The UK General Politics Thread Page 44

  • Page

    of 147 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 25 Sep 2012 16:27:01 5,141 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    The problem was more that he did apologise but in a rather snide way which insinuated that the guy he had a go as was a liar, no?
  • whatfruit 25 Sep 2012 16:32:45 1,080 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    I haven't read the apology so can not comment on it's veracity.
  • jamievilla 25 Sep 2012 16:45:37 464 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    jamievilla wrote:
    To be fair it would have been a non story if he hadn't (or seemingly so) lied twice about what happened. If he'd just apologised for swearing and calling the guy a pleb then it would have blown over by now.

    The problem now its the word of the Police against him - him saying he didn't use the word plebs or swearing (although he appears to have admitted that now) and the Police, and this leaked log saying otherwise.

    I don't see the correlation between this and Baby P though (if that's what you are referring to), that just seems to be a false argument to try and deflect from this one.

    He's made it worse on himself. Apologise, be truthful and move on. Simple.
    I was just highlighting the Baby P case to show that the press reaction to Mithchell is dispropianate in that it has cast him as some abhorrent monster who should be placed in the stocks and be flogged for commiting the crime of insulting a police officer. I find what Balls did with Baby P far more sicking that if Mitchell had used the John Terry defence.

    I agree that in a sane and rational world he would simply apologise and a line would be drawn under it. The problem is that if he admitted that he was in the wrong then labour would jump on it and say that Cameron was "proteting him" and should be sacked, while folding it into the wider narrative of tories not caring about "brave" public sector workers.

    Mitchell is sticking to the first rule of surviving a media political shit storm "never apologise, never explain"
    Oh I understood why you were doing it, just seemed a bit of a naive understanding of the media and how they work. They're there to sell newspapers, not be the moral crusaders. You could compare one of a million non-stories against the issues that should be reported on and your argument would be as equally valid, yet pointless. I agree that the Ed Balls situation was abhorrent, but then all politicans exist to point score at the expense of someone else (look at the situation in the US with the Libya ambassador).

    I still maintain if he'd just admitted being an arsey sod and not tried to fudge the issue or give a weasely apology it would probably be forgotten about (or at least a low priority byline) and we'd be focusing on Vince Cable's stand up routine instead.

    (Edit - typos)

    Edited by jamievilla at 16:46:43 25-09-2012
  • Psychotext 25 Sep 2012 16:52:08 52,778 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Aye, it's basically that everyone is so desperate for the story to go away which makes the press even more ravenous.

    Mitchell wants it dead because he's an arse and because he lied.
    Cameron wants it dead because it makes the tories look out of touch, and that he appoints idiots.
    Police want it dead because someone leaked the information in the first place, which is a huge no-no.
  • X201 25 Sep 2012 16:56:51 14,696 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The Mitchell story is being kept alive for another reason though.

    If they prove that he lied it will be a handy point to make ahead of the Levison recommendations.
  • whatfruit 25 Sep 2012 16:57:37 1,080 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    @jamievilla I'm fully aware of how the media works and its commercial objectives.

    The thing that pisses me off is the reactions of the morons that fuel the story who write into the newspapers, tweet, phone into radio shows, rage on forums and comments sections to express their outrage at the non story. That is the bit that really fucks me off. That people buy into this shit demanding inquiries, sackings, grovelling apolgies for something which has no bearing on their lives and is of no real concern to them. People are debating this as a serious issue and not the moronic outburst it was.

    Edited by whatfruit at 17:01:10 25-09-2012
  • Psychotext 25 Sep 2012 17:02:04 52,778 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yet their opinions, tweets, reactions and rage don't affect you / have any bearing on your life either...

    ...and yet here you are, outraged at our behaviour. It's of no real concern to you. :)
  • X201 25 Sep 2012 17:04:11 14,696 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
  • disusedgenius 25 Sep 2012 17:04:31 5,141 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    X201 wrote:
    The Mitchell story is being kept alive for another reason though.

    If they prove that he lied it will be a handy point to make ahead of the Levison recommendations.
    It's also kinda amusing, so there is that.
  • Dougs 25 Sep 2012 17:07:11 64,902 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Chopsen wrote:
    I think the point being made is that something irrelevant yet tabloidy as some posh tory bloke calling people plebs get so much attention while a genuine amoral exploitation of power gets glossed over reflects badly on the media and how it reports politics, not that the two stories had anything in common.
    It's exactly this that hs bugged me. It's like he thought he had some right to demand how the police should act, clearly abusing his meagre power and tiny position of authority, just because he's a Cabinet Minister. Any normal person would have accepted the policy and exited through the pedestrian gate. Can't stand "don't you know who I am" arseholes.
  • spamdangled 25 Sep 2012 17:07:18 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I think it's going to take a lot more than proving a tory politician swore at a policeman to save News International's bacon from Leveson.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • whatfruit 25 Sep 2012 17:08:49 1,080 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Psychotext wrote:
    Yet their opinions, tweets, reactions and rage don't affect you / have any bearing on your life either...

    ...and yet here you are, outraged at our behaviour. It's of no real concern to you. :)
    Ah fuck it. i'm going down the pub.
  • whatfruit 25 Sep 2012 17:11:10 1,080 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Dougs wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    I think the point being made is that something irrelevant yet tabloidy as some posh tory bloke calling people plebs get so much attention while a genuine amoral exploitation of power gets glossed over reflects badly on the media and how it reports politics, not that the two stories had anything in common.
    It's exactly this that hs bugged me. It's like he thought he had some right to demand how the police should act, clearly abusing his meagre power and tiny position of authority, just because he's a Cabinet Minister. Any normal person would have accepted the policy and exited through the pedestrian gate. Can't stand "don't you know who I am" arseholes.
    That's because you aren't anyone. If you were someone then you would be pretty fucking angry if someone didn't know that were someone.
  • X201 25 Sep 2012 17:11:52 14,696 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    I think it's going to take a lot more than proving a tory politician swore at a policeman to save News International's bacon from Leveson.
    Its not about saving their bacon, its about "safeguarding investigative journalism", as they would put it.
  • Megapocalypse 25 Sep 2012 17:11:57 5,228 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    And whislt Mitchell is claiming that we should all be fucking grateful he apologised at all, another Tory has been sacked for making a joke about the murdered police officers.
  • jamievilla 25 Sep 2012 17:11:58 464 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    Dougs wrote:
    Chopsen wrote:
    I think the point being made is that something irrelevant yet tabloidy as some posh tory bloke calling people plebs get so much attention while a genuine amoral exploitation of power gets glossed over reflects badly on the media and how it reports politics, not that the two stories had anything in common.
    It's exactly this that hs bugged me. It's like he thought he had some right to demand how the police should act, clearly abusing his meagre power and tiny position of authority, just because he's a Cabinet Minister. Any normal person would have accepted the policy and exited through the pedestrian gate. Can't stand "don't you know who I am" arseholes.
    That's because you aren't anyone. If you were someone then you would be pretty fucking angry if someone didn't know that were someone.
    My head hurts. Did someone mention the pub? Lets go get drunk like plebs!
  • spamdangled 25 Sep 2012 17:13:36 27,197 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Megapocalypse wrote:
    And whislt Mitchell is claiming that we should all be fucking grateful he apologised at all, another Tory has been sacked for making a joke about the murdered police officers.
    I heard about that earlier. Apparently the bloke has even said it's not fair that he was sacked.

    3DS: 4055-2781-2855 Xbox: spamdangled PSN: dark_morgan Wii U: Spamdangle Steam: spamdangled

  • jamievilla 25 Sep 2012 17:15:43 464 posts
    Seen 47 minutes ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    darkmorgado wrote:
    Megapocalypse wrote:
    And whislt Mitchell is claiming that we should all be fucking grateful he apologised at all, another Tory has been sacked for making a joke about the murdered police officers.
    I heard about that earlier. Apparently the bloke has even said it's not fair that he was sacked.
    Anyone seen the joke he made? I paraphrase:

    "If you get 100 points for shooting 1 police woman and 200 for shooting 2 policewomen, how many for a lawyer?"

    And that was in front of a wife of serving officer, who when he contacted the tool to speak to him about it was told "Go away you silly man".

    Brilliant. What a moron. That's MUCH worse than Mitchell's comment.

    Edit: And apparently he actually said 'policewomen' Fuck's sake.

    Edited by jamievilla at 17:16:36 25-09-2012
  • MetalDog 25 Sep 2012 17:25:26 23,706 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think one of the reasons the Mitchell thing is still so alight is because it stands as an example of things that we suspect about the people in charge. They think they're above us and they think they are above the law.

