People in Glass Houses – Remember That

You may also like...

21 Responses

  1. Jim Thomson says:

    Spot on mate. Saint Andrew Mitchell now wants an apology for him swearing at cops. Is it just me?

    Regardless of all the shenanigans, does anyone truly believe that spending over a quarter mil on determining who said what word constitutes good use of public funds?

    • No Jim, I for one don’t think it’s a good use of public funds. But having so vociferously denied saying the P word, and in the transcript of his meeting with the 3 Fed Reps he states quite categorically that he can remember clearly what he DID say, I think he owes it to the public to tell us what he said. He can apparently co-operate with the IPCC by handing over his covert tape, why couldn’t he tell them what he said? Don’t they even want to know? I bet he wasn’t even asked.

  2. Bob S says:

    Well said Alan! Deborah Glass is a disgrace and she has no integrity, but that is the IPCC all over. They are anything but in dependant.

  3. Bob S says:

    Well said Alan! Deborah Glass is a disgrace and she has no integrity, but that is the IPCC all over. They are anything but in dependant.

  4. So now Camoron has weighed in with his ridiculous spin. ” Mitchell has given a full account of the night in question, Mitchell was owed an apology and the 3 Fed Reps should be disciplined.” Well here’s the transcript of the meeting http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%20of%20meeting.pdf Please read it and tell me where the odious little man gives a full account of what he said.

    The government are quite clearly trying to demolish what little morale remains in the Police Service, I don’t know why Cruella doesn’t sack them all and employ G4S and have done with it. Put us all out of our misery.

    • ideb8 says:

      Yes, Cameron lied at least 5 times within 2 consecutive PMQ sessions:

      16 Oct 2013 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131016/debtext/131016-0001.htm#13101671001449

      1) AM “gave a full account of what had happened”
      Lie – AM didn’t give a full account (as you say)

      2) the 3 officers “claimed that he had given them no account at all”
      Lie – the 3 officers didn’t claim this at all.
      They claimed AM hadn’t given a full account – which was true.

      23 Oct 2013 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000462

      3) “as I said last week..gave a full explanation..”
      Lie – he didn’t say ‘explanation’ the previous week (16/10/13) at all.
      A full account means a detailed chronological description of the event, word by word – not provided by AM.
      A full explanation means provide the reasons for, or an understanding of why, an event happened and so – crucially – may exclude a word by word account altogether.
      Cameron switched to the easier & irrelevant ‘explanation’ because AM in the meeting did go to some length to explain why he loved the police & to explain why they loved him.

      4) AM “..gave a full explanation of what happened”
      Lie – AM didn’t give a full explanation either, only of topics which suited him. For example, he didn’t ‘explain’ what he said word by word – or therefore explain why.

      5) “The police in the meeting said that he gave no explanation”
      Lie – the 3 officers didn’t claim this at all.
      They claimed AM hadn’t given a full account – which was true.
      (https://twitter.com/sandralaville/statuses/393023687815069696)

  5. So now Camoron has weighed in with his ridiculous spin. ” Mitchell has given a full account of the night in question, Mitchell was owed an apology and the 3 Fed Reps should be disciplined.” Well here’s the transcript of the meeting http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Documents/investigation_commissioner_reports/Transcript%20of%20meeting.pdf Please read it and tell me where the odious little man gives a full account of what he said.

    The government are quite clearly trying to demolish what little morale remains in the Police Service, I don’t know why Cruella doesn’t sack them all and employ G4S and have done with it. Put us all out of our misery.

    • ideb8 says:

      Yes, Cameron lied at least 5 times within 2 consecutive PMQ sessions:

      16 Oct 2013 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131016/debtext/131016-0001.htm#13101671001449

      1) AM “gave a full account of what had happened”
      Lie – AM didn’t give a full account (as you say)

      2) the 3 officers “claimed that he had given them no account at all”
      Lie – the 3 officers didn’t claim this at all.
      They claimed AM hadn’t given a full account – which was true.

      23 Oct 2013 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm#13102356000462

      3) “as I said last week..gave a full explanation..”
      Lie – he didn’t say ‘explanation’ the previous week (16/10/13) at all.
      A full account means a detailed chronological description of the event, word by word – not provided by AM.
      A full explanation means provide the reasons for, or an understanding of why, an event happened and so – crucially – may exclude a word by word account altogether.
      Cameron switched to the easier & irrelevant ‘explanation’ because AM in the meeting did go to some length to explain why he loved the police & to explain why they loved him.

      4) AM “..gave a full explanation of what happened”
      Lie – AM didn’t give a full explanation either, only of topics which suited him. For example, he didn’t ‘explain’ what he said word by word – or therefore explain why.

      5) “The police in the meeting said that he gave no explanation”
      Lie – the 3 officers didn’t claim this at all.
      They claimed AM hadn’t given a full account – which was true.
      (https://twitter.com/sandralaville/statuses/393023687815069696)

  6. And here http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=43d59569d85e5cdd0fb3ea0f9&id=c014035b83 you’ll find a statement from West Mids PCC Bob Jones on what he thinks of Ms Glass’ actions.

  7. And here http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=43d59569d85e5cdd0fb3ea0f9&id=c014035b83 you’ll find a statement from West Mids PCC Bob Jones on what he thinks of Ms Glass’ actions.

  8. Bob S says:

    A good response from Bob Jones! As for Camoron, he lied again during PMQ’s when he said Mitchell had given a full account. I hope the odious and arrogant posh fool is voted out at the next election.

  9. Bob S says:

    A good response from Bob Jones! As for Camoron, he lied again during PMQ’s when he said Mitchell had given a full account. I hope the odious and arrogant posh fool is voted out at the next election.

  1. October 17, 2013

    […] People in Glass Houses really shouldn’t. I wasn’t going to write about this sorry saga, I’m sure numerous other people will have done so already, but it got the better of me.  […]

  2. October 17, 2013

    […] People in Glass Houses really shouldn’t. I wasn’t going to write about this sorry saga, I’m sure numerous other people will have done so already, but it got the better of me.  […]

  3. October 18, 2013

    […] People in Glass Houses really shouldn't. I wasn't going to write about this sorry saga, I'm sure numerous other people will have done so already, but it got the better of me. This is, of course, th…  […]

  4. October 18, 2013

    […] People in Glass Houses really shouldn't. I wasn't going to write about this sorry saga, I'm sure numerous other people will have done so already, but it got the better of me. This is, of course, th…  […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: