snowychap Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 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. It isn't the fact that Mitchell took umbrage with a copper or two that is the matter; it is the idea that he is one of those people who regards others doing 'lesser' jobs as beneath him and therefore worthy of contempt. It's a disgraceful attitude to have towards other people; unfortunately, it's something that appears to be all too common (and it's definitely not just a Tory thing - though the perception is that it's more prevalent in Tory circles, which I'm not so sure is correct). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 27, 2012 Author Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2012 The opinion of the audiance was favourable and as his intention was to raise our profile I would say he succeeded C'mon... you don't really believe that was his intention when he went on Letterman do you, you aren't that naive? How would going on Letterman improve "our" profile in America? I would imagine our profile in America is pretty good anyway just like it has been for decades. He went on to boost his own image really, it's where the money is when it all goes tits up for him over here. Which may be in the not too distant future if the jungle drums being played by some backbench Tories are to be believed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon 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 ... Yes, it clearly isn't at all offensive. Mr MITCHELL said: "Best you learn your f------ place...you don’t run this f------ government...You’re f------ plebs." Yes, not at all offensive. Just gentle banter. Mitchell's outburst has betrayed him. I just hope he stays in his job, as his continuation in the role, and in the government, taints them badly. We're all in it together. Us and the Cabinet millionaries. The cabinet millionaires who look down on us, and see us a lower class plebs. They're better educated you see, and from a better background. We should be grateful we have them governing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 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. Fecking excellent post Mr Mountie sir. But really, you should have known your place, and not posted this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I see Mr Mitchell receives handouts from a Jersey-based taxdodger who founded Domino's Pizza. That could be a useful fallback when he's sacked. He could become a pizza delivery boy, if his mate will give him a job. After all, he's already kitted out his bike for the task. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 It isn't the fact that Mitchell took umbrage with a copper or two that is the matter; it is the idea that he is one of those people who regards others doing 'lesser' jobs as beneath him and therefore worthy of contempt. It's a disgraceful attitude to have towards other people; unfortunately, it's something that appears to be all too common (and it's definitely not just a Tory thing - though the perception is that it's more prevalent in Tory circles, which I'm not so sure is correct). An excellent post .... 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 ... Yes, it clearly isn't at all offensive. Mr MITCHELL said: "Best you learn your f------ place...you don’t run this f------ government...You’re f------ plebs." Yes, not at all offensive. Just gentle banter. Mitchell's outburst has betrayed him. I just hope he stays in his job, as his continuation in the role, and in the government, taints them badly. We're all in it together. Us and the Cabinet millionaries. The cabinet millionaires who look down on us, and see us a lower class plebs. They're better educated you see, and from a better background. We should be grateful we have them governing us. so to recap ... you think it's acceptable for a student to sock it to the establishment by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building but a Tory swears at a policeman and suddenly it's all anti millionnaire rants :shock: I don't think it's the "crime" that irks you , more the person committing it ..had Mitchell come from t' chippie wearing a cloth cap with a whippet in his basket I suspect you'd be on here praising him for giving one in the eye to a jobsworth and and the establishment PS No body said it was banter , but swearing isn't the taboo it once was either ... I wouldn't swear in front of my kids , or anyone elses for that matter but occasional swearing in front of adults is totally acceptable .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 He failed to identify who wrote Rule Britannia and whilst he did get the year of the Magna Carta right he couldn't translate what it meant (or something) The opinion of the audience was favourable and as his intention was to raise our profile I would say he succeeded. The Yanks do like their leaders dim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 so to recap ... you think it's acceptable for a student to sock it to the establishment by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building No, i don't. I think that's incredibly dangerous, TBH (if there are people about). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 so to recap ... you think it's acceptable for a student to sock it to the establishment by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building No, i don't. I think that's incredibly dangerous, TBH (if there are people about). that wasn't what you said at the time in the student protest thread though , we even had a big argument about it at the time ... in all likelihood it you didn't really mean it at the time , you don't come across as that sort of bloke , but it does sorta reaffirm my suspicions that your views on a "crime" flit between who is actually causing it rather than the crime itself ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 so to recap ... you think it's acceptable for a student to sock it to the establishment by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building No, i don't. I think that's incredibly dangerous, TBH (if there are people about). that wasn't what you said at the time in the student protest thread though , we even had a big argument about it at the time ... Really. Can't recall, but if you find me some evidence on that one I'll happily re-assess. I was all for direct action during the time of the student protects (and still am), but if i did condone the action of that guy lobbing the fire extinguisher off the roof, then I need to have a word with myself! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The government are useless, and this guy sounds like a right prick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 The government are useless, and this guy sounds like a right prick. Well, that certainly appears to be a popular view right now. Nicely succinct and to the point. :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 so to recap ... you think it's acceptable for a student to sock it to the establishment by throwing a fire extinguisher off a building No, i don't. I think that's incredibly dangerous, TBH (if there are people about). that wasn't what you said at the time in the student protest thread though , we even had a big argument about it at the time ... Really. Can't recall, but if you find me some evidence on that one I'll happily re-assess. I can produce a policeman's notebook as unequivocal evidence if it helps :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted September 27, 2012 Moderator Share Posted September 27, 2012 The government are useless, and this guy sounds like a right prick. I disagree.... I think they're a mixture of evil, mendacious, damaging, useless, incompetent, arrogant, ludicrous, dangerous and complacent, and this guy is a massive tube. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 and labour are not pete? there all as bad as each other Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 Exactly, time to start again. Let's vote in Rolf Harris and have a giggle for a few years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 I think they're a mixture of evil, oh please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 im seriously going to read one of the smaller parties plans. i wnat to see what UKIP and the greens have to offer as all the big three have proven there are all shite. anyone think it will be better under labour are absolutely fooling themselves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted September 27, 2012 Share Posted September 27, 2012 anyone think it will be better under labour are absolutely fooling themselves it wont be any better but at least under Labour it suddenly becomes a worldwide problem again instead of an isolated problem cause by evil ,useless, incompetent, arrogant, ludicrous, dangerous and complacent toffs :winkold: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts