Okay then chumps, you state to me what legal power the police have to stop Mitchell from exiting via the gates?
This will be interesting as I'd be confident maybe only one of you actually knows the law here.
Tread carefully mind because the law (Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984) which was updated in 2005 with regard to acts of terrorism still doesn't give the po-po's legal rights to stop Mitchell from going about his lawful business (there is a good reason for this if you bother to check) In fact stopping him from going about hi lawful business is actually a criminal act in itself

common Law powers, nope, that isn't applicable here either.
The simple fact is it is plain discrimination because he was on a bike (the police have form for this BTW) and they couldn't be arsed to open the gate a smidge to let him out. that he poses a lesser risk than any other vehicle exiting seems to have passed you all by.

Oh and the dwindling rights that we have left that are constantly being eroded by the state part of which is down to some concocted notion that we are all going to be bombed/killed by terrorists. That the police exceeed their lawful powers placing unecessary restrictions on our movements seems to be perfectly acceptable to those here..fair enough..it still doesn't make it lawful or right.

He wasn't the security risk, you utter moron.

By opening the side gate there is practically no risk of someone attempting to gain access to Downing Street. Any attempt to get in would have been blocked by either Mitchell traveling through with his bike or the police officer quickly shutting the gate. That is blatantly not the case with the 12ft wide gates that are meant for vehicles.

The police weren't stopping him going about his business. They simply requested that he dismounted and went through the side gate. To you and Andrew Mitchell this was an outrageous liberty and worthy of a strop. To anyone with sense they'd have simply complied and gone on with their day.

Bahahahahaha!

Sums it up perfectly.


Personally I wander the country extensively during the course of my business both in a car and on foot and occasionally on a bike too. In the forty two years as an adult that I have been doing this I have never once been obstructed by a police officer in the course of my normal business, I have followed their instructions on many occasions though and it all works out fine in the end.

Seek conflict and you will find it.

You have a rather strange fixation with bikes, come on, tell us again how wearing a helmet makes us more susceptible to head injuries.

I recommend a tandem, and you need to be on the back, away from the steering bit.

Not the bell end then?.....lol

Sandro II Terrorista wrote:You have a rather strange fixation with bikes, come on, tell us again how wearing a helmet makes us more susceptible to head injuries. I recommend a tandem, and you need to be on the back, away from the steering bit. Bellendery, is that the best you can come up with, that's really rather poor, even for someone of your ilk I don't have a strange fixation, I ride a bike and I know my rights, you on the other hand seem fixated with talking b'llo'cks but c'est la vie. Re helmets you clearly haven't got a clue..go do some homework and come back to me when you can make a cogent arguement like a grown up. I'll give you a headstart http://cyclehelmets.org/

Sandro II Terrorista wrote:You have a rather strange fixation with bikes, come on, tell us again how wearing a helmet makes us more susceptible to head injuries. I recommend a tandem, and you need to be on the back, away from the steering bit. Bellendery, is that the best you can come up with, that's really rather poor, even for someone of your ilk I don't have a strange fixation, I ride a bike and I know my rights, you on the other hand seem fixated with talking b'llo'cks but c'est la vie. Re helmets you clearly haven't got a clue..go do some homework and come back to me when you can make a cogent arguement like a grown up. I'll give you a headstart http://cyclehelmets.org/

Hahaha, resorting to breaking the AUP and using personal abuse to make a point doesn't win you the arguement..I pity you
So if there is practically no risk why did the police force Mitchell to use the pedestrian side gate, one that takes longer to exit from?
I'm glad you agree that the gates are for vehicles, a bicycle is a vehicle, something you clearly aren't aware of or probably care about the rights of people to go about their lawful business. He and indeed I would be more than peeved to be told to walk when I am legally entitled to cycle, especially given the next to zero risk (Downing street isn't a designated terrorist threatened area BTW).
If you want your rights eroded that's your business, me, I'm quite happy to stand up for what is right and lawful.
The police action to force Mitchell to dismount and not exit via the 'vehicle' gates was unlawful in the strictest terms, if he came via a moped or motorcycle or car (other vehicles) they would open the gates so why not whilst he was on a different vehicle?

I've not had too much issue with the police aside from them not doing their job to enforce the law and protecting me when I was deliberately driven into. Oh and failure to bother doing anything to find the motorist who knocked me off my bike and did a runner, couldn't even bother to follow up contacting me not check the CCTV in the area amongst many other failures. I respect the police when it's due, I have less respect when they fail to uphold the law and protect us as they are employed to do so.
I would have issues with being directed by police IF it were unlawful or without good reason to do so, in the Mitchell situation there was no good reason, it was unlawful to block his way to exit via the gates. That he swore at them is another matter, that's something I can't defend.

It wasn't unlawful to block his exit via one set of gates in their preference to him using another gate three yards away just as its not unlawful for a police officer to ask or even tell you to not do something that in other circumstances would be "normal" or lawful, they have their reasons and you are required to follow their judgement, in Mitchells case it was considered to be less of a security risk to use the side gate, the fact that it would not be illegal to use the main gate is irrelevant as soon as the officer has made that judgement.

Or to put it another way, several weeks ago I was instructed by a series of Highway Agency signs to follow a diversion off the A1 one night that took me over 10 miles out of my way, being the civil sort of chap I am I followed their instructions without questioning their authority to force me to lengthen my journey and inconvenience me, its the sort of thing that happens every day and Mitchells diversion of three yards is pretty pathetic by comparison, the fact that he completely lost control of his brain because of it is laughable.