going in...and it's sustained.
Maybe it's just a control thing, the police were too autonomous.
Whatever, it's to the detriment of all of us.
|
>> (make sure the public don't
>> revere the police like they used to).
What? when was then then? Its true the police can only police the light handed way they do because of public support, but revere? Sorry pal you are living under a misapprehension there.
There is a general feeling that the police need to be more accountable, there have been too many recent and growing instances that makes the public uneasy. This plebgate thing is just one of them.
Sorry to tell you, but the police have managed to sow the seeds quite nicely on their own without anyone putting the boot in.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 26 Nov 13 at 22:51
|
>> What? when was then then? Its true the police can only police the light handed
>> way they do because of public support, but revere? Sorry pal you are living under
>> a misapprehension there.
Customer satisfaction surveys and the like have always had the Old Bill very high up the order (whether or not you think they should have been). No idea what they are nowadays, I've been out for nearly 2 years now.
>>
>> There is a general feeling that the police need to be more accountable, there have
>> been too many recent and growing instances that makes the public uneasy. This plebgate thing
>> is just one of them.
Yes..and where has that 'general feeling' come from..Press and MP's maybe?
>> Sorry to tell you, but the police have managed to sow the seeds quite nicely
>> on their own without anyone putting the boot in.
To some extent, 'yes', although there's always been tits willing to blot their copybook, it happens in all walks of life. However there's been a concentrated effort going on for quite some time. It was subtle at first, but has become more noticeable now.
Bear in mind A, I'm not employed by them any more and B, welcome the backside's being kicked of anyone who steps out of line...however, knowing what I know of that game, it concerns me, greatly, that there is now going to be overt political control and the leadership has been emasculated...that is not good for all of us.
|
=
>> Yes..and where has that 'general feeling' come from..Press and MP's maybe?
no, the actions of the police themselves. I won't list the litany of cases and events behind that.
|
>> >> (make sure the public don't
>> >> revere the police like they used to).
>>
>> What? when was then then? Its true the police can only police the light handed
>> way they do because of public support, but revere? Sorry pal you are living under
>> a misapprehension there.
I revered the nice policeman on duty outside No. 10 in about 1952, I think, when I toddled along Downing Street to be shown where the prime minister lived.
Of course it was just an ordinary street then, policemen smiled at children, and traditional British standards prevailed. I had no inclination to call him a pleb.
|
|
As yes, Cliff. Good job you were there during the window of Traditional British Values, 1920 - 1960, as astutely outlined by another poster in another thread.
|
>> >> That would be a seriously dangerous and stupid thing to do if it were
>> true.
>>
>> Oh it's true all right. It's called divide and conquer (make sure the public don't
>> revere the police like they used to).
They've used the same tactics for thirty years to beat Unions and convert swathes of other public services to the private sector model that profits their cronies in Serco, G4S etc.
Education and the NHS have been subject to a campaign of denigration by Ministers and their cronies who write headlines for the Mail.
When they came for your lot there was no one left to speak out.
|
At least you get a big public sector redundancy and early retirement :-) I assume it's redundancy and not a confidentiality agreement.*
* I am guessing it's standard T&C redundancy but I should not assume. But if I had say worked for the civil service (or TUPE'd from them) for say 25 years (I've not) and was on £50k pa (say) with 10% pa pension contributions (I don't I get 20%). I think I'd get £164k redundancy payment. Only £30k tax free though. I'd go for that!
Note I've based this on TUPE'd conditions I know of from civil service (PCSPS), PILO, lost contributions to pension etc. And there'd be the pension on top of course if you retire early.
Best of luck to you :-) I'm jealous.
|
Just switched to the redundancy terms I'm meant to be on from what I calculated above and with the bogus data it was about £13k less than I think I'd get. Down to age.... so I think I got a fair estimate based on someone a bit older than me working for 25 years at the Civil Service. I won't get nearly as much.
Makes me think of the Amazon workers again. Would they ever get a decent pension or a worthwhile redundancy payment? No I don't think so.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 27 Nov 13 at 00:04
|
>> At least you get a big public sector redundancy and early retirement :-) I assume
>> it's redundancy and not a confidentiality agreement.*
>>
>>
>> * I am guessing it's standard T&C redundancy but I should not assume. But if
>> I had say worked for the civil service (or TUPE'd from them) for say 25
>> years (I've not) and was on £50k pa (say) with 10% pa pension contributions (I
>> don't I get 20%). I think I'd get £164k redundancy payment. Only £30k tax free
>> though. I'd go for that!
