police fudging the truth..

Long time ago, ISTR reading in a book by Churchill a comment on being in Downing St in the wartime bombing. It was to the effect that the jerry-built terrace would have shown little resistance to a bomb.

I’m sure it’s lined with concrete, steel and aluminium foil now.

It is incredible how ingrained “ant-terrorism” has become the battle cry for anyone trying to defend abuse of power.

Anyone cringe at the idiocracy of the whole story?

Called me a pleb. Oh grow up idiots.

Focus on the power and utility companies NOW.

There brews a future massive civil unrest when theres still plenty of fuel etc yet prices are crippling.

I thought using the word “pleb” as the supposed insult was the most intelligent thing the police did in the whole affair. It really cut straight to the heart of the class warfare they wanted to portray.

Well it was until the whole thing went tits up on them, MSP, at which point it just makes their motives clear.

What are you, some sort of expert on anti-terrorist security ?

No. My point is that I don’t believe that they went about it in a reasonable way (note the word “believe” – I have no idea what was actually said, but I’m guessing based on the evidence). As I said, I don’t think their opening line was “I’m sorry sir but the rules have changed” or something similar that was likely to yield a positive response. Police officers tend to be very good at diffusing situations, but given what we know now, I believe that in this instance the officers set out to do the exact opposite.

What he shouldn’t have done was loose his rag, swear at them

Correct, and he has admitted as much. But I can’t honestly say that I have never been frustrated into swearing in places that on reflection I shouldn’t – and that’s just in response to people who weren’t *deliberately* trying to wind me up.

And of course, the problem wasn’t the swearing it it’s own right: if the police had given an accurate account of the incident, it would have blown over in a day (if it made the press at all). The problem was that it gave the police just enough to stitch him up, because it meant that he couldn’t give an outright denial of wrong doing.

he did after all say to them “you haven’t heard the last of this”

Has he admitted saying that? Or are you going by the police version of events?

BTW, do are you still stand by your earlier assertions that Mitchell “very publicly lied”, and that he “initially denied swearing”?

Hats off to the bloke from the police federation who said on channel 4 news that his exonerated members were now being subjected to ‘a completely unfair trail by media’

I presume it was a piece of satirical performance art? It was, wasn’t it?

Well it was until the whole thing went tits up on them

Yeah I am almost surprised the police federation hasn’t tried to spin it as “they were victims of their own success” 😆

Has he admitted saying that?

Yep.

BTW, do are you still stand by your earlier assertions that Mitchell “very publicly lied”, and that he “initially denied swearing”?

Yep.

And will G4S now do security at Downing St, since some think the police can’t be trusted?

I shall remember next time I want to make a public statement to mutter under my breath.

the gates are there to stop a terrorist attack. An attack in which for example, a car loaded with explosives detonates taking the front of Number 10, the Prime Minister, the cabinet, one or two foreign dignitaries, and perhaps half a dozen of coppers.

I assume that every time the gates are opened they are no longer providing the same level of security as when they are shut.

Inside the gates:

Mitchell could have got some “well sick air” off that kicker 😆

I refer the right honourable gentleman to my earlier phat superman seatgrab.

What’s your point Z-11 ? That the gates aren’t needed ? Or that they could be left permanently open ?

Be more specific with your security analysis.