We have one side that is already proven to have lied on several occasions, and yet you are still putting their view over that of someone who has not been proven to lie at any point during the case.
Biased much?
MILLIONAIRE Tory Cabinet minister refers to police as " plebs " - Police fabricate evidence
- Thread starter RavenXXX2
- Start date
We have one side that is already proven to have lied on several occasions, and yet you are still putting their view over that of someone who has not been proven to lie at any point during the case.
Biased much?
The way you asked the question was loaded to start with, as it assumes he did do it and asks for proof otherwise. This is a logical fallacy.
The honest question would be to ask which allegations have been proven so far.
Mitchell Called officers plebs - not proven.
Officer fabricated evidence - proven via confession.
Officers misrepresrented meeting with mitchell - proven via recording and ipcc investigation.
To start with the assumption that mitchell was guilty and has to prove otherwise while not doing the same for the police is never going to be anything but biased.
None of which I disagree with.
I apologise for not phrasing the question to your liking or far superior standards Dolph.
Clarity comes with the use of correct debating technique.
I apologise if it was not your intention to introduce bias, however the way this thread and the wider debate about this case has gone, bias is proving often more important than the facts. A quick view of the reporting in the guaridan for example, shows them still trying to defend mark duggan while glossing over a proven case of police corruption.
Last edited:
it does not change that fact that you are in all truth a pedantic prat who nitpicks despite knowing perfectly well what the other person is talking about.
I'll certainly give you pedantic if you really want. However, a clear and concise position ensures no misunderstandings, and allows for good honest debate.
Being able to assume that what people write is what they actually mean would be wonderful, but in the few posts above, you can see the flaw in that. The assumption that asking a biased question means the poster is biased has turned out not to be the case, but that is the logical and critical position to take from the way the question was phrased, and why it is important to ensure what is written is what you actually mean.
maybe they are not?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tutions-infiltrated-by-criminals-9052617.html
operation tiberious seems to indicate corruption was endemic in the met in 2002 and it was only looking into external corruption from organised crime, not the day to day covering of backs, which logically would be even higher as it involves skin saving not just a extra bit of money on the side.
I have no doubt that there are corrupt officers both in terms of helping criminals and in terms of helping other officers.
I disagree that either are endemic.
Lets be honest the police are an easy target, this article will just help to fuel the mistrust between the public and the police it couldn't have been published at a worse time.
I disagree that either are endemic.
Lets be honest the police are an easy target, this article will just help to fuel the mistrust between the public and the police it couldn't have been published at a worse time.
That seems a somewhat strange view on it. What has created the mistrust is the behaviour of the officers, not the report on it. Ultimately the responsibility lies with thr officers involved and any structure that protected them in their activities, not articles or reports about them.
I don't think most officers are corrupt, but even a few is enough to so significant damage to the perception of the force, especially if it is combined with a cover up.
No, you said the article did. So reports are ok as long as they arent made public because they could cause mistrust?
No, I said the article would fuel the mistrust.
And where did I suggest that it shouldn't be reported. Have a word with yourself will you.
Any abuse you receive is likely down to your personality rather than your job role, judging by what you post on here sometimes.
The actual wording you used was:
'this article will just help to fuel the mistrust between the public and the police it couldn't have been published at a worse time.'
This phrasing implies that there is no other purpose to the article. Now, I followed on from that with the implication that in your view it shouldn't have been published, which is a supposition on my part, but is there any good time to publish such a thing?
'this article will just help to fuel the mistrust between the public and the police it couldn't have been published at a worse time.'
This phrasing implies that there is no other purpose to the article. Now, I followed on from that with the implication that in your view it shouldn't have been published, which is a supposition on my part, but is there any good time to publish such a thing?
based on what information?
I understand the met is a very different beast to other police forces and the report is only looking at organised crimes influence on the police but one can see how it extrapolates if this "top of the pyramid" stuff is so widespread (as found by this report) the level of back scratching and obstructionist behaviour further down must be rather large and we have seen incidences of it involving several large groups of trusted officials at various times or another.
I think it is particularly wrong to assume that a person in a job is morally right and unswayable just because he is in that job. that's why the IPCC (regardless of its debatable effectiveness) exist in the first place. The police draws its people from the society it exists in and so is a mirror of that society, meanwhile putting on a uniform at the start of the day doesn't change human nature.
I'm saying this as someone who has respect for local police forces and is currently serving in the military. To close eyes to problems and assume people will report others and that even the majority of people in a workplace of tens of thousands follow the rules, wont protect each other and always act well in high stress and complicated situations would be carnage and delusional.
I wonder why they had to inconvenience Andrew by not opening the main gate since he was riding a bicycle. The smaller gate to the right of the main gate is only accessible via a footpath on both sides of the fence.
It is the job of the DPG to protect Downing Street and operating the gate, searching visitors etc. is part of that.
It is the job of the DPG to protect Downing Street and operating the gate, searching visitors etc. is part of that.
Last edited:
Disgraceful that Mitchell lost his job over all this. What a load of nonsense. How can one word cause all this is beyond me. Even if he did say it who gives a monkeys, if I was the police officer I would have just taken it on the chin, big bloody deal.
