tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 come on Tony, are you really trying to stretch the Prescott point that much? watch the footage again if you haven't lately and you are genuine in your apparent opinion. Prescott was assaulted and went up in my estimation with an instinctive hit back. Prescott's a rough diamond at best, but that egg incident did him no harm in my eyes. I'd like to think I'd have reacted the same way. I'd hate to think I'd ever act like that slime ball tory did. If I had to share the rest of time with Shapps, Mitchell or Prescott it wouldn't take me long to choose (I'd spend longer hiding the food stocks). a guy I used to play football with got hit in a pub , my mate retaliated and hit the bloke twice ... 6 hours later the bloke he hit dropped dead outside the pub ... the crown prosecution argued it was as a result of the blow he received from my mate anyway , 2 years later my friend is still in prison .... so maybe that is why it annoys me that Prescott can retaliate and get held up as some form of hero of the righteous so to those that think they are in the right to retaliate ,id say again the law may not agree with you Mitchell too date has still denied calling them plebs .. not that it seems to matter in many peoples eyes so in terms of behaviour fitting an MP both of them have been left wanting , arguably both should have been sacked ... but in my opinion street brawling is a far more serious crime than getting pissed off with the old bill I guess all i was really trying to highlight is the usual Politics hypocrisy that goes on between the parties .. what appears to have come about instead though is that brawler Prescott is a role model for some on VT 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Mitchell too date has still denied calling them plebs .. not that it seems to matter in many peoples eyes He hasn't. Although he has been asked time and again for a specific account of what he said and in particular if he used the word "pleb", he has chosen to stop short of that, relying on an obviously carefully crafted form of words intended to give the impression of denying it, while still being vague: But asked if he called the officer a 'pleb', he said: 'I want to make it absolutely clear that I did not use the words attributed to me. This is why the police continue to press for clarification, because it has still not been provided. Simon Payne, chairman of Warwickshire Police Federation, told the Times: "The issue is not a complicated one. All we are seeking is clarification on what was said, an apology, then we want to move on … It is partly this obfuscation which gives the impression of deviousness, lack of candour, and being economical with the truth. It's an ill-chosen and self-destructive tactic, which I suppose gives us further insight into the man's judgement, but there it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 12, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted October 12, 2012 There's a huge difference between self defence and retaliation. Prescot lashed out at someone pelting him with eggs at the time it was happening. Retaliation implies some sort period of cooling and brooding time between the attacks and possibly a degree of premeditation. Don't know the circumstances of your friend but John Prescot's situation definitely came under the category of self defence, especially as the present forces of law and order seemingly did nothing about the assault before them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 There's a huge difference between self defence and retaliation. Prescot lashed out at someone pelting him with eggs at the time it was happening. Retaliation implies some sort period of cooling and brooding time between the attacks and possibly a degree of premeditation. Don't know the circumstances of your friend but John Prescot's situation definitely came under the category of self defence, especially as the present forces of law and order seemingly did nothing about the assault before them. then in the context of the Prescott thingy my mate was self defence rather than retaliation retaliation is probably my bad with the choice of phrase an apology, then we want to move on … I thought he issued an apology the very next day , which the officer involved accepted ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 We need to get Paxman on his case "I will ask the question again, did you call the Police officer a 'pleb'?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 I thought he issued an apology the very next day , which the officer involved accepted ? All we are seeking is clarification on what was said, an apology, then we want to move on … In other words, they feel that Mitchell has called the officers liars, and they want this cleared up. Not just an apology. Though on the apology, this was a good read on the insincere and manipulative style of apology that Mitchell tried to get away with. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Looks like Mitchell screwed up the "reconciliation" meeting. Andrew Mitchell should be sacked over 'pleb' row, say police Pressure mounts on chief whip after clear-the-air meeting with Police Federation backfires Andrew Mitchell suffered a major setback on Friday night when the Police Federation said he should be sacked as the government's chief whip after he declined to accept the police account of a confrontation in Downing Street. A 40-minute meeting in Mitchell's Sutton Coldfield constituency, which was designed to clear the air, ended up piling more pressure on Mitchell after the police said his position was untenable. Ken Mackaill, chairman of the West Mercia Police Federation, said: "We reached an impasse on the integrity issue and we felt it was time to draw the meeting to a close. I think Andrew Mitchell's position is untenable. If he won't resign, I don't think Mr Cameron has an option." The police were disappointed when Mitchell stood by his account of his confrontation with armed police in Downing Street when he wanted to exit on his bicycle. He has admitted swearing at the police but denied the explosive charge that he described police as "plebs" by saying he does not accept he used the words "attributed" to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markavfc40 Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 come on Tony, are you really trying to stretch the Prescott point that much? watch the footage again if you haven't lately and you are genuine in your apparent opinion. Prescott was assaulted and went up in my estimation with an instinctive hit back. Prescott's a rough diamond at best, but that egg incident did him no harm in my eyes. I'd like to think I'd have reacted the same way. I'd hate to think I'd ever act like that slime ball tory did. If I had to share the rest of time with Shapps, Mitchell or Prescott it wouldn't take me long to choose (I'd spend longer hiding the food