Plebgate - An interesting new twist
Discussion
NailedOn said:
agtlaw said:
Thanks for the link. So insufficient evidence to conclude what happened at the Downing Street gates, but one charge against the PC who made up the email. This may rumble on for a while then - with both sides claiming victory?
The thing that depresses me is the extent to which certain here simply cannot see that this isnt about the Plebgate incident anymore, this is about damage to the public's confidence in the police.
The attitudes displayed by certain posters on here and their complete inability to accept that the police have seriously harmed themselves are remarkable. They will, if replicated by significant numbers of police officers, present on a silver platter to this and successive governments the ability to ignore the police in decision on police reforms.
I fear that, even when they are working for G4S for the minimum wage on zero-hours contracts, large chunks of the police force simply won't get that they brought this on themselves.
The attitudes displayed by certain posters on here and their complete inability to accept that the police have seriously harmed themselves are remarkable. They will, if replicated by significant numbers of police officers, present on a silver platter to this and successive governments the ability to ignore the police in decision on police reforms.
I fear that, even when they are working for G4S for the minimum wage on zero-hours contracts, large chunks of the police force simply won't get that they brought this on themselves.
Red 4 said:
London John said:
To correct you, I didn't attend on Police Memorial Day, I attended on Remembrance Sunday.
If you're going to criticise, at least have the courtesy to quote accurately.
My mistake. You attended The National Police Memorial - the one that lists over 4000 police officers killed in the execution of duty. That's even worse given your previous comments on this thread ...If you're going to criticise, at least have the courtesy to quote accurately.
singlecoil said:
Rovinghawk said:
singlecoil said:
Here's a couple of for instances-
The first is very specific- the particular Plod that Vaz ripped into, ie the Fed Rep 3.carinaman said:
Plod made Vaz look like a Nobel Peace Prize winner. That's not Vaz's fault.
London John said:
I do love the mantra that "the public have the utmost trust in the Police" that's continually trotted out, mostly by current or ex serving members.
In my corner of the world, that trust was lost a long time ago.
Pretty broad strokes of the tar brush there.In my corner of the world, that trust was lost a long time ago.
The hair splitting and rather ham-fisted attempts at obfuscation on this thread are becoming really, really dull.
singlecoil said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
Any reasonable person with an adequate grasp of English would have understood perfectly well what he meant.
The hair splitting and rather ham-fisted attempts at obfuscation on this thread are becoming really, really dull.
As a well known anti-police poster, your attempts to distract from the real issues with nonsense posts are becoming slightly irritating. Especially as it's clear that my grasp of English is at least the equal of your own.The hair splitting and rather ham-fisted attempts at obfuscation on this thread are becoming really, really dull.
As for the point about grasp of English, just grow up.
vonhosen said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
The real issue is that the police have, through this and other sorry episodes, alienated themselves from a significant amount of public and political support. This is bad for them and for the public at large as they will have less influence than they might otherwise have done over decisions on the future of policing in this country. That is a shame because they would, at least at a technical/operational level have had something valuable to contribute. For the forseeable future however, any Government will be able to ride rough-shod over any police point of view it happens not to like because it will be able to point to multiple instances of institutional dishonesty from the police. This, alas, is no-one's fault but the police's. That is the real issue; not whether an ungracious and ill-tempered politician had an exchange of words with an impertinent and unhelpful police officer.
Can you think of any group this wouldn't apply to should the government wish to run roughshod over?(That's without the fact they could ride roughshod over the Police if they chose to without any of this anyway).
Derek Smith said:
singlecoil said:
Derek Smith said:
Garvin said:
The posts here are an interesting read (once all the bile is stripped out) and I, for one, have learned a lot about the role of the Police Federation. Unfortunately, perception is all and I suspect that the public at large do not understand these subtleties and see the Federation as being representative of the Police as a whole. This perception may not be reality but the damaging effect may well still occur.
I think the public is being told that the federation is a representative of the force, and deliberately so, by both the government and the media. It's the same as when they state, quite clearly, that the federation is a trades union. It is, quite clearly, meant to mislead.[/quote
You are right, of course, for wages and conditions. But there is more to this that just willy-waving by Cameron and the settling of old debts.
There's little doubt that the present government wants to privatise even more of the historic police services. To do this I think the public support for the service has to be eroded. You get posters on here stating, as if it is fact, that the police have lost the support of the public and no one trusts them. They say this because they have been told this. Yet a quick google shows that the support for the police is very high (especially if compared to mps'). However, support has dropped in the rein of Cameron.
The reason for this I think is that the traditional supporter of the police have been the middle classes and the media outlets are following the current government's lead and attacking the police at every chance and when there is no chance, inventing them. The left, with its traditional anti-police attitude, carries on as normal.
So those whose opinions are formed by the press and other media, the left and the right, are all singing from the same hymnsheet.
When the full privatisation is presented to the public - not that the present radical changes to the service were ever in anyones manifesto - then there will be an acceptance. Or at least a not worth the bother.
The attack on the federation is a fine example of this. There is no way the service can object to any changes May, controlled by Cameron, puts forward. Of course there can't. The structure and such is nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the officers. It is imposed. So if the fed does reject it then it will be heralded as the police stuck in the past, wanting to protect their own, not open to modernisation, despite the imposed restrictions on the right to free association being something out of 50s USSR.
The federation has been criticised for hiring someone to help them with PR. Why shouldn't they?
When parking was controlled by parking wardens people complained. I had a number of complaints about the two wardens when I was there and it was my job to settle them amicably. I'd love to go back to those who ranted about 'little Hitlers', the 'negative attitude to trade', and lots and lots more. There was one particularly aggressive bloke who used to restrict the width of the road at the 'bottleneck'. He always complained that he was on tight margins and the massive £6 tickets were eating into his profit. 'His' warden used to warn him (just like Hitler did I think) and then order him to park in a more convenient place. He would give him five minutes to conform.
I'd love to go back there now and ask him how he's getting on now that Hitler has lost his job and the privatised mob now rule the roads, the streets, the little alleyways, the spots where parking didn't matter so the police wardens didn't bother checking on. But I can't. His shop has closed, taken over by some charity. Maybe his moan about margins was right.
And that's what's going to happen with privatised policing.
So enjoy it now, all this griping and moaning, while you can. You wait until the next riots, 'cause there will be riots, you lot following Cameron's lead know this, don't you. With the slashed numbers of officers, with no strategic reserves - although to be fair, there weren't that many even before Cameron slashed police funding by over 20% - the response we got last time will be unobtainable. A dream, a case of 'do you remember the good old days'.
I know one police force last time where there was a report of masses forming up in the centre of town, all black they said. The local police sent their entire available operational force out to confront this mob. They met up remotely and then the pair of them drove to a spot where they were able to view this mob.
There were methodists awaiting their coaches for the return trip to London after a convention.
Funny of course, and indicative of the prejudice that the reporting encouraged, but really quite worrying. This was before the swingeing cuts. The officer in charge of the control room said that if they had been a marauding hoard, then they would have been allowed to maraud as there were no other officers available for some time.
Mind you, the group, all dressed up for their singing, cancelled as where they lived was up in smoke, were supportive of the police. Info was exchanged.
That, remember, was the good old days.
Saint Thatcher, of course, did it slightly differently. But that was her. What did she know?
Derek Smith said:
V8 Fettler said:
Public sector procurement doesn't mean that the lowest tender has to be accepted, there is a balance to be struck quality/price
The way it worked was that the specifications are drawn up and then tenders invited. If those submitting bids met the criteria then the only choice is which colour, because the cheapest is the one that wins. Quality standards are in the spec. If the spec chosen favours one particular company or one specific type of company then those excluded from bidding can claim 'unfair' and defending this costs. So if one specific company is the only one which fits the criteria and there are other companies which can provide an equal service but via another method then, I was told, the bid has to be changed as the original was partial.
This does not, of course, apply the the government which can pick who it wants depending on a variety of criteria.
In the specific case I was talking about, the preferred bidder was more costly than the chosen one. The fears for the system were allayed by the company by showing that other installations worked to the standards of the other, more expensive, bidder. We did not have the money available to research the system and as there were penalty clauses should the system prove insufficient for the demands then we had no grounds to exclude them from the bidding process.
We were misled about the usefulness of penalty clauses.
The problem was that there were few companies who could bid for the contract, the cost of which required the force to put it out to tender.
It is a nice thought that the police could pick and choose but I'm afraid that not what is allowed.
Red 4 said:
Rovinghawk said:
I ask again- where is this alleged evidence proving Mitchell naughty, bearing in mind that he's about the only person in the Plebgate saga that hasn't been shown to be a liar?
"Evidence"- from the latin meaning that which is seen.
PC Toby Rowland (remember him - the officer who was subject to Mitchell's tirade) has not been shown to be a liar."Evidence"- from the latin meaning that which is seen.
That is why he is suing Mitchell.
Mitchell lied on the Dispatches programme. He (deliberately in my opinion) misquoted what the police log said.
"Several people were present outside the gates" suddenly became "crowds of people".
There is one example of Mitchell lying for you. "Evidence" if you prefer ...
pork911 said:
I suspect that this libel trial is going to tarnish the Police's reputation still further.Red 4 said:
pork911 said:
So there was a long-standing dispute between Mitchell and police officers tasked with security at Downing Street ...That just adds weight to the argument that Mitchell was abusive - he was growing increasingly frustrated.
Another string to PC Rowlands's bow in my opinion - policy concerning the opening of the gates is irrelevant. This is about Mitchell's actions.
Edited by ClaphamGT3 on Saturday 7th June 12:19
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff