Chief Whip is rude to policemen

EKE_38BPM

Has anyone asked why he couldn't ride through the vehicle entrance? And if so, what was the answer?

tailwindhome

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Has anyone asked why he couldn't ride through the vehicle entrance? And if so, what was the answer?

I read somewhere that 'unnessecary' opening of the main gate is seen as a security risk.

EKE_38BPM

TailWindHome wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Has anyone asked why he couldn't ride through the vehicle entrance? And if so, what was the answer?

I read somewhere that 'unnessecary' opening of the main gate is seen as a security risk.

What a lame excuse. Sounds like a copper wanting to exert his authoritah.

bails87

EKE_38BPM wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Has anyone asked why he couldn't ride through the vehicle entrance? And if so, what was the answer?

I read somewhere that 'unnessecary' opening of the main gate is seen as a security risk.

What a lame excuse. Sounds like a copper wanting to exert his authoritah.

Who met a politician who wanted to exert his authoritah

EKE_38BPM

bails87 wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Has anyone asked why he couldn't ride through the vehicle entrance? And if so, what was the answer?

I read somewhere that 'unnessecary' opening of the main gate is seen as a security risk.

What a lame excuse. Sounds like a copper wanting to exert his authoritah.

Who met a politician who wanted to exert his authoritah

It is a bit like a perfect storm with one side reinforcing the other. Both want to be top dog, no-one wants to back down. Some people do act irrationally when they see a bike though, maybe the copper is one of those?

greg66_tri_v2.0

bails87 wrote:

I don't recall reading that the PC was crying at any point.

And nothing was leaked to the press, it was said in view of journos who promptly reported what they'd seen.

You seem to be blaming the PC for allowing a newspaper to print something that was seen by it's journos. :?

Why do you say that (I'm curious, not needling. For once).

The Sun (here) doesn't claim one of its reporters witnessed the incident. It quotes "a source". Who I would guess was the policeman in question.

Furthermore, that story carries an account of what the policeman told his superior officer, which can only have come from one of two mouths.

rebs

Surely it was just easier to open a little gate instead of a bike gate for a man and his bike no? the whole story has amazing at how blown out of proportion. Although bloody funny.

But then who like a good verbal handbags with "nasty corrupt Tory MP" vs "Nasty corrupt facist pig" :roll:

Although I do beleive Mr Whip certainly showed his Tory colours.. snobby barsteward :P Think it'll be wrong for him to be sacked over such comments but I don't think anyone should be punished for speaking like that to the police. But I really wish there is never a need to do so.... doe that sound too hippie for my own good? :P

DrLex

Greg66 wrote:

[...]
Furthermore, that story carries an account of what the policeman told his superior officer, which can only have come from one of two mouths.

Indeed, and from a chum's email yesterday:
"I was having a drink with the officer in question and he's not letting this one go.  Mitchell has a long history of particularly vile treatment of those charged with ensuring his safety and this was the final straw."
Expect it to rumble on a while longer.

jimmypippa

DrLex wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

[...]
Furthermore, that story carries an account of what the policeman told his superior officer, which can only have come from one of two mouths.

Indeed, and from a chum's email yesterday:
"I was having a drink with the officer in question and he's not letting this one go.  Mitchell has a long history of particularly vile treatment of those charged with ensuring his safety and this was the final straw."
Expect it to rumble on a while longer.

Interesting... The story makes more sense now.

If you continually piss off people who you meet in the course of their work - they won't bother making life easy for you when it is as easy to make it harder. They won't cut you any slack if you then lose your rag.

rick_chasey

Does said policeman also understand no-one would be listening if there was some proper news on?

I'm sure he feels agrieved and has every right to, but him and his story is newspaper filler, not actual news, unfortunately.

It's convienent his claim chimes into long lost rhetoric with posh-boy Tories being out of touch with common-folk. A good stick with which to beat the Tories with, even if it's a charge that, in all honesty, can be levelled at most people in Westminster.

jimmypippa

jimmypippa wrote:

DrLex wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

[...]
Furthermore, that story carries an account of what the policeman told his superior officer, which can only have come from one of two mouths.

Indeed, and from a chum's email yesterday:
"I was having a drink with the officer in question and he's not letting this one go.  Mitchell has a long history of particularly vile treatment of those charged with ensuring his safety and this was the final straw."
Expect it to rumble on a while longer.

Interesting... The story makes more sense now.

If you continually wee-wee off people who you meet in the course of their work - they won't bother making life easy for you when it is as easy to make it harder. They won't cut you any slack if you then lose your rag.

I didn't realise the swear filter was so sensitive. I now look look someone who doesn't mind writing what everyone knows is another word whilst being too precious/hypocritical to actually write it.

Yes, I see no reason why newspapers use what everyone knows as "The F word" and make it perfectly clear which word is being said whilst simultaneously claiming that such a word is shocking. Either just report the fact of swearing, giving no specific examples or report accurately.


(FFS)

steve6690

Can't believe that so many people on here are missing the point, or just biased because the story involves someone on a bike. So here is the point : The big main gate is only opened for cars to come through. When it's opened they have to have a bit of notice so they can station extra armed officers there, as obviously it increases the security risk. If you, I, or anyone else turns up on a bike we'd be told to walk through the pedestrian access gate, where it just needs one armed officer to stand. But this idiot thinks he's better than the likes of you I and should get special treatment.
When he was politely asked to use the other gate, he is reported to have called the officers "plebs" and "morons" and that they should "know their place". It's not an "anti-cyclist" issue. It's a "I'm better than you" issue.
If you think that's acceptable behaviour towards someone who's just doing their job.....

Cleat Eastwood

steve6690 wrote:

Can't believe that so many people on here are missing the point, or just biased because the story involves someone on a bike. So here is the point : The big main gate is only opened for cars to come through. When it's opened they have to have a bit of notice so they can station extra armed officers there, as obviously it increases the security risk. If you, I, or anyone else turns up on a bike we'd be told to walk through the pedestrian access gate, where it just needs one armed officer to stand. But this idiot thinks he's better than the likes of you I and should get special treatment.
When he was politely asked to use the other gate, he is reported to have called the officers "plebs" and "morons" and that they should "know their place". It's not an "anti-cyclist" issue. It's a "I'm better than you" issue.
If you think that's acceptable behaviour towards someone who's just doing their job.....

Dats da troot.

And it highlights what goes on in the tory mind - we're all in this together, as long as you know your place.

jimmypippa

steve6690 wrote:

Can't believe that so many people on here are missing the point, or just biased because the story involves someone on a bike. So here is the point : The big main gate is only opened for cars to come through. When it's opened they have to have a bit of notice so they can station extra armed officers there, as obviously it increases the security risk. If you, I, or anyone else turns up on a bike we'd be told to walk through the pedestrian access gate, where it just needs one armed officer to stand. But this idiot thinks he's better than the likes of you I and should get special treatment.
When he was politely asked to use the other gate, he is reported to have called the officers "plebs" and "morons" and that they should "know their place". It's not an "anti-cyclist" issue. It's a "I'm better than you" issue.
If you think that's acceptable behaviour towards someone who's just doing their job.....

True, and supported by the post by Dr Lex , which fits with what we know about Mitchell.

If you want a policeman to be helpful towards you, it is not a good idea to be such a git to them if the give you some instructions.

BelgianBeerGeek

Indeed. I didn't think I'd be coming back to this, but hey-ho.
The Sunday Times has made a thing of this, claiming he's a bit of a bully! Tory party, the party of law and order, eh?
And now we discover they're all patrician nobs.

Hoopdriver

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

Indeed. I didn't think I'd be coming back to this, but hey-ho.
The Sunday Times has made a thing of this, claiming he's a bit of a bully! Tory party, the party of law and order, eh?
And now we discover they're all patrician nobs.

You have only just discovered they are all Patrician nobs?

bails87

Greg66 wrote:

bails87 wrote:

I don't recall reading that the PC was crying at any point.

And nothing was leaked to the press, it was said in view of journos who promptly reported what they'd seen.

You seem to be blaming the PC for allowing a newspaper to print something that was seen by it's journos. :?

Why do you say that (I'm curious, not needling. For once).

I'm sure I read a report right at the start of all this that said it had been overhead/seen by reporters, because they'd said that a group of tourists and bystanders were "clearly stunned" by the bad language. Which is obviously nonsense (the 'stunned' bit), because no-one is that much of a delicate little flower. Perhaas I was mistaken/the report was somewhat embellished (in the Sun, shirley shome mishtake).

FWIW, I think Mitchell was an idiot. This kind of thing will probably be picked up by someone as 'proof' of the arrogance of all cyclists. It will definitely not help the 'Bullingdon Boys' image that the Tory party has (and yes, I asbsolutely think this is an issue for them, whether it's true or not), nor the entitled posh boy image that politics as a whole has. The timing of it was obviously a PR disaster too, if it had been right after the Simon Harwood verdict maybe the public reaction would have been different. But then I think, for the most, the public reaction has been "A copper being officious and obstructive/a tory being a patronising blowhard, what's new? shrug*". This seems to be driven by the papers who need something to write about and can smell blood.

We haven't had a sobbing, traumatised PC on tv asking for the monster to be locked up, he had a senior gov't official ranting at him, he's probably required to include it in some kind of daily report. If he was that upset he'd have nicked him there and then. Maybe the Met is still leaking like a seive, with the Sun hanging underneath like a bottom feeder, ready to pick up anything juicy, and that should be the bigger issue? How are they getting confidential police notes?

