PDA

View Full Version : Tee hee!


tony draper
27th Nov 2014, 15:31
Fedkin Plebs!
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a194/Deaddogbay/Deaddogbay003/mutley_zpswq9gcouu.gif (http://s11.photobucket.com/user/Deaddogbay/media/Deaddogbay003/mutley_zpswq9gcouu.gif.html)

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 15:34
Couldn't happen to a nicer bloke ;)

Simplythebeast
27th Nov 2014, 17:27
I suppose he will be selling his bike then?

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 17:30
Plod:- "I was only doing me job, Guv" . . .

vulcanised
27th Nov 2014, 17:36
I think that is the Judge's way of saying 'You're a lying bastard'.

Simplythebeast
27th Nov 2014, 17:56
G-CPTN.....plod WAS doing his job. The idiot telling him to f'ing remember his place and calling him a pleb was obviously used to being treated as something special. Strangely enough, when a public schoolboy his nickname was "Thrasher", what personality does that conjure up. A bully, a snobbish elitist who considers himself above others and was crass enough to spout those insults at Police Officers the day after two Police Officers had been murdered in the line of duty.
The man is a repulsive,snobbish tosser who is now able to reflect on how his arrogant attitude has wrecked his career and probably bankrupt his family. Pleb.

Sallyann1234
27th Nov 2014, 18:02
I still can't get over how it's perfectly acceptable to aim the f word at a policeman three times - a word that the BBC can't use and we'd be ex-ppruned if we used it here. And yet the p word that is cheerfully used by every broadcaster and everyone else can get a polly sacked and cost millions in court.
:ugh:

OFSO
27th Nov 2014, 18:34
the p word

I admit it. I have called people "plonkers" in the past.

Lon More
27th Nov 2014, 18:38
Going to appeal I believe

Krystal n chips
27th Nov 2014, 18:40
Ah, but, he has a very close aspirant waiting in the wings it seems....

An "interesting" exchange suggesting that the perception of those who constitute the "p" word....to Tory thunking that is, is not confined to the Right Honourable Member now wondering how to pay off m'learned friends.

I had that David Mellor in the back of the cab once ? | UK news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/shortcuts/2014/nov/25/i-had-that-david-mellor-in-back-of-cab-once-taxi-driver-rant)

wings folded
27th Nov 2014, 19:01
I think someone pulled at a loose end on my version of this thread and unravelled the whole affair, because I have absolutely no clue what you are all on about.

Help?

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 19:04
?Three Cheers for the Judge!? Mitchell Heckled Outside Court - Guy Fawkes' blog (http://order-order.com/2014/11/27/three-cheers-for-the-judge-mitchell-heckled-outside-court/)

qVFUgYfLhZI

wings folded
27th Nov 2014, 19:13
Thanks fox3. Clearer now, but not much clearer.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 19:18
Plebgate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebgate)

dixi188
27th Nov 2014, 19:22
Why can't our politicians just be human.

If he had just apologized the following day all would have been well.
We all have off days, so something like,

" I'd had a long day and was very tired and acted a pratt. Very sorry for any offence caused. Can I buy you a pint?"

We might just have given him some respect!

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 19:55
Because it is Policy that cyclists dismount and use the pedestrian gate, and following Policy is required. Thou shalt obey the Policy set by your betters, and using judgement is Verboten.

And this regime has been set up by the politicians over the last 15 years. It can be seen in every aspect of Government.

In short - It's (indirectly) Mitchell's own fault they wouldn't let him through the main gate.

Why can't politicians be human? Because they are super-human, and worth several of the rest of us. Ask Emily Thornberry.

Mechta
27th Nov 2014, 20:42
British journalists being the eloquent, imaginative wordsmiths that they are, have suffixed every scandal since the early 1970s with '-gate'. What will they call the scandal when it actually is about water?

joy ride
27th Nov 2014, 20:43
The policy was very clear and drawn up to protect and serve the politicians. Thy get a better service from the police than we ordinary civilians (rightly so IMO) so it is up to the politicians to accept the policy or to change it, not to get shirty with the poor plod who was just doing his job.

For all plod knew, if he had bent the rules and something had gone wrong the politicians would demand he get sacked. regardless of what was said, it was an arrogant outburst at the person assigned to look after his safety.

tony draper
27th Nov 2014, 21:27
I hope the arsole ends up living in a cardboard box under a motorway flyover somewhere.
:*

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 21:29
Perhaps he will be joined by his Party Leader? :E

VL4W0KApBYU

G-CPTN
27th Nov 2014, 21:57
Plod:-
"Here's that nice man Mr Mitchell.
I think I'll open the gate to let him through so that he can cycle on his merry way."

"OTOH, he looks down on us and thinks we are plebs - so I think I'll keep the gate closed and make him get off his high horse and be sociable.
Maybe he will respond with a humble request and we can share the milk of human kindness together?"

Capot
27th Nov 2014, 23:06
I remarked on PPRuNe when the row was first reported that if you had to choose who was telling lies between an MP and a Metropolitan Police copper, it would be a very, very hard call to make.

We now know from what has happened that the reality is almost certainly that both sides lied to improve their case.

The Judge in the libel case, which was only about whether Mitchell actually used the 'pleb' word, had to toss a coin, just like the rest of us. Unfortunately for Mitchell, judges are predisposed to believe a policeman, in spite of all the evidence that they can lie for England under oath. As can MPs, of course.

Remind me how long it took the Met to involve the Press. Did they have an anti-Government agenda? Of course they did.

What we do know is that other policemen manufactured evidence and lied.

A pox on both groups of unpleasant, lying, dishonest people; I don't give a toss about what the MP said or what the copper said. Nor, I suspect does 99% of people in the UK, and 100% of people outside the UK, and I find it profoundly irritating that they seem to believe it's important.

Fox3WheresMyBanana
27th Nov 2014, 23:15
A pox on both groups of unpleasant, lying, dishonest people;

I feel a song coming on...

fssblRRCgmg

Big Tudor
27th Nov 2014, 23:44
the judge said PC Rowland was "not the sort of man who would have had the wit, imagination or inclination to invent on the spur of the moment an account of what a senior politician had said to him in temper".

I don't think that's exactly the kindest description I've ever heard. :p

rh200
28th Nov 2014, 00:12
OTOH, why didn't the police officer just open the gate as requested by a man who he is paid to serve and protect?

WTF!, the police are here to serve society, not be our own personal F$%g servants. Always have a problem with th protect bit, they can't actually protect if there not there. So what exactly are they protecting.

Philosophically you could say protect means protecting our way of life by acting as a deterrent as such, there is a high probability of getting caught if you do something wrong. It is usualy taken as physical protection though, which as I said can't happen if their not present when crimes are committed, unless they get there before any real nastiness takes place.

So in summary, they serve society, and protect our society. They don't serve individual cretins and protect them from having to be inconvenienced.

Loose rivets
28th Nov 2014, 01:26
It must be something to do with the time of life, but I seem to have seen more than a few cases of people just 'losing it' recently when you'd expect them to have more control. I'm not convinced he did say what they claimed. No man, not even that judge, can know for sure. Balance of probabilities? Didn't it used to be beyond reasonable doubt? How can one man simply believe something and condemn another man to ruin?

If the man's QC is to be believed, his client has done a great deal of good for this country, and having a hissy fit about a gate shouldn't lead to his ruin no matter what he said.

I know, it's all about lying and trust and character and being erm, British. Fine, if you're not actually human and burdened with human stresses. In my experience, human brains are apt to fuse at the most inappropriate times, and the results can be literally disastrous - in the full meaning of the word.

A copper not able to come up with such a sophisticated string of words? Then what the fcuk was he doing guarding our most senior government? I am at a total loss. It seems at least one officer was able to concoct a string of words all by himself - or maybe with a bit of help - but his life will be ruined even after he gets out of jail. The others? Well, a total mess after years of work.

This goes so far beyond a storm in a teacup that it just isn't the remotest bit funny. I'd like to know the precise truth, but it's possible no one, and I mean, no one, is sure of what happened at that moment.

Simplythebeast
28th Nov 2014, 06:51
In UK Criminal cases the standard of proof is 'Beyond reasonable doubt' but civil cases are based on the balance of probability. That is why some victims who do not feel they have received justice at Criminal Court go on to the Civil Courts and end up winning substantial claims.
As for having a hissy fit leading to a man's ruin, it didnt. It was his decision, knowing fullwell the risks involved, to take the Sun Newspaper to Court that did that.
Actions have consequences and had that arrogant snob decided on the fateful day to leave by the proper gate instead of trying to Lord it over what he saw as his servants non of this would have occurred.
The man is a pratt, he acted like a pratt on the day, then he deliberately set out to make as big a storm about it as he could to cover his childish behaviour and deflect the blame elsewhere.
He got what he deserved, its taken him down a few pegs and he may now reflect on the fact that he actually is no higher in stature than any other man.

Capetonian
28th Nov 2014, 07:06
It took me a while to realise who or what this thread was about.

I feel sorry for Mitchell. He threw a little hissy fit at a bureaucratic and possibly unnecessary obstruction to the smooth running of his day and ends up (possibly) being 3 million poorer as a result. Isn't this disproportionate?

All politicians are arrogant to a degree, and those around them should perhaps be a little more realistic in their expectations of behaviour.

His big, and perhaps only, mistake was to lie about it. As someone else had suggested if he'd gone back to the policeman later to apologise and perhaps hand over an envelope with a few banknotes in it we'd never have heard any more of it.

On the other hand, perhaps he didn't even say what he is alleged to have said. This might be a gross miscarriage of justice.

sitigeltfel
28th Nov 2014, 07:24
On the other hand, perhaps he didn't even say what he is alleged to have said. This might be a gross miscarriage of justice.

I doubt, like the Tommy Sheridan case, we have heard the last of this. It seems that every other Police Officer involved in this case has been proven to be a liar, but not Rowland. Rowlands claim to have never heard or known what the word "pleb" meant seemed risible, and to persuade the court that he was telling the truth he relied on the judge believing him to be a bit thick! Maybe not so difficult a task!

joy ride
28th Nov 2014, 09:01
If Mitchell had graciously followed plod's instructions, and nodded appreciation of plod's presence, this would not have happened. If a row had started but Mitchel had apologised this would not have happened. He brought it on himself, with a display of arrogance, bad temper and poor leadership qualities.

BabyBear
28th Nov 2014, 09:11
hand over an envelope with a few banknotes in it we'd never have heard any more of it.

Are you honestly that naive?

BB

Capetonian
28th Nov 2014, 09:14
I believe it could have been defused if handled appropriately, regardless of the legal aspects of 'bribing a police officer' etc. We are all human.

UniFoxOs
28th Nov 2014, 09:40
Sorry to be picky here, but the correct (if you want to be reasonable polite) word for describing pollies and plods is "prat". Pratt is an english surname and likening the hard-working, intelligent Pratts that I know to a politician or policeman is doing them a great disservice.

Prefer the c word for them myself.

BabyBear
28th Nov 2014, 09:43
With the benefit of hindsight and accusations of attempts to bring the Government down etc how many bank notes and of what value do you think would have been required to buy the coppers silence?:confused:

BB

BabyBear
28th Nov 2014, 09:48
Prefer the c word for them myself.

I have to strongly disagree UniFoxOs...........c***s are useful!:)

BB

Curious Pax
28th Nov 2014, 10:09
I feel sorry for Mitchell. He threw a little hissy fit at a bureaucratic and possibly unnecessary obstruction to the smooth running of his day and ends up (possibly) being 3 million poorer as a result. Isn't this disproportionate?


It is disproportionate, but it was Mitchell that brought the case, and was then counter-sued by Mr Plod. I suspect that he was hoping that Mr Plod would be panicked into an out of court settlement to avoid risking a massive legal bill, but lost the bet. The settlement would have included acknowledgement that the 'pleb' word wasn't used (regardless of whether it actually was or wasn't) which would have allowed Mitchell to return to government if the Tories got back in at the election.

Is Mitchell one of Dave's millionaires, or just fairly well off (ie will a 3 million quid bill have much impact on him)?

MagnusP
28th Nov 2014, 10:27
If the police officer had opened the pedestrian gate to let Mitchell cycle through, he would have been assisting in the commission of a crime, a breach of (I think) Section 72 of the Highways Act. The dibble was absolutely correct.

joy ride
28th Nov 2014, 10:29
According to Auntie Beeb Mitchell is also an Investment Banker.....say no more!

Effluent Man
28th Nov 2014, 11:10
Like Big Tudor I thought the judge's description of the policeman was very patronising.But it was crucial in his decision.Having seen the cop speak live then I can only concur with His Honour.It was very much "Hi was proceeding in a westerly direction"

As regards Mellor I don't like the bloke but the cabbie provoked most of it.

londonblue
28th Nov 2014, 11:51
British journalists being the eloquent, imaginative wordsmiths that they are, have suffixed every scandal since the early 1970s with '-gate'. What will they call the scandal when it actually is about water?

Or someone with a strange walk? Gaitgate anyone?

Blacksheep
28th Nov 2014, 12:14
When serving under the colours, one had many turns at guarding the gate. If you couldn't show me a valid ID Card, the barrier stayed down until you reported to the guard house and gave proper account of yourself. That's the way it works.

We once had a Station Commander at Northolt who, when he approached in his staff car, flag flying and wearing his big hat with brass all over the peak, the duty guard lifted the barrier and saluted as the C.O. drove through. The C.O. stopped and had the guard charged for not checking him. The excuse that he had recognised the Station Commander was not accepted.

Thereafter, every day, morning and afternoon, the Station Commander had to stop, open bonnet and boot and get out of the car, while the guard checked it over. One day he forgot his 1250 and had to drive back home and fetch it.

Rules is rules. :)

MagnusP
28th Nov 2014, 12:14
You may well be correct, Basil. It may have been the request to WALK his bike through the pedestrian gate that triggered the incident.