Conservative MP - Police Rant.

[ClaphamGT3]

Saddle bum said:

The Hoggs are an old and distinguished family, whose forebears created the Polytechnic Movement. Pity one of the later editions was involved in the "Duck House" business in the MP's expences saga.

It was a moat, not some vulgar, twee 'duck-house'

[Irish]

What I find fascinating in this thread is how you are all hung up on the class system (which in and of itself is bullsh!t).

Utter tosh. People trying to explain this away because of social standing. Just mental.

Manners, dear boy, manners - a copper doing his job should not have to expect guff.

I am not surprised this has blown up - this tory governmnet (I vote conservative) is an utter failure. No amount of blaming the old gaurd can make up for the policy deficit of the fact they are in coalition.

Many conservative voters are on the front line or have family on the front line of public service. As such this is a disgraceful episode.

[ClaphamGT3]

bhstewie said:

I don't really get why some here seem to be defending or making excuses for him if the events are as reported.

I don't automatically agree with the idea that if the Police ask you to do something you do it because they're the Police, but what a totally disgraceful reaction over a presumably trivial request.

I agree that Mitchell's actions were neither good judgement nor good manners - it would surely have been much more sensible for him to have a word with someone more senior along the lines of "I don't like officer x's attitude, I don't want him detailed at Downing St anymore" - but put yourself in his position; you live in a gated development. You're leaving home and the security guard won't open the main gate for you but says he wants you to use the side gate. When you say that you want to use the main gate, he threatens you with some sort of sanction that he believes his job to give him. You'd be onto the management company in a trice.

[bitchstewie]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I agree that Mitchell's actions were neither good judgement nor good manners - it would surely have been much more sensible for him to have a word with someone more senior along the lines of "I don't like officer x's attitude, I don't want him detailed at Downing St anymore" - but put yourself in his position; you live in a gated development. You're leaving home and the security guard won't open the main gate for you but says he wants you to use the side gate. When you say that you want to use the main gate, he threatens you with some sort of sanction that he believes his job to give him. You'd be onto the management company in a trice.

Precisely. I wouldn't be standing there calling the guy doing his job a "fking pleb" (again, if events went as reported).

[Halb]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I agree that Mitchell's actions were neither good judgement nor good manners - it would surely have been much more sensible for him to have a word with someone more senior along the lines of "I don't like officer x's attitude, I don't want him detailed at Downing St anymore" - but put yourself in his position; you live in a gated development. You're leaving home and the security guard won't open the main gate for you but says he wants you to use the side gate. When you say that you want to use the main gate, he threatens you with some sort of sanction that he believes his job to give him. You'd be onto the management company in a trice.

Why would he even need to have a word? From what I understand the MP was wholly in the wrong for asking to go through the main gate on his bike, he then compounds his failure by not accepting the rules that all know and spits his dummy.
If one lived in a gated environment, one of the reasons for this would be security? So ignoring the rules around security sort of negates the reason for being in the environment in the first place.

[ClaphamGT3]

bhstewie said:

Precisely. I wouldn't be standing there calling the guy doing his job a "fking pleb" (again, if events went as reported).

Oh - I couldn't agree more; his comments were ill mannered and ill-judged but one can't get away from the fact that if the officer in question had remembered who he was on duty to serve, this incident wouldn't have happened

[Halb]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Oh - I couldn't agree more; his comments were ill mannered and ill-judged but one can't get away from the fact that if the officer in question had remembered who he was on duty to serve, this incident wouldn't have happened

He was there to serve the public and uphold the law? Not cater to the personal whims of one man who wants to bend the rules to his own personal choice? A more accurate description would be this incident would not have happened if the MP had remembered whom he serves, I think.

[ClaphamGT3]

Halb said:

He was there to serve the public and uphold the law? Not cater to the personal whims of one man who wants to bend the rules to his own personal choice? A more accurate description would be this incident would not have happened if the MP had remembered whom he serves, I think.

He was there to protect the residents of Downing St, who include the Chief Whip.

I don't think that it was right or courteous that Mitchell - if it is true - tore a strip off the guy in public but I do think that any protection officer needs to remember that their principal is called that for a reason.

[Gene Vincent]

98elise said:

Gene Vincent said:

The 'troops' (what with him being the chief-whip are the ranks of the MPs) that is the government.

"Just open the fking gate!"... "No, it's more than my jobsworth!"... get the drift?

You have an odd view of "jobsworth". He is in fact going his job as a professional.

The police are guarding no10. There is a reason they have big gates and a bloke with a gun. Its not for an MP to demand they open the gates just because he has a particularly high opinion of himself.

Provide your definition if mine is not sufficient, until such time, mine covers the situation perfectly.

No, the Police at the gate are not guarding No10, they are filtering access to Downing St., it's a subtle but important difference.

An 'MP' can't demand the opening of the gates, but the Chief-Whip can, just as all the residents of that road can, again a subtle but important difference.

Being unable to appreciate that difference is the distinguishing facet between a 'professional' and a 'jobsworth'.

---

Just above this post Irish stated that 'class' doesn't exist... a 'class structure' certainly does, it's 'mental' to believe or claim it doesn't.

[Halb]

ClaphamGT3 said:

He was there to protect the residents of Downing St, who include the Chief Whip.
I don't think that it was right or courteous that Mitchell - if it is true - tore a strip off the guy in public but I do think that any protection officer needs to remember that their principal is called that for a reason.

So they do their protection by following the rules regarding protection and not allowing those protected to disregard hose rules. Chief whip still in the wrong. The rules are there to protect them, not to be disregarded for personal use when it's easy.

[XCP]

Tea Pot One said:

Can you PG9 a bicycle

I don't know what a PG9 is. But an officer in uniform certainly has the power to check that the brakes on a pedal cycle are working correctly, under Con and Use Regs. Following that I would have been looking at more obscure powers , If I had wanted to be a real jobsworth.

[ViperPict]

Irish said:

What I find fascinating in this thread is how you are all hung up on the class system (which in and of itself is bullsh!t).

Utter tosh. People trying to explain this away because of social standing. Just mental.

Manners, dear boy, manners - a copper doing his job should not have to expect guff.

I am not surprised this has blown up - this tory governmnet (I vote conservative) is an utter failure. No amount of blaming the old gaurd can make up for the policy deficit of the fact they are in coalition.

Many conservative voters are on the front line or have family on the front line of public service. As such this is a disgraceful episode.

Absolutely. Class system??!!

Anyway, too much pressure heading the PMs way now so Mitchell will be history...

Edited by ViperPict on Saturday 22 September 11:12

[alfabadass]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Oh - I couldn't agree more; his comments were ill mannered and ill-judged but one can't get away from the fact that if the officer in question had remembered who he was on duty to serve, this incident wouldn't have happened

He's there to protect the rest of Downing Street and the UK government.

The Police treat security very strictly. Have you seen how strict the security is around those gates? So many armed officers on each side! His orders are his orders. If he opened the main gates and a gang of tourists or leftie protesters barged through, who do you think will be in the st?

[ClaphamGT3]

Halb said:

So they do their protection by following the rules regarding protection and not allowing those protected to disregard hose rules. Chief whip still in the wrong. The rules are there to protect them, not to be disregarded for personal use when it's easy.

I think you'll find that they are there to maintain his security with a minimal intrusion on how to he leads his life.

[bitchstewie]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Oh - I couldn't agree more; his comments were ill mannered and ill-judged but one can't get away from the fact that if the officer in question had remembered who he was on duty to serve, this incident wouldn't have happened

He's there to serve the public and to ensure there is no risk to the people he's protecting. I don't pass it often but from what I can recall of Downing Street it seems totally unreasonable to expect the main barrier/gates to open for a pushbike.

Respectfully, your post is sort of what I mean by the way it's not so much "defending" his actions but looking to spread the blame. Sometimes there is only one place to look IMO.

[ClaphamGT3]

alfabadass said:

He's there to protect the rest of Downing Street and the UK government.

The Police treat security very strictly. Have you seen how strict the security is around those gates? So many armed officers on each side! His orders are his orders. If he opened the main gates and a gang of tourists or leftie protesters barged through, who do you think will be in the st?

I don't disagree and a more competant officer would, in all probability, have been able to have prevented the issue quite easily with a wee bit of emotional intelligence or even good, old-fashioned tact;

"Terribly sorry Chief Whip, but as you can see we've a lot of tourists at the gate today. I know its a chore Sir but I'd be very grateful if you'd pop through the side gate today - probably be a bit quicker for you too Sir, by the time we've shoo'd this lot away"

May very well have prevented any situation from having arisen

[Gene Vincent]

The BBC are reporting that this was the fourth occasion in recent days that this particular cop has refused to open the gate for the Chief-Whip, despite it being previously opened.

Also it is being reported that the gates should have been opened as per the standing order, as the all the residents of Downing St. are NOT to be impeded in gaining entry at all.

If the pedestrian gate is blocked with tourists then the main gate must be opened... pronto.

[Halb]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I think you'll find that they are there to maintain his security with a minimal intrusion on how to he leads his life.

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 and combustible individual to disrupt that service at the detriment to others.

[Countdown]

ClaphamGT3 said:

Oh - I couldn't agree more; his comments were ill mannered and ill-judged but one can't get away from the fact that if the officer in question had remembered who he was on duty to serve, this incident wouldn't have happened

Hypothetically speaking - say one of us needs to go through a particular police cordon (rather than go the long way round). Would we obey police instructions or should the police make allowances for us because "they are our servants"?

The man's a plank with exceptionally poor judgement.

[Halb]

ClaphamGT3 said:

I don't disagree and a more competant officer would, in all probability, have been able to have prevented the issue quite easily with a wee bit of emotional intelligence or even good, old-fashioned tact;

"Terribly sorry Chief Whip, but as you can see we've a lot of tourists at the gate today. I know its a chore Sir but I'd be very grateful if you'd pop through the side gate today - probably be a bit quicker for you too Sir, by the time we've shoo'd this lot away"

May very well have prevented any situation from having arisen

The situation of course wouldn't have arisen if the Chief Whip has just followed the rules?
Do we know the policeman didn't use tact? We know the Chief Whip didn't.