Conservative MP - Police Rant.

[crankedup]

Gene Vincent said:

Derek Smith said:

Gene Vincent said:

Who's damning the police?

It is part of the 'english psyche' to attempt to take down the pompous and the self-agrandised... in this instance we had both elements... the 'pompous' be the tt on a bike and the self-agrandised was a tt in a uniform.

That... is a 'double-bubble' moron-fest, played out right in front of us.

Two civil-servants, neither being civil and neither being servile.

...anyway, stop playing the 'poor old policeman' card, it's wearing a bit thin through over-use.

Cheers

Gene.

Has there been any suggestion that the police were not civil throughout the exchange? There has been no suggstion that they were being anything other than polite and respectful.

Further, you can serve without being servile. You can do it even if you feel comtempt for the person you are serving.

I look at it slightly differently, the bloke lives in that street, at No12 in fact. So if he wants the fking gate opened into the road where he lives then he has every fking right to!

The problem with the moron of a cop at that time was he couldn't see this because he was a jobsworth who was too dumb to even work out why he was there in the first instance, so in the Chief whips place I'd have called him some choice names too and I wouldn't apologise later either.

You won't like this advise is my guess, check your facts before questioning, your well out of order.

[ClaphamGT3]

Halb said:

Which seems to fit in with this particular person following the rules that all abide by and using the correct doorway for his chosen method of transport, that is minimal intrusion.
I would also think that the police are there to maintain security for all by sticking to well defined and well known procedures, and not allowing one selfish individual to disrupt that service at the detriment to others.

See the post above this, regarding procedures.

I'll say again that Mitchell should not have been dis-courteous but the actions of the police officer seem less and less defensible.

As for the lunacy of threatening to arrest one of the very people you serve to protect - you really couldn't make it up.

The increasing media furore around this with a ceaseless cavalcade of righteously indignant policemen spouting off to the media about Mitchell's behaviour is rapidly going to become counter-productive to them

[Gene Vincent]

crankedup said:

You won't like this advise is my guess, check your facts before questioning, your well out of order.

In what way?

I don't baulk at any advisement, providing it has substance, give your post some substance so I don't just ignore it off-hand as just a load of bluster.

[Gene Vincent]

Guam said:

And in other news, Politicians are arrogant self serving lying tts

That's not news, that's a job description!

[Countdown]

ClaphamGT3 said:

As for the lunacy of threatening to arrest one of the very people you serve to protect - you really couldn't make it up.

Eh? They do it every day. They protect every one of us and arrest quite a few of us. The Chief Whip does not have any special status. He personally does NOT get any extra entitlements nor does he get any exemptions.

[Gene Vincent]

Countdown said:

Eh? They do it every day. They protect every one of us and arrest quite a few of us. The Chief Whip does not have any special status. He personally does NOT get any extra entitlements nor does he get any exemptions.

Fine... except he's not on ordinary police duties is he.

[Halb]

ClaphamGT3 said:

See the post above this, regarding procedures.
I'll say again that Mitchell should not have been dis-courteous but the actions of the police officer seem less and less defensible.
As for the lunacy of threatening to arrest one of the very people you serve to protect - you really couldn't make it up.
The increasing media furore around this with a ceaseless cavalcade of righteously indignant policemen spouting off to the media about Mitchell's behaviour is rapidly going to become counter-productive to them

I am currently looking for the procedure.
How do the actions of the police seem less and less defensible, how is it going down in defence?
Lunacy to uphold the law? Are there those that are above the law? A two tier system seems lunacy.
Out of this furore, I would hazard a guess the biggest losers will be the Torys, if they don't handle it correctly.

[Countdown]

Gene Vincent said:

Countdown said:

Eh? They do it every day. They protect every one of us and arrest quite a few of us. The Chief Whip does not have any special status. He personally does NOT get any extra entitlements nor does he get any exemptions.

Fine... except he's not on ordinary police duties is he.

Isn't he? I'm guessing the role he's playing falls within the remit of ordinary police duties.

Or to put it another way - why would his actions change if it was an ordinary member of the Public rather than the CW?

