[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Obviously if you don't like the tories you will believe the police?..
Why is this then, I would like to believe whoever is telling the truth but we only have one account to put up for examination as Mr Mitchell is unwilling to admit what he said.
Should that make him guilty by default, what other option do we have...sweep it under the carpet?
No, it is important that as a representative of the UK government he is held accountable.
I would love everyone who suggests the police are plebs to do their job for a week..
This type pf comment proves the danger behind this attitude, the public viewing the police as incompetent jobsworths, undermining the progress made between communities and the police over several years.

Hillsborough.
Blind man tasered.

2 very recent examples in the press showing just how incompetent the police are (and if you take the JSaville situ into it, you can add all of those police who were involved into that mix).
The very same can be said of many: including Mr Mitchell but I've yet to have it confirmed where his incompetency lies?

As for him having to be held accountable. He was. He admitted it, he apologised, policeman accepted apology - and no doubt he also received a dressing down from the PM - that's what's called accountability. That should have been the end of it.

Wanting someone to lose their job & rejoicing over it, for having a heated exchange of words, with absolutly no proof of him calling the copper a pleb - is beyond any rationale - imo of course.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Hillsborough.
Blind man tasered.

2 very recent examples in the press showing just how incompetent the police are (and if you take the JSaville situ into it, you can add all of those police who were involved into that mix).
The very same can be said of many: including Mr Mitchell but I've yet to have it confirmed where his incompetency lies?

As for him having to be held accountable. He was. He admitted it, he apologised, policeman accepted apology - and no doubt he also received a dressing down from the PM - that's what's called accountability. That should have been the end of it.

Wanting someone to lose their job & rejoicing over it, for having a heated exchange of words, with absolutly no proof of him calling the copper a pleb - is beyond any rationale - imo of course.

Are we just throwing any unrelated issue into the mix now?
Shall I start googling tory scandals and cover-ups?
The supergun affair....The sinking of the Belgrano?....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

Are we just throwing any unrelated issue into the mix now?
Shall I start googling tory scandals and cover-ups?
The supergun affair....The sinking of the Belgrano?....

It's called offereing comparisons - and it's relevant given your overall consensus of the 'attitude' to the police in general - as per the post I quoted you on earlier.

I'm happy to have offered comparisions that have shown how inept the police can be that have been spotlighted in recent weeks.

What can you show to back up your claim that Mr Mitchell was inept at this job?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

It's called offereing comparisons - and it's relevant given your overall consensus of the 'attitude' to the police in general - as per the post I quoted you on earlier.

I'm happy to have offered comparisions that have shown how inept the police can be that have been spotlighted in recent weeks.

What can you show to back up your claim that Mr Mitchell was inept at this job?

This whole issue is an example of his ineptitude, the role of chief whip is to ensure standards are maintained. That MP's behave in a manner fitting of their status and conduct themselves in public with dignity. Making sure they don't compromise themselves by receiving negative press that brings both them and their party into disrepute...
Nevermind the 'yes but what about' I am discussing this issue on this thread as it is the topic offered by the OP.
If we start flying off on a tangent where will it end?....

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

This whole issue is an example of his ineptitude, the role of chief whip is to ensure standards are maintained. That MP's behave in a manner fitting of their status and conduct themselves in public with dignity. Making sure they don't compromise themselves andrecieve negative press that brings themselves and their party into disrepute...
Nevermind the 'yes but what about' I am discussing this issue on this thread as it is the topic offered by the OP.
If we start flying off on a tangent where will it end?....

You brought into play the generalisation of the attitudes overall towards the police - I addressed what you brought into the discussion yourself.


What was an example of his ineptitude of his working role? That he was human, had a slight altercation with an equally feisty and equally vocal policeman? I'd regard that as him being human rather than some robot.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

You brought into play the generalisation of the attitudes overall towards the police - I addressed what you brought into the discussion yourself.


What was an example of his ineptitude of his working role? That he was human, had a slight altercation with an equally feisty and equally vocal policeman? I'd regard that as him being human rather than some robot.

I commented on how this impacts on public perception of the police, nothing else.
Equally feisty and vocal police officer? He was doing his job, following procedures.
If Mr Mitchell had allowed him to do this and kept a civil tongue in his head he would not be clearing out his desk would he?
What are you trying to say pyra... we are all human but some are more human than others?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by kizzy

I commented on how this impacts on public perception of the police, nothing else.
Equally feisty and vocal police officer? He was doing his job, following procedures.
If Mr Mitchell had allowed him to do this and kept a civil tongue in his head he would not be clearing out his desk would he?
What are you trying to say pyra... we are all human but some are more human than others?

Since when was it a police officer's duty to threaten a member of the public with "I'll have your job for this". They are there to protect - not threaten them on a personal level. Yes, that's an extreme version of 'threatening' but it was still a threat nontheless. Since when was that police procedures?

What are you trying to say pyra... we are all human but some are more human than others?

That's precisely what I am saying.

if you don't believe that: you only have to look at some of the unbelievable horrors and levels of abuse of all nature: that some 'humans' inflict on others.

Both of these persons hurtled some form of verbal abuse to each other: why is one commended for his action, when the other subject to even more abuse? One rule for one person working for the good of the public, being paid for out of the public coffers: and one rule for another person working for the good of the public, being paid for out of the public coffers.