Brian 2: The Sunday papers witchhunt goes on

[TinyCrendon]

Just seen papers reviewed on Sky News saturday night. It appears Brian is in for some serious flack.

It would seem incredible, (admittedly not having seen the papers myself at first hand yet), that such an amazingly mild form of dissent, as shown by Brian in his orginal posts here, can provoke what appears to be such a vindictive resposnse. I say `would` were it not for the fact that certain elements of our press, unfortunately the most powerful, are only showing themselves for what they are, malicous, bigoted and utterly frightened of debate.

Unfortunately for them debate aint going nowhere hofficer.

[RubyToogood]

Story from the Independent on Sunday (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=275386).

[drfranni]

It's wretch-worthy.

I'm so sorry BP - if you're not working today, then make a BIG pot of tea, draw the curtains shut and watch videos all day.

I only saw the front page and I feel as if I need to wash all over again

[bingiman]

Does this this mean everytime an off-duty policeman (or woman) sees a friend smoking a spliff they have to report them coz it seems to me that if that is the case, very soon we will either have no policeman or the ones that are left won't have any friends.

bingiman

FREE dub and reggae MP3 music from bingiman (http://www.ampcast.com/music/10907/artist.php)

[Mrs Magpie]

Brian, I am sure that when you posted on these boards, you knew that there might be some controversy. You are an intelligent and farsighted man. I don't think you could have foreseen betrayal or mendacity of this type. I for one am extremely grateful that you are engaging with the community (not just on these boards, but throughout Brixton). Whatever the bastards throw in your direction, I hope that you are aware that you have enormous support from the Community here, as well as the wider Brixton community. Knowing that the hacks have piddling attention spans is not probably of great comfort at this precise moment, but I hope that you realise that support you have won in Lambeth is something that you have earned and very much deserve.
All the best to you and your partner, drfranni's advice is sounds like a good idea. I am so sorry that you are having to go through all this to improve things for us.

[wildwildlifer]

I hope James Renolleau understands the principle of Karma or as it's currently known, what goes around, comes around.
Those tainted thirty pieces of silver will bring this wretched person no happiness.
It is a novel experience to be saying this to a policeman, but Brian you have my total support, sympathy and admiration.;)
Being smeared by the Gutter Press, should be worn as a badge of pride.

[Edd]

<Sigh> so the Mails up to its nasty hompophobe bigot tricks again. Brian, I hope you get to keep on fighting the good fight, one sure way that you know that you're on the right track is that the shit is starting to fly. A good test of life is always if you're pssing the Daily Mail off you've gotta be onto a good thing.


I really hope we're not gonna have to start a campain to save your job (although i can see some delicious ironies in the Urban75 campaining for a copper!), cos as somebody who lives on Coldharbour Lane, things have got a bit better recently. (Seems like theres a new Crackhouse opened up in the last couple of weeks though from the dishevilled lookin' whore on the corner of Luxor road the other morning.How much 'passing trade can there be at 7.45 Friday morning for gawds sake?).

Best of luck Brian hope you ride out the storm.

[newbie]

strangely the 'girls' on Brixton Hill are pretty active first thing in the morning too. I can only assume they know when their efforts will be rewarded.

[editor]

I've just done an interview for Channel Four news about Paddick and the sadly-expected smear campaign - check it out at 7.30 tongiht...

[Edd]

Originally posted by newbie
strangely the 'girls' on Brixton Hill are pretty active first thing in the morning too. I can only assume they know when their efforts will be rewarded.

Or thats when their most desperate for a hit.....

Good on ya Mike for the interview, at leasts someones telling the real story.

[chris]

(I followed the link from BBC online)

As a random bystander, I don't think anyone in their right mind would want Brian to quit if they saw what he actually writes and what people say back. I just wish the police in Ealing were half as responsive as he is ... good luck to you Brian! :)

Chris

[The Black Hand]

It appears that the conservatives inside and outside the police have it in for Brian... the same corporate capitalist interests that use these slanders to sell papers are really being VERY VERY boring in their approach... Business as normal...

[Anneth]

yet again the gutter press use scum tactics . . .

makes me sick.

you've got my sympathy and support Brian. Shame that anyone who attempts to open up a sensible debate about the status quo gets hammered.

don't quit. everyone with more than 1 brain cell is in your corner.

[Taxamo Welf]

When/wot channel?
I've missed everything on telly so far.

For what its worth, Brian has my utmost admiration and respect.

[dozzer]

Tax honey, the clue was in "Channel Four News" and 7:30 :p

[Taxamo Welf]

Well spotted.:D

[zeedoodles]

Witchhunt is the only word, come on all you friendly media people next time you are at a party with these gutter snakes photograph everything they do and publish the pics. Prehaps we shall have to sneak into some media parties and take pics of there goings on then fly post them everywhere.

[Mrs Magpie]

Well, the general feel of the piece was, those outside the area speculate about his position, and those who are within the area he works in think he's good and it's homophobia. Nothing new there really.

By the way, I read on the BBC news website that Brians ex said that he bought his cannabis in Brixton in a £20 bag. Well if that is so Brian has nothing to worry about with his ex rolling spliffs in his flat......It was probably parsley!

[DailyMailReader]

He's a hypocrite and he deserves to be sacked.

Even if all the allegations are false he has admitted watching his partner take drugs therefor breaking the law and he did nothing about it. In my book that's a clear case of malfeasance.

Unless of course this all happened in Lambeth then he'll only get a warning for it.

Or is this another bit of free publicity for Teflon Brian ?

[Roadkill]

Do you live in Brixton, DMR?

If nbot, maybe you might shut up and let the people who live under his jurisdiction judge him on his effectiveness as a policeman - not a load of unproven tabloid innuendo. :mad:

[zeedoodles]

Please ignore DMR.Don't rise to the bait we are worth more than that.Constructive arguments = great. Trolls= twat.

[editor]

Seeing as a notable percentage of the populace has admitted to smoking dope - including Prince Harry, large amounts of the police force and a host of MPs - I can only assume that DMR will be demanding mass dismissals for all.

Trouble is, once he's sacked a large proportion of the police force through unproven allegations, who's going to keep the streets safe, DMR?

The 'hypocrisy' you talk of is already rampant in society, most notably in Parliament....

[Anneth]

Originally posted by zeedoodles
Please ignore DMR.Don't rise to the bait we are worth more than that.Constructive arguments = great. Trolls= twat.

Yep.

[DailyMailReader]

Originally posted by editor
Seeing as a notable percentage of the populace has admitted to smoking dope - including large amounts of the police force

And you can back this up with factual evidence or is it wishful thinking ?

[editor]

Time to start eating humble pie, DMR - here's all the 'factual evidence' you could wish for.

Naturally, you'll be quick to apologise for suggesting that I would attempt to pass off 'wishful thinking' as facts?

Half of police have tried cannabis
By Stewart Tendler, Crime Correspondent

HALF of police officers questioned about enforcing the law on using cannabis admitted that they had taken the drug at some time in their lives.
The research now being studied by David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, was carried out among Metropolitan and South Yorkshire police and shows that many support a more liberal approach.

Many clearly would support the Lambeth experiment in South London where users are given a warning and lose their drugs. Some have already been informally using a similar approach.

The research will bolster Mr Blunkett’s plans to make cannabis use a less serious offence by making it a Class C drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 rather than a Class B one.

In the research 150 frontline patrol officers who would carry out stop and search operations for drugs were questioned anoymously for the Joseph Rowntree Trust. Half admitted using the drug.

The researchers also found that 85 per cent of those who had used the drug were prepared to be more tolerant in their treatment of users.

When the researchers asked the officers about the current legislation three quarters complained that drug laws criminalise people who would not otherwise have records.

Over half also believed that cannabis legislation harmed relations between police and young people, especially black and Asian communities.

Another said that those arrested for possession were less likely to help the police to solve more serious crimes.

Source:
The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/0,,2-237566,00.html)

[Anneth]

editor . . . good points, well made . . .

DMR . . . please don't bombard me with hysterical nonsense culled straight from the pillar of society (NOT) that you choose to dignify with the name of newspaper.

Get real. Look around you. What's going on?

<trying very hard to rise above this>

[DailyMailReader]

In that case.... Sorry. You big, Me small.

In my defence, I don't read The Times.

Makes you wonder what else they're up to on their days off.

[Anneth]

good grief.

if you're not prepared to listen, DMR, why are you here?

<sorry, way harsh?>

[Mrs Magpie]

Originally posted by editor
Time to start eating humble pie, DMR - here's all the 'factual evidence' you could wish for.

I doubt that he will, there's pure arrogance coursing through those veins.

[DailyMailReader]

I've said sorry what more do you want ?

[Mrs Magpie]

Well personally I'd be delighted if you just buggered off altogether, sharpish like, never to darken my screen again.

[editor]

DMR: It might be nice if you asked first and accused later. That way you'd learn some facts without having to make yourself look so, well, clueless in the process.

But I thank you for your apology.

[Roadkill]

Well personally I'd be delighted if you just buggered off altogether, sharpish like, never to darken my screen again.

Go Mrs Magpie! ;) :D :D

[DailyMailReader]

I get the feeling I will be getting banned soon for daring to disagree with other members of this forum.
It happened to Steelgate & Colin the copper.

I missed the bit when I registred that said 'sycophants only need apply'

[Anneth]

sorry . . . have just had a pm from DMR, which I hope I have answered in a rational and reasonable fashion.

come on peeps . . . everyone has a valid viewpoint and villifying someone is only going to make them defensive and more firmly entrench their views.

if we can show we can rise above such rants and address the issues then yey! more power to us!

we don't need to sink to their level . . .

[Roadkill]

Frankly Anneth, I think he's had a pretty fair hearing. He's just here to cause trouble. I posed a perfectly valid question for him on page 1 of this thread and, presumably because the answer would undermine his argument here, he hasn't replied.