stocks). Spot on. Bottom line is that you throw an egg at some one from a couple of feet away you can have no complaints if that person defends himself and gives you a slap. Its a natural reaction for most. There is absolutely no justification for what Mitchell. He is vermin. Of course there is one good thing to come out of all this in that it is another nail in the Tories coffin. It is no surprise that there mask slips every now and then to reveal them in all there revolting glory. A party has never done more with in two and half years of being elected to ensure they will not be re-elected. Well I say elected as they haven't won an election in 20 years and thankfully that will not be changing any time soon. This current term will just serve as a wake up call and reminder as to why we shouldn't vote for this repugnant mob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Do we have a condom government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Do we have a condom government? I'm not sure, but I note that this is one of their departments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Clegg and Cameron attacked from the right for lying about debt. Britain’s national debt is rising faster than any of the basket-case Eurozone countries that George Osborne is so fond of disparaging but here’s the thing: only 16pc of voters realise that debt is going up. Why? Are they all thick? Or could it be that our political class is systematically misleading them? I’m inclined towards the latter. The odd debt vs deficit slip is forgivable. But ministers do seem to trying to exaggerate – even lie about – what they are doing to the national debt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I've just been watching a Tory Boy sketch from Harry Enfield and Chums and it scares me how difficult it is to separate it from reality. Tory Boy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 16, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 16, 2012 You could do as accurate a sketch of Labour if you gave him a Yerksheer accent, cloth cap and a considerable whack of working class rage. Sadly a Lib Dem sketch would require someone from a local asylum and I think theres laws against that. Hell, you could do New Labour by just putting a different tie on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 May revokes the extradition order on McKinnon Finally someone in the Uk government brave enough to tell the US to go do one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 Grand, now all the Tories need to do is stop morphing the country into mini-merica. If I wanted to live in the US I'd bloody move there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Interesting exchange between Cameron and Bryant towards the end of PMQs. There's obviously no love lost there but I question the wisdom of Cameron saying that he refuses to answer any questions from Bryant until he (Bryant) gives an apology for previous comments about Leveson evidence. Though Bercow has apparently confirmed (in response to a point of order) that it is within parliamentary rules for Cameron to take this stance (one wonders whether that applies to all questions asked and to all ministers and so on), it wouldn't surprise me to see Bryant being given time by Bercow sooner rather than later at another PMQs (in no way, obviously, an attempt by Bercow to wind Cameron up or to assert his authority within Parliament). I'm not sure whether Cameron wanted an apology for Bryant doing something for which Leveson told him off (i.e. revealing privileged evidence) or for apparent 'untruths'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 17, 2012 Share Posted October 17, 2012 Was that just Dodgy Dave's way of avoiding another question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 Was that just Dodgy Dave's way of avoiding another question? Possibly but he obviously isn't a fan of yer man Bryant. It isn't the main story about prime ministerial erring (that's the on the hoof energy bill announcement he made yesterday) but it may run a little as there have been subsequent questions about it and the last word regarding a question that Bryant intends to put to Cameron tomorrow is that Bercow has said that answering written questions must be done by all members of the government in a timely and substantive manner. Will be interesting to see what Dave says to that (and to Bryant). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 18, 2012 Share Posted October 18, 2012 There's obviously no love lost there but I question the wisdom of Cameron saying that he refuses to answer any questions from Bryant until he (Bryant) gives an apology for previous comments about Leveson evidence. if the Telegraph get their way again maybe Bryant wont be around to get his answer Chris Bryant, a shadow minister for borders and immigration, has rented out his mansion flat in Bloomsbury and claimed £2,050 for a month’s rent in the last period for which data have been published. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 if the Telegraph get their way again maybe Bryant wont be around to get his answer It's just a distraction. Ooh, look over there! The important issue is Cameron's e-mails to and from Brooks. David Cameron has refused to answer whether he held back dozens of communications between himself and Rebekah Brooks from the Leveson inquiry because they were "too salacious or embarrassing" for him to reveal. Cameron was challenged during prime minister's questions (PMQs) after it emerged this week that he did not hand over texts and emails of a social nature with the former News of the World editor after seeking legal advice, since they did not fall within Lord Justice Leveson's remit. Chris Bryant, shadow Home Office minister and himself a victim of phone hacking, urged Cameron during PMQs to publish all the correspondence. But despite the nature of the half-hour Commons session, Cameron insisted he had no intention of answering any of the Rhondda MP's questions, with Bryant angrily warning that "when the truth comes out, the prime minister won't be smiling". Bryant asked: "Why won't the prime minister publish all the texts, emails and other formers of correspondence between himself and his office, and Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson and News International … so that we can judge whether they are relevant? Is it because they are too salacious and embarrassing for the prime minister or is it because there's one rule for the prime minister and another one for the rest of us?" Cameron told MPs they should remember that Bryant had "stood up in this House and read out a whole lot of Leveson information that was under embargo that he was not meant to read out, much of which turned out about me to be untrue." He went on: "And he has never apologised. Do you know what, until he apologises I am not going to answer his questions." 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts