Mitchell has now agreed to pay the officer £80,000 in damages. Add all the costs, and that's one expensive apology.

Cameron is keeping well away from this after having backed his chief whip before and after the event, he should only be thankful that there is no effective opposition to point this out in The House and question once again his choice of those who surround him.

If only the police officers had done what they should have done, opened the gate and let him cycle through as always, no big deal and no security risk (when compared to letting cars through far less a risk in fact).

So if they had done their job like they were supposed to (instead of being F@@king plebs) none of this would have happened.

It's like this on the roads all the time, one rule for one lot and a different rule for others when they feel like applying them and if they can be bothered to even know the law.

Without wishing to argue, your point sounds a bit like girls wearing short skirts deserve to be raped, or security guards carrying cash deserve to be robbed. Mr Mitchell has been exposed as a fibber, snob and all round rotter. He'll probably end up in the House of Lords.

It's a good job he wasn't wearing a cycle helmet. God knows what might've happened.

So, despite Mitchell and all other relevant personnel being told not to exit or enter via the main gates, it was the rozzers' fault that he decided to take no heed of the instructions?

'Relevant'? Whom does that refer to exactly, you mean pedestrians, well as a bicycle is a vehicle in law he had every right to use the main gates to exit as a cyclist..i.e. he wasn't walking, or as it seems you are suggesting because he was on a biycle he should be treated differently to other MPs exiting by car or motorcycle which would present a far higher risk or can you not grasp that (as indeed the police can't)

As I said, one rule for one lot and another rule for the others..

He had indeed being allowed to exit the main gates on his bicycle in the past, the allegation that they continued to allow him to do so because he might bully the police officers is just laughable.

You do know different vehicles have different restrictions and rules placed on them don't you? Both in law and by organisations on private or public property.



You know why? Because a bike is different to a car.



If you don't believe me try taking your car on the train.

I tried to take my car on a train once and ended up in France ... never again!

Exactly. Wouldn't have happened if you'd been on a bike.

Well a train isn't the highway is it smart mouth nor is private property so your arguement is invalid. There are different restrictions of course (cycles aren't allowed on motorways for instance) but none that apply in law in this case, on the road/highway in question Mitchell was perfectly entitled to use his vehicle and egress via the main gates as other wheeled vehicles are, that he chose to use a bicycle makes jack all difference except to people like you and the police involved.

You obviously have a beef because I didn't think you were this obtuse or ignorant of the law/rules.

Its a fairly well established principle and point of law that ALL road users (including pedestrians) must obey the instructions of a police officer when using the public highways, that much is absolute.



So, your point was ?

As the police are pretty much in charge of who goes in an out of Downing Street, that's a pretty important difference.

Yeah I just hate cyclists. I hate them. They're all just so cycly and flourescent.



I'm suprised someone with such a certain and comprehensive knowledge of ballistics, the physics in rugby league impacts and the law of the road would forget a couple of basic issues in this case. Firstly, as Jerry pointed out, he was given an instruction by a police officer. And secondly Downing Street isnt a public road. You try taking your bike through the main gate. I'm pretty sure you'll get stopped by the police. But that's probably just because they hate cyclists too? Right?

I actually looked that up and surprisingly it is a public road under the domain of the Westminster Council, albeit one that is controlled by some vague reference to anti-terrorism in the same way the the police could temporarily shut down any old road that they fancy using such one-size-fits-all permissions. The buildings along the street are a designated site under Police Act so they have full control over them, but not the road itself, presumably because the PM wants the council to come and sweep it regularly rather than have to do it himself.



Still doesn't detract from the fact that any reasonable person would comply with an order given by a police officer at any time on any public highway unless that person is being particularly obtuse, arrogant and/or stupid.

I'm suprised at that, you would've assumed it was under government control ever since they stopped allowing the public up to the door of 10 Downing Street.

Though I'm also suprised at the, apparently, shockingly poor CCTV quality covering Downing Street.





Well quite.

You've done it now!!



You've really gone and done it!!!

I still don't believe that its that bad and that better audio and video was not available to those who required it.



Don't forget that all of the cctv in the media was provided by Mitchells supporters to the press (including the ridiculous CH4 half hour propaganda broadcast) and was sourced from cameras mounted on Ministry buildings which under normal circumstances would be for access control purposes - have a look on Google Earth and you'll see that the Google car was allowed part way into Downing Street and you can easily see the two cameras from where the footage came, Mitchell clearly had pals working from those buildings but his influence didn't go quite all the way up the food chain to get at the real juicy footage, unless it didn't suit his propaganda of course (which is probably the case).

LOLZ



The fact that ISIS haven't just walked into Downing St since then shows that they don't believe it either.

I'm not surprised that the CCTV was poor, and I wouldn't be surprised if that was the extent of the CCTV system on Downing Street. The need for high quality CCTV footage is very low when you have 24 hour armed police guarding something.

The [url=http://www.newstatesman.com/david-allen-green/2012/12/what-powers-do-downing-street-police-actually-haveNew Statesman[/url gives a fairly good explanation of the restrictions applying to Downing Street. While the buildings are within a designated area for the purposes of anti-terrorist legislation, the road itself is not. However, it seems that a [url=https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-58726-5427362008 Order[/url prohibits vehicles and pedestrians entering Downing Street.



As for cycle access, an excerpt from the Operation Alice Closing Report appears to clear things up:

[iPrior to 2010, a directive was sent out by the Downing Street Internal Security Team that no cyclists were to enter through the vehicle gates at Downing Street. This was for reasons of security in that the gates are large and cumbersome and therefore take longer to open and close. This created a greater risk that an intruder or unauthorised vehicle could enter Downing Street. All Diplomatic Protection Group officers are aware of this policy.

However, Cabinet Ministers who required urgent access to Downing Street were afforded some leeway and officers could use discretion in respect of high profile individuals who required access. This process was formalised in June 2011 so that Cabinet Ministers were allowed unfettered access to Downing Street. This was not thought to apply to Cabinet Ministers who wished to exit the gates as there would be no urgent need to see the Prime Minister.[/i



Got to say, the Operation Alice report doesn't do Mitchell any favours. It seems his 'main gate' hissy fits were a regular fixture.

Presumably they don't bother in airports either then ?

You also have to wonder why he should be so bothered as to get into such a frenzy over something thats going to actually take longer to achieve, only someone with anger issues or an incredible overbearing belief that they know best would insist that they want to use "this" gate and "that" gate next to it just won't do, the more you think about it the more bizarre his behavior that night becomes.

So far as I can see from the case reports and the trial, Mitchell seems to have felt that he should be able to mount his bike and ride uninterrupted out of Downing Street, as he was too important to have to either dismount and pass through the side gate, or to walk his bike to the same gate. It is plainly no quicker to stand and wait whilst the police manhandle the heavy gates open, and so being quicker is not any reason. The police "policy" seems to have been something of a shambles, and seemingly some would open the gates and others wouldn't. Just seems a bit arrogant to me to expect protection group officers to have to personally manhandle the heavy gates open just for me when there is no need and no time saving, and when by doing so a small security risk is avoidably created. The gates and the officers are there to provide security and not to be personal gatemen, to the detriment of their role, for those who might feel slightly inconvenienced to have to dismount and push their bike a few yards through a gate. I'd agree that if there was a policy not to open the gate save for cars, then all gate users including Mitchell should have had it made clear to them.