So I ask again, DMR. Do you live in Brixton? If not, might it not be better to allow those who do to judge him on his effectiveness as a senior police officer? What qualifies you to judge him?

As for the comment from Mrs Magpie, I just thought it was funny. Maybe that's just my warped sense of humour. ;)

[DailyMailReader]

Roadkill,

No I don't live in Brixton, but then again going by these boards very few people here do. I worked there for a long time so that is where my interest lies.

Edited to say,
And you being the expert from Hull according ti your profile ?

That will be the Hull that runs between Rushcroft and Railton will it ?

[Anneth]

whoa!

easy now . . .

wasn't attempting to defend DMR, but if he's just here to cause trouble, then rising to the bait means he's succeeded.

thought mrs magpie was funny as well, but then i'm warped too . . .

[editor]

DMR: I was hoping that you might have learnt from the last time and realised that accusing first and asking later only makes you look like a troublemaking wally.

Seeing as I have never even *hinted* at banning you from these boards, it would appear that you're being a very mischievious boy indeed, trying to manufacture a make-believe world of 'censorship' for you to shout about.

But, for the record, Steelgate & Colin the Copper weren't banned for disagreeing with others here - far from it, in fact.

They were banned because they chose to continually breach some of the clear terms of posting here. The posting of racist, homophobic and/or disruptive material is specifically banned.

If you wish to make a habit of posting up inaccurate information, being proved wrong and apologising later, that's entirely up to you - I won't be banning you.

But if it becomes clear that you're only interested in stirring up trouble, then you will be banned.

It's all about showing a little respect, y'see.

Oh, and I live in Brixton too.

[agricola]

has anyone asked the Commander whether he inhaled? ;)

[DailyMailReader]

Can I have some more humble pie please ?

Mike, Bear with me. I'm new here. I'm only going by what I've read on the old posts. It seems that the people that got banned did so, for perhaps playing the 'agent provocateur' and leaving posts that the regulars here did not like. That is why it looked like to me, that if you upset the regulars, you are out.
Although I thought it all made for interesting lively reading. A forum where everyone agrees with each other will soon get very boring, don't you agree.

Bring back Steelgate and Colin the copper, that's what I say. It might make interesting reading Mike !

[editor]

DMR: you're doing it again!

I've just told you the reasons why both Colin the Copper and Steelgate were banned from these boards, and it was nothing to do with whether people disagreed with them or not.

So why do you insist on repeating the same lie?

(Oh, and for your information, you'll find that both of them have been banned from a whole host of other boards)

[Mrs Magpie]

Originally posted by Roadkill
As for the comment from Mrs Magpie, I just thought it was funny. Maybe that's just my warped sense of humour. ;)

well he asked "what more do you want?" so I told him.

I am not advocating a ban. I just find his constant carping somewhat irksome and I am a crabby old lady probably old enough to be his Mum so I can say things like that. I thought I was actually rather restrained.

[Roadkill]

No I don't live in Brixton, but then again going by these boards very few people here do. I worked there for a long time so that is where my interest lies.

Edited to say,
And you being the expert from Hull according ti your profile ?


Yes, I am from Hull. That is why I didn't offer an opinion on Paddick's policing. It's not my place to say. Most of what I read suggests it has been pretty good, but then there are more than enough people from Brixton on these boards who can judge from first hand experience. I was annoyed that you seemed to suggest that you knew better than they.

And by the way, I don't want to see anyone banned. I just don't like aggressive and ill-informed comments like yours.

Anyway, enough. I'm not going to be drawn into a slanging match.

[GaryJenkins]

1) I don't live in Brixton (or indeed in Waterloo, West Norwood etc which I hope get as much of Brian Paddick's attention as does Brixton).

2) I think the Mail on Sunday article was somwhat unfair, although credit to them for getting the story.

3) I'm sympathetic to the partial toleration of cannabis experiment, although it needs to be properly evaluated to see its effects, rather than relying on Mr Paddick proclaiming "it's worked"

BUT

Paddick doesn't emerge from the expose with much credit. He seems to be a man who feels that the rules police are expected to obey are only for little people and not for him. The rules say that police must report to their superiors if they are socialising with someone who's on bail (seems reasonable)

By his own admission he knew his ex-boyfriend was on bail when they met but he didn't bother to report it because "his relationship was more important".

Of course all criticism of Paddick is by definition either jealousy or homophobia, but the man seems to be on an enormous ego trip.

[editor]

Gary - do you think the Mail would have written the same (supposed) 'expose' had Paddick not been gay?

After all, I'd imagine an awful lot of heterosexual couples have indulged in fun outdoor sex at some time or another, and as for being around someone who was smoking dope - well, according to a report in the Times, that's at least half the police force!

Of course, it's clear that this distasteful slur campaign, packed full of cod-outrage and barely concealed homophobia pays scant regard to what the people of Lambeth actually want.

I live in the area and everyone I've spoken to finds Paddick a desperately needed and long overdue breath of fresh air - he may not be perfect but there's been more dialogue and discussion centred around the real problems of Lamberth than at any time I can think of.

To some (like me) there's a feeling that real progress is being made and it angers me considerably to see it being put at risk by irrelevent, cheap, tacky, kiss-and-tell slurs and innuendo by journalists who clearly don't give a shit about what happens to the Brixton community.

Shame on them.

[hatboy]

Mike said:

"I live in the area and everyone I've spoken to finds Paddick a desperately needed and long overdue breath of fresh air - he may not be perfect but there's been more dialogue and discussion centred around the real problems of Lambeth than at any time I can think of".

This is absolutely true. This subject is still very much on peoples minds locally. And many people I know locally who are generally very wary of the Police (often with good reason) have said that they think Brian is different and good for Brixton.

In an area that once experienced the worst rioting in mainland Britain mainly as a result of clumsy, racist policing there has been a legacy of mistrust of the Police that extends to this day. Yes things have moved on and corners have been turned. One very significant corner being the the Stephen Lawrence enquiry. I feel the respect that Brian has earned for his honesty and his clear commitment to Lambeth is another significant corner.

It makes no difference to me whether Brain has had sex outdoors or smoked a spliff. Who cares? Most people have had sex outdoors and smoked a spliff - complete hypocrisy and irrelevant to his job anyway IMO. I would, in fact, have less respect for Brian if he hadn't smoked cannabis. As the man at the sharp end of drugs policy in Lambeth, it's good to know he knows what he is talking about.

[William of Walworth]

All I can say is Blimey!!! (Just got here after the w/e)

DMR = trolling twat.

Gary what do you mean "repect" to the Mail on Sunday for getting that story? Disgraceful!

[Alanj]

Unfortunately I have been proved right .Does anyone remember my post on the Crack / Commander thread a few weeks ago just prior to the media circus that warned that the knives were out for Brian and that we could expect some really nasty shit to fly .
Predictably I have been proved right .Paddik represents a very real threat to vested interest groups within the Met and they will stop at nothing to discredit and stop 'him' .The corrupt ,the Masons, the reactionaries ,homophobic,racist , elements within the Met and other UK police forces regard Paddik and his fellow University Educated Senior Officers , 'liberal' ,social 'inclusive' values and commitment to policing by consent , a threat to every thing they hold dear .
They also view Dave Blunkett with horror and the idea of any 'reform' and accountability as a challenge to their very existence and continued enjoyment of power ,prestige and privelage. Does anyone remember a previous 'liberal' Senior police Officer commited to accountability ? His name was John Stalker and he was put in charge of the 'shoot to kill' enquiry . Unfortunately for himself he took his job seriously and dug up some serious evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of power that implicated the similar elements that find Brian Paddik such a threat. Allegedly certain pressures were brought to bear and Stalker resigned unexpectedly from the enquiry . End result a more 'compliant investigation' , some called it a 'whitewash' and a result that didn't threaten certain vested interest groups including senior political figures of the day( Allegedly). John Stalkers police career ended soon after..
Currently some could infer that these same elements are using lower ranking Police Officers as one weapon in their battle against 'reform' . The issue of OVERTIME PAYMENTS is one that can utilised by vested interest groups and their press contacts to stop Blunketts reformist agenda in its tracks( The Rank and File police officers depend on Overtime Earnings- portray reform as a threat to that and you have the Rank and File on your side against reform).
Ditto the targetting of Brian Paddik ,discredit him and you discredit everything he stands for . Discredit the 'reformer' and you discredit 'reform' itself .Brian is at the locus of a very real conflict of power ,interest, differing political forces, this battle is getting very dirty and nasty indeed and is about much ,much ,more than just Brian Paddik. I hope he survives and that the fight for positive change and reform that he is a proponent of wins out in the end . Urban75 has also become part of this conflict and regulars should excercise 'caution' and 'nous' - as William S Burroughs said 'just because I am paranoid doesn't mean theyr'e not out to get me ' .Alan J.:eek:

[Anneth]

yep yep yep to alanj

couldn't agree more

[Joel]

They're going with the Paddick story on BBC News every hour. Did they say that for the time being he's to be 'transferred' away from the 'sensitive' Lambeth frontline?

[William of Walworth]

I agree with him more than you :D ;)

TOP TOP post Alanj .... I am angry at these latest developments and want to find out more ...

[Joel]

Originally posted by William of Walworth
I agree with him more than you :D ;)

You talking to me? ;)

[William of Walworth]

To Anneth actually ..... :)

[treelover]

while brian is clearly a decent progressive cop, other views should be allowed and not shouted down (see poor brianon p/p, u75 is this a a democracy or what? :(

[William of Walworth]

Treelover, was that aimed at me?

Requesting that someone who posts "Personally speaking, I hope Paddick gets stuffed" clarify his position is perfectly fair comment IMO. Especially when that poster gave every appearance of swallowing the Mail on Sunday's allegations without thinking about them. Neither has he subsequently clarified his position.

That is different from rational, reasoned criticism of the man, which we can engage in a proper debate about.

[detective-boy]

Unfortunately AlanJ, you were only too accurate. You got the lottery numbers for Saturday?

[Mrs Magpie]

Well I hope I'm right too, during the earlier hoo-ha about Brian and Anarchism, I mooted the possibility of Urban Activists mobilising for the retention of a Senior Officer. Lets hope we'll get him back. That would be a result that would put Oldham 1 Cardiff 7 in the shade eh Mike?

[LordofKaos]

Sorry I was only just pointed to this thread so I am a bit late on the debate.

I have an issue to bring up, let me give you three quotes I find disturbing in this thread.

large amounts of the police force. - Editor

And you can back this up with factual evidence. - DMR

HALF of police officers questioned about enforcing the law on using cannabis admitted that they had taken the drug at some time in their lives. - Editor

Now that sounds like evidence right, and caused DMR to apologise for his remarks, but I have an issue with this.

What I don't understand is this:

In the research 150 frontline patrol officers. - Editor

75 police offices are NOT "a large amount"

75 Police officers is a TINY amount of police officers.

Now what is happening to Brian Paddick I think is totally unfair, and is nothing more then a witch hunt.

But what DMR said is true, Brian Paddick I would bet money on doesn't live in Lambeth, as I don't think they let police officers live in the same districts in which they are employed, so to speak.

So I stand by DMR's remarks, he is a hypocrite, he has in his time as a police officer had to deal with people who have smoked cannabis, and I would hazard a guess that if he has been doing his job he has had to nick some of these people, smokers and dealers.

Then he sat and watched his friend smoke this drug in his house and did nothing.

I am sorry but that makes him a hypocrite.

[editor]

75 police offices are NOT "a large amount" It is when it amounts to HALF the police officers questioned.

And, frankly, I couldn't give a hoot whether you think Paddick is a hypocrite or not - as a resident of Brixton all I care about is the vast improvements that he brought about in community relations and the absolutely correct focussing of limited resources on the drugs that are causing the community so much harm.

But let's put this 'hypocrite' claim into focus: police officers regularly turn a blind eye to minor offences. Why? Because they haven't the resources to enforce the zero tolerance you seem to crave, or because sometimes it's simply good community policing to do so.

I'll wager that you've not reported hundreds of minor offences that you've seen, so perhaps you should look a little closer to home before shouting 'hypocrite'.

[freethepeeps]

Brian Paddick I would bet money on doesn't live in Lambeth,

He does and I claim my £5!

;)

[Mrs Magpie]

Sorry FTP, he thought he'd bought a place in Lambeth and discovered after he'd moved in that it was yards beyond the boundary.......
BTW congrats on your Court result

[freethepeeps]

My mistake.

Cheers Mrs. M!

:)

[LordofKaos]

I'll wager that you've not reported hundreds of minor offences that you've seen, so perhaps you should look a little closer to home before shouting 'hypocrite'.

Ohh I have seen loads, I have been party to loads of crimes, in my younger days some more serious (petty theft and breaking into cars) now its the same ole routine of soft drug taking.

The difference is I am not arresting people for commiting those same crimes. I am not putting myself forward as an upholder of the law.

You do know what hypocrite means don't you?

Like I said in the other thread that you didn't want to reply to, how would you feel if some police officers decided off their own backs that racial hate crime was not worth persuing? or that they decided to turn a blind eye because it suited them?

You would be upset and you would be here moaning at the police just as fast as you could, so if anyone is a hypocrite it is you, go look up the word you will see I am right.

Saying its half editor only counts when its a large number, 150 is NOT a large number. 150 is infact such a small number that any researcher basing any argument on a 27,000 (nearest figure I could find) population on questioning 150 people would be laughed at by serious scientists.

Thats 0.5% of the police, so one half of one half of a percent of police officers admitted to smoking cannabis 'at some point'.

Well thats conclusive proof then isn't it.

Also there is a difference in letting the letter of the law go for community reasons, and doing it because it is your friend.

That is what is commonly called prejudice.

[editor]

Ah. Because you didn't like the results of the poll you're simply going to extrapolate the data to suit your argument? What a shame.

And your twisted comparison between a partner harmlessly smoking a joint in the privacy of their home years ago and race hate crime is as off-the-mark as it is disingenuous.

The only 'crime' committed in the former is the crime of Daily Mail-fuelled 'outrage' - and if you want to shout about hypocrisy, why don't you wonder why the Mail isn't paying tens of thousands of pounds to track down its own reporters who smoke dope? Or start shouting about other self-confessed public figure dopeheads like Prince William and MPs?

To compare the act of watching someone smoke a joint with race hate crime - where there is a clear victim and often violence and intimidation - is utterly despicable.

Thank fuck we don't live in the zero tolerance world you seem to advocate.

Oh and I know what hypocrite means, thanks. It's the act of criticising one person for doing something while you do exactly the same. Sound familiar?

You'll also find that Paddick's approach to cannabis use is entirely consistent with many other officers. As the Rowntree Foundation report concluded:

The..."study reveals widespread inconsistencies in policing of cannabis on the streets. Many police officers have effectively decriminalised possession of cannabis by turning a blind eye to the offence, or issuing informal warnings. But a small minority of patrol officers ‘specialise’ in cannabis offences, accounting for a disproportionate number of arrests for possession.

The picture of widespread inconsistencies in the treatment of cannabis possession offences emerges from a unique street-level study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based on hours of observing what happens ‘on the beat’ as well as interviews with police and those they arrest. It finds that the chances of being arrested depend on the force areas where an offence is discovered and on the experience and attitudes of individual officers"

[LordofKaos]

27,000 in the Met force alone and they spoke to 150 and this somehow makes your claim that "a large amount" is accurate?

You supplied the source and now you complain when the source is shown to be widely inaccurate. If you do not want your sources to be shown as useless I would suggest finding better and more complete sources.

Did he take the drugs off of his friend? Did he give him a warning whether verbal or written?

Then his actions are NOT entirely consistent with other officers. Since most of the officers that I have heard of atleast take the drugs away and issue a verbal warning.

I do believe that Zero Tolerance is NEEDED in some places, places where street crime is rife and out of hand.

I also think that the stance that most police officers take to cannabis in most situations is the correct stance to take, remove the drugs from the person and either give them a verbal warning or take them to the police station for a proper warning. Thus you are obeying the law in essence and not choosing what to obey and what not to, and yet you are not causing more unneccessary paper work for something that most sane people see as no worse then having a few beers.

I myself have had both happen to me, both a verbal on one occasion and a written on the other.

The difference here is that a Police officer choose to ignore the law for his friend.

That in its essence is wrong, it doesn't matter what the law is, it is wrong.

The police should not be allowed to ignore laws that their friends have broken no matter what that law is.

Thats the basic bottom line, Brain Paddick had no right as a police officer to ignore the law breaking of his friend.

As to the daily mail, I couldn't tell you I have never read that newspaper, I have no idea what their journalists get up to or what their headlines scream.

[LordofKaos]

To compare the act of watching someone smoke a joint with race hate crime - where there is a clear victim and often violence and intimidation - is utterly despicable.

I am sorry, are you now denying that there is ANY violence and intimidation involved in the drugs trade?

Certainly seems that way.

[editor]

Since most of the officers that I have heard of atleast take the drugs away and issue a verbal warning. This directly contradicts the findings of the Rowntree Foundation (see above), so once again you are choosing to ignore facts you don't like.

Have you any alternative figures or studies to dispute these findings or are you basing your comments entirely on your own prejudices?

And seeing as you're insistent that zero tolerance is necessary in some areas, would you be so kind and name these areas along with your experiences of them?

As along term resident of Brixton, I think zero tolerance in entirely inappropriate for Brixton and Paddick's approach was correct.

How about you?

[editor]

I am sorry, are you now denying that there is ANY violence and intimidation involved in the drugs trade I've never heard of violence and intimidation being involved when someone is watching their partner smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home. Have you?

(Not that it's relelvant to your thoroughly dishonest attempt to link 'turning a blind eye' to race hate crime with what someone gets up to in the privacy of their own home)

[LordofKaos]

I hate to post again, but I hate to edit even more.

I understand your point of view editor you can point to me and say the same that I have said about BP. I have sat and watched several of my friends smoke joints and not done a damn thing about it, I have smoked joints myself and taken other drugs despite knowing the full consequences of doing so.

There is a difference though.

I did not sign up to be a police officer and be responisble for upholding the law.

He did.

IF he felt that the cannabis laws were so wrong that he could no longer uphold them, then he should have quit the police force.

He didn't.

He choose to remain and ignore the law for his friend.

That was wrong, and it was hypocritical.

[LordofKaos]

I don't know about Brixton I don't live there and I have not to my knowledge done more then drive thru on a couple of occasions.

Where do I think Zero tolerance should be.

How about Hackney, with its 55 stabbings and shootings per MONTH, with its 8 murders in 2 years within a mile of each other, where the residents actually do live in fear of going out of a night.

That sounds like the perfect place to instigate zero tolerance and give the people of hackney the chance to be able to feel safe in their borough.

I did not ignore your report, your report stated that 'many police officers..turn a blind eye or issue a verbal warning'

That is hardly conclusive, how many is many for instance, is that many of 27,000 or many of 150? And how many decide to turn a blind eye compared to actually taking the drugs away and issuing a verbal warning.

Its not a very good report if it is using words like many and then counting two or three instances within that many, it doesn't really give any clear indictation of how many do what.

It could be 5, that is many. That means one officer turns a blind eye and 4 issue a warning. The report is not very useful when talking in the terms we are talking. If it was even slightly more accurate then it might have some use in this debate.

[LordofKaos]

You stated yourself that this 'offense' took place many years ago, well to my knowledge Lambeth has not had a softly approach to cannabis for years, so we have to assume that this took place before that approach started.

Now lets give you a hypothetical situation that may or may not have arisen.

Brain Paddick decides to go out on patrol with a couple of his officers.

They pull over a young person who happens to have a small quantity of cannabis on them.

One of the police officers decides (as in your report) that he will charge the man for possesion of a controlled substance.

What does Brain Paddick do?

What does the man that sat and watched his friend in his house smoking this self same substance do right now?

If he forces the police officer to not arrest the man, then he is a hypocrite, he is employed to uphold the law and he isn't doing so.

If he lets the person be arrested, then he is a hypocrite for allowing someone else to be arrested for a crime that he watched his friend commit and did nothing.

Either way you look at it the man is a hypocrite.

[editor]

Just a thought: seeing as it's widely accepted that there are not enough police resources to instigate 'zero tolerance' zones even if the public wanted them, perhaps you might tell me how such a policy would improve things in Hackney?

It's all well and good self righteously banging on and on about 'hypocrisy' from afar, but the overwhelming majority of people who - unlike you - actually live in Brixton fully endorsed Paddick's policies and clearly couldn't give a fig what did or didn't happen in his bedroom two years ago.

Re: the survey into officers who have smoked dope:
I've no doubt that with such a small amount of officers interviewed, the results may not reflect the exact percentage of officers who have smoked dope, but on what grounds can you claim that it is completely unrepresentative?

In the absence of any other facts, you seem to be relying entirely on your own prejudice.

[pcanning]

just a point on those questioning the Rowntree people. Yes, this is statistically significant. Do you think they get poll numbers for voting intentions from interviewing all 22 million voters? It's nearly 25 years since I studied statistics at school and yet I remember that you can get significant results from small samples if you take the right sample and you allow for variables. these people are trained scientists and have to answer to thier peers - the most damming gap in your knowledge of how this world works. the study would have been trashed by fellow scientists if it was incorrectly arrived at.

and with regards to hypocrisy. I suggest that you'd prefer us policed by actual robotic cops rather than human beings. the whole point of community policing is to bring one set of citizens - cops - closer to another set of citizens - the policed for practical reasons of better policing as well as the greater good. we're all hypocrites in one way of another so as far as I can tell you'd prefer us to be policed by non-humans!

[LordofKaos]

I don't for one moment believe that the resources to instigate Zero Tolerance in a borough like hackney are not available.

If you can have 300 police at a football match or at the May Day protest then you can have a reasonable number of police officers on the beat stopping street crime in a single borough.

I don't care what the people of Brixton think, that doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocrite.

When you can prove to me that he isn't a hypocrite then you will have a case to answer to, as it is, all your saying is I agree with his actions so its ok.

Funny but didn't people like DMR and Watchtower say the same thing about the police officers beating up the 16 year old kid in the football thuggery incident, and wasn't they berated for that view?

I see one rule for you and what you believe in and another for what other people believe in.

I am not relying on anything Editor, its your souce not mine, YOU said 'a large amount' and claimed that the report backed up YOUR argument, it doesn't, I showed that, and now all of a sudden I need to bring proof to the table? Proof of what? I didn't claim anything. Your the only one making claims you cannot back up.

Unfortuantely Pcanning, you seem to be getting confused, firstly the report that only included 150 police officers was not a report done by the Rowntree people, it was infact made by a journalist from the Times, and those people are not scientists who have peers they have to answer to.

Secondly the Rowntree report from what was posted did not give ANY numbers at all.

This is the rowntree report in different words, i will give you the information that they give us and ask you a question based on that information, see if you can get the answer right,

"Many people are in a room, Black people are in the room and white people in the room"

That is the extent of the Rowntree information, now for the question.

"How many black people are in the room"

When you can tell me how many black people are in the room based on my statement, then and only then will I put ANY store in the rowntree report.

As it stands right now, other then getting a feeling from it that the police are mainly taking an unofficial stance on cannabis it says nothing at all.

[agricola]

LoK

Originally posted by LordofKaos
I don't for one moment believe that the resources to instigate Zero Tolerance in a borough like hackney are not available.

If you can have 300 police at a football match or at the May Day protest then you can have a reasonable number of police officers on the beat stopping street crime in a single borough.



Policing for events like football, mayday, indeed any major demonstration usually comes from what are called "aid serials". some of them will be from the area in which the event takes place, most of them however will be from (usually surrounding) boroughs, or, in the case of Mayday, from the Met, the BTP and City. The "local" policing is almost always carried out by officers on relief or sector teams; most (if not all) boroughs are stretched and so are unlikely to be able to provide "aid" for Hackney, Brixton or anywhere else, unless a major incident happens (the aftermath of the Movement for Justice march, Operation "Calm" etc).

Originally posted by LordofKaos
When you can prove to me that he isn't a hypocrite then you will have a case to answer to, as it is, all your saying is I agree with his actions so its ok.



correct me if i am wrong but these are allegations made by someone else against him; if he is found to have committed these acts - your argument against him on the basis of hypocrisy comes largely from yourself:

Originally posted by LordofKaos

Brain Paddick decides to go out on patrol with a couple of his officers.

They pull over a young person who happens to have a small quantity of cannabis on them.

One of the police officers decides (as in your report) that he will charge the man for possesion of a controlled substance.

What does Brain Paddick do?

What does the man that sat and watched his friend in his house smoking this self same substance do right now?

If he forces the police officer to not arrest the man, then he is a hypocrite, he is employed to uphold the law and he isn't doing so.

If he lets the person be arrested, then he is a hypocrite for allowing someone else to be arrested for a crime that he watched his friend commit and did nothing.

[/B]

and

QUOTE]Originally posted by LordofKaos
As it stands right now, other then getting a feeling from it that the police are mainly taking an unofficial stance on cannabis it says nothing at all.


this is a pilot approved by the Home Office and the MPA, and popular with the people of Brixton as well as the overwhelming majority of police:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,464568,00.html

http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,709108,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,671496,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1873000/1873970.stm

http://www.mpa.gov.uk/news/press/02-031.asp

http://195.167.170.93/downloads/pspm-020411-12-appendix01.pdf (this is an adobe acrobat file)

[editor]

I don't care what the people of Brixton think, that doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocrite And that neatly sums up why Brixton residents can safely ignore your inaccurate ramblings.

And if you think that any London borough has the resources to instigate a policy of zero tolerance, arresting every single person who commits any kind of crime - from dropping litter to being drunk and disorderly - then you're clearly living in cloud cuckoo land. Why do you think Paddick was forced to introduce his cannabis experiment?

And as for the statistics I have provided, perhaps I'd better explain the procedure: I have offered independent evidence that strongly suggests that a significiant amount of police officers have smoked cannabis.

If you think those figures are wrong, the onus is on you to produce a credible contradictory source, otherwise it's clear that you're basing your opinions on nothing more than your own pure prejudice.

It's clear you know fuck all about policing Brixton and even less about available police resources, but feel free to explain exactly how this zero tolerance would improve community relations and clear up gun crime in Brixton and who would foot the immense costs of implementing it.

[DailyMailReader]

Originally posted by editor
Why do you think Paddick was forced to introduce his cannabis experiment?

So does a vast under resourcing make it alright to ignore some laws ?
Why should a kid stopped in a 'quiet' London borough get a criminal record for drugs and a kid stopped in Lambeth not get one ?

How do we decide what laws the police can turn a blind eye too and what ones they can't ?

[editor]

DMR: please get your facts right.

The police are NOT repeat NOT 'turning a blind eye' to dope smoking in Lambeth. Got that?

If you openly deal cannabis you will be busted. If you openly smoke it on the streets, you will be given a warning and your cannabis confiscated - much like what regularly happens elsewhere.

Perhaps you think that wasting a huge part of an officer's day processing someone caught harmlessly smoking a spliff is worthwhile, but I would prefer scarce police resources to be directed at the things that are causing real harm in MY community: like gun- related crime, smack/crack dealing and street robberies.

And I'm not the only one that thinks that way: 83% of Lambeth residents endorsed Paddick's policies recently, but as a non-resident of Lambeth your complete lack of comprehension of the community's needs is understandable.

But seeing as you've been so quick to constantly criticise, what would you have done in Paddick's position, given the limited resources and crime profile of the area?

I wonder if you'd be prepared to pay the vastly increased taxes needed to finance the kind of policing you want in inner cities?

[pooka]

Originally posted by DailyMailReader
How do we decide what laws the police can turn a blind eye too and what ones they can't ?

Easy. Draft the statutes in such a way that it is clear what is and what isn't within the polices discretion. Since no one has suggested that Lambeth Police have acted outside the law,, we muct assume that that is what is happening in this case.

[LordofKaos]

I like the way that you completely ignore my statement that blows you out of the water Editor, nice bit of avoiddance there.

Let me repeat if for you though, and see if you can come up with a legitimate answer this time, instead of just ignoring it. I will even put it in bold so you cannot miss it.

as it is, all your saying is, I agree with his actions so its ok.

Funny but didn't people like DMR and Watchtower say the same thing about the police officers beating up the 16 year old kid in the football thuggery incident, and wasn't they berated for that view?

When you can deal with that you might have some sort of leg to stand on, as it is you have nothing.

You want one rule for yourself and what you think is right and one rule for everyone else.

And as for the statistics I have provided, perhaps I'd better explain the procedure: I have offered independent evidence that strongly suggests that a significiant amount of police officers have smoked cannabis.

Look I have already torn that report to shreds, the ridiculously low number of police officers it asked makes it meaningless, yeah it sounds good saying half of police officers asked, but when it turns out you only bothered to ask two police officers it kinda takes away from the credability.

Its not upto me to produce evidence that refutes something that by its own is meaningless. Produce some evidence worth refuting and I will endeavour to find something that refutes it, when I can refute the evidence on its own due to its lack of scientific basis I have no need of further evidence.

It's clear you know fuck all about policing Brixton and even less about available police resources, but feel free to explain exactly how this zero tolerance would improve community relations and clear up gun crime in Brixton and who would foot the immense costs of implementing it.

And when exactly did I say i know anything about policing brixton?

Please show me?

I talked about a hypocrite who let a friend disobey the law, a policeman whose job it is to uphold that law.

Like I said before its one thing to allow a bit of leniance because it is better for the community, it is another thing entirely to do it because it is your friend.

You know it, I know it, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it.

There was talk in that other thread on the holigans about other policeman coming forward and giving evidence on their friends.....funny how the comparison can now be made isn't it.

Many of the people here feel that these policeman should come forward and give evidence against their friends, yet they felt it was totally ok for this policeman to not do anything about his friend....why? because they agree with what that person did,

Yet when it is clearly shown to you that people like DMR and WT are quite inclined to say the same thing about the police beating up a football holigan, "he got what he deserved" you are up in arms and the first to complain, because you do not agree.

Your all fucking hypocrites, its ok whilst you agree but then once you don't agree anymore you want it differently.

Make up your fucking minds.

You either want the police to uphold the law even when it involves their friends or you don't.

[LordofKaos]

In reply to agricola.

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he had admitted to it? I could be wrong, but if I am he should be making more of a public denial as this is the idea that I have gotten.

Also,

Instead of arresting and charging users, confiscation and a verbal warning should be enough, he argues.

Brain Paddick said that.

So how exactly does Brain Paddick go about confiscating and giving a verbal warning to someone smoking in his own house?

Not to mention that this incident supposedly happened years before he said this and years before the laws on cannabis were relaxed.

I am glad that the laws on cannabis are changing, it can only be a good thing, but that does not mean that I agree that police officers who are paid to uphold the law are entitled to ignore that law for their friends. Even if the people of Brixton agree.

As I stated above in my reply to editor that is a dirty and nasty road to be walking down.

[ChrisFilter]

Oh gawd! :rolleyes: It's amazing how little a clue some people have isn't it! How have you got through life this far without opening your eyes? :confused:

Still, it's not fair of me to look down on you, you just haven't learnt yet.. maybe you never will, let's hope you do! ;) I sound like one of those annoying christian recruitment people innit! ;)

One serious question tho "Lord" - what would you do if you caught your partner speeding, or littering, or smoking a little bit of dope? Ring the police, perform a citizens arrest? I'm genuinely interested and hope my previous piss-taking doesn't stop you from answering.

[ChrisFilter]

Couple of other things - what do you do for a living? do you continue to do this once you are at home, having got back from work?

If Brian has have arrested his partner IF he was smoking weed, would you be happy to have his overtime come out of your pay packet in the form of tax?

one more, lordofkaos - seems like a completely unchaotic, even drab world you want to live in.. lordoforder perhaps?

[LordofKaos]

You really are clueless arn't you.

One serious question tho "Lord" - what would you do if you caught your partner speeding, or littering, or smoking a little bit of dope? Ring the police, perform a citizens arrest? I'm genuinely interested and hope my previous piss-taking doesn't stop you from answering.

I would do nothing, because I did not sign up to uphold the law.

Can you get that through your head? how there is a difference between what I do and what a police officer does?

Again I point you to the holigan thread, how people said it was one thing for the holigans to be using violence but it was wrong for the police to be using the same violence, why? because they have to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Now take your petty name calling and piss off, cause you are clearly not intelligent enough to enter this debate.

[white rabbit]

There was a police recruitment campaign some time ago. I can't remember when it was in the '70s or '80s I think. It described a situation where you were a policeman out with your mates at a party and someone started to skin up. What do you do? It was a breakthrough in recruitment. It appealed to people who had already realised that this is a grey area and that the old notion of how a policeman should act was outdated. It was a huge success and there was a surge in applications. This was a long time ago LoK but you seem still to be bound up in it. Being a copper means having to uphold the law obviously, but if you are to be effective it also means that you have to take the responsibility to evaluate what is sensible in a given situation. No one can be expected to be a Dalek and follow the letter of the law all the time. That would not only be illogical, it would be ludicrous. If you want the police force to be like that then fine, you go off and try to recruit those people. I wish you luck! In the meantime realise that rational decisions have to be reached that make policing sensible and effective.

[LordofKaos]

Ahh logical debate, now thats a lot more like it.

It must have been in the 70's WhiteRabbit because I have no memory of it at all.

And in the last 20 odd years I can remember I have never seen another like it.

I understand that the police are not Daleks, and that whilst at a party they might decide to not get involved with what is small time drug taking.

I can also understand why Brain Paddick did it.

There is a difference though.

That is a party where someone else is doing it, possibly someone you do not even know.

Here is Brain Paddick in his own home watching his partner do it.

There is a subtle but very obvious difference here.

Is he ignoring the law because its petty and he doesn't really want to get involved...as in your example.

Or is he ignoring the law because it is his friend.

There is the difference between the two, and if you are honest you must see that there is a difference.

- oh and as an edit, considering the amount of bantering in this thread about evidence, could you provide some to prove this advert existed?

[pcanning]

Guardian
Sunday August 19, 2001

Police face random drug tests: Officers who fail could be sacked

Nick Paton Walsh

Police officers are to face random drugs tests in an unprecedented crackdown on the growing problem of substance abuse in forces throughout Britain.

To the dismay of some serving officers, anybody failing a test could face dismissal under the controversial proposals being drawn up.

The scheme, which is expected to be introduced first in the Metropolitan Police, will see officers of all ranks tested. They may also face random alcohol testing.

The move comes amid growing evidence that drug use within the police is becoming commonplace, particularly among younger officers, in line with the growing acceptance of drug taking among the public.

But sources say the police cannot be seen to be charging members of the public for drugs offences when officers are themselves committing them.

'We want to be flawless when it comes to substance abuse,' said a senior Scotland Yard source. 'Drug use has no place in a modern police force.'

Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Britain's most powerful policeman, has ordered one of his deputies to implement random drug testing for all officers in London. Other forces are expected to follow suit.

Stevens has instructed Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, head of the Met's new Drugs Directorate, to find the best method of introducing tests.

The move is supported by Ministers and senior police officers in other forces. The police union in London, the Metropolitan Police Federation, said last night it was not opposed to random drug tests, provided they were of a high quality.

Federation vice-chairman Dave Rodgers said: 'No one would want to work with someone whose ability is impaired by substance abuse. We do not want to see officers committing an offence either. The tests would have to be of the highest quality - which can be expensive. The stigma of an incorrect test result is hard to shake.'

Research has revealed a burgeoning 'drug culture' within forces proportionate to that among members of the public.

A Home Office-sponsored questionnaire by North Yorkshire Police and Middlesex University, the results of which will be published in October, found cannabis use among officers growing, mirroring public consumption - 42 per cent of 16- to 29-year-olds have taken the drug.

However, alcohol abuse was found to be 20 times more damaging to safety and productivity than the use of other substances. Senior officers may extend the new tests to cover alcohol.

Experts believe the tests could improve health and safety. Last year 25 people died in accidents involving police cars - a 178 per cent rise since 1997. Officers also take 11.5 sick days a year - nearly four more than the national average.

It is expected that tests will also form part of the recruitment process, with all potential recruits being asked to participate.

Guidelines published by the Association of Chief Police Officers outline a framework in which chief constables are permitted to introduce 'rolling random drug and drink testing'. But legal experts believe compulsory testing is a grey area.

[white rabbit]

LoK: I assure you I'm not making this up. I've had a quick search on the web with no success but I remember this campaign very clearly. Nevertheless, there are circumstances when obeying the letter of the law does you more harm than good. That was the point I was trying to make. Even if what you are saying is correct, and I don't think enough is known about the situation to say with certainty, what possible good would it have done for him to escort his then bf down to the nick? I think that there a very good argument that it would have been an altogether worse thing to have done than to have let it lie. But I repeat, there is too much about this whole situation that is either contentious or just unknown for us to say anything definitively.

Let's also not forget that this has been the subject of an investigation and he has been exonerated. Not something they are likely to do unless there is a very good reason.

[LordofKaos]

I didn't think you were White Rabbit, but since evidence and proof are being bandied about in the thread, I felt it would be appropriate that if you could, you should provide evidence.

Pcanning, that is by far better evidence to back up editors claim of 'a large number' then any he has produced, he should be in shortly to thank you.

I don't think it actually changes the basic argument, is a police officer allowed to ignore the law where his friends are concerned, I don't think they are.

White Rabbit whilst I agree that nothing could have been gained by his taking his partner to the local police station and charged, he should never have let it happen.

It should have been clear that this sort of behaviour was not acceptable.

He does admit to the newspaper, however, that he did not tell his superiors about the bail and that his ex-partner did buy the drug while they were living together.

I should point out that BP was accused of smoking cannabis himself which he has strenously denied.

I should point out something else as well, I am not looking for BP to get the sack, be demoted or have any other kind of serious charge made against him.

But he has broken the rules, no amount of running around on these boards can change that. And for that he needs to be disciplined.

You cannot have a major police officer break the rules and have nothing done about it, no matter how much you might like the man (and frankly I do like the man) it doesn't matter about your personal opinions.

He broke the rules, he has to be disciplined.

[freethepeeps]

So, there's a senior cop, his wife has a debilitating disease which causes her a lot of pain. Nothing that the doctor prescribes seems to help. A fellow sufferer convinces her to try a spliff, she does so reluctantly, but it helps more than anything else has, it alleviates the pain other stuff doesn't reach.

She does it out of view of her husband for months, then one night she is standing in the garden, having a joint and her husband wakes up and comes looking for her. He finds her smoking a joint.

What should he do?

According to Lord of the Kops , he should bundle her into the car, drive her to the nearest police station and nick her!

Same applies if he finds his son or daughter having a smoke,

So, Lord of Konservatism, supporter of DMR and watchtower and profound advocate of authoritarian social structures, do you still think that you can't possibly be a right-wing twat because you've got long hair?

ROTFLMFAO

[watchtower]

difference between a seriousely ill person and your boyfriend. Isn't there???? At least i think there is!!

[freethepeeps]

But according to your logic it would be hypocritical for a cop to ignore either, no?

Or are you saying that cops should use their discretion when deciding whether or not to grass up their partners or other members of their family?

:eek:

[LordofKaos]

I will refute the argument despite your being a facist.

Your wife is ill you say, your a policeman and the only thing that makes her feel better is smoking a joint?

Then quit your fucking job.

If your wife/son/mother means that much to you, quit your job.

How can you go to work the next day and arrest someone for doing what your wife does and not be a hypocrite?

Don't try to enforce socities rules on me unless you follow them yourself, if you do not, then expect me to on your case when I find out.

IF that makes me a conservative like I said I don't care.

Yes I am conservative when it comes to law and order and immigration.

Do I give a fuck about the fact that I am a conservative on these issues?

No I don't

So stop trying to be an oppresive prick and accept that not everyone fits into your little pidgeon holes.

[freethepeeps]

Originally posted by LordofKaos
Freethepeeps, I would refute your argument, but your nothing but a name calling facist, and I don't deal with facists.

Erm, are you calling me a "name calling facist" ?

And maybe that's because you can't refute my argument.

And BTW, I couldn't possibly be a fascist because I've got short hair!

:eek:

[Anna Key]

a police recruitment campaign some time ago. I can't remember when it was in the '70s or '80s I think. It described a situation where you were a policeman out with your mates at a party and someone started to skin up. What do you do? It was a breakthrough in recruitment.

I remember this.

It was in the 80s or 90s. Good looking young copper at party... lotsa booze... good time being had by all... then oh my god it's a spliff shock horror...

I may be wrong but think the advert left it open as to what the fictional copper then did - ignore or arrest or take to one side for a chat or demand it be shared or pull out his own stash or what.

I think the idea was that the OB can also be paid-up members of the human race and exercise discretion.

[LordofKaos]

You are a fascist, you try to oppress people who do not share your opinions, like that is some sort of crime.

That makes you a fascist.

It also makes you a bit of a prick too, but thats beside the point.

[freethepeeps]

..... oppress you oh sensitive one?

And are you denying that you are pro-cops, pro the views of DMR and wusstroll, and profoundly conservative in your outlook?(edited to say that i see you answered some of this in the edited version of your post that I quoted)



And, is it not a teeny weeny bit fascist to want to live in a world where the cops are given carte blanche to harrass anybody who they don't like the look of?

[LordofKaos]

I told you how I feel.

I am left wing when it comes to socio economic situations, trade unions, the rights of the individual and equality, sexual and racial.

I am right wing when it comes to crime and immigration.

I feel no embarassment in that at all, and I don't see anything wrong with it either.

Your oppresive because you cannot make an argument without belittling the person your arguing with, without resorting to petty name calling.

Thats oppresive.

Have I called anyone in this thread names making my argument? (up until you entered and acted like a prick anyway)

No, because I understand not everyone thinks as I do, and I am happy for them to think otherwise, because i am not a fascist, I am more then happy to live and let live, you are not, that also makes you a fascist.

And yes I am pro cop, because they do a tough job, and when a member of your family is attacked on the street the first person you will call is the cops you hate so much.

Like I said in the last thread, you have the right to walk down the street unhindered by ANYONE. When you cannot walk down the street because you are scared that you will be attacked, then you are not walking down the street unhindered anyway, so I would prefer it was a policeman pulling me over and checking I am not a criminal then some cunt with a knife who wants to take my money and stab me up cause he is bored.

(edited since i am unsure you have been in the thread before)

[John Wisehammer]

You think being called "Lord of Konservatism" is oppression and the tyranny of fascism? Blimey, you wouldn't have lasted long under apartheid or Pinochet, would you, you precious flower?

[freethepeeps]

I am left wing when it comes to ..... the rights of the individual

Except for the fact that want to police to have the power to treat anyone like shit if they feel like it!

I am more then happy to live and let live, you are not, that also makes you a fascist.

Except for the fact that want to police to have the power to treat anyone like shit if they feel like it! And I don't!

Have I called you or anyone else in this thread names making my argument?

yes, like

You really are clueless arn't you
Your all fucking hypocrites

[LordofKaos]

Well John I just wanted to see how he liked being called a fascist, judging by his reaction, he didn't like it.

Notice the change in his posting style?

I did.

He is free to call me what he likes.

When someone who has never meet me and is basing his 'accusations' on a couple of posts on pretty much the same topic to define me then I am not really bothered by it.

[editor]

Kaos: for absolutely the last time: it is accepted police procedure to turn a blind eye to minor offences at the officer's discretion.

I know that in your fascist, zero-tolerance world the police would come down hard on anyone walking home after a few beers singing a little too loudly, a child dropping some litter and every publican who's ever served a drunk, but thank fuck the rest of us live in the real world.

And why you're so heated up about hypcrisy in anyone's guess: it's clear from your own statements that you're a hypocrite too so give it a rest eh?

And no amount of statistical weaseling will alter the fact that in a survey, a large percentage of officers admitted smoking dope.

If you wish to challenge this assertion and claim that no officers ever touch the stuff, produce some facts. (Of course, it's not unheard of for some officers to deal the stuff they confiscate!)

[LordofKaos]

So having the police stop you in the street late of a night and checking your not some nutcase looking to stab someone is 'treating you like shit'

Christ your friends must walk around you like they are walking on egg shells.

You forgot to mention they were both in retaliation Free, I am surprised you didn't quote me calling you names.

You tard.

[freethepeeps]

Notice the change in his posting style?

I don't! Care to elaborate?When someone who has never meet me and is basing his 'accusations' on a couple of posts on pretty much the same topic to define me then I am not really bothered by it.

Um, actually I already called you those things in the "Hackney, more hardcore than Soweto" thread, and you told me that they couldn't be true because you had long hair! You also said that your friends would laugh at the idea of you being called conservative.

Now you admit it is true.

And you can call me a "facist" or, more correctly a fascist as much as you like. The cap doesn't fit, and I ain't gonna wear it!

:rolleyes:

BTW, what is a tard?

[LordofKaos]

If you don't want to see the change feel free.

As to me being a conservative yes my friends would laugh at you for saying I am conservative.

99% of my views are socialist, 1% are conservative, and that makes me a conservative?

Your still a tard.

[editor]

99% of my views are socialist Except when it comes to the rights of the individual walking the streets minding his own business and your cheery clammering for a police state, eh?

[John Wisehammer]

"Your still a tard."

It looks a bit foolish to go around "accusing" people of mental deficiency when you can't even punctuate the insult properly. If you're going to try and make an issue out of it, at least get your own posts straight.

[freethepeeps]

What was that about "name calling facists"?

:confused:

[Complex]

LordofKaos,

Do you understand the term "statistical sampling"? It is a (very boring) branch of statistics that allows the statistician to draw some conclusions about a large population from a smaller subset chosen at random.

Yes, in the "police officers smoked dope" survey, they only talked to 150 officers and then extrapolated the results to cover the 20000+ officers. All that you can say with absolute certainty is that out of 20000 officers, 75 have admitted to smoking dope, and 75 havent. This leaves 19850 that you havent talked to, which leaves the researcher with 2 choices:
1 - spend a lot more money and talk to these remaining officers, or
2 - use statistical techniques to generalise these results over a wider population (assuming that the 150 you did talk to were selected at random)

Every statistician you will ever talk to will go for option 2. It is quicker, easier and cheaper.

Complex.

[ats]

It also gives a strong message when a relatively small sample gives as clear-cut a result as this one. 75 out of 150, in a group where one might expect the figure to be zero, is very unlikely to be the sort of figure caused by a statisticval blip.

[ChrisFilter]

Originally posted by LordofKaos
You really are clueless arn't you.

I would do nothing, because I did not sign up to uphold the law.

Can you get that through your head? how there is a difference between what I do and what a police officer does?

Again I point you to the holigan thread, how people said it was one thing for the holigans to be using violence but it was wrong for the police to be using the same violence, why? because they have to hold themselves to a higher standard.

Now take your petty name calling and piss off, cause you are clearly not intelligent enough to enter this debate.

1. Did you not see my second post? It screws your first and second points up completely.

2. I can't believe you're upset at my name calling, I didn't even swear.

3. I'm more than intelligent enough to enter this debate, but I don't want to, I can't be bothered. The reason for this is that you are never going to allow your viewpoint to be shifted one iota. You just come across as a bit of a prick and i thought I'd have a little fun! Dear lord! ;)

[pooka]

Isn't this getting a bit out of hand and profligate of bandwidth?

Clearly there will be a span of opinion of how to treat a police officer who turns a blind eye to an offence - from "drum em out" through "slap on the wrist" to "shrug of the shoulders". LordofChaos is further to one end of the spectrum than most of us. An interesting opinion, no more.

As regards the Rowntree study. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation is a hugely respected social research foundation and the researchers at South Bank competent and qualified in their field. The research anongst officers was only a small part of their study, details of which can be found at the Josesph Rowntree site. In fact, they were particularly concerned with young officers, and didn't extrapolate their findings to the entire force. But even within that smaller set, it is likely that the error on the estimate is substantial BUT given that the proportion in the sample was 50%, it is likely that the true proportion within younger officers is still large.

