So what is happening to the undisciplined rabble of officers who let him through the gate on his bike three times earlier in the day and many times previously? If there is such an order they should not be in those positions of responsibility if they cannot follow it and if there wasn't the officer in the story should be disciplined for making up rules for her own benefit (can't be arsed to open the gate) and again not following procedure. Which should it be?
Were the Downing Street police men being unreasonable?
- Thread starter Sara_H
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
So what is happening to the undisciplined rabble of officers who let him through the gate on his bike three times earlier in the day and many times previously? If there is such an order they should not be in those positions of responsibility if they cannot follow it and if there wasn't the officer in the story should be disciplined for making up rules for her own benefit (can't be arsed to open the gate) and again not following procedure. Which should it be?
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
But there is higher law than the Highways Act which can allow access to be restricted or managed.
What law is that? There is a public right of way along Downing Street.
Quote from Wiki:
The public right of way along Downing Street has not been extinguished or subject to a gating order under the Highways Act 1980. The road retains the status of a public highway maintained by Westminster City Council. Public access is instead curtailed by the use of common law powers to prevent breach of the peace.[15][16][17]
Although the Downing Street government buildings and grounds are a designated site under the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 for criminal trespass, the actual street was not included within the boundaries of the designated area.
Note it says curtailed not removed.
Yes there is but it is quite clear that Mitchell is a person who is entitled to come and go into Downing Street as part of his job. So why were the police preventing him from doing that? And why on this particular occasion was he being made to get off and push when three times earlier that day and on many previous occasions they had opened the gate for him to cycle through. The more I read about this the more is sounds like both sides were being a bit of an arse although having encountered such jobs-worth officials making it up as they go (and just encountered one on the train where I had to make him read the NRCOC and then admit he had just told me a load of made up bullshit) I can quite sympathise with him losing his temper when faced with an obstructive jobs-worth stopping him doing something he had done all the time before.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Ah, you've made the msitake of thinking that the orders officers to allow identical access at all times of day, that at evenings, weekends and parliamentry holidays that diffent and more restricted rules of access and egress don't apply. That those rules dont alter in times of war, or raised national alert status.
You have also fogotton there are also different rules of access and egress for scheduled visitors, and those a permitted to access the site generally but who have no specific visit scheduled.
C'mon, get with the programme!
Try Common Law for a start, the highst non statute domestic law in the land, law laid down from time immemorial, the law that makes murders etc illegal
In this case the police are exercising their lawful duty to prevent a breach or the peace. Argue it any which way you will but Common law trumps the Highways Act by several orders or magnitude.
But common law also establishes public rights of way. So it could be argued both ways.
And you have evidence that that is the case here or is it just a speculation to hide behind?
trampyjoe
Senior Member
- Location
- South Shropshire
But surely you arguing the opposite is also speculation?
At the end of the day it was a non event. Someone was refused entry/told to get off his bike for whatever reasons and didn't like it, had a bit of a moan then got on with life. Just because that someone was a politician it's suddenly on the news and the subject of a 2 page thread on this forum? Go out for a ride ffs.
I just did - my second of the day - and glorious it was too. Did you?
It wouldn't have been news if the officer, apparently having decided she wasn't going to do her job for him, had not allegedly been threatened with losing her job then filed with her colleagues a protective story and then contacted the press about it. I have a strong feeling there is a second side to this story but being a female officer it's not allowed to doubt her at the moment.
Not really. Occam's Razor. The simplest explanation - that if he had gone in and out three times that day and many times on previous days without problems it's more likely that the police officer was being an awkward PITA than there was some complex time dependent rule for allowing bikes through - is probably the right explanation.
trampyjoe
Senior Member
- Location
- South Shropshire
Alas I did not go for a ride today, saving my legs for a charity ride tomorrow and we had a family day (punctuated by wife popping out for work a few times - on call sucks).
I'm really not bothered if she did her job or not, or if she contacted the press. It is simply a non event and shouldn't have been news.
For all we know Cameron wants that fella out and told the coppers to not let him through knowing how he'd react and then contacted the press himself. Now he has an excuse to oust him. But the only people that will ever know is the two people involved.
Still not news.
Fab Foodie
hanging-on in quiet desperation ...
- Location
- Kirton, Devon.
Peteaud
Veteran
- Location
- South Somerset
