Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 4:33 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote: So if there is practically no risk why did the police force Mitchell to use the pedestrian side gate, one that takes longer to exit from? Because there was a standing directive in place stating that cycles must use the pedestrian gate. One that all the Diplomatic Protection Group officers were aware of. Indeed Mitchell had been advised to this effect previously and further advised to speak to the Downing Street Liaison Officer if he was unhappy with the policy. Indeed, the day before the incident, Mitchell had spat his dummy and demanded the main gates were opened. The police officer on that occasion caved in and opened them, but felt compelled to report the incident to his supervisor as it went against policy. Or did you miss all that? As you're so well read on the Mitchell case you'll have read the Operation Alice Report where all this is clearly stated in evidence? I'm glad you agree that the agates are for vehicles, a bicycle is a vehicle, something you clearly aren't aware of or probably care about the rights of people to go about their lawful business. He and indeed I would be more than peeved to be told to walk when I am legally entitled to cycle, especially given the next to zero risk (Downing street isn't a designated terrorist threatened area BTW). No, it's not. The buildings are. After all, the buildings would be the target, not the stretch of tarmac outside, and furthermore there are plenty of people who require access to the street. However, the street itself - and access to the street - is under the control of the police, or specifically the Diplomatic Protection Group. If you think there is 'next to zero risk' to Downing Street you need to give your head a wobble. The police action to force Mitchell to dismount and not exit via the 'vehicle' gates was unlawful in the strictest terms, if he came via a moped or motorcycle or car (other vehicles) they would open the gates so why not whilst he was on a different vehicle? No, it wasn't unlawful. The police have complete control over who and what enters and leaves Downing Street, and how. You seem to have overlooked that as well. Try reading the 2008 Road Traffic Act which gave them those powers.

knockersbumpMKII wrote: So if there is practically no risk why did the police force Mitchell to use the pedestrian side gate, one that takes longer to exit from? Because there was a standing directive in place stating that cycles must use the pedestrian gate. One that all the Diplomatic Protection Group officers were aware of. Indeed Mitchell had been advised to this effect previously and further advised to speak to the Downing Street Liaison Officer if he was unhappy with the policy. Indeed, the day before the incident, Mitchell had spat his dummy and demanded the main gates were opened. The police officer on that occasion caved in and opened them, but felt compelled to report the incident to his supervisor as it went against policy. Or did you miss all that? As you're so well read on the Mitchell case you'll have read the Operation Alice Report where all this is clearly stated in evidence? I'm glad you agree that the agates are for vehicles, a bicycle is a vehicle, something you clearly aren't aware of or probably care about the rights of people to go about their lawful business. He and indeed I would be more than peeved to be told to walk when I am legally entitled to cycle, especially given the next to zero risk (Downing street isn't a designated terrorist threatened area BTW). No, it's not. The buildings are. After all, the buildings would be the target, not the stretch of tarmac outside, and furthermore there are plenty of people who require access to the street. However, the street itself - and access to the street - is under the control of the police, or specifically the Diplomatic Protection Group. If you think there is 'next to zero risk' to Downing Street you need to give your head a wobble. The police action to force Mitchell to dismount and not exit via the 'vehicle' gates was unlawful in the strictest terms, if he came via a moped or motorcycle or car (other vehicles) they would open the gates so why not whilst he was on a different vehicle? No, it wasn't unlawful. The police have complete control over who and what enters and leaves Downing Street, and how. You seem to have overlooked that as well. Try reading the 2008 Road Traffic Act which gave them those powers.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 6:26 pm  

Knockersbump - the gift that just keeps on giving.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:43 pm  

knockersbump wrote:

The police action to force Mitchell to dismount and not exit via the 'vehicle' gates was unlawful in the strictest terms,

There was no police action.

He was not forced to dismount.

The police did not prevent him from leaving Downing Street through the big metal gates. The big metal gates prevented him from leaving Downing Street through the big metal gates. The police officers present could OPEN the big metal gates but by declining to do so, they were not "taking action". Indeed, had Mitchell wanted to sit there on his bike for an hour or two, I don't imagine the police would have given a stuff.