[agricola]

pooka as usual makes good points - since the Met is recruiting more and more from universities, and more and more people are going to uni, and more and more people smoke gear anyway, is it such a surprise that more and more policemen have tried it (albeit outside the job of course)

[William of Walworth]

Would you like to further what point in the political spectrum you occupy, L of K? And what papers you read/believe? Just out of interest like?

Because to me what the editor says

In the absence of any other facts, you seem to be relying entirely on your own prejudice.

seems to sum your perspective up quite well.

You say that you are right wing on crime and immigration. I suppose I now have to look forward to seeing your posts on some immigration-related threads ... :(

[pcanning]

this appears to be a circular argument which I've returned to.

To pick up on LofK's main point. I would like to know what sort of rules exist in the police force for discretionary decisions? there must be something.

If there isn't then it is up to the individual cop at that individual moment and that allows for disciminatory decisions - i.e. picking up a guy with dreads for smoking dope but not a middle aged businessman.

One instance in which cops could apply 'the law' but don't always is the array of oppresive laws still on the books which police gay sexuality and which are specific to gay men. I understand that some forces (the Met perhaps included?) do choose to ignore cottaging, for example, but others don't. another example would be blasphemy. there must be lots of other unenforced law.

so:

1. what would LofK propose as the sort of rules he'd like about discretionary decisions?
2. what do our police/police knowledgable contributors know about internal rules concerning police discretion?

[Anna Key]

Yes, and I'd like to know about the privacy implications LofK's position.

It seems to me that, according to LofK's argument about Brian Paddick being under a duty to shop his (then) lover, a police officer's right to a private life is severely threatened.

Under Police Regulations, does a police officer REALLY risk disciplinary action if sh/e witnesses an (alleged) illegal act committed by a partner and doesn't immediately finger that partner?

If so, I suspect the Regulations are open to challenge under the new Human Rights Act. Even the OB are entitled to some 'quality time' (don't you HATE that expression).

The Regs are, after all, only Statutory Instruments so open to scrutiny by a judge, both in the UK and in Europe).

[William of Walworth]

In any case, in the absence of any criticism whatsoever from L of K of the Mail on Sunday's shitstirring sensationalising, and his obvious unquestioning belief in every aspect of their "story", we can conclude with reasonable clarity that he prefers to believe a homophobic witchhunt rather than the facts ...

[DailyMailReader]

Originally posted by Anna Key
Under Police Regulations, does a police officer REALLY risk disciplinary action if sh/e witnesses an (alleged) illegal act committed by a partner and doesn't immediately finger that partner?

It's not a discipline offence, it's a criminal offence of Malfeasance.

[agricola]

Anna,

the burden of proof in a discipline inquiry is that of the civil court -"on the balance of probabilities", rather than the "beyond all reasonable doubt" of the criminal court.
schedule 1 of the Police Regulations 1999 states:

"1. honesty and integrity: it is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honest and integrity of police officers. Officers should therefor be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity"

if a loved one or friend committed an "illegal" act (although of course it would depend on the seriousness) and then the officer who was with them either failed to deal with it, or dealt with it in a way that was prejudicial to the other party, then that officer would go through the disciplinary procedure, with all that that entails, and with less proof (see above) required than in a criminal trial itself.

[agricola]

DMR,

malfeasance trials are rare, i can only think of the Sussex shooting case, it could be attempting to pervert or perverting the course of justice (depending on what had happened) but the OB are much more likely to use the discipline code because its easier to get a "result" due to the lower burden of proof

agricola

[Anna Key]

Thanks for those replies.

I thought the higher (criminal) burden of proof applied to the OB in disciplinary cases, or has that been changed?

The idea always was (in police circles at least) that a police officer, owing to the nature of the job, was bound to attract false accusations (e.g. from angry criminals) and the higher burden of proof required was to provide some protection from this.

[agricola]

nah, its been like that since at least 1999 when the new discipline code came in.

[Mrs Magpie]

Originally posted by pcanning
One instance in which cops could apply 'the law' but don't always is the array of oppresive laws still on the books which police gay sexuality and which are specific to gay men. I understand that some forces (the Met perhaps included?) do choose to ignore cottaging, for example, but others don't.

I think I'm right in saying that there hasn't been an attempt to arrest for cottaging in the Met for 6 years........

[Anna Key]

...nah, its been like that since at least 1999 when the new discipline code came in.

It seems the standard of proof changed about then:-


[Hansard 21 Apr 1999 : Column 1025 The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng):]

"We have lowered the standard of proof required at a disciplinary hearing from the criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" to the civil standard of "on the balance of probabilities". I hope my hon. Friend will accept that that in itself makes the procedure more effective, but it has also made it possible to remove the "double jeopardy" restriction. That means that, in a case in which criminal proceedings against an officer are restricted to matters where the evidence is sufficient to meet the higher standard of proof, it will in future be possible to charge him with other related matters where the evidence is sufficient only to meet the lower standard of proof. Forces can now bring discipline charges that reflect a wider pattern of misconduct. That option was not available under the old procedure..."

http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/cm199899/cmhansrd/vo990421/debtext/90421-53.htm

[LordofKaos]

Would you like to further what point in the political spectrum you occupy, L of K? And what papers you read/believe? Just out of interest like?

Not sure, how much more information would you like? I have already told you my stance on some of the most important issues?

To what papers i do read, I don't read any of them, I don't watch TV much and most if not all of my information comes from the net.

I cannot remember what i was replying to at that instance, if you mean my reply that I didn't think that his evidence was very compelling I still don't asking 150 police officers is a ridiculously low number.

I was more convinced by the evidence shown by Pcanning in which the police clearly see it as a problem, that is by far more compelling then asking 150 police officers.

In any case, in the absence of any criticism whatsoever from L of K of the Mail on Sunday's shitstirring

You can shove that one right up your arse matey.

How can I criticise something I did not even know existed? I got my information from the net, in which BP ADMITS to his friend buying dope whilst living with him.

http://www.channel4.com/news/home/20020318/Story03.htm

There you go it was channel 4. In which he admits that his partner bought the drug whilst they were living together, although this does allude back to the newpaper story as evidence.

I don't read the daily mail, nor the express, nor the mirror nor the sun, nor the times, nor the guardian.

He as a high ranking police officer allowed someone to commit a crime in his house and he has admitted to it. He should be disciplined.

Anna I would like to point out that I never said he should have shopped his friend, I never said that, what I said was that he should never have allowed him to break the law in his house.

Judging by what Agricola posted, I am 100% percent correct in my assumption that BP broke the rules and should be disciplined.

[Anna Key]

Anna I would like to point out that I never said he should have shopped his friend, I never said that, what I said was that he should never have allowed him to break the law in his house.

One entails the other doesn't it? How could he enforce the law in relation to his then lover without shopping him, i.e. doing something like Jack Straw did to his son; reporting him to the local Nick?

Judging by what Agricola posted, I am 100% percent correct in my assumption that BP broke the rules and should be disciplined.

IMHO it's best to await the outcome of the investigation and disciplinary hearing, should the latter even take place.

[William of Walworth]

Judging by what Agricola posted, I am 100% percent correct in my assumption that BP broke the rules and should be disciplined.

OK, but you seem to be ignoring all the other information (considerable!) that is available here!

[LordofKaos]

Well he could have just said...don't buy that shit or bring it into my house ever again, I am a police officer and if you do, then I will be taking you down to the police station and issuing you with a warning.

He decided not to due to it being his friend. (if what is said is true of course, he could be innocent of all charges and even the things he is reported to have said could be untrue, though that I find more unlikely)

I don't really think anything that has been said here is of that much relevence to this William, he is bound by the rules of the police force not the rules of the U75 message boards, and agricola posted those rules, and they are quite clear, on not only what shouldn't be done, but really why they shouldn't be done.

I think that is pretty clear cut.

Of couse he could be innocent of all charges in which case this entire debate is redundant, but I am going on the position that while most of the charges levelled at him (smoking cannabis himself, having sex with someone on the gatwick express) are completely erroneous, he is guilty of allowing someone to buy and smoke cannabis in his house.

[William of Walworth]

Of couse he could be innocent of all charges in which case this entire debate is redundant

You seem to be assuming guilty as charged. In most legal situations innocent til proven guilty applies ... no more time ...

[Anna Key]

... he could have just said...don't buy that shit or bring it into my house ever again, I am a police officer and if you do, then I will be taking you down to the police station and issuing you with a warning.

OK he could have said that (if these were the precise circumstances - something for the investigation to establish).

But this still leaves my earlier point about the private life of a police officer, and I'd be interested to hear what you think about that.

The regulations state (from agricola's post):

"1. honesty and integrity: it is of paramount importance that the public has faith in the honest and integrity of police officers. Officers should therefor be open and truthful in their dealings; avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution; and discharge their duties with integrity"

I think there's a good case for saying that a police officer must balance the need to be "open and truthful in their dealings" with the need to preserve his/her private life.

If one takes your position to it's logical conclusion, an OB must warn or arrest his/her partner should s/he drop litter in the street. Built into your argument is the destruction of a police officer's private life (unless cohabiting with a saint).

A further affect of your demand for such extreme rigour in private life would be the entire OB grinding to a halt. Coppers would be spending their entire time before disciplinary tribunals, or informing their Chief Constables that the Mrs had parked on a double yellow line.

And this goes to the root of the cannabis debate (no pun intended). Most sensible people (even members of ACPO) recognise that dope crime is very minor - like dropping litter. I'd rather see someone skin up than drop a McDonalds wrapper.

There's also the question of whether the Police Regs, as interpreted by you, would resist a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act. IMHO they would not. The Act, after all, guarantees family life and privacy.

