To wonder Why it matters which f****** gate you go through

[feelinghopeful]

Am so sick of the Andrew Mitchell story, yet nowhere in the acres and acres of coverage does anyone actually explain WHY you can't cycle out of the main gate. Surely the pedestrian gate should be just that. For pedestrians.

Frustration over stupid rules often has me fuming, but I hasten to add has never led me to act the way buffoon Mitchell did. He is an idiot and a tosser.

But please, can anyone shed any light on this or am I BU to even wonder.

I think they wanted to open the side gate as it's really easy to open as opposed to the one massive enough to stop a possible truck bomb.

Aren't we calling this 'gategate'?

There Must be a sane reason for this surely??

Of course there is a reason, and it's not hard to work out why.
They are not ordinary gates and are not there for decoration. The heavy gates and other security equipment are there to stop a terrorist driving a car bomb into Downing Street. They are only opened when a car leaves the street or when a known vehicle approaches by appointment from outside. Cyclists go through the side gate unless the main gate is open for a vehicle and the cyclist can follow close behind.
If the main gates were opened for a cyclist, there would be nothing to stop a car bomber driving through them, over/through the cyclist and up to the door of number 10.
The pompous git who wanted the gates opened specially for him should have realised that the gates and the police officers were both there for his own protection, and been grateful.

I would assume there's always a good reason behind the decision to open a big fuck-off gate that leads to Downing street or not. Some ranting little prick who won't wheel his bike round the side and starts jumping up and down shouting 'Do you know who I am?' wouldn't count as one for most people.

This is such a non story. The policeman didn't want to open the gate. Mr Mitchell says he always used this gate, got frustrated at the police, and lost his temper at not being able to use it. He later apologised.

End of, who cares.

The main problem is that a government seen by many as "toffs" has a person in it who calls people common as an insult. This person also has allegedly told a lie to us all including his boss, the Prime Minister, when he said he didn't call anyone a pleb.

Paiviaso
I care. I care because I'm interested to know what the government thinks of the voting population. Mitchell has confirmed all suspicions adequately.

Thanks for everyone's replies. Also, out of curiosity and ignorance, is the pedestrian gate right next to the main gate or if not, how far away is it?

Also I take the point about consistency. I'm puppy training at the moment!

The police officer was following strict security procedure, he had no mandate to vary that procedure simply because an unpleasant little man swore at him.

I agree, it would be very unlikely that a member of Al Quaeda or the IRA would have been poised ready with a car to drive through an open gate at that precise moment (bearing in mind that if a vehicle was going through then it would have been difficult to squeeze by, but quite easy to get past or drive over a bicycle) but it's not the PCs fault.

The odious little creep received all the opprobrium he deserved.

feelinghopeful,
Yes the pedestrian/cycle gate is right next to the vehicle gate,

Pendeen,
Yes it's unlikely that a car bomber would be driving past at the precise moment that this minister was riding through the main gate.
But if he insisted on doing it as a routine the possibility becomes much more likely, and other cyclists would suit. Security rules have to be rigorous or they are useless.
I can understand the frustration of the police officers trying to save these politicians from their own stupidity.

other cyclists would follow suit.

There is obviously a problem with the police here given that (hopefully) trained officers don't appear to know when they should and shouldn't open the gate.

It seems pretty damn basic to me.

They let him out three times, they should let him out the fourth time.

OR, bicycles are not allowed to go through that gate.

One or t'other.

And btw according to the police log, unprofessionally leaked all over the newspapers, he swore as he went through the side gate, having been polite when asking to go through the main gate. So he didn't say 'you fucking open the gate you plebs', he went through the pedestrian gate as instructed and swore at them while doing so.

As others have said - its policy to not use the main gate as opening it creates and additional security risk.

Whether the risk is increased a tiny bit (so what the hell lets open it) or a lot is not up to an individual officer to decide.

I hear on the grapevine that Mitchell may now insist on a car driving him the 3min walk from the commons!

CAVEAT - this is entirely gossip and may have no basis in truth whatsoever though his judgement is probably that flawed

They let him out three times, they should let him out the fourth time.

AIUI, and ISTBC, on the previous occasions he slipped through behind a car. He didn't have the gate opened for him.

Why didn't they open the very, very heavy gate that is there to protect the government from terrorist attack when a man wanted to use it for his bike, when he could easily have used another route?

No idea.

Plebs.

They let him out three times, they should let him out the fourth time

Maybe that's the problem - every time they let him out of the big gate, the fucker came back again, so they thought they should change tactic!