However, as I said in the thread about reporting of bad news, the forced apologies in politics are ridiculous. I doubt the apology was done for anything other than PR reasons, I'd rather he hadn't bothered, have some chutzpah, say "the PC was being a pain and I told him as much". I don't think he should resign/be sacked because of it.

The reasons for not opening the gate have been covered, it seems sensible. He wasn't told to walk all the way back to his destination, he was just asked to walk through one gate, to save the security operation involved in opening the main gate. He should have just done it.

Instead he's made himself look bad, made the tory party look like a bunch of 'know your place' toffs and he's distracted the government from sorting out any of the multitude of messes that are going on at the moment.

vermin

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

claiming he's a bit of a bully!

The Chief Whip? A bit of a bully? Who'd a thunk it?

rolf_f

Ahhh, what a conundrum. On the one hand, it is nice to think that he is getting his commupance not because of what he did on this occasion but because it sounds like he is a right royal git.

Of course, the question is, would this have blown up like this had he been a pleasant person? Of course we won't find out as pleasant people rarely get that far.......

DonDaddyD

On one hand we've got people saying the - what is essentially an employment tribunal - new hearing against John Terry, who admits to saying what he said, is uncalled for.

On the other we've got people saying that the word 'pleb' is enough to be sacked.

WTF.

bails87

DonDaddyD wrote:

On one hand we've got people saying the - what is essentially an employment tribunal - new hearing against John Terry, who admits to saying what he said, is uncalled for.

On the other we've got people saying that the word 'pleb' is enough to be sacked.

WTF.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2012-09- ... -arrested/

Mayor of London said that anybody who swears at a police officer should be arrested: 'If people swear at the police, they must expect to be arrested. Not just because it's wrong to expect officers to endure profanities, but it's also because of the experience of the culprits. If people feel there are no comebacks, no boundaries and no retribution for the small stuff, then I'm afraid they will go on to commit worse crimes'.

There is, of course, the chance that the two groups you've mentioned are entirely seperate...

SimonAH

Pleb, from Plebian;

from L. plebius "of the common people," from plebes "the common people" (as opposed to patricians, etc.)

This is not swearing guys. Its use is indicative of a certain section of society, but profanity it is not.

DonDaddyD

I heard that swearing at the police is an offence. But swearing in mid sentence as part of the sentence isn't.

So, "You're a f*cking prick, officer" (not you personally its an example) aimed at an officer is an offence.

But

"I don't know what the f*ck happened, he just hit me over the f*cking head it f*cking hurt, officer" Is not an offence.

I just don't see calling someone a 'pleb' as that offensive. Had he called the officer an "idiot" would it have been as bad?

rjsterry

SimonAH wrote:

Pleb, from Plebian;

from L. plebius "of the common people," from plebes "the common people" (as opposed to patricians, etc.)

This is not swearing guys. Its use is indicative of a certain section of society, but profanity it is not.

I understand there was some fairly fruity and profane prefixing of the word "pleb".

vermin

SimonAH wrote:

Pleb, from Plebian;

from L. plebius "of the common people," from plebes "the common people" (as opposed to patricians, etc.)

This is not swearing guys. Its use is indicative of a certain section of society, but profanity it is not.

Assuming he isn't asexual, there's a more than fair chance that the policeman is a f***ing pleb. As are most of us. Most of us just don't like to be reminded of the fact though.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

I just don't see calling someone a 'pleb' as that offensive. Had he called the officer an "idiot" would it have been as bad?

Surely that depends on whether or not the policeman is actually an idiot or not. If the plod really is an idiot, the word is purely descriptive!

Edit - from Wikipedia

An idiot, dolt, or dullard is a mentally deficient person, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way.

The latter two definitions might arguably apply. Hopefully the former wouldn't have made it into uniform though you never know....

DonDaddyD

OK, we all know that there is an insult scale.

1 - 10.

Racial abuse being 11. Calling someone a c*nt (unless it's your wife or partner - Mickey Flanagan) a, I'm gonna fight you, 10.

On the insult scale calling someone a pleb is a 3. It's sits between stupid and idioit which is a 2 and prat, prick and dickhead which is a 4.

Thems the rules, I don't make them, I just live by them.

bails87

Right, but he allegedly called him a "F*cking pleb". And has admitted that he swore at them.

rjsterry

Armando Ianucci must be hoovering this up at the moment for his next series. The line between reality and fiction is becoming very fuzzy.

woodnut

A pleb calling a pleb a pleb is different to a non pleb calling a pleb (or a non pleb) a pleb.