So remind me again, where's the "unlawful" bit?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:51 pm  

Him wrote:

Knockersbump - the gift that just keeps on giving.

I hope you'll get as used to it on here as we have over on the Hull FC board.

Even Steve Norton never got a bump as hard as that

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:53 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Bellendery, is that the best you can come up with, that's really rather poor, even for someone of your ilk

Some one once asked me what an "ilk" was

All I could come up with was: "A c**t with antlers"

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 7:56 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

Hahaha, resorting to breaking the AUP and using personal abuse to make a point doesn't win you the arguement..I pity you

If you ever use the term "olitics of envy" then it'll confirm that you are Standee's alter ego

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Sun Mar 08, 2015 9:38 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

If you ever use the term "olitics of envy" then it'll confirm that you are Standee's alter ego

I thinks he's eloped with Minty aint he?

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:12 pm  

Cronus wrote: Because there was a standing directive in place stating that cycles must use the pedestrian gate. One that all the Diplomatic Protection Group officers were aware of. Indeed Mitchell had been advised to this effect previously and further advised to speak to the Downing Street Liaison Officer if he was unhappy with the policy. Indeed, the day before the incident, Mitchell had spat his dummy and demanded the main gates were opened. The police officer on that occasion caved in and opened them, but felt compelled to report the incident to his supervisor as it went against policy. Or did you miss all that? As you're so well read on the Mitchell case you'll have read the Operation Alice Report where all this is clearly stated in evidence? No, it's not. The buildings are. After all, the buildings would be the target, not the stretch of tarmac outside, and furthermore there are plenty of people who require access to the street. However, the street itself - and access to the street - is under the control of the police, or specifically the Diplomatic Protection Group. If you think there is 'next to zero risk' to Downing Street you need to give your head a wobble. No, it wasn't unlawful. The police have complete control over who and what enters and leaves Downing Street, and how. You seem to have overlooked that as well. Try reading the 2008 Road Traffic Act which gave them those powers. Ok, you've got me, except you're wrong on so many points it isn't worth continuing this debate..when you have your rights infringed by the police and/or the state I'm sure you would be equally as narked off as Mitchell, or more likely you're another like many on here ready to just take it up the rear asking them how deep they'd like to go..enjoy

Cronus wrote: Because there was a standing directive in place stating that cycles must use the pedestrian gate. One that all the Diplomatic Protection Group officers were aware of. Indeed Mitchell had been advised to this effect previously and further advised to speak to the Downing Street Liaison Officer if he was unhappy with the policy. Indeed, the day before the incident, Mitchell had spat his dummy and demanded the main gates were opened. The police officer on that occasion caved in and opened them, but felt compelled to report the incident to his supervisor as it went against policy. Or did you miss all that? As you're so well read on the Mitchell case you'll have read the Operation Alice Report where all this is clearly stated in evidence? No, it's not. The buildings are. After all, the buildings would be the target, not the stretch of tarmac outside, and furthermore there are plenty of people who require access to the street. However, the street itself - and access to the street - is under the control of the police, or specifically the Diplomatic Protection Group. If you think there is 'next to zero risk' to Downing Street you need to give your head a wobble. No, it wasn't unlawful. The police have complete control over who and what enters and leaves Downing Street, and how. You seem to have overlooked that as well. Try reading the 2008 Road Traffic Act which gave them those powers. Ok, you've got me, except you're wrong on so many points it isn't worth continuing this debate..when you have your rights infringed by the police and/or the state I'm sure you would be equally as narked off as Mitchell, or more likely you're another like many on here ready to just take it up the rear asking them how deep they'd like to go..enjoy

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Tue Mar 10, 2015 1:52 pm  

Lol.

Re: Andrew Mitchell - Update : Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:10 pm  

knockersbumpMKII wrote:

...when you have your rights infringed by the police and/or the state I'm sure you would be equally as narked off as Mitchell...

Again, what "right" did he have "infringed"? Are you seriously arguing that there is a "right" to have DPG officers open and close heavy vehicular access gates just so Mitchell could avoid dismounting? Really?

On what is that "right" founded? I mean, I have pored the texts all the way back to Magna Carta, but I can't find any mention of any positive obligation for the police to open gates for cyclists. Where is it to be found?