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.

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 d 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

Quote ="Sandro II Terrorista"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 cyclehelmets.org/

Quote ="Sandro II Terrorista"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 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.

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.

Knockersbump - the gift that just keeps on giving.

There was no police action.

He was not forced to dismount.

The police did not prevent him from leaving Downing Street through the big metal gates. The big metal gates prevented him from leaving Downing Street through the big metal gates. The police officers present could OPEN the big metal gates but by declining to do so, they were not "taking action". Indeed, had Mitchell wanted to sit there on his bike for an hour or two, I don't imagine the police would have given a stuff.

So remind me again, where's the "unlawful" bit?

I hope you'll get as used to it on here as we have over on the Hull FC board.

Even Steve Norton never got a bump as hard as that

Some one once asked me what an "ilk" was

All I could come up with was: "A c**t with antlers"

If you ever use the term "olitics of envy" then it'll confirm that you are Standee's alter ego

I thinks he's eloped with Minty aint he?

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

Lol.

Again, what "right" did he have "infringed"? Are you seriously arguing that there is a "right" to have DPG officers open and close heavy vehicular access gates just so Mitchell could avoid dismounting? Really?

On what is that "right" founded? I mean, I have pored the texts all the way back to Magna Carta, but I can't find any mention of any positive obligation for the police to open gates for cyclists. Where is it to be found?

In fact Mitchell had no right to go through the main gates. He had a right to use the side gate. Which the police officers directed him to during his arrogant "don't you know who I am?" style paddy.