[whoami]

Countdown said:

Gene Vincent said:

Countdown said:

Eh? They do it every day. They protect every one of us and arrest quite a few of us. The Chief Whip does not have any special status. He personally does NOT get any extra entitlements nor does he get any exemptions.

Fine... except he's not on ordinary police duties is he.

Isn't he? I'm guessing the role he's playing falls within the remit of ordinary police duties.

Or to put it another way - why would his actions change if it was an ordinary member of the Public rather than the CW?

Which is the central point of the whole issue.

[Countdown]

Halb said:

I am currently looking for the procedure.
How do the actions of the police seem less and less defensible, how is it going down in defence?
Lunacy to uphold the law? Are there those that are above the law? A two tier system seems lunacy.
Out of this furore, I would hazard a guess the biggest losers will be the Torys, if they don't handle it correctly.

It may well be a misconception of mine but I think some on PH feel that some people are "better" than "others" simply and purely because of the job they do or the wealth they have and are therefore entitled to a higher level of deference.

I couldnt care less if the man was the Chief Whip, the Prime Minister, or the local binman. I expect the PC to treat them all exactly the same. In fact I demand it, after all, I pay his bloody wages

[Gene Vincent]

Countdown said:

Gene Vincent said:

Countdown said:

Eh? They do it every day. They protect every one of us and arrest quite a few of us. The Chief Whip does not have any special status. He personally does NOT get any extra entitlements nor does he get any exemptions.

Fine... except he's not on ordinary police duties is he.

Isn't he? I'm guessing the role he's playing falls within the remit of ordinary police duties.

Or to put it another way - why would his actions change if it was an ordinary member of the Public rather than the CW?

whoami said:

Which is the central point of the whole issue.

Good Lord alive...

Let's look at this afresh.

The Gates are there, they are there for a reason, the reason being that there is a perceived risk to the inhabitants of Downing St.

This elevated risk applies not just to the houses but the occupants, one of whom is the Chief-Whip, he therefore is not in the same position as the vast majority of the public, he is a potential target, if he wasn't the gates wouldn't be there.

It is part of the standing orders to the Police to get any inhabitant of that road into the more secure confines of the gated road.

The policeman is there to do that, to ensure that, he is not there to refuse entry because there is a 'more convenient' way in that at the time (according to the photos taken by the press at least) blocked with tourists.

So not only are his duties rather different to how you seem to perceive them, he may have actually not done his job properly at all.

The very reason he was there was not in his mind.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Saturday 22 September 12:07

[crankedup]

Gene Vincent said:

crankedup said:

You won't like this advise is my guess, check your facts before questioning, your well out of order.

In what way?

I don't baulk at any advisement, providing it has substance, give your post some substance so I don't just ignore it off-hand as just a load of bluster.

Have you actually checked out your facts before voicing off in such a robust manner, or is what you have to say on the matter purely your own opinion? Personally, it seems to me that you simply enjoy disagreeing with what, in this instance and backed by the P.M, IS A CLEAR BREACH OF ETHICAL AND MORAL STANDARDS EXHIBITED IN PUBLIC, by a Senior member of our Government.Unless we the public are content to let standards within Government fall it is clear the Minister should be sacked. I for one will not be able to accept with any gravitas serious contributions from this M.P. That for me is the major discussion point, public behaviour and respect is a two way road.

[Countdown]

Gene Vincent said:

Let's look at this afresh.

The Gates are there, they are there for a reason, the reason being that there is a perceived risk to the inhabitants of Downing St.

This elevated risk applies not just to the houses but the occupants, one of whom is the Chief-Whip, he therefore is not in the same position as the vast majority of the public, he is a potential target, if he wasn't the gates wouldn't be there.

It is part of the standing orders to the Police to get any inhabitant of that road into the more secure confines of the gated road.

The policeman is there to do that, to ensure that, he is not there to refuse entry because there is a 'more convenient' way in that at the time (according to the photos taken by the press at least) blocked with tourists.

So not only are his duties rather different to how you seem to perceive them, he may have actually not done his job properly at all.

In which case the solution would have been simple. A complaint to the PC's superiors would have led to an investigation and to an appropriate reprimand (the SAME course of action that is open to the rest of us if we feel the Police have behaved incorrectly in their dealings with us).

However, apart from yourself, nobody has suggested the PC has not done exactly what he was supposed to do. OTOH the Chief Whip has made himself look an absolute pi110ck bu using words such as "Do you know who I am" and "Pleb". THAT is why he is currently issuing grovelling aplogies left, right, and centre, rather than arguing that the PC was in the wrong.

[Gene Vincent]

crankedup said:

Gene Vincent said:

crankedup said:

You won't like this advise is my guess, check your facts before questioning, your well out of order.

In what way?

I don't baulk at any advisement, providing it has substance, give your post some substance so I don't just ignore it off-hand as just a load of bluster.

Have you actually checked out your facts before voicing off in such a robust manner, or is what you have to say on the matter purely your own opinion? Personally, it seems to me that you simply enjoy disagreeing with what, in this instance and backed by the P.M, IS A CLEAR BREACH OF ETHICAL AND MORAL STANDARDS EXHIBITED IN PUBLIC, by a Senior member of our Government.Unless we the public are content to let standards within Government fall it is clear the Minister should be sacked. I for one will not be able to accept with any gravitas serious contributions from this M.P. That for me is the major discussion point, public behaviour and respect is a two way road.

Oh dear...

You've stated I have my facts wrong, where I asked.

I have said the guy's a jumped middle class twonk with generous dose of snobbery thrown into the mix.

I ask again, where have I got my facts wrong... your words, substantiate them!

[ClaphamGT3]

crankedup said:

Have you actually checked out your facts before voicing off in such a robust manner, or is what you have to say on the matter purely your own opinion? Personally, it seems to me that you simply enjoy disagreeing with what, in this instance and backed by the P.M, IS A CLEAR BREACH OF ETHICAL AND MORAL STANDARDS EXHIBITED IN PUBLIC, by a Senior member of our Government.Unless we the public are content to let standards within Government fall it is clear the Minister should be sacked. I for one will not be able to accept with any gravitas serious contributions from this M.P. That for me is the major discussion point, public behaviour and respect is a two way road.

No one is disputing that he should not have been dis-courteous to a police officer - or anyone. The issue is that it was the plod who wasn't doing his job properly.

I suspect that only one individual's career will be harmed by this and it won't be the Chief Whip - and on the basis of the behaviours of both, nor should it be.

[Gene Vincent]

Countdown said:

However, apart from yourself, nobody has suggested the PC has not done exactly what he was supposed to do. OTOH the Chief Whip has made himself look an absolute pi110ck bu using words such as "Do you know who I am" and "Pleb". THAT is why he is currently issuing grovelling aplogies left, right, and centre, rather than arguing that the PC was in the wrong.

I think I've clearly shown that the policeman was not doing what he was there to do.

You are confusing what is the politically prudent course and reality.

[bitchstewie]

Does anyone actually know that the officer wasn't doing what he'd been instructed to do, or is it all based on what people think he should have done?

[whoami]

Gene Vincent said:

Good Lord alive...


So not only are his duties rather different to how you seem to perceive them, he may have actually not done his job properly at all.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Saturday 22 September 12:07

Even the arrogant pillock himself is not suggesting that.

[Countdown]

Gene Vincent said:

Oh dear...

You've stated I have my facts wrong, where I asked.

I have said the guy's a jumped middle class twonk with generous dose of snobbery thrown into the mix.

I ask again, where have I got my facts wrong... your words, substantiate them!

You've said he lives at No 12 Downing Street. He doesn't. He has offices at Number 9.

[Gene Vincent]

whoami said:

Gene Vincent said:

Good Lord alive...


So not only are his duties rather different to how you seem to perceive them, he may have actually not done his job properly at all.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Saturday 22 September 12:07

Even the arrogant pillock himself is not suggesting that.

Politics...

I don't have to be re-elected and he is the Chief-Whip, he has to follow the advice he'd give one of his backbenchers, apologise and take a longer view.