    We talk about the awful 'sense of entitlement' from the people at the bottom of the heap, but they're really just a murky reflection of the people at the top. Cheating their taxes and expenses claims instead of benefits. Lying, dodging responsibility, swaggering about demanding respect they haven't earned and swearing at the rozzers. Just another day on the Downing Street Estate.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • kalel 25 Sep 2012 17:33:50 83,875 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    People are people. Some are worthy and some are scum. I hate this idea that personality traits are somehow connected to socio-economic demographics.
  • MetalDog 25 Sep 2012 17:37:40 23,706 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think Phillip Zimbardo is largely correct in his theory that certain trends of behaviour are actively encouraged by certain environments. We need to change the environments that trend towards making people behave badly.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • kalel 25 Sep 2012 17:40:17 83,875 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think I'm saying it's just as wrong to make a massive generaliation about any group of people, not just poor ones.
  • Dougs 25 Sep 2012 17:45:46 64,902 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    whatfruit wrote:
    That's because you aren't anyone. If you were someone then you would be pretty fucking angry if someone didn't know that were someone.
    Not really, because I'm not a massive cunt. Just a little bit of one
  • MetalDog 25 Sep 2012 17:46:51 23,706 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think I'm saying that the environment at the top and the bottom are bad for the people in them. Not everyone will fall to the general poorness of the environment, but many will. It's not really an accident that you get a higher/lower percentage of 'worthy' vs 'scum' in certain environments, is it? Also, if correct, improving the environment improves the people, rather than writing them off.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • disusedgenius 25 Sep 2012 17:51:17 5,141 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    I hate this idea that personality traits are somehow connected to socio-economic demographics.
    I dunno, I don't see the idea that personality is shaped by environment to be particularly out of the question. Seems more dangerous to ignore any connections, if anything.
  • kalel 25 Sep 2012 17:57:36 83,875 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I think I'm saying that the environment at the top and the bottom are bad for the people in them. Not everyone will fall to the general poorness of the environment, but many will. It's not really an accident that you get a higher/lower percentage of 'worthy' vs 'scum' in certain environments, is it? Also, if correct, improving the environment improves the people, rather than writing them off.
    So we improve people, but only to the middle ground, otherwise we create more monsters at the top?

    Dunno. I'm not saying I don't believe in nurture playing as crucial role as nature (which kinda seems to be what the environment issue boils down to) but I'm not convinced about this whole top/bottom thing. Feels like dangerous territory - classism masquerading as social commentary.
  • kalel 25 Sep 2012 17:58:52 83,875 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    kalel wrote:
    I hate this idea that personality traits are somehow connected to socio-economic demographics.
    I dunno, I don't see the idea that personality is shaped by environment to be particularly out of the question. Seems more dangerous to ignore any connections, if anything.
    It's again more the generalising I take issue with.
  • Bremenacht 25 Sep 2012 18:32:44 15,753 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    After a few months of research and interaction with police officers, I get the distinct impression that the force could be radically improved by replacing a significant portion of the top ranking officers. The fish really does seem to rot from the head in this instance.
    I think a lot of British institutions are like that. Top-heavy with greasy-pole climbers who expect a reward for their ambition without necessarily contributing to or improving the institutions to which they belong. You can see why privatisation looks attractive, but that just seems to result in an even bigger bunch of cunts extracting even bigger rewards for no improvement. If you're not one of them, you lose.

    You refer to an entitlement culture in another post. That seems to be our problem from top to bottom. Us, and the French.

    Once an eagle taught me courage. And I will never forget that day

  • MetalDog 25 Sep 2012 20:38:44 23,706 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    @kalel
    I'm a pretty big believer in moderation being a major player in human happiness. I can't think of anything that won't damage us if taken to excess and the further extremes you go to, the more magnified the damage. Doesn't matter if if it's an excess of deprivation or indulgence and it covers more than material things - an excess of adulation has ruined quite a few people and many have been admired to death.

    Classes are really more of a symptom than anything else in this regard, aren't they? In an ideal society, they would not exist at all. Rank might, but it would come with the appropriate responsibility and expectations and a good deal less fuckery.

    @Bremenacht
    There are lots of things people are perfectly sensible to feel entitled to. Basics - shelter, food, water, companionship, decent treatment, freedom. The real problem is people taking more than the basics and preventing, or resenting the basics being given to other people.

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • disusedgenius 25 Sep 2012 20:47:50 5,141 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    kalel wrote:
    It's again more the generalising I take issue with.
    Do you mean 'prejudice' in terms of generalising? Because generalising is kinda inevitable when you're trying to make some kind of conclusion from this kind of stuff.
  • Page

    of 147 First / Last

Log in or register to reply