Prescott...

On Tue, 9 May 2006 23:40:17 +0100, Doctor Drivel wrote (in article ):

Given that everything he does is stupid, that leaves plenty of scope, of course. No doubt he won't be commenting about Michael Heseltine in future....

He also now claims to have only one car. Johnny one note? See how the mighty are fallen

Reply to
Andy Hall
Loading thread data ...

Rumour has it that when Tory is forced to resign, John will be moving to the beanfest called the EU (aka: eat up.)

He has been in meetings most of the time since his removal from tea break overseer. HP have decided to close UK production and increase productionat its site in Holland. There are rumours that a well known pork pie maker is also thinking of relocation.

Reply to
Weatherlawyer

Dr Drivel wrote; Matt, have you looked in this alleged black book? Where is it kept? What did it say?

Hmm, Got sight of black book. p128, extract "Got up today and low and behold it seems that having nothing to do and doing nothing is surprisingly harder than having something to do and doing nothing. Still trawled internet and it seems I have become the subject in a diy google group. Cheered me up a bit as I have a loyal follower. Some Dr fellow, goes by the name drivel. Strange name that for a Dr. Ah well did a search on him. It turns out a complete and utter wanker, ah well"

Reply to
legin

Matt, Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Legin have you been trying have a shag as well?

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

He thinks it's our business. T. Blair thinks it's our business. Plod is investigating to see whether it's any of their business.

Reply to
Chris Bacon

Johnny shagging is his business not ours.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

I understand that the 'police' have decided that an investigation of the Prescott affair would not be an 'appropriate use' of police resources. This seems particularly interesting as other instances of sexual activities by civil servants during 'working' hours have been investigated, presumably by the police, and successfully prosecuted. Is this example of one rule for the politicians and another for the great unwashed?

Perhaps it is more profitable for the police to concentrate on speeding motorists after all there is no profit for them in the Prescott affair.

Is it surprising that the credibility and impartiality of the Police is debatable?

Reply to
Edward W. Thompson

Why would the police prosecute consenting sexual activity during working hours anymore than other types of skiving off work?

FFS, get some perspective on life.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In article , Edward W. Thompson writes

That's quite true as the police have shown themselves time and time again to be the political lackey's of the government of the day. They are only doing what their political masters tell them. Or not doing, in this instance.

It is yet another example of the rank hypocrisy of the police.

Of course. Why is that in any way a surprise? It's nothing new!

There is nothing *to* debate. The police have no credibility and they are not impartial. End of story. Again, nothing new there.

Reply to
Mr X

In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes

Don't remain ignorant all your life - find out what the common-law criminal offence of "Misconduct in a public office" entails and you will have your answer.

Reply to
Mr X

formatting link
they don't agree with you. And rightly so.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes

On the contrary, the last part of section b covers it:

(b) Wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself.

Reply to
Mr X

None of our business because, er, I voted for him

Reply to
Homer2911

Johnny had a shag - that's all. None of our business no matter who you voted for.

Reply to
Doctor Drivel

Err, what proof have you got he neglected his duty? He could have been shagging in his tea break for all you know.

As for misconduct, it would depend on the interpretation of a court.

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

In article , Dave Plowman (News) writes

There is a prima facie case. A police investigation would then uncover any proof if there was any. That's how it works, normally.

In this particular case, it seems the police are following the wishes of their political masters and turning a blind eye to behaviour that would land other public officers in court.

As above

And there is also ample case history where numerous police officers have been found guilty of misconduct in a public office for having sex while on duty.

In addition there is ample case history from employment tribunals to hold that sex in employer's time and on employer's premises is "gross misconduct" and that instant dismissal is an appropriate penalty.

The fact that you take the attitude that you do in respect of Prescott's misbehaviour speaks volumes for your own low standards of personal behaviour, IMO.

Reply to
Mr X

How comfortable is your pulpit?

Reply to
Dave Plowman (News)

The topic of Prescott inevitably came up on Question Time on tv last night. As Heseltine said (I paraphrase) having an adulterous affair does not in itself justify being sacked. But making yourself and the office of Deputy Prime Minister a nationwide laughing stock, should do.

As Private Eye pointed out, the old git has a history of putting his hand up women's skirts, for decades. He assaulted a journalist Jaci Stephen in this way on a public occasion. He is the worst sort of predatory oaf and it is perhaps surprising that there haven't been complaints of sexual harassment about him.

His position at the moment, with lots of perks but no real job, seems to be as advisor and trouble-shooter between warring factions in the Labour Party for which arguably he should be paid by the Labour Party rather than out of the public purse. How can a working class socialist like him justify his position? Well, seemingly he has no qualms about it. I still remember a Parkinson interview in the late 1990s when Prescott just kept telling Parkinson in a rather childlike way that he was amazed to have reached the dizzy heights of cabinet after his humble beginnings and felt very proud of himself. He isn't a statesman. If anything, he's a sort of mascot.

Reply to
The Todal

Court jester..Oh. No, that's Tony..

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.