Thread: Cabinet Minister and Policeman Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023899
Posted by Major Disaster (# 13229) on
:
It is quite possible that I do not understand the important questions in this news story which has been running for three days now.
The outrage, implicit and invoked, in the reports, is directed against the Government Chief Whip, and all sympathy seems to be with a humble policeman who was on duty, and was apparently verbally abused for doing his job.
But it seems to me that gates to prevent unauthorised access by vehicles, could be opened for a Cabinet Minister, who is going about his business, and is certainly authorised to pass out of the security of Downing Street into the public thoroughfare of Whitehall. I see no explanation as to the misunderstanding of why the policeman would not open the gate when asked to do so; 'policy' was the reason given, but whose policy is not explained. Why was the policeman at the gate at all, if he was not there to open and close it for authorised vehicles?. Why is a public servant (a policeman) of low rank, dictating to a Government Minister what the Minister must do because of a policy regarding the security gates, which was unknown to the Cabinet Minister? Is the image of the police so high in the public view, and a Government Minister so lowly, that "pleb" is a mortally offensive epithet (if it was used at all) and is cause to hound the minister to resign?
If the media, and the Opposition parties show no sense of proportion in such a trivial question, it is no wonder that there is a deep problem within our western society regarding the respect due to all persons, as human beings, whether they be Royal Princesses, members of the Government (titled Right Honourable!), football fans at Hillsborough, or humble newspaper sellers who get in the way of a policeman's anger at a demonstration. Public Servants can be proud in their service. But they serve; they should not dictate. Otherwise we can forgo the remnants of democratic forms, and respect, which have been left to us by increasingly restrictive legislation.
Forgive my rant. I had nowhere else to express my disgust.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
The point is that the self-important arsehole showed exactly how much regard he has for other people he considers his inferiors - fuck all.
Useful to know.
Serving public servants do not have the authority to ignore their instructions just because someone tells them to. I suggest if you get pulled over for speeding you try your "you're there to serve, so do as I say, and let me drive as fast as I like, you pleb" logic there.
[ 25. September 2012, 11:43: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
Well, the government minister, of whatever rank, is also a public servant. And whoever he is, I think Britain is still a society in which we are supposed to be equal before the law. We can all be subject to unknown "policy" from time to time. The minister could (and should) have just sucked it up and inquired about the "policy" later.
I think there's a great irony that in spite of all the content of the Leveson inquiry, the "official police account" has appeared in the press. There's a sneaking suspicion that the police will think it's just fine to supply information to the media in this case.
And when all is said and done, if every encounter between a disgruntled punter and a police officer that involved a few words being exchanged and then everyone getting on with their life made this much news, there wouldn't be any other news. Of course, it's good fodder for the press, the police and the opposition, but it's not as if he's supposed to have assaulted a police officer is it. He has apologised and there doesn't seem to be much more to it really.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
He has apologised and there doesn't seem to be much more to it really.
Yes there is. If someone called me a "pleb" then no apology would erase the fact that they're a shit of the highest order who thinks they're superior to me and can look on me with distain. They can fuck right off, and so can he.
[ 25. September 2012, 11:45: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It doesn't seem like a resigning matter or a disciplinary matter, though it is revealing, as Karl LB says.
According to Wikipedia, Andrew Mitchell has an impressive record on overseas aid and development. He's a millionaire from a privileged background, but he seems to be someone committed to supporting good causes, including the population of Gaza.
If I was asked to get off my bike and use a pedestrian gate it would annoy me no end. Like many cyclists I'm a bit touchy at the frequent suggestion that I'm not entitled to use the roads like any other vehicle.
On the other hand, I don't think police are servants in the sense that they should defer to their betters. It's the policy that is arguably wrong, not the officer.
Move along, I'd say, nothing to see here.
Apart from the pleasing fact that some people are calling this Gategate.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
You could have posted your rant in Hell, but you didn't, so I'll reply to it in Purgatorial tones.
As Chief Whip Andrew Mitchell is responsible for party discipline, for which he set a lousy example with his rude outburst. Why couldn't he have made a polite request? Is he not routinely polite to those he considers of 'lower rank'? As a former army officer (though of short duration) he should know otherwise. As for the policeman, he was I'm sure carrying out his duties as instructed by his superior officers, which is the way they operate: they do not exist to be bossed around by members of the public, even if they are cabinet ministers.
You are plain, dead wrong in asserting that anyone should take insults from 'their betters' as a normal part of the job.
Anyhow, you're deliberately posting inflamattory crap here to avoid the approriate response which you would receive had you posted in The Other Place.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
quote:
If the media, and the Opposition parties show no sense of proportion in such a trivial question...
You think it's trivial that a senior Government minister is apparently incapable of keeping control of his temper after a hard day at the office?
Though I do agree that the media has made too much of it.
The Tories: Still Nasty After All These Years!
You're right, it isn't really news.
[ 25. September 2012, 12:00: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Can I add that as a cyclist it would piss the hell out of me if I wasn't treated as a vehicle, but if I started ripping the copper off a strip and swearing at him I'd be amazed if I wasn't giving my details down at the fuzz box toot sweet.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
He has apologised and there doesn't seem to be much more to it really.
Yes there is. If someone called me a "pleb" then no apology would erase the fact that they're a shit of the highest order who thinks they're superior to me and can look on me with distain. They can fuck right off, and so can he.
Yes, but very large quantities of people who think they can look down on other people (including the police) exist in all walks of life, so it's not surprising to find one in government (or indeed, in the police itself).
Plus which the only way of "knowing" that he used the word pleb (which of course he denies) is by seeing the official police account. Which is not supposed to be in the press. How it got to be in the press is by far the most interesting aspect of this otherwise boring saga.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I add that as a cyclist it would piss the hell out of me if I wasn't treated as a vehicle, but if I started ripping the copper off a strip and swearing at him I'd be amazed if I wasn't giving my details down at the fuzz box toot sweet.
Ah, but you're not a cabinet minister, ex-army officer and Old Rugbeian. Doesn't that count for anything nowadays?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
That arrogant shits are commonplace is no excuse for being an arrogant shit, and knowing arrogant shits are in government can inform our actions with regard to them when they want our support at the ballot box.
Not that I'd be likely to vote Tory before Satan was spotted putting on his snow shoes to cover the ground to his snow plough before driving it to work.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
[and another thing!]
Isn't it ironic that it's usually tories who bang on about the breakdown of respect for authority and how in their day you did as teachers and police and the local vicar told you and doffed your cap to the squire, and let me tell, you, when I was a boy... /cont. P 96
Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which the only way of "knowing" that he used the word pleb (which of course he denies) is by seeing the official police account.
An account which would be viewed with the utmost suspicion if it related to the handling of a load of crusties at a demo, but appears to have been handed down on tablets of stone when there's a Tory involved.
Not that I think they're very likely to be lying, just musing on how easily we slip into assessing accounts based on how much we like/sympathise with people.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
It is much more likely that Mitchell used the word 'pleb' than that the police officer was making it up. It's not in the vocabulary of most ordinary Britons except those schooled in elitist establishments like Eton. (I don't know where Mitchell went to school but as an upper-middle-class Tory he will have absorbed the dialect)
Anyone can lose their temper with public servants of any kind, especially if they perceive them as being unnecessarily obstructive. It would have been understandable, though wrong, for the MP to have sworn at the officer. But to call them a 'pleb' is arrogant snobbery of the worst kind, and reveals exactly what the members of this government think of the rest of us.
Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I add that as a cyclist it would piss the hell out of me if I wasn't treated as a vehicle, but if I started ripping the copper off a strip and swearing at him I'd be amazed if I wasn't giving my details down at the fuzz box toot sweet.
I wouldn't be amazed to get away with that (not that I've ever been involved in a dispute with a policeman). I think it's more likely that I would be invited to take a moment to consider if it was wise to continue to carry on in that fashion. If I did carry on doing that then I might expect a trip to the local station.
But as I said before, if the police arrested everyone who had a go at them, meaningful police work would grind to a halt.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which the only way of "knowing" that he used the word pleb (which of course he denies) is by seeing the official police account.
An account which would be viewed with the utmost suspicion if it related to the handling of a load of crusties at a demo, but appears to have been handed down on tablets of stone when there's a Tory involved.
Not that I think they're very likely to be lying, just musing on how easily we slip into assessing accounts based on how much we like/sympathise with people.
Or how likely it seems. I could imagine a copper bigging it up a bit, especially if he needed to justify a public order arrest, but "pleb" seems an unusual insult to pull from out of ones arse.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Can I add that as a cyclist it would piss the hell out of me if I wasn't treated as a vehicle, but if I started ripping the copper off a strip and swearing at him I'd be amazed if I wasn't giving my details down at the fuzz box toot sweet.
Ah, but you're not a cabinet minister, ex-army officer and Old Rugbeian. Doesn't that count for anything nowadays?
He may have gone to public school but he is no Gentleman.
Time for him to fall on his sword...
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
You think it's trivial that a senior Government minister is apparently incapable of keeping control of his temper after a hard day at the office?
It's certainly a far more trivial matter than when a senior minister in the previous Labour government actually punched a member of the public in the face when provoked. I don't recall any demands that he should have resigned.
Lefty morality in a nutshell: common assault is perfectly OK, but calling someone a name that implies you look down on them is unforgivable. Unless you're looking down on them for being a toff, of course - that's perfectly fine as well.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
No, I'm looking down on him for being an arrogant little shit. It's not about calling people names, or even about looking down on them - it's about thinking that one should get ones own way just because one is so very very much more important than anyone else.
[ 25. September 2012, 12:54: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Incidently, if you're referring to "two jabs Prescott" and the egg incident, would that be the one where no charges were brought because Prescott was deemed by the police to have acted in self defence and therefore there had not, in fact, been a common assault, or indeed an assault of any kind?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/16/newsid_4098000/4098929.stm
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
it's about thinking that one should get ones own way just because one is so very very much more important than anyone else.
If there's a single member of the cabinet who isn't more important to the country than you or I, then their job shouldn't exist.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Incidently, if you're referring to "two jabs Prescott" and the egg incident, would that be the one where no charges were brought because Prescott was deemed by the police to have acted in self defence and therefore there had not, in fact, been a common assault, or indeed an assault of any kind?
Well of course that's what they said. They can't have senior cabinet ministers being arrested like common plebs, can they?
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
it's about thinking that one should get ones own way just because one is so very very much more important than anyone else.
If there's a single member of the cabinet who isn't more important to the country than you or I, then their job shouldn't exist.
Being "more important" does not mean one can insist on getting ones own way like a spoilt child. That's the issue here.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Incidently, if you're referring to "two jabs Prescott" and the egg incident, would that be the one where no charges were brought because Prescott was deemed by the police to have acted in self defence and therefore there had not, in fact, been a common assault, or indeed an assault of any kind?
Well of course that's what they said. They can't have senior cabinet ministers being arrested like common plebs, can they?
I assume that your recourse to a sort of low-level conspiracy theory here is an admission that the cases aren't really comparable.
Posted by Hawk (# 14289) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which the only way of "knowing" that he used the word pleb (which of course he denies) is by seeing the official police account.
An account which would be viewed with the utmost suspicion if it related to the handling of a load of crusties at a demo, but appears to have been handed down on tablets of stone when there's a Tory involved.
Not that I think they're very likely to be lying, just musing on how easily we slip into assessing accounts based on how much we like/sympathise with people.
Or how likely it seems. I could imagine a copper bigging it up a bit, especially if he needed to justify a public order arrest, but "pleb" seems an unusual insult to pull from out of ones arse.
Not really. It's not an unknown word - not even particularly uncommon. And it's certianly not only posh public schoolboys who would know it.
It is a very useful insult for the officer to drop into his written report as it highlights the class issue very well. The minister apparently left threatening the officer that he 'hadn't heard the last of this' so to protect his job, who's to say the officer didn't drop the insult into the report as a pre-emptive attack. It is not unknown for the police to write their statements (and rewrite them) to cast themselves in the best light, or cover themselves - as illuminated by inquiries such as Hillsborough.
It's the officer's word against the ministers' at the moment. I think it would be appalling if he's forced to resign on the say so of one man.
And even if Mitchell said what the officer said he did, it's hardly a sacking issue. Karl argues that Mitchell's Great Offence is that he thinks he should get his own way just because he is more important than anyone else. Well so what. Are you a member of the thought police now? Is arrogance a punishable offence?
Mitchell didn't do anything, he only thought something, and expressed this in a throwaway comment. If Mitchell actively tried to get the officer fired because he 'talked back to his betters' then you'd have a point. Instead Mitchell just walked away muttering and swearing. What a criminal! Firing's obviously too good for such an Oppressor of the People. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being "more important" does not mean one can insist on getting ones own way like a spoilt child. That's the issue here.
Then you should have said that earlier, rather than going on about how it was so terrible that he'd called a policemen a pleb.
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I assume that your recourse to a sort of low-level conspiracy theory here is an admission that the cases aren't really comparable.
Of course they're not comparable! One was a working class, salt-of-the-earth Labour minister, and so to be given the benefit of the doubt at all times, and the other is an overprivileged, thinks-he's-better-than-the-rest-of-us Tory toff who should therefore be pilloried at every available opportunity!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Being "more important" does not mean one can insist on getting ones own way like a spoilt child. That's the issue here.
Then you should have said that earlier, rather than going on about how it was so terrible that he'd called a policemen a pleb.
Well, I'm glad you understand me now.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I assume that your recourse to a sort of low-level conspiracy theory here is an admission that the cases aren't really comparable.
Of course they're not comparable! One was a working class, salt-of-the-earth Labour minister, and so to be given the benefit of the doubt at all times, and the other is an overprivileged, thinks-he's-better-than-the-rest-of-us Tory toff who should therefore be pilloried at every available opportunity! [/QB]
That's not it, and you know it.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Plus which the only way of "knowing" that he used the word pleb (which of course he denies) is by seeing the official police account.
An account which would be viewed with the utmost suspicion if it related to the handling of a load of crusties at a demo, but appears to have been handed down on tablets of stone when there's a Tory involved.
Not that I think they're very likely to be lying, just musing on how easily we slip into assessing accounts based on how much we like/sympathise with people.
Or how likely it seems. I could imagine a copper bigging it up a bit, especially if he needed to justify a public order arrest, but "pleb" seems an unusual insult to pull from out of ones arse.
Not really. It's not an unknown word - not even particularly uncommon. And it's certianly not only posh public schoolboys who would know it.
It is a very useful insult for the officer to drop into his written report as it highlights the class issue very well. The minister apparently left threatening the officer that he 'hadn't heard the last of this' so to protect his job, who's to say the officer didn't drop the insult into the report as a pre-emptive attack. It is not unknown for the police to write their statements (and rewrite them) to cast themselves in the best light, or cover themselves - as illuminated by inquiries such as Hillsborough.
It's the officer's word against the ministers' at the moment. I think it would be appalling if he's forced to resign on the say so of one man.
And even if Mitchell said what the officer said he did, it's hardly a sacking issue. Karl argues that Mitchell's Great Offence is that he thinks he should get his own way just because he is more important than anyone else. Well so what. Are you a member of the thought police now? Is arrogance a punishable offence?
Mitchell didn't do anything, he only thought something, and expressed this in a throwaway comment. If Mitchell actively tried to get the officer fired because he 'talked back to his betters' then you'd have a point. Instead Mitchell just walked away muttering and swearing. What a criminal! Firing's obviously too good for such an Oppressor of the People.
[tries to find where I said he should be fired]
Nope. I've merely said he's an arrogant tosser, and it's important we know he is, because he's in a position of authority.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Marvin: quote:
It's certainly a far more trivial matter than when a senior minister in the previous Labour government actually punched a member of the public in the face when provoked. I don't recall any demands that he should have resigned.
I don't remember posting any comment about 'Two Jabs' Prescott at the time, but I think both of them should have faced the Full Majesty of the Law - both Prescott and the guy who threw the egg at him. I also think there's a difference between overreacting to someone throwing an egg at you and overreacting to a police officer who is merely asking you to comply with the rules everyone else has to follow - which were presumably made with the aim of keeping the PM and other members of the government safe from terrorist attacks.
As Prescott was in the middle of campaigning for a General Election at the time of the 'Two Jabs' incident, the powers that be in the media may have thought that he'd lose his job anyway...
Karl - I haven't been to Downing Street recently so am open to correction here, but my understanding is that only official vehicles are allowed in Downing Street. So presumably, if you are on a bike and insist on being treated as a vehicle you wouldn't be allowed in at all.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Hawk: quote:
If Mitchell actively tried to get the officer fired because he 'talked back to his betters' then you'd have a point.
Well, in effect this is what's going to happen. He says he didn't use the word 'pleb'; the officer says he did. One of them must be wrong. What do you think will happen to the police officer if he can't prove his version of events?
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
I am sure the chief whip is an unattractive character but the use of the word "pleb" just doesn't ring true. I have enormous admiration for the police and virtually none for our MPs but one can't help but wonder that someone given a uniform and the power to open and shut a gate will behave like a real little oik. Its the traffic warden scenario with golden balls attached to it. They will be giving them clip-boards next.
Still very good to see an MP brought low.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
I remember at the Magistrates' 'back in the day', there was quite a bit of talk amongst us defence briefs about whether we should ever try to run 'the Prescott Defence'.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I am sure the chief whip is an unattractive character but the use of the word "pleb" just doesn't ring true. I have enormous admiration for the police and virtually none for our MPs but one can't help but wonder that someone given a uniform and the power to open and shut a gate will behave like a real little oik. Its the traffic warden scenario with golden balls attached to it. They will be giving them clip-boards next.
Still very good to see an MP brought low.
I like traffic wardens, meself. Had I my way, I'd designate a town to have no parking enforcement and every ignorant arse who goes on about them would have to go and live there for a couple of months.
Never had a problem with them myself, but that might be my habit of only parking where it's allowed.
[ 25. September 2012, 14:48: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
Posted by John D. Ward (# 1378) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Still very good to see an MP brought low.
The problem with this attitude is that it creates a climate in which no decent, respectable person would want to become an MP.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
<traffic wardens tangent>
They tried getting rid of traffic wardens in Aberystwyth. It didn't work. Even the AA thought it was a bad idea.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
I was going to join in the opprobrium until I read, above, about his record in humanitarian aid.
He said he had a very stressful day but it seems he had been for a curry at one of the priciest London restaurants - I'd only be stressed if i had to pay the bill.
I am wondering whether there is an emerging mental health problem here - 'losing one's rag' like that could be the start of a manic episode.
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
...I don't remember posting any comment about 'Two Jabs' Prescott at the time, but I think both of them should have faced the Full Majesty of the Law - both Prescott and the guy who threw the egg at him.
Awww, why do some people insist on trying to suck all the fun out of life? ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by birdie (# 2173) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
<traffic wardens tangent>
They tried getting rid of traffic wardens in Aberystwyth. It didn't work. Even the AA thought it was a bad idea.
<tangent continues>
But what did work was when the local paper started a weekly 'Streets of Shame' spread where photos of illegally parked vehicles (particularly those which had obstructed other traffic) were published, with dates, times, and reg plates clearly shown.
More than one local was heard to say that they were being much more careful about parking because "I don't mind a ticket so much, but I don't want to be on streets of shame".
Anyway the wardens are back now and it's all much better.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
I'm of two minds about this one.
I find it equally possible to believe that a policeman politely asked the Chief Whip to take his bicycle out a different way, and the Chief Whip responded objectionably, or an agressive and possibly pompous policeman blocked him, stood on procedure and officiously ordered him to do as he was told.
It seems to me that if it was the latter, it might have been prudent to comply, but it's unfair to condemn someone for not doing so.
This is not Germany. I don't go with the notion that because they are the police, and because, as we've seen this week, some of them are occasionally exposed to dangerous risks, they are entitled to respect as of right at all times, however rudely they treat us, just because they wear the uniform. Police are citizens too.
If they are given, because of their job, the right to order us around, they should do so politely and respectfully.
It's rather like the argument one has heard trotted out yet again this week that the death penalty should be re-introduced, but just for killing police-persons. There are two defensible arguments on hanging and only two. Either the death penalty is wrong, and nobody should be executed, or the death penalty is a permissible extreme penalty for taking life, any life. If so, my life, your life, are just as valuable and just as important as a blue uniformed life.
The police corporately, also haven't a very good record for total veracity, particular where force honour, as they see it, is involved. So I also don't accept the immediate leap to 'are you calling our officer a liar?'. It's upping the ante, and does not help getting at the truth.
So did the Chief Whip lose his cool with an officer who was just trying to do his job, or was the officer officious? At the moment we don't know. I suspect we won't find out. In which case, the sooner this story is politely laid to rest, the better.
And how many peoples' views are really made up by which party they normally vote for?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Another noteworthy facet: we know what Mitchell says he didn't say, but he's being very coy about what exactly he actually did say. I wonder why?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
The one thing the "minister" doesn't deny is that he swore at, or in front of, the policeman. In many other circumstances this would result in an arrest as it is a public order offence to swear in public.
In that respect the minister has been treated differently for this sort of behaviour than most of the public (think zero tolerance in town centres on friday nights).
Having said that I walked past Downing Street a couple of weeks ago and stopped to look. I found the policemen there officious in the extreme in preventing me taking pictures. A please and thank you doesn't go amiss in today's world, gentlemen: give soem people a uniform, a title and a gun and they think they rule the world with everyone else to be ordered about. If it was any of THOSE who confronted the Minsister, I can see why he might (might, I emphasise) respond in the way he admitted he did.
I was pretty annoyed by the police's attitude myself esp as it was rude and esp as they were a little differently behaved with the young girls who flocked round them for a photo. Not wishing to get banged up, I kept quiet (not easy for me) and walked away.
Posted by aumbry (# 436) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by John D. Ward:
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
Still very good to see an MP brought low.
The problem with this attitude is that it creates a climate in which no decent, respectable person would want to become an MP.
But no decent respectable person would want to be an MP. I am sure the vanishingly small number of decent respectable MPs also wish they were doing something else. By the nature of the corrupt, decaying system the virtuous ones get nowhere. The whole thing is a stinking hulk reeking of cant.
You would really have to be in the World of the Bewildered not to realise that Parliament is full of sanctimonious humbugs, little shits and crooks.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
He said he had a very stressful day but it seems he had been for a curry at one of the priciest London restaurants - I'd only be stressed if i had to pay the bill.
Ah, so it's all right then. I'll try it next time I'm arrested on a demo or kettled or something and just see how that works.
Why oh why, can't someone own up to the truth for once before they are made to make a "statement" (aka make an idiot of themselves and pretend we are one too).
Cabinet Ministers anyone? Lend me your brains, I'm building an idiot.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
There's nothing quite like left-wing self-righteous indignation. As has already been mentioned on this thread, how conveniently the great pugilist of the left has been forgotten - and not one who particularly liked to relate to his own "roots", hence his taste in personal transport.
There's nothing to this story except a human being losing his temper (which he shouldn't have done) after an apparently hard day at the office (OK, so perhaps it wasn't a hard day). I understand that the offended party has accepted his apology. What is it about "I accept your apology" that both the press and the opposition don't understand? If Mitchell has committed a crime, then why didn't the police arrest him? Nothing to do with the press or the flippin' Labour party.
As for the use of the word "pleb": how hypocritical of the left to make an issue of this. Could they perhaps please apologise for their indulgence in sneering inverted snobbery by constantly referring to the Tories as "toffs"?
[tangential rant]On the subject of cyclists being accepted on the roads as legitimate vehicles: what a good idea! Perhaps such cyclists might like to help their cause by acting like proper vehicles and start obeying the Highway Code! Well do I remember the junction where I, as a driver, was at the front of the queue, green light came on, and as I was pulling away, mad cyclist belted in front of my path from the other direction, which was a blind corner, having utterly ignored a red light, thinking of course, that being a mini-saviour of the planet he was immune from such cramping legalism. Of course, if kindly, innocent, vulnerable cyclist had been hit, guess whose fault it would have been? The nasty, evil, polluting, arrogant, impatient motorist, apparently!! And there are other examples I could give.[/tangential rant over]
Posted by Amos (# 44) on
:
According to the Torygraph, one of the things Mitchell is reported as having said was 'You haven't heard the last of this!' The police constable in question (who I understand was female) put in her report that she wrote it up 'because Mr Mitchell's comments appeared to indicate that he was unhappy with my actions.'
Two tangents: The Sun (which leo alludes to) wasn't suggesting that it was curry Mr Mitchell had had too much of at 'London's most expensive curry-house'.
Also, here in Summerisle we were amused to see that the style in which police reports are written hasn't changed in 70 years.
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The one thing the "minister" doesn't deny is that he swore at, or in front of, the policeman. In many other circumstances this would result in an arrest as it is a public order offence to swear in public.
In that respect the minister has been treated differently for this sort of behaviour than most of the public (think zero tolerance in town centres on friday nights).
Not quite: I think both sides accept that he was warned about his language and that he would be arrested if he persisted, which shut him up momentarily. That's pretty much the same for the Friday night clubber: you typically get three warnings to watch your language before you get your collar felt.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Never heard the word "pleb" before, and have no idea what it actually means or whether it is long e or short e in pronunciation. It sounds like a very bad word from the response. Or is it just because it was a fancy gov't guy saying it?
Since when is swearing or name calling illegal? It may be impolite, but if there's no threat, there's no offence made as far as I'm aware in Canada. Though the rules are often made up on the spot, say it it is a demonstration or crowd scene.
I have asked local police why they are angry and to change their language myself on two occasions of traffic stops, as as subset of officers they prone to use profanity themselves here. It is the traffic officers who are impolite, others are routinely very polite and pleasant in my experience.
And finally, how is it that the outburst was not captured on someone's camera or smarty phone. of course we all want to see the youtube video, being a word of voyeurs.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, if kindly, innocent, vulnerable cyclist had been hit, guess whose fault it would have been? The nasty, evil, polluting, arrogant, impatient motorist, apparently!! And there are other examples I could give.[/tangential rant over]
Leaving aside the tendentious clap-trap, there are several European countries where this is indeed the case. If a motorist hits a cyclist, it's their fault.
Having been fetched off my bike a couple of times by nasty, evil, polluting, arrogant impatient motorists, the likelihood of ending up in A&E is quite high for the cyclist, and pretty much zero for the driver.
I am, of course, also a driver, and have managed in 20+ years of driving never to hit a cyclist.
Class war much, EE?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
[QUOTE]Not quite: I think both sides accept that he was warned about his language and that he would be arrested if he persisted, which shut him up momentarily. That's pretty much the same for the Friday night clubber: you typically get three warnings to watch your language before you get your collar felt.
It's a pity that doesn't apply unilaterally across the UK. In markland it was one "f" and you're nicked for the night.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Since when is swearing or name calling illegal?
It is in the UK - it's what's called a public order offence
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Since when is swearing or name calling illegal?
It is in the UK - it's what's called a public order offence
Is there a list of the forbidden words somewhere? Is there more than seven?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There's nothing quite like left-wing self-righteous indignation. As has already been mentioned on this thread, how conveniently the great pugilist of the left has been forgotten - and not one who particularly liked to relate to his own "roots", hence his taste in personal transport.
You're bang on the money here -- the stench of hypocrisy isn't limited to one party nor one "class" or "type."
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Since when is swearing or name calling illegal?
It is in the UK - it's what's called a public order offence
Is there a list of the forbidden words somewhere? Is there more than seven?
In answer to both questions - probably, yes. As to what they are, well who knows?
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
]It's certainly a far more trivial matter than when a senior minister in the previous Labour government actually punched a member of the public in the face when provoked.
He wasn't "provoked", he fought back, the other guy started it. Maybe the holy thing to do would have been to turn the other cheek. Maybe the sensible thing to do would have been to let the police and bodyguards handle it. You or I might easily have done the same. (Or not, I think its probably impossible to know how you'd react until it happens)
In this case the right thing happened. It seens that the Minister stupidly said something unpleasant, and the result is he gets made to look stupidly unpleasantl in public. End of story.
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The one thing the "minister" doesn't deny is that he swore at, or in front of, the policeman. In many other circumstances this would result in an arrest as it is a public order offence to swear in public.
Only if the policeman had some other reason for not liking you. I have quite often seen and heard people insult police without being arrested. Even once or twice throw things at police without retaliation, which just goes to show that some police are very good at their jobs.
quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
But no decent respectable person would want to be an MP. I am sure the vanishingly small number of decent respectable MPs also wish they were doing something else. By the nature of the corrupt, decaying system the virtuous ones get nowhere. The whole thing is a stinking hulk reeking of cant.
You would really have to be in the World of the Bewildered not to realise that Parliament is full of sanctimonious humbugs, little shits and crooks.
Bollocks and you know it.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There's nothing quite like left-wing self-righteous indignation. [/tangential rant over]
There is. There is white, middle-aged, middle-class moral cant, such as complaining about how rare good manners are while being appalling rude themselves.
Neither is very pretty.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
If one compares the events of Mr Prescott and Mr Mitchell, perhaps both show that when people are under stress, the real person is shown. When attacked, the John Prescott who was a boxer in his youth emerged suddenly. When Andrew Mitchell was faced with, er, faced with not getting what he wanted, the stuck up, self important, snob emerged suddenly.
And as for the actual cause of the problem, it seems obvious to me that bicycles should use the pedestrian gate a Downing Street. The gates are there to prevent a terrorist attack, and therefore the main gates must be big, heavy and bother to open. In addition, there seem to be crowd barriers outside which would need to be moved. The pedestrian gate, being too narrow for, say, a suicide bomber in a car, is much more easily used.
I suspect that Mr Mitchell wanted to make a Grand Exit from Downing Street to show everyone around that he is a Very Important Person, even though he was on a bike and not in a shiny black car.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Leaving aside the tendentious clap-trap
??
quote:
Having been fetched off my bike a couple of times by nasty, evil, polluting, arrogant impatient motorists, the likelihood of ending up in A&E is quite high for the cyclist, and pretty much zero for the driver.
What are you suggesting? That culpability should be related to vulnerability to injury? In the incident I mentioned, if that cyclist had jumped the red light a second later, I would have probably hit him. It would have been 100% his fault, and, yes, he would have most probably been injured, unlike me. In much the same way, if a pedestrian decides to run out in front of a moving car, then it is not the motorist's fault, if he genuinely had no chance to stop.
I do a job that involves a lot of driving around town, and I have had to contend with extremely reckless cyclists. Some of them look like teenagers who belt around in the dark with no lights on - and, of course, no helmets.
I remember another incident at a very busy cross-roads here in Hastings. A young cyclist just belted right across the junction at very high speed going downhill jumping a red light (and cycling in the middle of the road), and it is a miracle he wasn't killed by the traffic going across his path. I could hardly believe my eyes when I saw his behaviour. To even suggest that a motorist would have been "at fault" had he been hit is just outrageous. I would certainly have offered myself as a witness to exonerate any driver in that situation.
It may indeed be true that most cyclist deaths are the fault of reckless motorists, but my point was that cyclists should obey the rules of the road, and cannot blame motorists for the accidents that result from their own irresponsible belief that they are somehow immune from the rules that everyone else has to abide by. Certainly young cyclists need to be educated about the dangers of the road and the Highway Code.
quote:
Class war much, EE?
More like war on hypocrisy, actually.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
[QUOTE] I have quite often seen and heard people insult police without being arrested.
In my (previous) little corner of the UK my experience has been quite the opposite. That is until the Street Pastors arrived on the scene: street crime dropped by 42% (on the Police's own figures), some of it being a drop in arrests owing to Police no longer being able to "wind up" impressionable teenagers for a bit of Friday night knock about. Street Pastors became a buffer between the revellers and the Police.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It may indeed be true that most cyclist deaths are the fault of reckless motorists, but my point was that cyclists should obey the rules of the road, and cannot blame motorists for the accidents that result from their own irresponsible belief that they are somehow immune from the rules that everyone else has to abide by. Certainly young cyclists need to be educated about the dangers of the road and the Highway Code.
This is the clap-trap which I mentioned.
The rule of the road - the roads themselves, in fact, are designed for car and van use. Big trucks, people make allowances for them because in any given situation, they're not even going to notice you driving into them, or them you.
So sometimes - not all times for certain, but some of the time - a cyclist doing what the Highway Code says for a car to do is going to put the cyclist in harm's way. Which you'd know if you got on two wheels occasionally.
The main group who need educating are car drivers, because if they make a mistake, they'll hurt or kill someone. Neither of us are exempt from that, so your war on hypocrisy is a war with yourself. Enjoy.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Yes, Doc Tor is right. The issue is not that cyclists need to follow the rules of the road more closely, though some silly individuals might be best advised to, it's that we all need to be more aware of the particular vulnerabilities of cyclists in our modern, high speed, high density traffic. There are real problems sharing the roads, and cyclists are the ones who suffer and die in the conflicts.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
The ability of human beings to develop a tribal loyalty, and a string of anecdotes to support that tribal loyalty is amazing. I'm either a "cyclist" or a "motorist" with a view that the problem is the other group, and that any anecdote of a motorist in the wrong must be countered with 6 anecdotes showing that actually the problem is the cyclists. Or vice versa.
And any anecdote regarding a Tory minister behaving badly must be countered with an anecdote demonstrating the hypocrisy of the left.
Because it is our tribe vs theirs, and they must not be allowed to win a point on the internet.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The rule of the road - the roads themselves, in fact, are designed for car and van use. Big trucks, people make allowances for them because in any given situation, they're not even going to notice you driving into them, or them you.
So sometimes - not all times for certain, but some of the time - a cyclist doing what the Highway Code says for a car to do is going to put the cyclist in harm's way. Which you'd know if you got on two wheels occasionally..
Well thanks for not bothering to look at the context of my words.
Unless you hadn't noticed, I gave an example of a rule that both motorist and cyclist should obey: traffic lights.
Are you seriously suggesting that cyclists are exempt from obeying this rule?
I thought it was obvious that I was referring to the Highway Code in the context of rules that are designed to keep all road users safe. The idea that, because cyclists are more vulnerable, the motorist should always be presumed to be at fault in an accident, is ludicrous reasoning. It's almost a bit like making a train driver feel guilty because someone has thrown himself under his train. A motorist is not at fault if a cyclist has not been taught how to conduct himself responsibly on the road and decides to act in a completely suicidal way - as some cyclists actually do, because I have seen it.
Anyway... as this subject was originally a tangent, I will not say any more about this, as it is moving the thread off topic. Please feel free to have the final word.
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
If I was asked to get off my bike and use a pedestrian gate it would annoy me no end. Like many cyclists I'm a bit touchy at the frequent suggestion that I'm not entitled to use the roads like any other vehicle.
![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
When was any American official half as exalted as a member of cabinet last sighted to, from, or during work on a bicycle instead of a limousine? Our hats should be all off to his good example, and our gates wide open. Relatively speaking, he cannot be particularly in need of humility lessons. I'm with H.G. Wells, who said that every time he saw an adult on a bicycle, his faith in human nature was restored.
I wasn't aware of the epithet "pleb." The noun is an example of name-calling and, I agree, a step too far. But the adjective "plebeian" is another matter. Now, that happens to be one of my favorite put-downs. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Just because one has humble origins (and I do too) doesn't mean one has to act like it. Elitism for everybody!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
The rule of the road - the roads themselves, in fact, are designed for car and van use. Big trucks, people make allowances for them because in any given situation, they're not even going to notice you driving into them, or them you.
So sometimes - not all times for certain, but some of the time - a cyclist doing what the Highway Code says for a car to do is going to put the cyclist in harm's way. Which you'd know if you got on two wheels occasionally..
Well thanks for not bothering to look at the context of my words.
Unless you hadn't noticed, I gave an example of a rule that both motorist and cyclist should obey: traffic lights.
Are you seriously suggesting that cyclists are exempt from obeying this rule?
The answer is obviously yes, and a moment or two's cogent thought would throw up several examples where crossing a red light would be prudent for a cyclist.
The solution would be make all town planners and road engineers cycle the routes they're in charge of, and get all car drivers as part of their test to do a couple of hours on a mix of residential and clearway on a bike. And make drivers responsible for hitting pedestrians and cyclists, unless there were very extenuating circumstances. You never know, you might slow down, overtake sensibly and look for cyclists when making turns.
Posted by Truman White (# 17290) on
:
Reminded me of this totally impartial and objective international perspective (cough)
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
Doc Tor -
I know I said you could have the final word, but I find it very sad that you have clearly paid no attention at all to what I have written and the detailed examples I gave, which clearly show the sensibleness of cyclists obeying a key rule of road safety.
Furthermore, I take exception to the implied accusation in the last sentence of your post. Accusations generally require evidence, which you have not supplied.
Your sense of justice, not to mention road safety, is disturbing to say the least.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
I read a while ago - sorry, can't cite - that one reason more women than men cyclists are killed or maimed at junctions is that they're more likely to stop at a red light. They'll move up the cycle lane by the kerb, as they're entitled to, wait in the cyclist's space at the head of the queue, as they're meant to, then be crushed by a lead-footed lorry driver who hasn't seen them at all.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
It's the ones who don't make it to the head of the queue who are most at risk. Alongside most large vehicles they are completely invisible to the driver. Cyclists have been squeezed against the railings around many city junctions, knocked to the floor, and crushed by the slowly moving wheels of large lorries.
If you do go to the head of a queue at a large junction it is often safer to set off before the lights change to green, and get to the other side before the following vehicles - always assuming there's nothing coming from the other roads. Lanes are not usually well-defined at junctions, and cars will often come alongside cyclists, causing problems when car and bike both try to enter the road opposite - problems that are much more serious for the cyclist than the driver.
Safer, but highly irritating to some drivers. There seem to be a growing number of car drivers who are very angry with cyclists, and that isn't good for cyclist safety.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
But on topic, according to the BBC Cameron didn't see the police report on Mitchell's behaviour until he read the leaked copy in the press today. And still he stands by him, which says it all to me. Maybe we need a 'pleb walk'.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Doc Tor -
I know I said you could have the final word, but I find it very sad that you have clearly paid no attention at all to what I have written and the detailed examples I gave, which clearly show the sensibleness of cyclists obeying a key rule of road safety.
Furthermore, I take exception to the implied accusation in the last sentence of your post. Accusations generally require evidence, which you have not supplied.
Your sense of justice, not to mention road safety, is disturbing to say the least.
Meh. When you've driven a car for 20 odd years and cycle-commuted through morning and evening rush-hours for 10, come back and give me your oh-so-valuable opinions.
It's precisely the drivers who think they're brilliant, and other road users are muppets, who are my enemy, whether I'm walking, cycling or driving. I would hazard a guess you're one of them.
Posted by Major Disaster (# 13229) on
:
The replies were helpful, in putting a wider perspective on this. I am glad that nobody was particularly interested in seeing an end to the man's career because of this incident.
It seems strange to me, that "pleb" is so execrable, but calling a human being "shit" is ok. Which demeans the object of the name-calling more?
If it was a female police officer, then at least the term pleb is not sexist, which the opposite certainly is. Perhaps Mitchell should have used a word more commonly employed by the hard Left - "prole(etarian)"?
BTW, when I worked in London, I also cycled to work daily, and was once knocked down by a lorry at the lights on Chelsea Bridge. My verbal retaliation was effective, and the matter over in less than three minutes. This storm has lasted three days, yet there are so many important matters in the world to consider.
I am grateful to everyone for their replies. Thank you.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Major Disaster:
I am glad that nobody was particularly interested in seeing an end to the man's career because of this incident.
Erm .... not sure if that's quite the case.
If police reports are true, the language used (and the attitude this represents) are inappropriate to anyone holding any office of responsibility and he should therefore be sacked. Don't allow him to weasel out and resign.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Major Disaster:
It seems strange to me, that "pleb" is so execrable, but calling a human being "shit" is ok. Which demeans the object of the name-calling more?
Neither are OK of course. But 'pleb' is significant in this context because [a] it points to the privileged background of the speaker; [b] implies that he, because of this background (not just his position as a government minister) is superior; and [c] doesn't attack any moral failings on the part of the addressee, simply his or her social status. To call someone 'a shit' implies that s/he has done something that deserves criticism, and hence it is understandable when tempers are high, and even justifiable if the allegation is true. To call someone a 'pleb' is just arrogant snobbery.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
I can see perfectly good reasons for not opening those main gates for cyclists. Unlikely as it is that a suicide bomber with a carload of explosives could loiter in Whitehall, waiting for a chance to get into Downing St, without being noticed, with stakes so high security has to cover everything. A vehicle entering or leaving is no problem, it will itself block access and presumably, the gates are closed as soon as it's clear. But a bike? No worries for a bomber there.
I only tried cycling in London once, for a week or so, and it scared me silly, so I've every sympathy with the frustrations of those brave enough to do it regularly. But in this case, that's not the issue.
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
Being an expatriate, I am tempted to compare my country of current residence with my country of origin. Episodes like this often being national characterisics in sharp relief.
And I am reminded of not one - but two - things I don't miss about the UK.
The first one - snobbery - is obvious enough. No one uses the word "pleb" in New Zealand. Everyone will think you're a tit. A government minister would be fired immediately amidst a gale of laughter.
The second thing - unreflective obedience - is more serious. My God. A cyclist finds a closed gate and a policeman in attendance. Quite reasonably, he wants to cycle through the gate. In any sane country, the policeman would open the gate, let the cyclist through, and close it again. But in the UK, because there is a "policy", this can't happen. Reading between the lines, asking for an explanation of this policy was so likely to cause an aneurysm that Mitchell could (pursuant to another policy) have been charged with attempted manslaughter had he done so. But quite revealingly, he doesn't seem to have thought to ask.
When I left the UK I left behind whole class of people who I suspect feel secretly aggrieved at not being made milk monitor when at school. They make rules for everyone. The brighter ones become civil servants. The dafter ones work for local councils, schools, or human resources departments. They take virtue in obeying the rules made by each other of course. These rules, policies and guidelines are implemented and observed with the mercilessness of Sourdust, long after the rationale - if there ever was one - is forgotten.
Of course the policeman was only obeying orders - which seems to be what everyone else in Britain does too. So he - along with everyone else in the country - can't be blamed.
I think Mitchell should be sacked for his revealing outburst. Neverless I think it's a pity that he didn't calmly smile, wait for the pedestrian gate to be opened, and then speed off across the pavement on his bicycle.
[ 26. September 2012, 04:58: Message edited by: Cod ]
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the use of the word "pleb": how hypocritical of the left to make an issue of this. Could they perhaps please apologise for their indulgence in sneering inverted snobbery by constantly referring to the Tories as "toffs"?
The two words are not exactly equivalent. "Toff" can be used as a compliment when someone has acted generously, as in "Cor, thanks mate. you're a proper toff." When used insultingly, it is usually in response to behaviour, as well, not simply in reference to someone's birth. So someone of "upper" class, who simply went about his business like a normal person would not attract reference to being a toff, or posh boy, or so on.
"Pleb", being a reference to classical Rome, contains within it implicit comment to the speaker's "better" education, and an equivalent message to "chav" or "oik", that the person addressed is of lower status and not to be considered as of equal value to the speaker. Incidentally, if the police officer had made up the story, either of those two words might be more likely than "pleb", unless they had already heard Mitchell use the latter in other situations. I have not before heard of its being used at all, though a friend who attended a minor South London public school does remember its being used there on occasion.
(I note another shipmate has thought it OK to use "oik" as a description of the police behaviour above.)
I consider myself also insulted by the choice of insult, if it was used, as also by a reference to "knowing their place", since I am also not of the natural class of government, and its use clearly includes everyone who is not one of that lot. (Hence my new T-shirt, see Heaven.)
My grandmother, back in the late 1800s, was taught to bob a curtsey to carriage folk, as their position showed that God had put them in a position worthy of respect not due to her. She never did it. She could not understand the theology of it. We are all worthy of respect, and if we are not accorded it, should not show we do not appreciate that by losing our tempers. But nor should we go around playing on it in the manner of the Bullingdons, knowledge of which now lurks behind the toff word.
I see that the police report refers to the effect on onlookers of the tirade - perhaps some feedback will arrive from that direction at some point.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The second thing - unreflective obedience - is more serious. My God. A cyclist finds a closed gate and a policeman in attendance. Quite reasonably, he wants to cycle through the gate. In any sane country, the policeman would open the gate, let the cyclist through, and close it again. But in the UK, because there is a "policy", this can't happen. Reading between the lines, asking for an explanation of this policy was so likely to cause an aneurysm that Mitchell could (pursuant to another policy) have been charged with attempted manslaughter had he done so. But quite revealingly, he doesn't seem to have thought to ask.
As two of us have pointed out, the policy of not opening the main gates, and asking cyclists to use the pedestrian gate seems reasonable. The gates are not ordinary gates, they were put there following a terrorist attack on Downing Street. The police officers present are not there to look pretty for tourists taking pictures, they are there to protect those in Downing Street, possibly giving up their own lives to that end.
So, where the officers could have explained this to the Chief Whip, I would have thought that if he is not a pleb, he could have worked this out for himself.
Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on
:
I gather many of you haven't actually seen Downing Street gates. There is a open pedestrian side gate and car gates which have to be opened. He was being difficult asking for the main gates to be opened rather than just dismounting and going through the side gate.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
I gather many of you haven't actually seen Downing Street gates. There is a open pedestrian side gate and car gates which have to be opened. He was being difficult asking for the main gates to be opened rather than just dismounting and going through the side gate.
So Mr Mitchell ignores the already open gate that's wide enough for a bicycle, and wants to use the closed gate instead.
Oookay.
Posted by Jane R (# 331) on
:
Alogon: quote:
When was any American official half as exalted as a member of cabinet last sighted to, from, or during work on a bicycle instead of a limousine? Our hats should be all off to his good example, and our gates wide open. Relatively speaking, he cannot be particularly in need of humility lessons.
I believe this is yet another pond difference. Cycling to work is quite the fashionable thing in London - even old Boris, ye Mayor, does it. It is evidence of a desire to win votes from people who would otherwise vote Green, or of a wish to combine commuting with keeping fit, but not in itself evidence of humility.
And did you miss reading the two or three posts pointing out that the Downing Street main gates are kept closed to discourage terrorist attacks and would have had to be opened specially for him?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Since when is swearing or name calling illegal?
It is in the UK - it's what's called a public order offence
Is there a list of the forbidden words somewhere? Is there more than seven?
ss 4&5 of the Public Order Act 1986 are, IIRC, the relevant bits, which prohibit the use of "threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour" likely to cause "harassment, alarm or distress". The meaning of "abusive" is not defined in the Act but subsequent case law has deemed it to include most of what we would call 'swearing'.
It always used to amuse me in my criminal defence days to read police statements along the lines of "After I warned him, he replied "Fuck off, copper!" I was very shocked and distressed by his language and promptly arrested him." Our response as defence briefs was always along the lines of "Itchy chin!"
Posted by Snow Leopard (# 14991) on
:
There is that wonderful Divisional Court ruling that it takes rather a lot to cause police actual harassment, alarm or distress: “very frequently, words and behaviour with which police officers will be wearily familiar will have little emotional impact on them save that of boredom“! (DPP v Orum [1989] 1 WLR 88)
Then there was that young man who had his Section 5 conviction overturned by the Appeal Court. He had been using the f-word liberally while being searched for drugs which he did not have (Harvey v DPP, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), 17 November 2011; extensively reported in The Daily Telegraph, “Judge: it's no crime to swear at police they are used to it”, 20 November 2011).
However, I personally would still not want to test the boundaries by seeing what I could get away with.
JB
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Isn't the test still of "a person of reasonable firmness"?
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
Section 5:
quote:
5 Harassment, alarm or distress.E+W.(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he— .
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or .
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting, .
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling. .
(3)It is a defence for the accused to prove— .
(a)that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or .
(b)that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or .
(c)that his conduct was reasonable. .
(4)A constable may arrest a person without warrant if— .
(a)he engages in offensive conduct which [F2a] constable warns him to stop, and .
(b)he engages in further offensive conduct immediately or shortly after the warning. .
(5)In subsection (4) “offensive conduct” means conduct the constable reasonably suspects to constitute an offence under this section, and the conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) and the further conduct need not be of the same nature.
Note the requirement to give a warning in ss4
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
It's precisely the drivers who think they're brilliant, and other road users are muppets, who are my enemy, whether I'm walking, cycling or driving. I would hazard a guess you're one of them.
If you want to be the enemy of a driver who wishes to keep cyclists safe on the road, who does his utmost to avoid hitting them, and who wishes them to act responsibly for their own safety, then I guess that would also make you an enemy of cyclists as well. Perhaps you would have preferred for the two cyclists I mentioned, who jumped red lights and put themselves in extreme danger, to have been killed? If people like you had their way, then there would be far more deaths on the road, whereas people like me, who think rules of safety should be adhered to, are trying to save lives.
I really hope that you are not someone in a position of serious decision-making as far as road safety is concerned! Heaven help us if you are.
I almost feel inclined to direct you to maps and street view images of the two junctions I mentioned to finally prove what a total nonsense and delusion your analysis actually is (along with your spiteful and ignorant accusations), but given your ridiculous and inflammatory attitude ("...who are my enemy..." - cringe!) I wonder whether it really is worth my wasting any more time with this.
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
Andrew Mitchell is my MP. I've met him, though I don't know him and I very much doubt he'd remember. He seems like a nice bloke and has been a reasonable constituency MP. He's often at constituency events. As far as I can tell his record as a minister before becoming Chief Whip was pretty decent. All I remember the examination of MPs' expenses ever turning up about him was that he'd put in some remarkably small petty claims, but all of them were valid.
From the reporting it seems to be the case that he's in and out of that security gate quite often. I read that this was his fourth trip through the gates on the day in question and that commonly the duty officers open the main gate for him to cycle through. This time, for whatever reason, whoever was on duty decided to force him to dismount and make his way through the pedestrian gate instead. He should have shrugged and complied, despite the apparent irrationality of his being forced to do this on one occasion but not on others. But he didn't. He took it personally, lost his temper and swore at them.
I'll be honest, if I were the police officer involved I think I'd have been more put out by all the swearing in his reported tirade than the condescension implied by the word "pleb" (even if he did say that, which he continues to deny). But when the police (properly) warned him that if he persisted in abusing them he could be arrested he seems to have got control of his temper and peddled off in a huff. The next day (before the public outcry began) he seems to have appreciated he had been out of order and apologised to the police.
I'm finding it difficult to understand why that isn't the end of it. Not exactly his finest hour, but seemingly and out of character temper tantrum, acknowledged and apologised for without delay. I think it's harder to excuse or understand the considered decision someone, somewhere has taken, after the event and not in the heat the moment, to leak the police log to the press.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think the answer to your fourth paragraph is in the third. I would be incandescent with rage if anyone called me a pleb, with all that that implies, far more than if they merely swore at me, which has little actual content.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
In this case the right thing happened. It seens that the Minister stupidly said something unpleasant, and the result is he gets made to look stupidly unpleasantl in public. End of story.
I think I've changed my mind. As far as I was concerned this wasn't a big deal. Policemen get a bit officious and tell people what do do. That goes with the territory. People get angry when policemen tell them what to do? That's hardly news. Angry people shout nasty words? That's in the woods with the popes and the bears. Tory MP is a snob? Wake me up when something interesting happens.
I've changed my mind on that. Probably for the not very good reason that I re-watched my DVDs of the last few episodes of Series 3 of The West Wing last night, and read Geoff Pullum's articles on the topic on Language Log.
It is a big deal. Professor Pullum puts it a lot better than I would. Read the articles in the links (and the others linked from them). But basically, what are all those armed police doing in Westminster? Why do they have those locked gates and make a fuss about opening them and closing them? Because they are protecting people like Cabinet Ministers. Potentially risking their lives to do it. The gate which wasn't opened was put there in the 1980s to stop people ramming 10 Downing Street with a vanload of explosives. (Whether or not the security precautions are an over-reaction is a different question - I think they probably are - but the police are there to enforce them on behalf of people like Mr Mitchell, and there is genuine risk involved.)
So this man was being snotty to his own guards. Men and women employed to defend him and his friends. As well as being pretty morally reprehensible, that's also very, very, stupid. If there is ever a military coup in this country I wouldn't advise standing near him.
Professor Pullum also notes in passing that the row is about the word "pleb", not "fucking". If a White House guard told a US Senator to use one entrance rather than another for security reasons, and the senator called them a "fucking redneck", which word would cause most offence?
[ 26. September 2012, 12:58: Message edited by: ken ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I wonder whether it really is worth my wasting any more time with this.
![[Snore]](graemlins/snore.gif)
Rules of safety for cars does not equal rules of safety for bicycles: I thought we'd already established that. Otherwise, take it to Hell.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
[silly tangent] quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Professor Pullum
He isn't a Professor of Dentistry by any chance?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Rules of safety for cars does not equal rules of safety for bicycles: I thought we'd already established that.
You know, you could be right about that! So why don't cyclists obey their own rules, eh?
Go on Google maps, and look up Gillsman's Hill in Hastings. Go to the junction that connects with Sedlescombe Road South which merges into a road called The Green (which is at the eastern end of Gillsman's Hill). Have a look on the streetview function. A car waiting at the traffic lights on Gillsman's Hill (facing a garage opposite called "Garage on the Green") has a blind corner to his right. There are lights on The Green, and you will notice that there is a special place for cyclists clearly marked on the road (as there is on Gillsman's Hill, as it happens).
Now the lights on Gillsman's Hill turned green and a "nasty evil arrogant" motorist (enemy of all cyclists, apparently) decides responsibly to move off and, of course, he cannot see what is coming from the right, because ... (wait for it...) ... there is a blind corner. As he knows that this a junction with lights, he rightly assumes that the traffic coming from the right has stopped, since they have a red light. Any cyclist in that traffic should be waiting in their specially designated area, not only marked with a bicycle symbol on the road, but the whole area of road is in a different colour (just to make it absolutely clear, although obviously it wasn't clear enough!).
Now what does said "nasty evil arrogant" motorist do? Does he wait there while the light is green to allow for any possible kamikaze cyclists to jump the red light? No. He decides to assume that these possible cyclists are actually properly functioning sentient beings who respect the sensible rules of the road. He does not expect a total nutter to come hurtling down from the right at high speed (and you must know that cyclists can really leg it if they want to) right in front of his path as he is pulling out. The evil motorist could only physically see the cyclist a split second before he was right in front of evil motorist's car.
Now these are the empirical *FACTS*. You carry on contradicting me to your heart's content, if that's what you want to do. But I prefer something called "evidence".
If you still don't agree with my criticism of certain cyclists, and you insist that cyclists are at liberty to jump red lights, then I suggest that you write to Hastings Borough Council and ask them to remove the cycle area from the lights at the above-mentioned junction. In fact, your refusal to do this would tell me all I need to know about your real intentions in this discussion.
And no, I won't take it to hell, because I am dealing in FACTS, not baseless accusations.
(Oh, and I haven't mentioned about the cyclist who decided to ride on the pavement in front of my house and knock my young daughter down. Fortunately he was highly apologetic - and J. was not injured - which I suppose goes to show that at least some cyclists have the humility to accept they could be wrong!)
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I think the answer to your fourth paragraph is in the third. I would be incandescent with rage if anyone called me a pleb, with all that that implies, far more than if they merely swore at me, which has little actual content.
Fair point. If that's what he said (and he still denies that I believe) then it shows him to have a thicker streak of arrogance in his make up than I would have suspected from my limited contact with him.
But I don't know that it does really answer my fourth paragraph. To learn that a middle-aged, rich guy with some newly-acquired but quite significant political clout is excessively pompous and self important is disappointing but not very shocking. Neither is it especially surprising to learn that the day to day practice of operating that security gate may vary a bit depending on which officers are on duty.
But to me it's more than just "disappointing" to realise that someone with access to an operational police log relating to the security arrangements for Downing Street would take a calculated decision to make that available to journalists.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And no, I won't take it to hell, because I am dealing in FACTS, not baseless accusations.)
FACT: about 70% of all cyclistst killed or seriously injured in London are hit by a motorist who turned left across their path
FACT: about 80% of those are caused by vans or lorries turning left across the path of the bicycle
FACT: the safest place for a cyclist in a queue of traffic in front of a junction is right at the front, in the path of the motor vehicles.
FACT: None of all your ranting has the slightest relevance either to the reality of what happens on the roads, or to the topic of this discussion, which is a Tory politician who swears at policemen.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
ken -
Well, you're obviously right.
All cyclists should follow your and Doc Tor's advice and jump red lights into the path of oncoming traffic. An early death isn't really so bad, is it?
If they die, always blame the motorist (blind corner or not), but please never blame those haters of the rules of the road who refuse to face reality.
I have a friend whose job it is to teach cycling to youngsters. I must remember to pass on your wisdom to him. I'm sure he will respect and appreciate it!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
I think it's fairly obvious that Doc Tor was not advocating arbitrarily jumping red lights into the path of traffic. As I read it, he was pointing out that in some situations moving over the stop line to be in front of traffic, or moving a little before the green light shows, whilst technically illegal and "running the light", may be a safer option.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
You know, you could be right about that! So why don't cyclists obey their own rules, eh?
Because the 'rules', as you so quaintly put it, change on a moment by moment basis. For example, I'm not going to allow a tonne of metal driven by someone who assumes the traffic to have stopped, rather than using the evidence of their own eyes, to put me in danger.
Neither am I going to avoid cycling on the pavement if I think the road is going to kill me. Or wait for an hour at a set of red lights because my bike's not metallic enough to set off the sub-road sensors. Or use the cycle path because some numpty's parked in it. Or occupy the kill-zone at traffic lights if I think I'm going to get ploughed. Or not cycle down the middle of the road if I think it's not wide enough to overtake me safely.
I have, of course, written to my own council a couple times, suggesting improvements on my usual route - pointing out a pot-hole that a car wouldn't even notice but will take a cyclist's front wheel out, and asking them to cut back the shrubbery on a roundabout to improve the sight-lines after a council van nearly broadsided me. Oh the irony.
Anyway. Drive safely.
(and what Ken and Karl said)
[ 26. September 2012, 14:28: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
I have been wondering if there should be a separate thread on cycling. As a cyclist, pedestrian and motorist, I have opinions to share. But this thread does not seem the right place.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
You're probably right, Higgs. I'm just distracting myself from writing ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
(also, the Gillsman's Hill/The Green junction is one of the crappiest designed ones I've seen in a long time. Eesh.)
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
ken -
Well, you're obviously right.
All cyclists should follow your and Doc Tor's advice and jump red lights into the path of oncoming traffic. An early death isn't really so bad, is it?
If they die, always blame the motorist (blind corner or not), but please never blame those haters of the rules of the road who refuse to face reality.
What the fuck are you talking about? Neither of us wrote anything like that. You assert six things about what he and I think, and as far as I can see, all are lies. If you want to lie about what we say why not do it in some other forum where its not so utterly irrelevant to the topic?
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
ken -
If you are not even going to bother following the conversation, then please don't intervene.
All I wrote was that cyclists should obey the rules of the road. Many do not. This has elicited a bizarre reaction from someone who claims to care for cyclists. Hence my despairing sarcasm.
And apparently, because cyclists are, of course, more vulnerable to injury, there is (in the mind of that contributor) a presumption that the motorist is always to blame in the event of an accident, even if the cyclist acted with a death wish and flagrantly refused to follow the rules that are in place for his safety!!!
Yes, I know this is off topic, but perhaps it reveals the kind of arrogant attitude of entitlement and immunity from the normal rules that other people have to obey, that so characterised Andrew Mitchell.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
If you are not even going to bother following the conversation, then please don't intervene.
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
Very few cities have laws and traffic regulation that takes cyclists into account. Traffic is about cars, and cyclists are secondary. Cyclists must violate car traffic laws and regulations at times if they want to live. I have been hit twice myself.
Violations typical for cyclists are: riding on pedestrian walks, going through intersections when they are clear in violation of traffic lights, disobeying signs, blocking entire lanes of traffic.
If cities and car drivers and peds don't like it, don't be wrathful on the cyclists, which is akin to blaming the vulnerable and victim. Consider: does your city have any dedicated bike lanes that seperate cyclists from traffic and cars cannot access them? Does your city have advanced green lights so cyclists get a head start through intersections? Do bike lanes simply end on some roadways? Are there areas that are inaccessible in your city except by high speed roadways? Are you patient when a cyclist is in the roadway or do you get frustrated and then try to squeeze by the cyclist, potentially clipping the rider? Do you consider yourself the most important person in the world when you get behind the wheel of a car?
I speak very sharply to anyone who endangers me including a city bus driver this morning who passed too close, police in the past when told I could be ticketed for not being on the roadway, people opening car doors without looking, cars who refuse to allow me to change lanes. The local cycling advocacy group attends court regularly for tickets given out by letter of the law but not wise in terms of safety. They get thrown out. So there! ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The gate which wasn't opened was put there in the 1980s to stop people ramming 10 Downing Street with a vanload of explosives.
That's interesting, but unless a vanload of explosives was threatening to pass through the gate while it was open to let the MP pass through, I don't see how it is relevant.
In most of the places I have lived, it is forbidden for bicyclists to ride on pedestrian sidewalks. Happily, these laws are seldom enforced, but if one is a law enforcement officer or otherwise a precisian about regulations, one cannot ask or expect a bicyclist to do it. So what was the officer expecting him to do? Temporarily become a pedestrian, I suppose.
A bicycle is a vehicle. Normally its riders are expected to use the roads. That it is appropriate to require exceptions to this rule, and the resulting inconvenience and waste of time for a bicyclist, merely to suit someone else's convenience, is, to say the least, hardly self-evident to me.
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
If cities and car drivers and peds don't like it, don't be wrathful on the cyclists, which is akin to blaming the vulnerable and victim.
OK, I must remember that maxim when I'm a pedestrian and some total idiot has ploughed into me and broken my spine, or when I, as a responsible motorist, have been unjustly blamed for causing an accident, even though it can be scientifically proven that I had no chance of avoiding hitting the cyclist who smugly refused to obey the rules of the road at a dangerous junction. (Note to self: must remember never to be angry with a cyclist, because they are all poor persecuted victims, and the moment they sit in the saddle they are automatically endowed with moral perfection and are beyond any reproach no matter how stupid, reckless, arrogant, mindless and self-righteous their behaviour may happen to be).
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet
If cities and car drivers and peds don't like it, don't be wrathful on the cyclists, which is akin to blaming the vulnerable and victim.
OK, I must remember that maxim when I'm a pedestrian and some total idiot has ploughed into me and broken my spine, or when I, as a responsible motorist, have been unjustly blamed for causing an accident, even though it can be scientifically proven that I had no chance of avoiding hitting the cyclist who smugly refused to obey the rules of the road at a dangerous junction. (Note to self: must remember never to be angry with a cyclist, because they are all poor persecuted victims, and the moment they sit in the saddle they are automatically endowed with moral perfection and are beyond any reproach no matter how stupid, reckless, arrogant, mindless and self-righteous their behaviour may happen to be).
I may deserve your intemperate remarks due to my intemperance from nearly being clipped this morning by a bus as I noted. If there is a cyclist who is behaving dangerously, e.g., fast speed on the ped walkway, then we've a different story than the cyclist who is on the sidewalk because the roadway is far too dangerous. I commute about 6500 km per year. Never had a ticket, and I follow rules when possible. It is dangerous to follow the rules in some situations. In my route, I must be on a sidewalk that is designated "shared cycle and ped", which suddenly ends amid a 4 lane over another 4 lane and never has another lane. It is a "you cannot get there from here" except to walk the bike about 1˝ km or ride on the side walk. Can anyone seriously expect a cyclist commuter to do that? Many more issues for cyclists.
Bicycles are caught between in nearly every place I've visited. Not respected nor treated as vehicles and not pedestrians. Now you could tell me to drive and I could. But I started cycling due to reducing my carbon footprint.
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
does your city have any dedicated bike lanes that seperate cyclists from traffic and cars cannot access them?
We did but we are getting rid of them, imposing a 20mph speed limit and 'educating' car drivers.
I used to defend cyclists but every Wednesday, i nearly get mown down by cyclists riding on the pavement when i go to and from the gym.
Posted by Pine Marten (# 11068) on
:
Not just Wednesdays but almost daily around here. Mr Marten was nearly crashed into recently by a cyclist hurtling along on the pavement outside our house. The first time I saw a cyclist riding into oncoming traffic on our one-way main roads here I gaped, now it's so common I take little notice. If I call out that they should be in the road rather than harassing me on the pavement I usually get an irate 'fuck off!'
And to the OP: I'm afraid I laughed at the word 'pleb' - like Pottage upthread I'd be more annoyed at the swearing.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The gate which wasn't opened was put there in the 1980s to stop people ramming 10 Downing Street with a vanload of explosives.
That's interesting, but unless a vanload of explosives was threatening to pass through the gate while it was open to let the MP pass through, I don't see how it is relevant.
In most of the places I have lived, it is forbidden for bicyclists to ride on pedestrian sidewalks. Happily, these laws are seldom enforced, but if one is a law enforcement officer or otherwise a precisian about regulations, one cannot ask or expect a bicyclist to do it. So what was the officer expecting him to do? Temporarily become a pedestrian, I suppose.
A bicycle is a vehicle. Normally its riders are expected to use the roads. That it is appropriate to require exceptions to this rule, and the resulting inconvenience and waste of time for a bicyclist, merely to suit someone else's convenience, is, to say the least, hardly self-evident to me.
Here Alogon makes a serious bid for 'Pedant of the Year', which is a hard-fought contest on the Ship of Fools.
On a related topic, I like Linda Smith's suggestion that the motorist is always at fault if a car hits a cyclist, because they shouldn't drive on the pavement (aka footpath or sidewalk, per local custom).
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Pine Marten:
The first time I saw a cyclist riding into oncoming traffic on our one-way main roads here I gaped, now it's so common I take little notice. If I call out that they should be in the road rather than harassing me on the pavement I usually get an irate 'fuck off!'
My reaction the first time was similar but yes, it's commonplace (I blame Boris, for suggesting it), although one practicioner of the art had to say "Oh shit" or some such when he rode past the inside of a bus only to see a motorcycle coming the other way!
He got away with it, at a cost of a undignified, though effective, roll onto, ahem, the pavement (Caerleon Road, Newport, about three months ago).
Posted by Cod (# 2643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
As two of us have pointed out, the policy of not opening the main gates, and asking cyclists to use the pedestrian gate seems reasonable. The gates are not ordinary gates, they were put there following a terrorist attack on Downing Street.
No one has stated the underlying rationale of this silly policy, which is not surprising.
One assumes that it indeed in place to protect terrorist attacks. Why opening it for cyclists causes such an issue is less clear, except to idiots.
After all, it is reasonable to assume that the gates are opened to let cars through.
quote:
The police officers present are not there to look pretty for tourists taking pictures, they are there to protect those in Downing Street, possibly giving up their own lives to that end.
Presumably they are also there to open and close the gates - and not for tourists unless perhaps they are rich enough to visit the Prime Minister.
None of this comes from common sense but from the great vice of modern Britain - following the procedure. If anything goes wrong, no one will ask whether common-sense was used but whether procedures were in place and were followed; e.g from The Guardian :
quote:
"In a statement on Wednesday Boatwright defended his school's child protection record.
"Bishop Bell school has a robust safeguarding policy in place, takes safeguarding very seriously and the effectiveness of its safeguarding procedures is rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted," he said.
Members of Stammers's family have complained the school did not tell them of concerns about the relationship."
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for the use of the word "pleb": how hypocritical of the left to make an issue of this. Could they perhaps please apologise for their indulgence in sneering inverted snobbery by constantly referring to the Tories as "toffs"?
About how often in the last century have we had a government in which no members could be subject to inverse snobbery from a represenative journalist? (I am not a lawyer: I do not know the answer to that question.) And of those, how many were in the last thirty years?
Taken as a group people subject to inverse snobbery are far less disadvantaged by it than the reverse. That's why it's the 'inverse' case.
Posted by Bean Sidhe (# 11823) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
One assumes that it indeed in place to protect terrorist attacks. Why opening it for cyclists causes such an issue is less clear, except to idiots.
After all, it is reasonable to assume that the gates are opened to let cars through.
Do you actually read any posts but your own for comprehension?
To reiterate, please concentrate, the gates are there to prevent a suicide attack with a vehicle. A kosher vehicle passing through will itself obstruct any such attack. No problem there. A cyclist or pedestrian passing through could be mown down with impunity. Big problem.
Still don't get it?
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
The most sensible outcome of this fracas would be to outgrow the false dichotomy between motorists and pedestrians, and install another small opening that allows bicycles to be bicycles. In Denmark, that's probably what would be done. They even spoil bicyclists with handrails at intersections where they might need to stop, so that they need not dismount while waiting.
For my money, this is about trying to stave off the impending collapse of civilization due to running out of energy (primarily from fossil fuels, although human energy shouldn't be sniffed at, either). To that end, bicyclists should be encouraged rather than discouraged. Far too little is being done in America. It's sad if Britain takes after us rather than the Danes.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
No one has stated the underlying rationale of this silly policy, which is not surprising.
One assumes that it indeed in place to protect terrorist attacks. Why opening it for cyclists causes such an issue is less clear, except to idiots.
I am presuming that most visitors to Downing Street come by foot. It's (according to Googlemaps) 0.2 miles from the Palace of Westminster, and takes 6 mins to walk.
Therefore, on that basis, most visitors are screened and possibly scanned with a wand at the pedestrian gate.
A car has to undergo a different series of checks. There are three sets of gates, if street view is anything to go by: there is a low gate, a high gate, and a big yellow crashproof barrier further on. Set into the road is a moveable barrier.
But on further investigation, the pedestrian access is via a massive turnstile. No chance of getting a bike through that at all. Now, I don't know if there's another gate next to the main gates that avoids this turnstile: it might be difficult for bulky items (cakes, duck houses, Eric Pickles) to pass through if there wasn't.
Clearly, a man and his bike have a special relationship, but you'd think that leaving said velocipede between the turnstile and the main gate would be safe, what with the armed police around.
Without knowing SAP, it's difficult to say whether or not there's a good reason for suggesting bikes use the pedestrian entrance. Certainly, opening the main gates involves more than just opening the main gates: there is also the risk that the more often the gates open, the more often the gates are open, which makes having gates a moot point. It would certainly be a matter of clarification for any cycling MP.
However, it appears likely that Mr Mitchell was in a state of (possibly advanced) refreshment, having had a slap up curry. The gates of Downing Street cross at the very end, where tourists congregate to take picture. Any shouting and swearing would be heard by dozens of people.
Leaving aside the wisdom of arguing with an armed police officer - I have to assume that Mitchell knew even the Met wouldn't have popped a cap in his ass - this is not a private space in which to have an argument, whichever words were used.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
None of this comes from common sense but from the great vice of modern Britain - following the procedure. If anything goes wrong, no one will ask whether common-sense was used but whether procedures were in place and were followed; e.g from The Guardian :
quote:
"In a statement on Wednesday Boatwright defended his school's child protection record.
"Bishop Bell school has a robust safeguarding policy in place, takes safeguarding very seriously and the effectiveness of its safeguarding procedures is rated 'outstanding' by Ofsted," he said.
Members of Stammers's family have complained the school did not tell them of concerns about the relationship."
Thanks for using an emotive, extreme example to counter what seems entirely reasonable behaviour by a police officer.
Of course, this sort of thing never happens in New Zealand, oh goodness me no.
Posted by Angloid (# 159) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
It's sad if Britain takes after us rather than the Danes.
It's usually the case though. In most matters.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Thanks for using an emotive, extreme example to counter what seems entirely reasonable behaviour by a police officer.
Of course, this sort of thing never happens in New Zealand, oh goodness me no.
Of course it doesn't. This is Godzone country
Huia - Patriotism before truth
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alogon:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The gate which wasn't opened was put there in the 1980s to stop people ramming 10 Downing Street with a vanload of explosives.
That's interesting, but unless a vanload of explosives was threatening to pass through the gate while it was open to let the MP pass through, I don't see how it is relevant.
In most of the places I have lived, it is forbidden for bicyclists to ride on pedestrian sidewalks. Happily, these laws are seldom enforced, but if one is a law enforcement officer or otherwise a precisian about regulations, one cannot ask or expect a bicyclist to do it. So what was the officer expecting him to do? Temporarily become a pedestrian, I suppose.
Like I said, personally I think the Westminster security precautions are probably over the top. But have you ever seen Downing Street? Its only a few tens of yards long, has a handful of doors opening on to it and locked security gates at both ends. There is a permanent armed police guard both inside and outside the gates, and a semi-permanent gaggle of tourists, demonstrators, and occasional journalists outside the gates. Its not really very much like like a public road at all. More like an outdoor entrance lobby that is pretending to be a street. A lot of it is taken up by the Cabinet Office, which is more or less the central policy department of the British Government. (Its major functions include things like providing staff and political advisors to the Prime Minsiter, staffing Cabinet meetings and other inderdepartmental meetings, liason between government and the legislature, oversight of senior civil servants and so on) The nearest US equivalent to the place would be just outside the windows of the West Wing of the White House.
Question again: if a US Senator, leaving the White House slightly drunk, were to be asked by the police or the secret service to go through one gate rather than another replied: 'Best you learn your fucking place! You don't run this fucking government! You're all fucking rednecks! (*) You haven't heard the last of this!" how do you think public opinion would react?
(*) "rednecks" or insert a suitably Americanised class putdown of choice. "Pleb" probably isn't as rude as "trailer trash". But it is a bit rude. And is causing more media fuss than "fucking".
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I suspect the security services have never quite recovered from the mortar attack on 10 Downing Street.
Posted by mdijon (# 8520) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
leaving the White House slightly drunk
That seems to me the only way of putting together apparently uncharacteristic behaviour (certainly uncharacteristic in public anyway), apparent loss of judgement and the claims of a "hard day" coupled with the information about a lengthy lunch engagement and an address at a private club.
Posted by Higgs Bosun (# 16582) on
:
Mr Mitchell has probably done the wrong thing in raising the issue again, when it was dying down.
Alistair Campbell, I am, told had a rule about if a minister was in headlines for some kind of scandal for 10 days, then he had to go. It's getting close...
Posted by Pottage (# 9529) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Higgs Bosun:
Mr Mitchell has probably done the wrong thing in raising the issue again, when it was dying down.
Alistair Campbell, I am, told had a rule about if a minister was in headlines for some kind of scandal for 10 days, then he had to go. It's getting close...
Dammed if he did, damned if he didn't I think. It would have looked pretty terrible if he had refused an interview with the newspaper in his constituency after all the publicity over his outburst during the last week, or if he had refused to talk about the incident when asked, or if he had changed his version of events when talking to the locals. But in doing so he couldn't really avoid there being something else about him in the press (given that the local paper is a weekly one). I expect he'll suffer more unhappy coverage in the Sunday papers too.
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on
:
Perhaps we should always believe the police on every occasion, and show them the just deference and respect they deserve. After all they are always right.
Hilsborough.
Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on
:
I wonder if he actually said "fucking plods" and was misheard. The 'know your place' thing was still of a similar tone though.
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I wonder if he actually said "fucking plods" and was misheard. The 'know your place' thing was still of a similar tone though.
I wondered about that, but it seems more likely that a police officer, unless exposed to the word quite often, would have misheard 'pleb' as 'plod' than the other way round.
Perhaps such an error could come from reading back someone else's notes, but the same oddness would apply.
Come to think of it, the string of 'know your place' followed by 'you haven't heard the last of this' sounds like a bad script written by a schoolboy over exposed to melodrama. All it needs is for his to have twirled his moustache and then dragged the policewoman to the nearest train line to tie her down.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Surprising then that the script doesn't read,
"You're too pretty a young thing to be doing a job like this. How about we come back to my club and I'll shew you what a chief whip can do."
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
Originally posted by Penny S: quote:
sounds like a bad script written by a schoolboy over exposed to melodrama
Which gives further reason to doubt that version of events...
(I don't have any desire to defend Mitchell. Just not sure I can trust the Met any longer...)
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink:
I wonder if he actually said "fucking plods" and was misheard. The 'know your place' thing was still of a similar tone though.
I always think of 'plod' as a left-wring, ararchist sort of thing to say. It's the term i occasionally use (not to their faces but in speaking about them) and feel guilty about afterwards.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I always think of 'plod' as a left-wring, ararchist sort of thing to say. It's the term i occasionally use (not to their faces but in speaking about them) and feel guilty about afterwards.
Not necessarily. I'm not an anarchist, would regard myself as boringly centrist, and have been known to use the word.
I even think the coalition is better than the alternatives, and I bet there's not many people prepared to admit to that!
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I always think of 'plod' as a left-wring, ararchist sort of thing to say. It's the term i occasionally use (not to their faces but in speaking about them) and feel guilty about afterwards.
Not necessarily. I'm not an anarchist, would regard myself as boringly centrist, and have been known to use the word.
Surely the use of "the Filth" would mark one out as a lefty anarchist...
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
Yes, that too, though that is more associated with people who commit criminal acts.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I always think of 'plod' as a left-wring, ararchist sort of thing to say. It's the term i occasionally use (not to their faces but in speaking about them) and feel guilty about afterwards.
Not necessarily. I'm not an anarchist, would regard myself as boringly centrist, and have been known to use the word.
Surely the use of "the Filth" would mark one out as a lefty anarchist...
"The Plod" is almost affectionate while I think that "The Filth" is used by the criminal fraternity (didn't Arthur Daly called them that in Minder thirty-something years ago?). The Trotskyite left and anarchists would refer to them as "Pigs", but I regard that as unkind to pigs.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
If one wants to sound pleasantly dated, there's always 'the fuzz', 'the rozzers' or even 'the pollice' with the stress on the first syllable.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
"Filth" is current in SE London among people who are neither criminals nor activists.
Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Major Disaster:
Is the image of the police so high in the public view, and a Government Minister so lowly, that "pleb" is a mortally offensive epithet (if it was used at all) and is cause to hound the minister to resign?
If the media, and the Opposition parties show no sense of proportion in such a trivial question, it is no wonder that there is a deep problem within our western society regarding the respect due to all persons, as human beings, whether they be Royal Princesses, members of the Government (titled Right Honourable!), football fans at Hillsborough, or humble newspaper sellers who get in the way of a policeman's anger at a demonstration.
The 'public view', ie the current wave usually picked up or generated by the media and rippled out, is anti rich people: particularly bankers and tax avoiders, but anyone considered rich is fair game (unless they're celebrities or footballers) and of course this includes those in power.
If the old class system can be used to imply a 'looking down' upon a working class bobby by an upper class bully, all the better. There's an inverse arrogance in the air, prejudice against wealthy people that I'm uncomfortable with.
If we ever do respect and value all persons as human beings, we'll be going some way toward following the teachings of Jesus. But I wonder whether anyone reading this can put their hand on their heart and say that they don't look down on anybody.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0