Chief Whip is rude to policemen

il_principe

You'd expect a copper to have thicker skin.

He was being a jobsworth. AM was being a prick. Storm in a teacup.

jds_1981

notsoblue wrote:

Chief whip still swore at an officer though...

Heh, think the guardianistas didn't care so much about the swearing, but about the 'pleb'
Anyway, I don't care about swearing or not, but on technicalities, is saying "I thought you were supposed to f*cking help us" swearing at someone? I'd think swearing at someone is more along the lines of saying "you are a f*ck".

greg66_tri_v2.0

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

So it was all a lie. I'll just sit back and wait for the retractions from all of those who were queuing up on here to register their glee at having their anti-conservative party prejudices confirmed when it happened. I won't hold my breath.

It's a wry old world where you can be hounded out of your job on the basis of a bit of a cobbled together story that suits a particular agenda. I think the word I'm after is 'stinks'. It does. Let's hope heads roll over this.

Er, he still swore at a police officer. He doesn't deny that. You think thats behaviour worthy of someone in that position?

Yesterday as I rode in, opposite Battersea power station the police had a stop exercise going on. I was heading the approaching traffic alongside a car. A PC walked out, stood on the solid line separating CS8 and the road, and held up his hand in a "stop" sign.

I slowed, as did the car, and I fell into the lead. As I got to the PC I asked "do you want me to stop or the car?"

The PC acted as if he had only just - that second - noticed me, despite having me heading for his right shoulder, and said "Oh, sorry, the car".

I swore quite a lot, quite quietly and may also have cast some imputations on the level of his general intelligence.

Should I now resign?

Swearing at a police officer is light years away from a police officer fabricating evidence in order to damage a public figure.

greg66_tri_v2.0

bails87 wrote:

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. :?

That hasn't stood the test of time too well, has it?

rjsterry

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

So it was all a lie. I'll just sit back and wait for the retractions from all of those who were queuing up on here to register their glee at having their anti-conservative party prejudices confirmed when it happened. I won't hold my breath.

It's a wry old world where you can be hounded out of your job on the basis of a bit of a cobbled together story that suits a particular agenda. I think the word I'm after is 'stinks'. It does. Let's hope heads roll over this.

Er, he still swore at a police officer. He doesn't deny that. You think thats behaviour worthy of someone in that position?

According to his account, he swore when speaking to a police officer, which is not quite the same thing. I think he is supposed to have 'muttered' "you guys are supposed to f***ing help us". Not a clever thing to say, but certainly not worth losing your job over.

As well as the spurious 'witness' report, I think this sheds rather an unfavourable light on the backstabbing within the Tory party. I'm also intrigued by Hogan Howe's comments about "the full story" not being available yet.

notsoblue

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Should I now resign?

You're not in public office (I think). Politicians need to at least *pretend* to respect the police. The tory party clearly agrees with this, because he was (probably) forced to resign.

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Swearing at a police officer is light years away from a police officer fabricating evidence in order to damage a public figure.

Absolutely. But that doesn't change the fact that its poor form for chief whip to swear at a police officer. Even if the situation is one that we can all identify with.

il_principe

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

Yesterday as I rode in, opposite Battersea power station the police had a stop exercise going on.

Swearing at a police officer is light years away from a police officer fabricating evidence in order to damage a public figure.

Using 9 Elms these days are we?

They had another Stop exercise on Albert Embankment as well and were busy confiscating a large BMW when I headed home in the afternoon. I hope they nabbed a good number on unsinsured tossbags.

tailwindhome

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

So it was all a lie. I'll just sit back and wait for the retractions from all of those who were queuing up on here to register their glee at having their anti-conservative party prejudices confirmed when it happened. I won't hold my breath.

It's a wry old world where you can be hounded out of your job on the basis of a bit of a cobbled together story that suits a particular agenda. I think the word I'm after is 'stinks'. It does. Let's hope heads roll over this.

Er, he still swore at a police officer. He doesn't deny that. You think thats behaviour worthy of someone in that position?

Yesterday as I rode in, opposite Battersea power station the police had a stop exercise going on. I was heading the approaching traffic alongside a car. A PC walked out, stood on the solid line separating CS8 and the road, and held up his hand in a "stop" sign.

I slowed, as did the car, and I fell into the lead. As I got to the PC I asked "do you want me to stop or the car?"

The PC acted as if he had only just - that second - noticed me, despite having me heading for his right shoulder, and said "Oh, sorry, the car".

I swore quite a lot, quite quietly and may also have cast some imputations on the level of his general intelligence.

Should I now resign?

Swearing at a police officer is light years away from a police officer fabricating evidence in order to damage a public figure.

So the policeman politely apologised to you and you insulted him.

You sir are a Lycra Lout and have set back the Cycling Cause (TM The Grumblehums) by a generation

DonDaddyD

DonDaddyD wrote:

CiB wrote:

It doesn't matter what word he used. He just used the first pejorative that fell out of his mouth in that situation in response to being told whatever he was told not to do. The situation or the words that he used don't matter at all; what isn't at issue that Bloke A called Bloke B some names, someone else got wind of it and now that's being used apparently to confirm that the Tory party top to bottom is full of educated rich toffs who wish to impose on the lower orders at all possible opportunities. It may be that this Mitchell fellow genuinely does believe that he is better than his contemparies, but so what? He can believe the earth is flat if he wants; it doesn't affect anyone, nor does him thinking he can talk down to someone who's bothered him in some way. Show me someone who hasn't.

This country is well past the point of going down the pan if a bit of childish name calling between two stroppy blokes is considered to be the most important news event going on.

This is the type of rant that can make a man famous.

Needs revisiting this!

DonDaddyD

As I said before:

"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?

What kind of f*cked up Country do we live when a man can lose his job for placing a swear word in a sentence while speaking to a police officer - big difference to swearing at the officer - and we can all keep our jobs while arguing of it on the internet at work....

greg66_tri_v2.0

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

So it was all a lie. I'll just sit back and wait for the retractions from all of those who were queuing up on here to register their glee at having their anti-conservative party prejudices confirmed when it happened. I won't hold my breath.

It's a wry old world where you can be hounded out of your job on the basis of a bit of a cobbled together story that suits a particular agenda. I think the word I'm after is 'stinks'. It does. Let's hope heads roll over this.

Er, he still swore at a police officer. He doesn't deny that. You think thats behaviour worthy of someone in that position?

Yesterday as I rode in, opposite Battersea power station the police had a stop exercise going on. I was heading the approaching traffic alongside a car. A PC walked out, stood on the solid line separating CS8 and the road, and held up his hand in a "stop" sign.

I slowed, as did the car, and I fell into the lead. As I got to the PC I asked "do you want me to stop or the car?"

The PC acted as if he had only just - that second - noticed me, despite having me heading for his right shoulder, and said "Oh, sorry, the car".

I swore quite a lot, quite quietly and may also have cast some imputations on the level of his general intelligence.

Should I now resign?

Swearing at a police officer is light years away from a police officer fabricating evidence in order to damage a public figure.

So the policeman politely apologised to you and you insulted him.

You sir are a Lycra Lout and have set back the Cycling Cause (TM The Grumblehums) by a generation

That is certainly one way of looking at it.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ride on the pavement somewhere. Actually, I'm going to do wheelies on the pavement somewhere. Somewhere with vulnerable people around. Cheerio!

tailwindhome

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

TailWindHome wrote:

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

notsoblue wrote:

CiB wrote:

So it was all a lie. I'll just sit back and wait for the retractions from all of those who were queuing up on here to register their glee at having their anti-conservative party prejudices confirmed when it happened. I won't hold my breath.

It's a wry old world where you can be hounded out of your job on the basis of a bit of a cobbled together story that suits a particular agenda. I think the word I'm after is 'stinks'. It does. Let's hope heads roll over this.

Er, he still swore at a police officer. He doesn't deny that. You think thats behaviour worthy of someone in that position?

Yesterday as I rode in, opposite Battersea power station the police had a stop exercise going on. I was heading the approaching traffic alongside a car. A PC walked out, stood on the solid line separating CS8 and the road, and held up his hand in a "stop" sign.

I slowed, as did the car, and I fell into the lead. As I got to the PC I asked "do you want me to stop or the car?"

The PC acted as if he had only just - that second - noticed me, despite having me heading for his right shoulder, and said "Oh, sorry, the car".

I swore quite a lot, quite quietly and may also have cast some imputations on the level of his general intelligence.

