Plebs 1 Toffs 0

[MrGongGong]

Incidentally, which bright spark at R3 decided to progamme what seems to be about a month of Wagner at going home time?

I didn't realise we were all still at primary school
surely you mean "drivetime"

[PhilipT]

Perhaps some helpful adminstrator could split this thread into its Mitchell, Wagner, economics, and pensions components?

We seem to be about done with Mitchell, until the next police/non-police confrontation. That won't be long, at the current rate. As for the economics, I would relish a debate. As for the pensions, likewise (and I do think Lord Bichard would've done better to keep his mouth shut and be thought a fool etc.). And as for the Wagner - you knock off work at what time?? What kind of job are you in?

[teamsaint]

Perhaps some helpful adminstrator could split this thread into its Mitchell, Wagner, economics, and pensions components?

We seem to be about done with Mitchell, until the next police/non-police confrontation. That won't be long, at the current rate. As for the economics, I would relish a debate. As for the pensions, likewise (and I do think Lord Bichard would've done better to keep his mouth shut and be thought a fool etc.). And as for the Wagner - you knock off work at what time?? What kind of job are you in?

I though "Going home time" seemed charming and from a better age !! "Drivetime" to be avoided at all costs.
Incidentally it took me 8 hours to get home yesterday, due to a car breakdown, so the Wagner fitted just nicely, timewise !

if folks can give a good description for the part of the day when one is travelling home that doesn't sound like primary school or local radio then i am all ears.

Still think "going home time" is fine...that is, of course if you Do go home after work...... Some people just go to the pub.....

Edit..though i don't know why i said "Just" go to the pub....

[An_Inspector_Calls]

However, to be precise, you didn't "question the role of the police". You accused the officers in question, without any evidence whatsoever, of having "concocted a pack of lies which they released to the press because they wanted to attack the government over their pension cuts".

Not in my original analysis. I stated that the police leaked a story about Mitchell (#27), that that was not acceptable and that who made the leak should be investigated. I only made the later statement as an opposite to Barbirollian's faith in police honesty in this instance (#112).

[heliocentric]

Not in my original analysis. I stated that the police leaked a story about Mitchell (#27), that that was not acceptable and that who made the leak should be investigated. I only made the later statement as an opposite to Barbirollian's faith in police honesty in this instance (#112).

So you changed your original "analysis" to an accusation, not on the basis of fresh facts coming to light, but in order to undermine Barbirollians' argument, is that right? And why actually is it "not acceptable" that the police leaked the story (unless of course it is not true, which you seem to believe although there's at least as much weight in arguments that it is true)? Revealing and off-the-record utterances by politicians are leaked all the time by all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, and if they help to give people a better picture of the hypocrisy endemic to the political profession that can only be a good thing (can't it?).

[John Shelton]

There is a serious issue to do with the relationship between the press and the police; as with Hillsborough, as with Jean Charles de Menezes and all the misinformation (OK lies) they told about his actions and his supposedly drugged state prior to them shooting him. It seems far-fetched to me to suggest the police briefed about pleb-gate in retaliation for Coalition policy on their pensions: my guess is they felt Mitchell was immediately untouchable, but could be got back at through the press and since he'd annoyed them that was what they did.

As examples of police / press cosiness it doesn't seem to me especially shocking (and that's independent of what I think about Mitchell and his chums). There are so many more egregious and damaging instances (Mitchell was only a party enforcer, he isn't dead, he hasn't got people calling him a murderer etc.).

[PhilipT]

And why actually is it "not acceptable" that the police leaked the story (unless of course it is not true, which you seem to believe although there's at least as much weight in arguments that it is true)? Revealing and off-the-record utterances by politicians are leaked all the time by all sorts of people, for all sorts of reasons, and if they help to give people a better picture of the hypocrisy endemic to the political profession that can only be a good thing (can't it?).

Two wrongs don't make a right. It's not the business of the police to leak such stories - period. I hope - and it's only a faint hope - that the about-to-be-elected PCCs will hold the police to account more for such actions. Apart from anything else, in any case where criminal charges are later brought then such an action by the police may well prejudice a fair trial. Please consider the implications if you were the person on trial: absolutely innocent, I have no doubt, but with shocking stories about you leaked by the police that everyone in the country including the would-be jury were appalled by. I find it strange that that is the kind of country you want to live in.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

So you changed your original "analysis" to an accusation, not on the basis of fresh facts coming to light, but in order to undermine Barbirollians' argument, is that right? .

Yes: to illustrate the extremity of his position by means of an opposite. I would have thought the extremity was obvious in both Barbirollian's and my statements.
Where do you get the idea that I don't believe it's true that the police leaked the story? I fail to see how anyone can think otherwise given that the altercation was seen and heard only by Mitchell and the police? And no, I don't think it's acceptable for the police to play judge and jury, or to indulge in politics.

[heliocentric]

Where do you get the idea that I don't believe it's true that the police leaked the story?

You have misread my post. I said that you seem to believe that the story itself (ie. that Mitchell referred to the officers as "f•••ing plebs" etc.) is not true, on the basis of your assertion that the officers "concocted a pack of lies". So: in answer to Barbirollians you for the first time accuse the officers of inventing the story, an accusation which, however believable you might think it, is actually completely baseless.

[Serial_Apologist]

Or do you lean towards good old Karl?

Yeah good old Karl Marx eh? All excuses ascribable to his writings - plenty of nits managing to secrete themselves away in his big beard. Some even managed to name a housing estate in Southwark after the cemetary where he was buried, and couldn't even spell the name right.

Tut tut, what is the world coming to?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

You have misread my post. I said that you seem to believe that the story itself (ie. that Mitchell referred to the officers as "f•••ing plebs" etc.) is not true, on the basis of your assertion that the officers "concocted a pack of lies". So: in answer to Barbirollians you for the first time accuse the officers of inventing the story, an accusation which, however believable you might think it, is actually completely baseless.

Well rather than 'misread', your statement was somewhat cumbersome, implying that I didn't believe that the police leaked the story. And yes (fror the second time), my assertion, (just like Barbirollian's of the complete veractity of the police story) was a baseless exaggeration, at odds (obviously) with the line I originally posted; this was done in order to illustrate the baseless absurdity of Barbirollian's position.

[Serial_Apologist]

My point about who has a lot to lose is that it is the people in the middle who have most to lose.......and who are perhaps resistant to change.

Yep - apols for any misinterpretation

[teamsaint]

Yep - apols for any misinterpretation

no need, S_A...just ranting really !

[amateur51]

Fascinating. I'd be thrilled to know what sort of power structure you imagine might bring about the sort of society that you would wish to live in. Not to mention how you think your "contradictions" might be "overcome eventually". Have you been reading Mr Proudhon? Or perhaps, more dangerously, Mr. O'Connor? Or do you lean towards good old Karl?

Oh my sides!

I think you'll find that good old Karl had quite a bit to say about the sort of society that we have at present, Simon.

[heliocentric]

good old Karl had quite a bit to say about the sort of society that we have at present

Yes, I think you're right, quite a big book if I recall... no don't say anything, the title's on the tip of my tongue...