Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Fred
There is nothing specifically wrong with swearing at anyone including police. It looks like the police were being especially difficult in making him use a different gate. They probably needed swearing at.

Ohhhhh yes their is. Next youl have kids openly swearing at school teachers and parents.

The fabric of society breaks down.

Hays Hays Hays........dropping further......

ectionista‏@electionista11h
UK - YouGov poll: CON 32%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12% // 27% approve of the Govt, 57% disapprove // 38% say PM Cameron doing well, 56% badly

Hays Hays Hays........dropping further......

ectionista‏@electionista11h
UK - YouGov poll: CON 32%, LAB 41%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 12% // 27% approve of the Govt, 57% disapprove // 38% say PM Cameron doing well, 56% badly

re #32119

Spot on!

Max are you sure, it looks like someone who is pissed as posted that.

"And there is no such thing as society." At last... Thank you H/S for proving my point.

You obviously still do not understand it.

Why do you say that gf?

The statement is correct, you can stake your fortune on the states ability to fund you throughout your life, or you can work for a better future through your own efforts.

What is it to be?

How many life styles can the "state" support before it goes bust, along with you and me?

Swearing at police is not a crime, judge rules

Swearing at police is not a crime because officers hear foul language “too frequently” to be offended, a judge has ruled.

Swearing at police 'is no longer an offence'

Officers have been banned from arresting yobs who insult them with the most offensive swear-words in the language.

Secret guidance issued to front-line police tells them not to act because the courts will not believe they have been upset by the abuse.

The Metropolitan Police, Britain’s largest constabulary with more than 32,000 officers, has issued a card, designed to be kept behind a warrant badge, telling officers to do nothing if they are abused by a member of the public.

The memory aid states: ‘The courts do not accept that police officers are caused harassment, alarm or distress by words such as ‘f***, c***, b*******, w******.’

Many judges and magistrates have taken the view that police officers should have a thicker skin than ordinary members of the public. As a result police must prove that someone else found the suspect’s behaviour ‘abusive’ or ‘insulting’.

Max for a kick off, one word is missed in the intial post and secondly it wasnt Fred who started the dabate on Mitchell it was me.

Yep its petty .........best forgotten but I dare bet Hays had some kind of ale last night. LOL.

As for hays saying its OK to swear at police officers.

Jesus, now come on, what sort of society do you really want.

Its bad enough people swearing at each other, its about time MANNERS were taught at home again.

ps, what were you drinking last night hays.

"You obviously still do not understand it."

Oh please, do grow up H/S my case is proven despite your ridiculous excuses.

GF.

Thanks for correction, but I agree with sentiment of the post.

------------

Generally swearing and cursing does not "worry" me and my flow of language can often be very descriptive of an individual's forebears. But, strangely I dislike hearing swearing on the TV as humour or as general punctuation in plays. (Although, I can see an outburst as funny.)

However, in the Mitchell affair I see it as an arrogant attempt by a disgruntled Mitchell to intimidate and appear authoritative to the police officers concerned, and "telling" them their place in comparison to himself. It could be constructed as "threatening" intimidation and is covered in law.


(I.e he was one of the governing class, not one of the public.)

(The police seemed to acting to rules, but I suspect that there may have been previous similar minor "confrontations" or "disagreements" before the reported event.)

To me, it was a minor abuse of public office by Mitchell. I expect that if he had had the grace to apologise at the time, it would have blown over.

He didn't, he dug in and cost the TAX PAYER over half a million pounds for his conceit.

The police, if they falsified evidence (by summarising) should be reprimanded, Mitchell should give a public apology and all should "move on".

I think it was due to the police being intentionally difficult in making Mitchell use a different gate with his bicycle. The police are there to guard and assist members of the government. They were behaving like many officious people in positions of power where they dream up various minor rules such as that gate is for this purpose or that gate us unavailable at certain times.

Nothing excuses the police for fabricating evidence and hopefully heads will roll.

Hays,

Do you think Mitchell's accounts are the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

I still see him as being abusive and arrogance, when a little humility might have served him more wisely.

=======================


There appears to be many edited accounts of Maggie Thatcher’s “No such thing as society” outpourings. You may have your own version. I was lucky enough not to witness the original production.

However, the “sentiment” which was interpreted from her “utterances” was grabbed by the “media” and many of the tory party echelons as meaning it is “oneself” or extended to “one selves” that count. The meaning can be extended to “we who have” count and the others the “have nots” or “the dependent” do not.

Many of the party’s various echelons adopting the sentiment, to justify their political ideology and policies.


As a adherent of Thatcher’s ideology, have a read of the article


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/02/iain-duncan-smith-tories-useful-idiot

"He can't tell the truth, yet the right needs Iain Duncan Smith
Let's not forget that his blustering and blundering leads to a great deal of human suffering



Men lie for many reasons: to boost their ego, to hide their failings and to advance their ambitions. The sole impressive characteristic of Iain Duncan Smith – the winch that lifts him out of his otherwise incurable mediocrity – is his ability to lie for every reason imaginable, even when he knows his audience must find him out. If he told me that two plus two made four, I'd ask for a second opinion."

I do think Mitchell was telling the truth. Why does it matter if he was arrogant? Plenty of people are arrogant and don't expect to have evidence fabricated against them. Since when is a lack of humility a reason to 'fit up' someone?

Hays,

Your posting:-

"Haystack Send an email to Haystack View Haystack's profile - 04 Nov 2013 10:53 - 32137 of 32137

I do think Mitchell was telling the truth. Why does it matter if he was arrogant? Plenty of people are arrogant and don't expect to have evidence fabricated against them. Since when is a lack of humility a reason to 'fit up' someone?"

This appears to me to be similar attitude being shown by the tory element of the present coalition government and one of the reason I hope for their demise.

Reverse the roles and try to empathise just a little, or even a use a little Gestalt technique for after the next election there will be quite a lot of unoccupied seats at party HQ.

Do you not think Labour politicians are not arrogant? It would be better if Mitchell was polite, but it hardly matters that much. It looks like a typical confrontation between someone who was a bit stroppy with someone determined to be officious.