tonyh29 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said:bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said: Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said:Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said: So the Economist doesn't handle things in depth, but some of the shite regularly posted on here from the Guardian, which is represented as the absolute truth, does!? Okay then. And please show us where anybody did that is this a request that from now on posters have to put IMO at the end of every article they quote from ? When poster A states his case and links to an article to back it up , surely that is him representing what he believes to be the truth ? ok that may not be the "absolute " truth , but it's being posted with the aim of saying Here is the proof , so it's good enough to backup up Morley's statement surely ? Edited October 16, 2013 by tonyh29 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 16, 2013 Author Moderator Share Posted October 16, 2013 bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said:bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said: Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said:Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said:So the Economist doesn't handle things in depth, but some of the shite regularly posted on here from the Guardian, which is represented as the absolute truth, does!? Okay then.And please show us where anybody did that is this a request that from now on posters have to put IMO at the end of every article they quote from ? When poster A states his case and links to an article to back it up , surely that is him representing what he believes to be the truth ? ok that may not be the "absolute " truth , but it's being posted with the aim of saying Here is the proof , so it's good enough to backup up Morley's statement surely ?No not in the slightest because that wasn't posted by Morley in that manner. Morley posted without using quotes to oppose something Peter said about the Economist. The Guardian thing can therefore only logically be aimed at Peter. So has Peter ever posted an article by the Guardian and claimed it to be the absolute truth? I'm not sure he has, so Morley's point in that instance tends to look a little daft, especially as I doubt he's ever posted an article from anything in that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I did once say I read something in the Grauniad and so I knew it to be true... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 3:12 PM, said: tonyh29, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:47 PM, said: bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said: bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said:bickster, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:36 PM, said: Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said: Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said:Morley_crosses_to_Withe, on 16 Oct 2013 - 2:18 PM, said: So the Economist doesn't handle things in depth, but some of the shite regularly posted on here from the Guardian, which is represented as the absolute truth, does!? Okay then. And please show us where anybody did that is this a request that from now on posters have to put IMO at the end of every article they quote from ? When poster A states his case and links to an article to back it up , surely that is him representing what he believes to be the truth ? ok that may not be the "absolute " truth , but it's being posted with the aim of saying Here is the proof , so it's good enough to backup up Morley's statement surely ? No not in the slightest because that wasn't posted by Morley in that manner. Morley posted without using quotes to oppose something Peter said about the Economist. The Guardian thing can therefore only logically be aimed at Peter. So has Peter ever posted an article by the Guardian and claimed it to be the absolute truth? I'm not sure he has, so Morley's point in that instance tends to look a little daft, especially as I doubt he's ever posted an article from anything in that way. Well I'm not looking through 565 pages to find out , if only we had a search button oh wait .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I did once say I read something in the Grauniad and so I knew it to be true... was it when Mitchell called the Police Plebs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I did once say I read something in the Grauniad and so I knew it to be true... was it when Mitchell called the Police Plebs So he did call them plebs? I'd been wondering... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panto_Villan Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 (edited) I'd be very surprised if Mitchell had called the police plebs. I imagine he said something pretty rude to them, but that he didn't call them plebs - and that once he'd given the policemen in question a tongue-lashing (probably an unwarranted one), the decision was made either by him or by his associates to spice it up by adding the word "pleb", because a minister calling a policemen a rocket polisher is hardly going to make news but calling him a "pleb" would be understandably incendiary and would allow them to get their own back. I really can't see Mitchell choosing to call a policeman a pleb, and if he had I really couldn't see him fighting so hard to clear his name that the case around him would start to unravel. Mitchell was a whip and from everything I've read was not overly popular in the Tory party, and a week after he'd lost his job I'd imagine that even his former allies were wishing he'd just shut up about the matter so it'd stop damaging the Tory party. So for him to keep on going on and on and on about it, and the subsequent revelations that some of the evidence was fabricated, strongly makes me think that he didn't call the policeman a pleb and that the Tories aren't spinning anything about Mitchell being innocent. In fact I imagine the Tory leadership still wish the man would shut up and go away, rather than closing ranks around him. Edited October 16, 2013 by Panto_Villan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 Dennis Skinner catches Dave out with another question 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 I'd be very surprised if Mitchell had called the police plebs. I imagine he said something pretty rude to them, but that he didn't call them plebs - and that once he'd given the policemen in question a tongue-lashing (probably an unwarranted one), the decision was made either by him or by his associates to spice it up by adding the word "pleb", because a minister calling a policemen a rocket polisher is hardly going to make news but calling him a "pleb" would be understandably incendiary and would allow them to get their own back. I really can't see Mitchell choosing to call a policeman a pleb, and if he had I really couldn't see him fighting so hard to clear his name that the case around him would start to unravel. Mitchell was a whip and from everything I've read was not overly popular in the Tory party, and a week after he'd lost his job I'd imagine that even his former allies were wishing he'd just shut up about the matter so it'd stop damaging the Tory party. So for him to keep on going on and on and on about it, and the subsequent revelations that some of the evidence was fabricated, strongly makes me think that he didn't call the policeman a pleb and that the Tories aren't spinning anything about Mitchell being innocent. In fact I imagine the Tory leadership still wish the man would shut up and go away, rather than closing ranks around him. I agree with some of that, but not every part. It's clear that Mitchell was abusive about the police. He says he muttered underneath his breath, they claim to have heard identifiable words. It's quite possible that they were more conclusive in their statement than they felt in real life, or else that they misheard but sincerely believed what they thought they heard. It's also possible, but I'd have thought very unlikely, that it was all some elaborate plot. Or of course, the police may be telling the simple truth. It seems equally clear that he was acting in a high-handed way. He said to the Fed "...I mean they are extremely heavy gates and these guys are there to secure the centre of Britain really and I shouldn't have said what I said but then I gave him my absolute apology he pointed out some advice about my bicycle and I pointed out that I was the chief whip..." What a delightful exchange. He can easily get his bike through the side gate, as we see on the video; he knows the gates are extremely heavy and the police are there for national security, not as doormen; yet he insists they open the big heavy gate for him. It's not quicker, it's not easier, it's not their job to open gates ceremonially rather than for purely functional reasons, but it does denote his power to command them, in a petty way. Or would have if only they'd gone along with the game. Perhaps they should have touched their cap, as a sign of respect. And in what world is the response to being given some advice about his bicycle to point out that he was the chief whip? Such a response makes no sense at all, unless it is to convey that he has authority and wishes to remind them of that. Do you know who I am? Sarge, gentleman here with amnesia... That fits with various accounts of him being an arrogant man, high-handed and dismissive of those in junior positions. As does the grovelling and ingratiating behaviour shown in the transcript of his meeting with the Fed, at a time when he thought they had power over him and wished to placate them; it's a common trait of people who demand deference to themselves, that they defer to others they think are more powerful. And the word "pleb", which some commentators have said is a word someone like him just would not use, is a term that was in fairly common usage a few years ago, among people who thought themselves not-plebs, about people they thought were plebs. It is highly likely that it's part of Mitchell's vocabulary, based on his age, schooling and social class. Would he have used it? Don't know. Are the accounts that it could have formed no part of his mindset or vocabulary credible? Not in the slightest. So I certainly can see Mitchell calling someone a pleb; but that doesn't mean he did. I suppose we'll never know. Certainly Mitchell's account would seem more credible if he'd come out with it straight away, rather than several weeks later. His line is he didn't want to accuse the police of untruths. It looked to most people like assessing the situation, seeing what support he had, what line might work, how strong a hand he had. It didn't seem like an unvarnished, simple, honest account of a misunderstanding, more like a bit of manoeuvering. Personally, I think whether Mitchell said "pleb" is less significant than whether he used the phrase "You haven't heard the last of this", which was reported at the time and which I haven't seen specifically denied. That's a threat, that's intimidation, especially coming after his reminder of what a powerful position he held. In my view, that's quite a bit more serious than some trashy muttered class insult. I very much agree the tories probably wish he'd shut up and go away, at least those outside his circle. Though others are probably smarting from attacks on them by the police, and will side with him as a result. Perhaps there's even one or two who are motivated by concern about the democratic implications of it all - you never know. It's a problem for Cameron. Having failed to support him at the time, having failed to ensure an inquiry was conducted quickly, thoroughly, independently and definitively, having fairly limply accepted him being pushed out, Cameron again strengthened perceptions of lacking loyalty to colleagues who weren't part of the club. He's now trying to correct that, by going over the top, intervening in internal disciplinary processes. Poor judgement in both cases. As usual. Dennis Skinner catches Dave out with another question That's a classic. We'll still be seeing that one played in years to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted October 16, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted October 16, 2013 http://www.sexymp.co.uk/index.php?gender=#vote Look at all those Tories in the top 25! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 16, 2013 Share Posted October 16, 2013 http://www.sexymp.co.uk/index.php?gender=#vote Look at all those Tories in the top 25! and all the libdems in the bottom 25.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Theresa May at 30!! Maybe people thought they were voting for the 'other' Teresa May. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Surely Caroline Flint should be number 1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Alan Duncan at No 256 he'll know about this list, and he'll be gutted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Alan Duncan at No 256 he'll know about this list, and he'll be gutted Literally, I hope, with a Bowie knife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 (edited) ... I was thinking 'Iain Duncan' but I stand by my statement. Edited October 17, 2013 by villaajax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Alan Duncan at No 256 he'll know about this list, and he'll be gutted Literally, I hope, with a Bowie knife. Well done, post of the year. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Alan Duncan at No 256 he'll know about this list, and he'll be gutted Literally, I hope, with a Bowie knife. Well done, post of the year. Keep it for next time a leftie goes on about the kind if person who votes Tory 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 could I change it to mildly disappointed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
privateer Posted October 17, 2013 Share Posted October 17, 2013 Alan Duncan at No 256 he'll know about this list, and he'll be gutted Literally, I hope, with a Bowie knife. Well done, post of the year. A real sickener for the rest of us who can only gape in awe at the scintillating wit of these snappy one liners. Not sure I can agree with post of the year because the competition is so stiff. They are all of the same quality. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts