Quote ="Cronus"Because there was a standing directive in place stating that cycles must use the pedestrian gate. One that all the Diplomatic Protection Group officers were aware of. Indeed Mitchell had been advised to this effect previously and further advised to speak to the Downing Street Liaison Officer if he was unhappy with the policy. Indeed, the day before the incident, Mitchell had spat his dummy and demanded the main gates were opened. The police officer on that occasion caved in and opened them, but felt compelled to report the incident to his supervisor as it went against policy.
Or did you miss all that? As you're so well read on the Mitchell case you'll have read the Operation Alice Report where all this is clearly stated in evidence?
No, it's not. The buildings are. After all, the buildings would be the target, not the stretch of tarmac outside, and furthermore there are plenty of people who require access to the street. However, the street itself - and access to the street - is under the control of the police, or specifically the Diplomatic Protection Group.
If you think there is 'next to zero risk' to Downing Street you need to give your head a wobble.
No, it wasn't unlawful. The police have complete control over who and what enters and leaves Downing Street, and how. You seem to have overlooked that as well. Try reading the [url=https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/L-58726-5427362008 Road Traffic Act[/url which gave them those powers.'"
Ok, you've got me, except you're wrong on so many points it isn't worth continuing this debate..when you have your rights infringed by the police and/or the state I'm sure you would be equally as narked off as Mitchell, or more likely you're another like many on here ready to just take it up the rear asking them how deep they'd like to go..enjoy