Your interpretation of the Regs flys in the face of those rights in relation to a serving police officers. Accordingly, a judge would have to decide which was correct.

I suspect the decision would be that a copper's spouse should be permitted to be a day late paying the TV license, without being shopped to the Chief Constable, and that no breach of her husband's employment contract took place when he failed to be "open and truthful" with regard to the TV license.

Also, don't forget we're dealing with a witness who was paid a large sum of money to say what he said, and who then ran off. Evidence from such a source is tainted, to say the least.

[William of Walworth]

Excellent post Anna.

I am particularly interested to see L of K's response to your last paragraph :

Also, don't forget we're dealing with a witness who was paid a large sum of money to say what he said, and who then ran off. Evidence from such a source is tainted, to say the least.

Do you agree, L of K?

And indeed your response to all of the above posts <edit : actually I meant all the above paragraphs in Anna's post> would be of interest ...

L of K, the logic of your "argument", once you extend it to all Police and not just apply it to the one copper you are determined to be prejudiced against (and it's obvious from your posts that you start from a fixed, pre-set determination that Brian Paddick is bad, and that you are only interested in those sources that appear to support that view), is that you favour wasting Police time and undermining their effectiveness at their job.

No?

[Anna Key]

... is that you favour wasting Police time

Hey, that's against the law, isn't it?

[hatboy]

This is all so pedantic. Most people round here I talk to think that he should come back whether he smoked weed/his partner smoked or not. The good he's done round here far outweighs the minor misdemenors he's accused off.

In the real world, bullshit rules aside, he's actually better qualified to pronounce on drug policy if he's smoked weed than if not.

It's his honesty that has attracted so much public support.

[Anna Key]

They say the same to me. Trouble is, few people late night at the Queen (in my experience) sit on police disciplinary panels (thankfully).

I agree. It's highly pedantic. But IMHO the basic point is sound: coppers should be entitled to a private life.


<Edited, after a pedant laughed at my spelling>

[ats]

Originally posted by hatboy
he's actually better qualified to pronounce on drug policy if he's smoked weed than if not.

I don't agree on that one, Hatboy. The logic of it just doesn't follow through. Would he be even better qualified if he did a few rocks of crack? Became a heroin addict?

Or try applying it to other crimes. Would he be better equiped to deal with burglary if he broke into a few houses himself?

I think Brian Paddick is equipped to pronounce on drugs policy because he is intelligent, well-informed about the issues and open-minded. He doesn't need to have done dope himself as well.

(I do agree with your comment about his honesty.)

[hatboy]

Well I feel much better qualified to talk about crack having tried it and rejected it. There are too many people who pronounce on things they've little or no experience of. But yes, you can use your close proximity to the subject, your common sense and your empathy too.

[Jazzz]

Potentially misleading diversion... but must reply to ats

Or try applying it to other crimes. Would he be better equiped to deal with burglary if he broke into a few houses himself?

well, yes in fact. 'Set a thief to catch a thief'

[LordofKaos]

Anna I don't think you have taken the correct sentence from the rule.

"open and truthful in their dealings"

Is not the relevent sentence in the ruling.

The relevent sentence is:

"avoid being improperly beholden to any person or institution"

If he allows someone to smoke and buy dope in his house, then he is beholden to that person.

I don't think anyone would argue that a police officer is beholden to his wife if she littered.

Still I would like to see a police officer turn around to his wife and say don't litter, cause i think litter is the scourge of this country.

So what laws are not effected by these privacy laws then Anna, laws YOU choose?

Should a police officer shop his wife if she is guilty of murder? How about his son who is guilty of paedophilia?

Yet again you show the desire of the people on this board to decide what laws are obeyed and what laws are not, that is not your place.

William, unforunately as I saw it, BP admitted to allowing his partner to buy dope whilst living with him, showing prior knowledge, as to what his parnter accused, he accused a lot more then what i have ever alluded to, and I ignored most of that because I didn't actually see that it had any basis in truth as of this time.

I don't see enforcing the law as wasting police time William? shirely that is what they are there for?

[pcanning]

you appear to have recognised the point people are trying to make about police discretion as opposed to blind obedience to the law here:

LofK: "I would like to see a police officer turn around to his wife and say don't litter, cause i think litter is the scourge of this country.
Should a police officer shop his wife if she is guilty of murder? How about his son who is guilty of paedophilia?"

well breaking the law on littering is still breaking the law. from the above comments you put this lawbreaking in one camp - allowable discretion - and murder, paedophilia and smoking dope in another - must always shop partner.

speaking of murder .. a far more important instance where a partner *should have been shopped by colleagues was the policeman who killed his wife last year. it was well known before that he was bashing her but a blind eye was turned. even worse, the Mail I recall and probably The Sun practically eulogised the cop as a 'good bloke'.

As I said before (and got no answer, grr), given that this discretion happens haphazardly what, in practise, are the rules about it? and I'm concerned not from the perspective of disciplining cops about their partner's indiscretions but from the perspective of the public nabbed by cops in one area but ignored in another.

[LordofKaos]

I would say there are two points to that discretion Pcanning.

Firstly, does the crime effect another person. Paedophilia, Murder involves a third party.

Littering does not generally involve a third person, nor does in my opinion smoking cannabis.

The second criteria is, are you beholden to that person for allowing that crime to pass.

In all the examples except littering I would contend that the police officer would be in a position of being beholden to another for showing discretion.

Thus he shouldn't show discretion.

In the case with crimes like taking cannabis by a partner, a friend, a family member. I think a certain amount of discretion is allowable, but not in your own home, its one thing to turn a blind eye to someone you know who is taking the drug privately, its another to allow it in your home, by its very merit you are beholden to that person now, if by no other means then the fact that he is now capable of doing to you what has been done to Brian Paddick.

I do make the distinction between seeing it in the street or at a party and having it in your own home.

[detective-boy]

The source of the problem being discussed here is the fact that individual constables hold individual office under the Crown. In effect, that means that they can exercise discretion at all times as to what they do, and don't do, in relation to applying the law.

Discretion is essential - if all coppers reported everyone for everything they'd never get 10yds from the station door. This is why the Police Federations occasional rumbles about "work-to-rule" type action is so scary to the bosses.

Someone asked (pcanning I think) what guidelines officers got re- exercising that discretion. Agricola has already mentioned the Police Regulations which give the black-and-white answer. Unfortunately, like much of life, the reality is grey. As far back as the mid-1980s the then Commissioner, Kenneth Newman, tried to provide such guidance in his "little blue book" (a.k.a. The Principles of Policing and Guidance for Professional Conduct).

To quote from a particularly relevant bit of that (there's 60 pages altogether and it was a little hard going!):

"Clearly if all offences brought to the attention of police or discovered by police were to result in legal action, Courts and police officers would spend most of their time dealing with minor matters at the expense of more serious ones and the public ... would be quick to voice their dismay. Informal action, outside the Courts, is often a more effective way of keeping the peace and maintaining order, and is therefore much in the public interest. And as there are several categories of offences which are often not best dealt with by formal criminal proceedings, it is a cool head, good judgement and a tolerant attitude which are of greatest importance to [a police officer]."

"There is a distinct requirement here for you to be humane and to strike a careful balance of attitudes, not just towards those directly involved in any incident you come across, victim or offender, but towards the interests of the general public also".

Having discussed discretion at great length, he gives a few examples, one "off-duty" one of which sounds familiar!

"What should you do if you see that people, at a party, are smoking a substance which you think may be cannabis?

He goes on to discuss options at far too great a length to quote. They include leaving immediately and going to the local station to report it, staying and trying to identify the dealer, passing a note to the [intelligence unit] or drugs squad or doing nothing at all, depending on how serious / widespread the smoking is and how you balance all the ineterest, including "your obligation to your host".

He concludes "Both over zealousness and undue tolerance are wrong - the former leading to conflict through the unnecessary use of authority, the latter to public dissatisfaction about a lack of police action".

He could have summed it up as "Easy it ain't" and he wasn't even talking about it being your partner as in Brian's case!

The answer is there is no right answer. It will be for the investigation to decide whether the exercise of discretion has been right or wrong and, if the latter, for a criminal or diciplinary board to judge whether it amounts to an offence.

I doubt if there is a single police officer who has not been in a similar position in relation to some illegal act committed by a relative / friend / neighbour ... at some time. I certainly have and it is a bloody difficult situation to be in.

As for the charge of hypocrisy, it's perhaps not as clear as LordofKaos would have us believe. Have we any evidence that Brian has gone round nicking someones mother for permitting their son to smoke dope indoors (a more parallel situation than nicking someone on the street)? Even closer, anyone for allowing their flatmate to smoke in their shared flat (I understand Brian and his partner were joint (pardon the pun!) owners).

I would suspect not - I certainly haven't and I don't know of any cases where it has happened (though I'm sure there have been a few at the "zero-tolerance" end of the market).

LordofKaos, you raise a good point but, I would suggest, it is not as clear a case of hypocrisy as you would have us believe.

As for the statistics, having originally trained as a scientist, I must say I agree with your view that 150 ain't a lot in the big picture. Statisticians would, however, suggest that it is a large enough sample for a major trend to be reliable (and 75 out of 150 would certainly be a major trend)

Look forward to your response, and those of others.

[Mrs Magpie]

Originally posted by detective-boy
having originally trained as a scientist

This seems to be quite common.......I have met a policeman who previously worked on The Human Genome project..........another who had worked in the NHS as a scientist..........it seems to me that this says something about science.........or something.
Mrs Magpie gets confused with tiny statistical samples....

[LordofKaos]

I agree with you Dective-boy.

Its not a clear cut case, its not even clear what has happened and it may never be clear to any of us what did and did not happen.

Brains partner has made some pretty nasty accusations, which to me sound a lot like an upset partner being spiteful.

I could honestly imagi