Risso Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Out of interest , Is it standard practise to release notes from a policemans notebook to the press ? I wondered about that. Seems strange given the current enquiry into the press and dealins with he police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 25, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 25, 2012 Out of interest , Is it standard practise to release notes from a policemans notebook to the press ? I wondered about that. Seems strange given the current enquiry into the press and dealins with he police. 1) Old habits die hard 2) Arrogance in thinking they still can 3) Gross stupidity A little bit of all three I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 That is superb Mr Mountie! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 I see some off duty police have paid a visit to Mr Mitchell's constituency office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 and we have no reason to doubt the integrity of the officers involved in recents months we've established that plod were lying about Hillsborough , Duggan and Ian Tomlinson ... amongst others so you will excuse me if I give this statement a :shock: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 it's a bit of a dilema, do you believe the police or a toff tory! I suspect the answer is neither Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
veloman Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 ...oafish Plod... A euphemism, surely? I may have misunderstood your intention here but did you really mean tautology ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 and we have no reason to doubt the integrity of the officers involved in recents months we've established that plod were lying about Hillsborough , Duggan and Ian Tomlinson ... amongst others so you will excuse me if I give this statement a :shock: You're comparing the testimony of police who have either directly killed people or whose behaviour led to their deaths and who fear criminal prosecution for that, with an account of a spat over whether the big gate or the little gate should be opened for His Eminence? I suppose we'll never know for certain exactly what was said, unless the US care to release the drone and spy satellite tapes. In those situations, we look at motive, probability, previous, and as Casper said in Miller's Crossing, "That's why we gotta go to this question of character..." The coppers have nothing to gain from telling this particular story. If they thought they had been too officious, too jobsworth, too inflexible, they could just say they explained the policy, Mitchell disagreed, seemed unhappy, and left. Inventing a story about the exact terms used, especially a term quite believably used by a patrician public schoolboy of his generation but not now in common use in the canteen, seems unlikely. On the other hand, Mitchell is known to be a domineering bully, full of his own importance. Nicknamed "Thrasher" at school, with plenty of people coming forward to tell about his high-handed behaviour in his department, and with a Torygraph journo writing about how he harangued, harassed and threatened her, the account of his behaviour seems entirely in keeping with what we can learn about him. And of course he has a very strong motive for lying - rescuing his career. I can accept that people like the Mail, the Torygraph, Boris Johnson, the Police Federation all want to put the knife in for their own reasons to do with undermining Cameron. However, I have to say that the account given by the police seems infinitely more credible than that offered by Mitchell. I suspect he was still elated after his good lunch at the Cinnamon Club, and let slip a few thoughts he's only supposed to reveal once he'd reached his next destination in his long and arduous day, the Carlton Club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 And of course he has a very strong motive for lying - rescuing his career. But that's where it is so easy to be outraged in this country. I am sure that if a deputy Prime Minister can get away with a physical assault, something that was actually against the law (upon which I thought 'fair play to him'), then someone doesn't need to 'rescue their career' over getting pissed off with a copper. I think that there are far more things for the political fraternity to worry about than the constant nitpicking and point scoring over something that is quite trivial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 And of course he has a very strong motive for lying - rescuing his career. But that's where it is so easy to be outraged in this country. I am sure that if a deputy Prime Minister can get away with a physical assault, something that was actually against the law (upon which I thought 'fair play to him'), then someone doesn't need to 'rescue their career' over getting pissed off with a copper. I think that there are far more things for the political fraternity to worry about than the constant nitpicking and point scoring over something that is quite trivial. Well, see where you're coming from, but I would make two points. First, the Prescott thing (which is being rolled out in very many websites in the last couple of days, like it was orchestrated) is a pretty clear-cut case of an instinctive reaction to being physically assaulted. I doubt anyone could make a convincing argument that he should have been prosecuted, would be likely to be convicted, or was "let off" because of his political position. The current Central Office attempts to suggest an equivalence between that, and Mitchell threatening to have someone sacked because they didn't play up to his inflated ego, are misplaced, as well as malicious and risible. I would advise people not to play along with them. Second, the significance of the Mitchell gaffe is not so much about the hissy fit, as about the attitudes it betokens. The enduring horror of this incident for the tory party is that he has shown his, and by extension others' contempt for the people who carry out these functions. On one level, it's daft. We all know, don't we, that they are in fact plebs, that he is the patrician, that they are there, as are we all, to do his bidding (within certain limits; he can't quite do as his Roman equivalent might have done, however much he would like to), and so on. But we also know that he's not meant to say so. It ruins the game if the reality intrudes too much. We are meant to think that we have a friendly, collegiate, equal relationship, that social class is a historical oddity, that respect flows freely between members of a classless, equal society. When someone like Mitchell intrudes on that fantasy in order to assuage his own fantasy of being treated even more sycophantically than normal, when he threatens his own protection team with the sack for not being sufficiently cringingly, cocksuckingly, arsekissingly docile and obedient, then the glass is shattered. That's inconvenient. He becomes an embarrassment to the class to which he aspires, and will be thrown to the dogs. The process is interesting. The confusion and uncertainty among the tories about how to deal with it is puzzling. The effect is amusing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 So, apparently Dave was on the Letterman show somewhere across the Atlantic, and failed the UK citizenship test. Does that mean he can't come back? Drinks are on Boris! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 26, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2012 And of course he has a very strong motive for lying - rescuing his career. But that's where it is so easy to be outraged in this country. I am sure that if a deputy Prime Minister can get away with a physical assault, something that was actually against the law (upon which I thought 'fair play to him'), then someone doesn't need to 'rescue their career' over getting pissed off with a copper. I think that there are far more things for the political fraternity to worry about than the constant nitpicking and point scoring over something that is quite trivial. You clearly aren't aware of the people who have been jailed recently for "swearing at a copper" - 4 months one bloke in Manchester got It's an offence under Section 5 of the 1986 Public Order Act. Alternatively it can also be classed as breach of the peace. What he did may seem trivial, its also illegal and as a Tory, the party of law and order, he should be prosecuted not think he's above the law. Otherwise it looks like one rule them and another for us. Either that or quash the convictions and compensate all the people who have been jailed for similar offences. Can't have it both ways now can we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Can't wait for Labour to get back in power. Shame I live in one of the safest Tory strong holds in the country with the slimey Ed Vaizey running things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Re the Prescott thing , probably he shouldn't have been arrested / prosecuted etc but he should have been sacked instantly and arguably shouldn't have made money out of mocking the situation on a tv advert ... But I'm not sure why it's being trawled up at this point to be honest ?? Mitchell I'm not really sure what his crime is at this point ? The timing of it and the fact the police seem to have leaked the notebook and won't let it go when the officers already accepted an apology suggests its being used for a political football ... Did he use the words the police say ... It's a strange choice of words for a policeman to make up so in all likelihood Mitchell did use them , hardly covered himself in glory but when I see drivel that tries to taint a whole party as snobs etc by the actions of one person I can't really take the arguments seriously and it weakens the debate somewhat tbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 26, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2012 Mitchell I'm not really sure what his crime is at this point ? See my post two above yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 26, 2012 Share Posted September 26, 2012 Mitchell I'm not really sure what his crime is at this point ? See my post two above yours. Manchester man was swearing and ranting at Police during the riots the other year , I suspect Manchester man is hardly the martyr the internet are championing him to be ... Swearing directly at a copper in an offencive manner should be an offence , swearing in the course of dialogue is par for course and any sensible copper should accept that imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 26, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 26, 2012 Swearing directly at a copper in an offencive manner should be an offence , swearing in the course of dialogue is par for course and any sensible copper should accept that imo So we're agreed then, he should be prosecuted. He has admitted "swearing directly at a copper in an offensive manner." Regardless of the P-word, he has admitted the swearing aspect and it was directly at a copper and is easily termed offensive. Good good ;-) Oh and as it happens "Manchester Man" also thinks it should be an offence. He was on the Radio 'other day and agreed what he did was wrong and if he was in the same situation again, wouldn't follow the same course of action, he was embarrassed by what he did. He accepted his punishment but thinks a certain minister should accept his fate too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 So, apparently Dave was on the Letterman show somewhere across the Atlantic, and failed the UK citizenship test. Does that mean he can't come back? Drinks are on Boris! He failed to identify who wrote Rule Britania and whilst he did get the year of the Magna Carter right he couldn't translate what it meant (or something) The opinion of the audiance was favourable and as his intention was to raise our profile I would say he succeeded Ouch! David Cameron may regret ever appearing on the David Letterman show. He was ambushed by the host asking him a British history quiz. And, yes, he flunked it. Cameron even joked at the end: "That is bad - I've ended my career on your show tonight." But hold on. Here is the surprising thing. The audience loved Cameron. Every single person I spoke to as they left the theatre where the show is recorded gave the Prime Minister the thumbs up. They thought he was amusing and charming. I repeatedly asked people to rate Cameron's performance. Most gave him 10 out of 10. The worst I could get was an "8." source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Swearing directly at a copper in an offencive manner should be an offence , swearing in the course of dialogue is par for course and any sensible copper should accept that imo So we're agreed then, he should be prosecuted. He has admitted "swearing directly at a copper in an offensive manner." Regardless of the P-word, he has admitted the swearing aspect and it was directly at a copper and is easily termed offensive. Good good ;-) I must be reading a different version of the leaked notebook as it doesn't appear to be directly offensive to the policeman You don't run the f&&king country is not the same for example as saying directly to plod " you are a f&&king clearing " etc ... IMO of course ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts