On 24 Sep 2012 at 9:09am Wife Of Bath wrote:
Bath is annoyed! He believes I called him a Pleb during an argument about me riding my bike down the garden path. This is not so and I would like to make a public apology " I did not use the words that have been attributed to me" "I hope we can now move on" Good that's all cleared up then.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 9:37am expat two wrote:
All I hear is a professional control freak rowing with a professional liar. I cannot side with either of you.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 9:59am Clifford wrote:
At last that great unknown bad from the 60s, The Plebs, can be revived:
Watch the video »
On 24 Sep 2012 at 9:59am Clifford wrote:
Sorry - 'band'.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 1:23pm someone else wrote:
According to Call Me Dave, it's OK to insult the police as long as you say sorry with a bit of a posh accent. Someone needs to tell that to all the people (sorry, 'plebs') who've been fined or jailed for doing the same thing.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 2:40pm Sussex Jim wrote:
I would have pushed my bike through the side gate and explained to the pathetic jobsworth that I had not been briefed on the new system. Then, back in the sanctuary of the Lewes Arms I would verbally tear the pleb to shreds.
But then I am not a Cabinet Minister...
On 24 Sep 2012 at 4:01pm Sole survivor wrote:
I cannot believe the bias against Mitchell. This is being stoked up by the police to cover their tracks over Hillsborough, Jean Charles de Meneses, 7/7 bomb, London riots, etc etc etc Any normal person would have quietly and politely explained the situation to the chief whip and defused it like the professional he is supposed to be.
I heard somebody describe the diplomatic protection police in this unit as beyond reproach and morally above suspicion. Wow, that's some claim.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 4:41pm Clifford wrote:
Great comment Sole survivor - I can just see the Met getting together and saying, 'How arew we going to cover our tracks over Hillsborough, Jean Charles de Meneses, 7/7 bomb, London riots, etc etc? I know, let's accuse the Chief Whip of calling one of us a pleb. That should do it.'
On 24 Sep 2012 at 4:51pm get real wrote:
Yeah because all the police are liars and cheats and they all shoot innocent people. Change the record, there are some great police out there who do care and try their best. Obviously bad eggs are in every job. They did try to explain it to tory boy who acted as if he was beyond reproach and morally above suspicion.
Lets see em squirm when all the police refuse to carry arms (its voluntary dont you know) typical private schoolboy mentality from some on this forum.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 5:23pm Southover Queen wrote:
It seems to me that the important thing about this argument, and the reason it hasn't gone away however much both Scotland Yard and Downing St would like it to, is that it betrays the attitude of the very rich and very out of touch to "normal people". Make no mistake: we're all plebs as far as the likes of Andrew Mitchell are concerned, and that should worry you (unless you're seriously into forelock tugging). Add to that the fact that it was uttered at someone whose job it is to protect the elite by enforcing the rules, and you are beginning to wade in deep do-do. Add to that the fact that the police as a group were reeling from the loss of two of their own in Manchester and you have a right old mess.
Mitchell hasn't yet said what he did say, although he insists that he didn't "use the form of words attributed to him". Well, frankly, if they want this to stop simmering he needs to tell us what he did actually say. So far, we just have the words of the police officers present. So what did he say? I'd like to know, and so would anyone who is interested in politics because it exposes something which echoes the suspicions of many - the Tories think they're the ruling class and we're the plebian class they rule over.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 5:23pm Andrew wrote:
I think you mean public schoolboy 'get real'?
On 24 Sep 2012 at 6:05pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I'm loving the fact that the (alleged) use of the P word seems to have caused more of a fuss than the F word.
Does this mean that we have carte blanche to swear at Plod now?
On 24 Sep 2012 at 6:48pm Southover Queen wrote:
The thing is, ACT, everyone uses the F word (although not, if they've any sense, when addressing the police) but its use doesn't immediately suggest that the speaker regards himself as inherently superior to those around him.
In general I think swearing at the police is probably still a bad move, whether you're the chief whip of a struggling (and patrician) government or a naughty boy from across the road...
On 24 Sep 2012 at 9:22pm Tommy Truth wrote:
None of you were there so none of you know While I don't doubt Lord Snooty did abuse the plod, be in no doubt that most coppers are lying fuc.ks
On 24 Sep 2012 at 9:49pm jrsussex wrote:
Personally I cannot believe MP's, the police and the media along with members of the public have dragged out this immaterial incident as if it represents some greatly important matter. There are over 2m out of work, everyday people are losing thier homes due to their financial situation due in turn to the austere times. Our armed forces continue to be injured and killed, supposedly in our name and people, including children, are dying from incurable diseases.
Get real please.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 10:17pm Clifford wrote:
It's because, jrsussex, the Chief Whip's apparent attitude symbolises the attitude of the entire governng class to ordinary people. Romney did the same in the US with his sneering reference to the 47%.
On 24 Sep 2012 at 10:46pm Local Adult wrote:
Good grief, Southover Queen! Do you really believe the tosh you post?
Everyone knows that there are many jobsworth, bullying coppers out there who bear scant resemblance to the old-fashioned image of 'loyal public servant'. They love to lord it over the public, and what the hell is wrong with someone who is in the ruling class (for a few years, at least) lording it over them every now and then?
If the police spent less time buying food and racing around in nice warm cars reacting too late to crimes that have already been committed, and more time trying to deter crime even if it means they might have to work a bit harder, then I might have a bit more sympathy if someone decides to call them a mildly offensive word one evening.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 7:55am Deelite wrote:
As usual SQ is right on the money. The privileged tosser actually said to a policewoman:
'Best to learn your f******* place. You don't run this f****** government. You're f******* plebs. I'll have your f****** job for this'.
This is what is written in the police report and has been verified by at least one of the 'shocked' members of the public who overheard. So no police vendetta as far as lying is concerned. As far as telling the media though, that is another thing. And vendettas.... aren't News International (The Sun) doing their very best to keep this story alive?
Mitchell's words clearly expose what many of us are all too aware of: what the privileged silver-spoon establishment elite think about sharing the country with the rest of us. They hate us. We ruin their view. Our only value is to serve them, to be exploited by them, to make profit for them.
I'm surprised that more has not been made of the fact that he was pissed and about to cycle back to his London (tax payer subsidised) second (or is it third/fourth?) home.
Its about time we woke up. We are being taken for fools. Off with all of their arrogant f****** heads!
On 25 Sep 2012 at 9:59am Southover Queen wrote:
@Local Adult
I was actually very careful, in all the posts I've made on this subject, to stay clear of any value judgement on the police. As it happens, I find your attitude to the police extremely disturbing: in my humble opinion they're doing a vital job in society which is fantastically difficult, fantastically under-funded and hampered by people with attitudes like yours. The vast majority - in my direct experience - struggle hard to do their best, honestly and diligently.
But this isn't about the police. It's about the attitude of a member of this government to public servants in particular which the media (and I) are extrapolating to point to a general attitude to all of us. The point isn't that Andrew Mitchell is temporarily in a position of power, the point is that Andrew Mitchell's attitude betrays a belief that he is *entitled* by reason of birth, class, education and riches to consider himself superior to the rest of us.
If he had said what it must be assumed he did say to a member of the armed forces rather than the police, what would you say? If he told a squaddie that he's a pleb, that he should know his place and that he, Andrew Mitchell, would have him out of a job, what would your attitude be then?
On 25 Sep 2012 at 2:21pm Local Adult wrote:
The fact is he didn't. He was speaking to a policeman who had decided that someone riding a bike did not qualify as road traffic (contrary to the law and common sense), and who he presumably thought he would boss around, slow down, inconvenience, and generally act above his station towards.
I have nothing against good policemen doing a very difficult job, but they seem increasingly hard to find these days. They don't help themselves. There's nothing disturbing about that view - I just don't think we have the same quality of police force that were there working for us 30 years ago.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 2:51pm Clifford wrote:
Local Adult wrote: '... act above his station...'
There we are - Mitchell's attitude entirely. Some are in a higher 'station' and can therefore talk down to plebs as they please. Own goal there, Local Adult.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 2:59pm someone else wrote:
Local Adult - what on Earth are you on about? The copper's statement made it clear that Mitchell was politely asked to use another gate in accordance with policy. It's perfectly clear that it would a prudent policy to open the main vehicle gate as little as possible to minimise the risk of intrusion.
The issue was simply that Mitchell was either too lazy or too arrogant to use the correct route. Funnily enough, a policeman unilaterally deciding to ignore procedure and open the wrong gate was the main reason 96 people died at Hillsborough. This had nothing to do with the copper 'bossing anyone around' - it was simply to do with him carrying out his job in accordance with his instructions.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 3:19pm Southover Queen wrote:
Indeed, SE. The officer in question was as politely as possible applying the rules which are there to maintain the security of Downing Street.
Local Adult: my question about what you'd have thought if that had been addressed to someone other than a police officer was fundamental, because it removes your obvious anti-police bias.
What is disturbing about your view is that you are perfectly prepared, without any knowledge of what actually happened (the police officer in question, for instance, is a woman) to assume that the police were acting as power hungry jobsworths. There is no evidence whatsoever of that if you read the Telegraph's account. The police officer, her colleagues and observers gathered at the gates have all given witness statements which largely agree. Mitchell on the other hand is insisting that they're all lying but won't actually say what he did say beyond agreeing that he swore.
It does more and more sound as if he's behaved in a boorish manner exactly as suggested and that he holds both public servants and the general working public in contempt. That, in my mind, makes him an unfit member of Her Majesty's Government. Cameron will do as he did with Coulson and dither until the pressure is too much; this is another appallingly badly managed incident which should have been a storm in a teacup and has instead turned into a crisis.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 4:41pm Deelite wrote:
His lying is reason enough that the arrogant s***head is sacked.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 6:22pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Although I have no great love for the plods I'm with SE, SQ, Clifford and Deelite on this one. Mitchell was arrogant and contemptuous and should be sacked. How can the government expect the public to respect the upholders of law & order if they don't respect them themselves?
Anyway, has this
"'Best to learn your f******* place. You don't run this f****** government. You're f******* plebs. I'll have your f****** job for this'." been used in a rap yet?
On 25 Sep 2012 at 6:47pm Southover Queen wrote:
Excellent idea, ACT. I look forward to hearing it.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 8:34pm expat two wrote:
These guys were pretty quick off the mark....
Check it out here »
On 25 Sep 2012 at 8:55pm Let it go wrote:
More soldiers dying in war and this rubbish still rumbles on! Get a grip will you. Sq .......the telegraph..wow! Daily mail next is it?
On 25 Sep 2012 at 9:06pm Deelite wrote:
Why don't you start another thread about what you think about soldiers dying in the war then, and leave this one alone?
On 25 Sep 2012 at 9:31pm expat two wrote:
Because the only way to stop people talking about it is to drown it out with another issue. I'm sure the government would prefer the plebs drowned it with another issue that didn't bring shame upon them, but 'more soldiers dying in the war' will have to do.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 10:07pm jrsussex wrote:
A man lost it for a short oeriod of time, swore at another man, probably said something he now regrets. Anybody out there that has not done exactly that? That I have to listen to the boring subject on TV, radio, the media and on here is beyond belief, how long can it go on.
If every person guilty of that were to be sacked/resign I imagine half the population would be signing on.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 10:16pm Southover Queen wrote:
Yes, well, "Let it Go", when you have a solution to the war in Afghanistan then I'm sure we'll be delighted to discuss it. You don't so we can't.
It does matter what those who have the ability to send our young men into war think of "plebs". After all, if the police are "plebs" then so might be those young men dying in Afghanistan.
The Telegraph was the newspaper carrying the story, in apparently telling detail. In any case, just imagine what scorn would have been heaped upon me if I'd linked to the Guardian. I do find it notable that a Tory newspaper thinks that this is an important, possibly watershed, moment for this government.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 10:35pm Deelite wrote:
JR. Whether he lost it and regrets it is neither here nor there. It's what he said (including threatening to get the policewoman sacked), who he said it to, and the fact that he lied afterwards (which of course is also the same as calling the Police liars).
He is not fit to hold any public service office and must be sacked. The Tory party, if it had any honour, would expel him too. But it hasn't and it won't.
On 25 Sep 2012 at 10:50pm expat two wrote:
jrsussex, you're falling for the establishment line, and missing the point. There is a law against using foul language and Mitchell has apologised (twice) for using foul language. Even Boris the Buffoon has chimed in with the 'its wrong to swear at the police' line. We all accept that.
This is not the point though, the point, as stated often enough above, is the attitude that current ruling classes clearly hold, ie we are all plebs, and they are in control. They are our masters. They don't expect to have to obey the laws the plebs do, and they can have anybody sacked on a whim. This is the reality - there is no 'Big Society', there is no 'we're all in this together'. Its us and them. How can a government possibly promote an egalitarian or even a meritocratic society when they hold those views? Impossible.
Owning up to, and apologising for, using foul language is just a diversion tactic from the real issue.
I agree with Deelite - off with their heads. Society needs to be rid of these parasites.
On 26 Sep 2012 at 3:01am expat two wrote:
On the other hand, defending the police in this issue really rather grates. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have been on the receiving end of foul mouthed cops. I was told to **** off when I was watching a cop making arrest on London Road a few years ago. Not doing anything remotely illegal or obstructive, just watching. Its just part of their arsenal of intimidation - he didn't want any witnesses. I've no doubt their trained to do it.
God knows what he'd have done with his baton had I dared to cite Public Order Act section 5.
On 26 Sep 2012 at 8:31am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Top posts, Expat 2.
Mitchell's outburst is significant in that it exposes the way a senior member of the government thinks about the majority of the people he seeks to govern. It also exposes that he is rash and has trouble controlling his anger, not desirable attributes in a government member imo.
I was amused yesterday to see that the Guardian published a letter pointing out that the correct singular noun is actually plebs. That's the sort of thing I expect to see in the Telegraph.
On 26 Sep 2012 at 8:32am Deelite wrote:
The thing is Ex Pat is we are not defending the police. I don't understand what any gripes anyone has with the police has to do with this issue.