It's a T&C voluntary redundancy based on my last post becoming redundant. The organisation I worked in since 2002 was abolished by an order under the Public Bodies Act 2011 (part of the bonfire of the Quangos). Qualifying criteria were limited to failure to be matched to a vacant post.
The Civil Service Compensation Scheme was reformed in 2012. Cash redundancy (voluntary) is limited to 21 months salary and a frozen pension payable at 60.
Compulsory terms are considerably worse.
Never attained the dizzy heights of £50k. I've been on a frozen max for my grade (SEO) for last 5yrs.
The key for the over fifities is early pension based on yrs served to date and without actuarial reduction for early payment. No lump sum though unless I commute a substantial amount of pension.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 27 Nov 13 at 09:37
|
>> And Mitchell is rubbing his hands.
>>
>> Its all playing to the bigger picture. Every opportunity is being exploited to discredit the
>> Police and has been for some time. A total revamp is in the wings. Regionalisation
>> is raising it's head again. The publics' perception is being manipulated.
>>
>> I saw a clip from one of those all party public committee inquiries the other
>> day regarding crime statistics. Some ex copper with an axe to grind was taking delight
>> in telling the committee that figures were being massaged. Well 'no carp Sherlock'. Figures have
>> always been manipulated and that's because of the performance requirements set by the Home Office.
Couldn't agree more.
Sad thing is, the current crop of politicians putting the boot in..and the changes that'll easily now come with it...are not for the good of the country.
|
>> And Mitchell is rubbing his hands.
Very possibly, but the police made the mistake of embellishing their evidence. Nobody made them do that, they did it on their own initiative.
>> Every opportunity is being exploited to discredit the Police and has been for some time. >>
Well, the Police Federation and the ordinary coppers who had any involvement at all in Plebgate have been doing their best to discredit the police, and it would seem, without even trying.
|
Looks interesting
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25216627
I started proceedings for libel once, via the Police Federation, so know roughly how the system works. I cannot imagine the PC is funding this himself.
The PF will first of all make a management decision as to the merits of the claim. If they feel it worthy of further consideration, they'll put it to a barrister for advice. If he/she thinks it has a chance, they'll then go further.
In my case the barrister basically said 'no', so it ended.
Now I know this case is obviously high profile..and..the PF may well have an axe to grind, however, if legal advice said 'forget it'..would they go forward anyway?
More to come on this, then.
If you were a PC who had embellished something and been caught out, would you really sue an ex-Govt minister and sitting MP...in the spotlight that there has been? Somewhat foolish move if you did, you'd want to try to get your head down, wouldn't you?
|
Or, in for a penny, in for a pound.
Who knows what really happened. Same with Lawson v Saatchi. He said/she said.
Blooming nonsense.
|
|
Trouble is if he keeps his head down, people may [will] assume that he did "embellish". Perhaps he's been so strong about his own honesty to friends, colleagues and family that he's caught in a bit of a credibility trap.
|
>> Trouble is if he keeps his head down, people may [will] assume that he did
>> "embellish". Perhaps he's been so strong about his own honesty to friends, colleagues and family
>> that he's caught in a bit of a credibility trap.
I take the point..but...it would be very easy to say to folk "I'd like to sue, but A, can't afford it/Federation not interested and B, have been warned it's not wise to take on the Govt".
|
True. But if he was a rational thinker he might not have got himself into this mess in the first place.
And the media focus won't be helping him think clearly either.
I feel quite sorry for the bloke actually. Its easy to get carried away with stories without thinking stuff through, and this level of attention is pretty heavy.
|
>> Now I know this case is obviously high profile..and..the PF may well have an axe
>> to grind, however, if legal advice said 'forget it'..would they go forward anyway?
If legal advice is a blunt 'this is a non starter' then they'll forget it. If however advice is a nuanced 'maybe' they will press on.
The vast majority of these cases settle. The costs only start to escalate when case gets to hearing. Even if they wait until they see the courtroom door somebody will probably roll over.
No real publicity until hearing so could go either way without the media's super trouper falling on anyone.
|
A snippet from the 13.00 news appeared to say that Mitchell is taking on the Sun for libel. (ie repeating in print the claims of the copper). Two independent cases.
So what happens if the cases come to separate differing conclusions? Quite possible I assume, if the lawyers are different and present the information differently in each case.
|
Channel 4 News blows holes in the story. - John H
