Lilith, no one here so far as I have read has said other than that the GCW was an idiot to expose himself to such criticism, including myself.
I certainly wouldn't defend his actions If called upon to do so (except if there was a big fat fee, of course).
Spades and holes come to mind here. A hole was dug by the officer and the GCW handed over the spade. Whether or not the GCW should have spoken to the officer in such a fashion is absolutely material and was inappropriate but my point is that the whole thing could have been diffused with a little more diplomacy by the officer who is trained to deal with difficult people and situations. That is his brief. The officer didn't perform too well in my opinion (which, for flower's benefit, I am perfectly entitled to express - despite the fact it's his thread) and the unusual action of publishing the Police report smacks of panic back at base in order to cover the tracks and get their story 'right'.
This is not dissimilar to what happened at Hillsborough. It all just got out of hand. They closed ranks and fabricated their reports so they were all the same and it's not the first time to have happened, nor will it be the last. I am curious as to why the need to write and publish such a report when the gate is so well monitored by CCTV.
As I said, with the benefit of hindsight of course, the officer could have handled things very differently but he chose to be confrontational. He relies on comments that they were only acting under instructions (now, where have I heard that one before?) but the GCW had entered Downing Street a number of times that day, by all accounts, and had been accorded passage through the main gate on or with his bike.
It's an alternative view point. Sometimes you have to look at the 'bigger' picture.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Is an apology enough ?
last reply
191 replies
4.8k views
0 watchers
0 likes
GnV - I think we broadly agree. I am just more sympathetic to the police than you are, it seems. I don't think there was any need to be more diplomatic in the circumstances. Yes, the officer was somewhat confrontational. Yes, he could have deferred to the GCW, thereby diffusing the situation. Yes, there was no need to stir the pot by publishing the reports. But, as I have already said, I think it is good that an example is being made of Mr Mitchell in the circumstances. For all we know, he may have been rude, aggressive and derogatory to officers on duty on many prior occasions, and someone just decided "enough is enough" and decided to bite back this time.
I'm firmly on the side of the police here. I don't think any criticism is due and I'm pleased to see the GCW getting some comeuppance given his appalling behaviour.
I'm firmly on the side of the police here. I don't think any criticism is due and I'm pleased to see the GCW getting some comeuppance given his appalling behaviour.
Quote by GnV
It's an alternative view point. Sometimes you have to look at the 'bigger' picture.
For the record, I do see your point and have conceded that you have a valid point in general. I just happen to agree with the course of action taken by the police in the circumstances.
Also, your alternative viewpoint doesn't necessarily equate to looking at the entire "bigger picture". It is a somewhat narrow view (prefaced, it would seem, on a particular attitude that you have towards the police in general), and I would argue that looking at the situation through your lens only provides a snippet of the bigger picture. Having said that, I'm all for looking at and considering alternative views in order to construct a bigger picture view for myself, and I do find your take on this very interesting. :thumbup:
Quote by flower411
We are all going off at tangents here.
Yes, but aren't they fun?! I've always preferred interesting tangents to following the straight and narrow ;-)
(but I do agree with you - hence my lack of comments "on topic" - I don't have much to add to what you've already said in that regard!)
Quote by flower411
Aren't you supposed to add water to it?
I only ask because it's something I know you are qualified to comment on.
Now there`s something you are right about !!
Last time I told someone on this forum to take more water with it all hell broke loose.
But as we all know, stuff that can get me banned passes without comment when somebody else says it
Probably because you were making libellous accusations which were without any foundation whatsoever. But as you say, plus ca change!
Sex God
Hanging's too good for 'em
One wonders what Mr Mitchells reaction would have been had his opposite number been the subject of these accusations
I don't really; he'd have called for his resignation
One wonders what Mr Mitchells reaction would have been had his opposite number been the subject of these accusations
I don't really; he'd have called for his resignation
Quote by Max777
Aren't you supposed to add water to it?
I only ask because it's something I know you are qualified to comment on.
Now there`s something you are right about !!
Last time I told someone on this forum to take more water with it all hell broke loose.
But as we all know, stuff that can get me banned passes without comment when somebody else says it
Probably because you were making slanderous accusations which were without any foundation whatsoever. But as you say, plus ca change!
Nice to see you post Max :thumbup:
Sex God
Quote by Cubes
I have to admit that I've not read the entire thread (time is my enemy lately) but I can't help thinking that one likely cause of all this hoo-ha is that it simply fell into a slow news week. But hey, at least it seems to have removed the focus from Kate's tits! ;)
As did (as far as I can tell ) the photographer
Quote by Cubes
I have to admit that I've not read the entire thread (time is my enemy lately) but I can't help thinking that one likely cause of all this hoo-ha is that it simply fell into a slow news week. But hey, at least it seems to have removed the focus from Kate's tits! ;)
What a great post! 
Cubey Quote by flower411
Aren't you supposed to add water to it?
I only ask because it's something I know you are qualified to comment on.
Now there`s something you are right about !!
Last time I told someone on this forum to take more water with it all hell broke loose.
But as we all know, stuff that can get me banned passes without comment when somebody else says it
Probably because you were making slanderous accusations which were without any foundation whatsoever. But as you say, plus ca change!
Pmsl
That was quicker than even I imagined .....
Did someone tip you off to come in with your wooden spoon ?
Think you have the entire collection of those Flower
Quote by Lilith
In the spirit of going off on a tangent (although this is really more of an interlude with a quick question that is entirely irrelevant to the thread!!)... How many posts do I need to make before I become "Godlike"? I rather fancy myself as a Goddess...!
:evil2:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/411297.html
;)
Quote by Cubes
In the spirit of going off on a tangent (although this is really more of an interlude with a quick question that is entirely irrelevant to the thread!!)... How many posts do I need to make before I become "Godlike"? I rather fancy myself as a Goddess...!
:evil2:
http://www.swingingheaven.co.uk/swingers-forum/viewtopic/411297.html
;)
Show off...!! You coulda just told me "1000" - making me go and read a whole thread... <grumble, grumble>
Sex God
Quote by Cubes
I have to admit that I've not read the entire thread (time is my enemy lately) but I can't help thinking that one likely cause of all this hoo-ha is that it simply fell into a slow news week. But hey, at least it seems to have removed the focus from Kate's tits! ;)
:thumbup:
Quote by Lilith
GnV - I think we broadly agree. I am just more sympathetic to the police than you are, it seems. I don't think there was any need to be more diplomatic in the circumstances. Yes, the officer was somewhat confrontational. Yes, he could have deferred to the GCW, thereby diffusing the situation. Yes, there was no need to stir the pot by publishing the reports. But, as I have already said, I think it is good that an example is being made of Mr Mitchell in the circumstances. For all we know, he may have been rude, aggressive and derogatory to officers on duty on many prior occasions, and someone just decided "enough is enough" and decided to bite back this time.
I'm firmly on the side of the police here. I don't think any criticism is due and I'm pleased to see the GCW getting some comeuppance given his appalling behaviour.
Having 'associated' with Police professionally over my whole working life (on the right side of the law I have to say) I have no hang ups at all about them - perhaps just a better insight than most.
How Police are today in the way they go about their business is a whole new thread which i am sure will evoke many emotions and whilst I appreciate that you enjoy moving off topic to develop a thread, this one might not be it.
I have a great respect for the law. What I do not respect is blind faith in just how wonderful our policemen are and that they can do no wrong.
Quote by GnV
What I do not respect is blind faith in just how wonderful our policemen are and that they can do no wrong.
I don't think I'd go that far myself. I don't have blind faith in the police. My sister is in the Met, so I have some realistic insights. Of course the police can get it wrong sometimes - nobody is perfect - but, in this case, I happen to agree with how they've chosen to handle the situation.
Quote by Lilith
What I do not respect is blind faith in just how wonderful our policemen are and that they can do no wrong.
I don't think I'd go that far myself. I don't have blind faith in the police. My sister is in the Met, so I have some realistic insights. Of course the police can get it wrong sometimes - nobody is perfect - but, in this case, I happen to agree with how they've chosen to handle the situation.
Then there is no need to pursue it further. We have to agree to disagree on that point. I respect your position.
Sex God
yesterdays news with no real outcome means and apology was sufficient :rotflmao::rotflmao:
:rotflmao::rotflmao: Sex God
Quote by flower411
yesterdays news with no real outcome means and apology was sufficient
Seems it wasn`t after all
hardly a media frenzied public flogging................some weeks later he resigns with minimum fuss and a big thanks to jimmy saville for saving him from a full scale witch hunt.
any bets on a return in the near future
Quote by flower411
yesterdays news with no real outcome means and apology was sufficient
Seems it wasn`t after all
hardly a media frenzied public flogging................some weeks later he resigns with minimum fuss and a big thanks to jimmy saville for saving him from a full scale witch hunt.
any bets on a return in the near future
No doubt they`ll try to sneak him in to some job in the not to distant future, but it`s all down the to voters in Sutton Coldfield. We`ll to wait and see about that one.
Has he resigned as an MP as well then? I thought he had only resigned as Chief Whip? If he is still an MP then of course the voters can vote him out as their MP, but only at the next election. I thought you could only be a minister etc if you were already an MP?
The old school Tory and Labour toffs who all rally around each other in times like this, will do to him exactly what they did to this other horrid little man.
Another Oxford Graduate. I am sure Mitchell will be back in favour within two years. Cameron and his Tory toff mates have learned nothing from all their mistakes.
