Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [2]

[Pettytyrant101]

Intresting goings on in the UK coalition government between the lib-dems and the Tories.
The Lib Dem leader, Nick Clegg, has said in a an interview he wants a "time-limited contribution" by the wealthy.
This sort of thing is of course as abhorrant to the Tories, as they and their backers are the wealthy, as it would be to Republicans.
After Cameron scuppered the Lib-dem flagship policy of House of Lords reform this is obviously Clegg pushing back.
The Tory backbanckers have already hit the airwaves though with all the reasons not to tax the rich (business will run away, direct tax isnt the best way ect the usual stuff).
I dont see Clegg having any chance of getting this, so I am not sure what his game is.

[Pettytyrant101]

[Eldorion]

Can David Cameron become any more clueless?

Spoiler:

[chris63]

A lot of Brits i meet, think this video is so true. Is this what its like over there ?

[Pettytyrant101]

That vid Chris neatly sums up the rigth wing BNP view- I have no idea if such a view is widely held in England- voting patterns for the BNP would not seem to indicate it is.
But the content of the song is the usual BNP nonsense- foreigners come here and get given everything at the expense of the poor white natives.
A load of rubbish of course, overall every study ever done shows the net ecomomic benefits from immigration.
My own country is underpopulated- we need more- only yesterday the major energy firms in Aberdeen announced they need about 120,00 more skilled workers than the city currently has. So rather oddly whilst the english have been getting more hostile more inward, more little englander and the UK government has been playing up to it and restricting immigration- Scotland has been trying to do the opposite, problem is Westminister has the powers in this area.

[Pettytyrant101]

Its the anniversary of 9/11- and whilst its terrible that people lost their lives in such a fashion and the retalation an unjustified crime I think its worth remembering why it happened at all- decades of US foreign policy like this;

[Pettytyrant101]

Says it all really.

[Pettytyrant101]

Two days ago in England in a completely cowardly act of violence two female police officers were called to a seemingly routine case- but where in fact walking into a nutjobs trap and they were both murdered.

Now at such times politicians do what they do, they look sad, offer sympathies, talk about looking at legisalstion and holding enquiries.

But this comes at a time when the Government and police are already at loggerheads over plans to cut their budget.
And of course the Metropolotian police (London cops) are up to their neck in charges of taking bribes and there being a cosy three way brown envelope world between police, press and government.
And of course the Tories have long been fighting the charge they are a bunch of spoilt rich kids with no idea about the rest of us.

So with that as the complex, and because of the murders, emotionally charged background you might expect a top Tory MP's to not for example do this:

The Tory Chief Whip, whilst trying to enter Downing Street on his bike was stopped by the police who told him he would have to get off and go through another way- the MP reposnded by declaring that the cop "Best you learn your f ---ing place. You don't run this f--- government. You are just a pleb."

The Tory Chief Whip denies claims he swore at a policeman on duty outside Downing Street and called him a "pleb".The officer concerned has insisted reports of what happened are accurate.
'John Tully, the Metropolitan Police Federation chairman, said the minister's outburst was "disgraceful" and he must resign, adding that the minister was "lucky not to be placed under arrest if indeed he did say those words, and I have no reason to doubt that he did".

Downing Street said Mr Mitchell had "apologised profusely" to the officer on the telephone and sources also stressed Mr Cameron had made clear to Mr Mitchell how displeased he is at the confrontation with a police officer.The source added that the PM still has faith in Mr Mitchell as Chief Whip and that the minister disputes The Sun's version ofevents.Mr Cameron said: "He has obviously apologised to me, but moreimportantly he has apologised thoroughly to the police and that needed to be done."The prime minister also praised the police, saying they do an "outstanding job".' - BBC

They do an outstanding job but Cameron and his Chief Whip deny that the police officer is telling the truth about what was said? So thats the same as saying an officer on duty outside no10 is a liar?

'Police Federation national chairman, Paul McKeever, said: "It is hard to fathom how someone who holds the police in such contempt could be allowed to hold a public office."Mr Mitchell's half-hearted apology for the comments made whilst leaving Downing Street will do little to build bridges with the police who feel they have once again been treated with a lack of respect and civility by members of this government.""The lack of regard that some within government appear to hold police officers in is especially disappointing during this tragic week for the service and does nothing for the rock bottom morale of officers in this country."



Labour have said the reported comments were "appalling" and No 10 has "a lot of questions to answer"."Downing Street must make clear exactly what Andrew Mitchell said to the police officer," a party spokesman said."There are two alternatives. Either the chief whip used appalling and offensive language to an officer going about their duty or Mr Mitchell is saying the officer is lying."Downing Street will know. They must make the position clear urgently. A half-hearted apology is not enough." - BBC


This one isnt over yet, not sure how he has managed to cling on ths long- oh no, yes I do, Cameron hates sacking his mates anmd doesnt have any balls to do it anyway.


edit add- seems this government thinking of the rest of us as plebs is not new-

'Last year, a government agency released a newsletter highlighting the problem of what it described as People Lacking Everyday Basic Skills.'
Or to put it another way- 'The Problem with the PLEBS'.
'Once people worked out what the first letters spelled, the scheme was dropped faster than you could say, "The Thick of It"*.'- BBC


*reference to a satirical tv show about politics.

[Pettytyrant101]

Just as a follow up to the above post- the Chief Whip is now saying he did not use the language ascribed to him, he admits he did swear, but claims not at the police, and he denies using the word 'pleb.'
The two officers involved are sticking by what they put in their reports- and the Chief Whip, in a wonderful bit of politicial wriggling says he is not "accusing anyone of lying" (just of telling a different version of events than his) and through a friend released to the press the follwing statement to explain it-"He realises there may be differing versions of what was said."

Mmmm, so if I get stopped by two police and start swearing and abusing them and calling them names, get arrested, taken to court, I can say "I may have sworn, but not at them, and there may be differing versions of events. So you may as well ignore what the police say happened."

Yes, I'm sure thats how it works!

[Orwell]

Of courses, being police, they would be lying, what. Just the sort of story they'd make up to undermine the Tories. Afterall, police are (generally) well known to be working for the Left and against the Establishment.

[Orwell]

I had an interesting experience recently. It's quite a big story within the paramenters of my work, and the following part of it that I can mention may seem insignicant, but I don't think it is, and it's certainly instructive I think.

I had a female ask me if she could change a Domestic Violence Order I had obtained for her from Court against her hubby. It was a total Exclusion Order - hubby could not approach or contact her in any way or get anyone else to do so.

A couple of weeks later she rang me to ask if she could change one of the conditions so her hubby could at least ring her to discuss their future. I saw that as her right and arranged at Court for a variation of the order. When certain ladies from our local Women Against Violence Orgaginisation found out (no, that's not it's actual title) they questioned the whole business of any changes and told me I should not allow it.

It struck me as kind of ironic. You know, police supporting a woman's freedom to choose how she runs her life while some women were opposing that right!

NB I have put in plenty of measures for the lady's safety. If the guy as much as farts in her general direction, a ton of bricks will fall on his head. It's fascinating (and possibly slightly ironic) to think that police jackboots can actually be used in support of women finding their own feet. This lady has grown quite empowered over a short period of time, but the jackboots standing nearby ready to jump to her defence are definitely giving her the confidence to stick to her guns.

Maybe my police philosophy should be: "The strong should look after the weak until the weak are strong enough to look after themselves."

And: "Women ideologues have no more right to oppress other women than patriarchs do."

[Pettytyrant101]

Bugger the WAVO's I say.
Police work best when they have the trust to make judgement calls I reckon.
You know this woman in a professional capacity, you have judged the risks with the eye of a professional police officer, you have made sure suitable safe guards are in place and you have allowed her to step out a little further into her own empowerment.
Good for you Orwell thats what I say.

[Orwell]

Yes, I look after the ladies in many ways. I might email you a fuller account later, Petty. I think I can risk letting you in on a little more detail - though still protecting Confidential stuff, of course.

Sometimes discussions go on here and I'd like to say more, but can't. Can be a little frustrating at times. Maybe this is why I just come here and have fun. It's kind of like I'm disallowed to talk from experience, because, often - well, I can't! It's not fair really!

[David H]

I understand your dilemma, so let me ask this question in the most general terms possible.

While respecting the person's right to make their own decisions, there are times when it seems to me that some people keep making the same self-destructive mistakes over and over. Alcohol, substance abuse, and destructive relationships all can look like addictions to me, though I'm not telling stories either.

Should there be a point where the law has a right to protect people from themselves? Though I'm not saying it's the case in your story, I do know of women who repeatedly return to abusive relationships that any sane person would run like hell away from. Of course that's their right to a point, but is there some line where intervention is appropriate? I wonder....

[Orwell]

Should there be a point where the law has a right to protect people from themselves? Though I'm not saying it's the case in your story, I do know of women who repeatedly return to abusive relationships that any sane person would run like hell away from. Of course that's their right to a point, but is there some line where intervention is appropriate? I wonder....

Yes there is! So long as the Caring Organizations (in which group I tend to place Police, if they're doing their proper job in a proper Democracy) look afte the whole person they're dealing with. What happens too often is the Caring fraternity intervene, then leave the poor soul to their own devices again - in effect, support-less. Every case has to be judged absolutely on it's merits. Caring folk in a Democracy should offer hope (ongoing 'help' that is) but no ideological thinking, please. Proper Democracies should be about freeing folk from oppression - whether of other people or that of drugs etc. - while not oppresing them with their own ideologies (feminism, socialism, fascism, religionism - whatever). Individual freedom must sometimes be curbed, but it wants to be for a very very good (and transparent) reason, methinks. Women, in your example David, do return, but I've seen, with enough ongoing help from caring folk, that they can get to a point of giving up abusive relationships - a bit like giving up smoking, really.

[David H]

I'd love to see a world like that as well. Let's keep working on it.

[Orwell]

I agree. I'm always chary - of course! - of running other people's iives!

[Pettytyrant101]

Just to return to the story of the Tory Chief Whip swearing at the police and calling them plebs- the Telegraph have got hold of the policeofficers report of the incident and here it is-

'Whilst on duty at *** tonight (Wed 19th Sept) on a 1400-2200 hrs between the hours of 1800-2000 I had to deal with a man claiming to be the chief whip and who I later confirmed to be such and a Mr Andrew MITCHELL.

Mr Mitchell was speaking to PC ******** demanding exit through the main vehicle gate into Whitehall. PC ******** explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was for pedal cycles to use the side pedestrian exit. Mr MITCHELL refused, stating he was the chief whip and he always used the main gates.

I explained to Mr MITCHELL that the policy was to use the side pedestrian gates and that I was happy to open those for him, but that no officer present would be opening the main gates as this was the policy we were
directed to follow.

Mr MITCHELL refused. Repeatedly reiterating he was the chief whip. My exact explanation to Mr MITCHELL was "I am more than happy to open the side pedestrian gate for you Sir, but it is policy that we are not to allow cycles through the main vehicle entrance".

After several refusals Mr MITCHELL got off his bike and walked to the pedestrian gate with me after I again offered to open that for him.
There were several members of public present as is the norm opposite the pedestrian gate and as we neared it, Mr MITCHELL said: "Best you learn your f------ place...you don’t run this f------ government...You’re f------
plebs." The members of public looked visibly shocked and I was somewhat taken aback by the language used and the view expressed by a senior government official. I can not say if this statement was aimed at me
individually, or the officers present or the police service as a whole.

I warned Mr MITCHELL that he should not swear, and if he continued to do so I would have no option but to arrest him under the Public Order Act, saying "Please don’t swear at me Sir. If you continue to I will have no option but to arrest you under the public order act".
Mr MITCHELL was then silent and left saying "you haven’t heard the last of this" as he cycled off.

I forward this to you as all officers were extremely polite to Mr MITCHELL, but such behaviour and verbal expressions could lead to the unfortunate situation of officers being left no option but to exercise their powers.
I write this for your information as Mr Mitchell’s last comments would appear to indicate that he is unhappy with my actions.
I have recorded this fully in my pocket book.'



Now either the cop is lying (and the other cops present too) or the Chief Whip is as he still insists he did not use those words. Rather amusingly, and tellingly it says something about the sensitivitives of the Tories to their image- the Chief Whip admits using foul language to the police- but not the word 'pleb'!

[Eldorion]

Mr MITCHELL was then silent and left saying "you haven’t heard the last of this" as he cycled off.

The idea of a middle-aged man darkly muttering "you haven't heard the last of this" while pedaling away on his bicycle is just incredibly funny to me.

[Pettytyrant101]

Thats the mentality of our ruling elite. And yes, it is as funny as it is ludicrous as it is appalling the UK is still run by these people.

The 'frustrating day' he had was a lunch at one of Londons poshest restraunts at which he spent on one lunch about the same as an unemployed peron gets in benefits to provide their food, heating, lighting ect for one week.
But its ok, "We're all in it together."

[Eldorion]

Actually it was the bicycle that really did it for me, but I take your point.

[Orwell]

Englishmen are absurd, that's what I like about them! People think Monty Python were plain cracking mad silly - but they were working from the vantage point of Upperclass English life most of the time - which sometimes includes bicycles - one of the absurdist bits of useful equipment ever invented.

[Eldorion]

BTW, congrats on your 11,000th post, Petty! You can't acknowledge this without ruining it, though.

[Orwell]

He will!

[Pretty Tyrant]

"BTW, congrats on your 11,000th post, Petty!"- Eldo

Petty says thanks Eldo, frankly he goes on far too much so I have made sure he's gone for a, lie down. Yes, a nice nap.
But then I did smash him over the head with a table.