Should I now resign?

Swearing at a police officer is light years away from a police officer fabricating evidence in order to damage a public figure.

So the policeman politely apologised to you and you insulted him.

You sir are a Lycra Lout and have set back the Cycling Cause (TM The Grumblehums) by a generation

That is certainly one way of looking at it.

Now you'll have to excuse me. I'm off to ride on the pavement somewhere. Actually, I'm going to do wheelies on the pavement somewhere. Somewhere with vulnerable people around. Cheerio!

Mind your hip.

jedster

Greg,

Bad form to swear at someone once they've already apologised I reckon. I'd be pretty embarrassed if I did that.
And if you find yourself as a Govt. Minister I DEFINTELY reckon you should give up that habit!

J

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

What kind of f*cked up Country do we live when a man can lose his job for placing a swear word in a sentence while speaking to a police officer - big difference to swearing at the officer - and we can all keep our jobs while arguing of it on the internet at work....

C'mon man, its not just any job, he was the chief whip.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really care about this incident at all. It just confirms what I've always thought - people in positions of authority are just as fallible as the rest of us. The fact that the chap has lost his job over it only shows that politicians still think they have to maintain the illusion of being morally irreproachable.

sketchley

Il Principe wrote:

You'd expect a copper to have thicker skin.

That's more accurate than you think. Language is deemed offensive if the person hearing it is likely to be affected by it. In the case of police officers because they hear it all the time as part of there job then the language is unlikely to be deemed offensive.

See http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/ ... -12200997/

The court noted that police officers in particular regrettably hear this language all too frequently as part of their job and are less likely to be affected by it

rjsterry

30 officers now working on 'Plebgate' case. :shock:

bobinski

Sketchley wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

You'd expect a copper to have thicker skin.

That's more accurate than you think. Language is deemed offensive if the person hearing it is likely to be affected by it. In the case of police officers because they hear it all the time as part of there job then the language is unlikely to be deemed offensive.

See http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/ ... -12200997/

The court noted that police officers in particular regrettably hear this language all too frequently as part of their job and are less likely to be affected by it

Spot on and affirmation of a long line of cases. I cannot recall the last time I had a client charged with a minor public order act offence merely as a reulst of swearing at an officer. Swearing can sometimes aggravate a more serious public order act offence especially where violence is threatened or used. That is why police officers often rely on civilian witnesses nearby who are said to be caused harrassment alarm or distress. As was suggested in AM's case here.

I would love to know why it has taken so long for the cctv to come to light ...

steve6690

Just because some idiot has sent an email saying he witnessed the encounter does not mean that the original officers' accounts were untrue. Personally, I'm glad that 30 officers are working on the case. There is something dodgy about this whole affair and the truth needs to come out.

steve6690

bobinski wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

You'd expect a copper to have thicker skin.

That's more accurate than you think. Language is deemed offensive if the person hearing it is likely to be affected by it. In the case of police officers because they hear it all the time as part of there job then the language is unlikely to be deemed offensive.

See http://thejusticeofthepeace.blog.co.uk/ ... -12200997/

The court noted that police officers in particular regrettably hear this language all too frequently as part of their job and are less likely to be affected by it

Spot on and affirmation of a long line of cases. I cannot recall the last time I had a client charged with a minor public order act offence merely as a reulst of swearing at an officer. Swearing can sometimes aggravate a more serious public order act offence especially where violence is threatened or used. That is why police officers often rely on civilian witnesses nearby who are said to be caused harrassment alarm or distress. As was suggested in AM's case here.

I would love to know why it has taken so long for the cctv to come to light ...

Indeed. The cctv issue is something I'm also intrigued about. I wonder whether there is/was audio too ?
On the public order point. Round this neck of the woods CPS won't charge s5 POA or s4A if the words or behaviour are only in the presence of police officers. So, you can call an officer anything you like to their face, as long as only police officers are likely to have heard it.

rjsterry

steve6690 wrote:

Just because some idiot has sent an email saying he witnessed the encounter does not mean that the original officers' accounts were untrue. Personally, I'm glad that 30 officers are working on the case. There is something dodgy about this whole affair and the truth needs to come out.

Certainly something dodgy. Hogan Howe has hinted as much. IIRC one of the giveaways that the email wasn't genuine was that it was almost exactly identical to the police log.