View Full Version : Paddick may sue the Met
Caspar Hauser
09-04-2002, 11:27
Interesting article in the FT today
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=020409001042&query=Paddick
William of Walworth
09-04-2002, 11:34
More info welcomed subject to sub judice rules!!
Bravo Brian. :) I'll come back to this.
Erm - is this true do we think? Doesn't seem the best tactic to get his job back, at this stage leastways....
Well I hope Brian and his advisors know what they're up to. Publicly backing the Met into a corner- gimme my job back or else- smacks a bit of playing to the gallery and seems more likely to polarise than to charm.
I'd like to think that the clear evidence of a tabloid witchhunt, coupled with an effective record and strong community support would easily offset the relatively trivial charges, even with his (to my mind daft) admissions and give the Met ample room to reinstate him, possibly with a minor ticking off.
As tactics, pushing the Met into wider human rights considerations seems to reduce their scope for face-saving compromise. It certainly gives the homophobic tabloids something else to run with. Whether that will reduce, or increase, his chances of reinstatement remains to be seen.
Question: how long is reinstatement likely to mean? Is Brian fighting to return for six months before being moved, quite normally, to another job or would the job be his until he applies for something elsewhere?
detective-boy
09-04-2002, 15:37
Originally posted by newbie
Question: how long is reinstatement likely to mean? Is Brian fighting to return for six months before being moved, quite normally, to another job or would the job be his until he applies for something elsewhere?
It's hard to say. Commanders are moved about from time to time either at their own request (career development, etc.) or because of organisational needs (due to others moving on / retiring, etc.) A move would also come with any promotion.
If he were reinstated and wished to remain at Brixton, I would guess it would be likely that he would remain there for a year or two unless he requested a move.
(This question opens up the whole issue of continuity of command within the police service - many officers of Insp / Ch.Insp / Supt rank now move on after 12 or 18 months. Not, in my opinion, a desirable situation when cultural change is at the forefront of the agenda).
adi baby
09-04-2002, 15:45
The article does not directly quote Brian so where does this story come from? I would guess that if this is a real story then it would only be relevant after a negative result from the disciplinary hearing anyway. Smells a bot dodgy to me.
This is great stuff, even if it is a legal 'grey area'.
I'll be turning up to the gallery if I can. A chance for Joe Public to make its presence felt IMO.
As for 'shouldn't he get his job back first', well I believe it was Al Capone who observed that sometimes 'a kind word and a gun' often achieved more than 'a kind word'!
What have they removed him on?
The offence of not taking the opportunity to escort a live-in partner down to the cells, and some totally unsubstantiated allegations that no-one cares about anyway.
Totally wrong IMO (if I may be allowed the subjective, somewhat Boolean two-state action-based value system, Theoderic!)
<edited for careless proofing>
I suspect media liberty taking with a story.
It is difficult to allege discrimination when the subject has been promoted on at least six selection boards to the rank of Commander (equivalent of Assistant Chief Constable outside the Met).
Keep this discipline hearing in perspective. Association (in every sense - not just a relationship) with a person on bail is a matter to be reported, and has been for many years. It is a management effort to counter a history of officers meeting persons on bail in order to 'shake them down' for favours about the forthcoming court hearing. It has nothing to do with being gay or otherwise. If there is no suggestion of corruption, and apparantly there is no such allegation in this case, then it is a minor matter.
Similarly I suspect that, if exposure of a police officer countenancing drug use in his premises had been made against a hard line officer, that we would all expect some form of investigation - not an alleged cover up. This is also a minor matter as many Members of Parliament have admitted previous dope use - and no-one is suggesting any prosecution.
Brian was 'moved' away from Brixton pending an enquiry, that appears to be the most speedy I have heard of. He was not 'suspended' or dealt with other than a sideways move to allow an investigation by another senior officer without hazarding te current Brixton experiments in local consultative policing.
It is difficult to see how the matter could have been dealt with at any lesser levels..
That said I remain supportive of his openness, his consultation and his refreshing honesty. He may not be a saviour of policing but he is a change. That does not mean he should be treadted in any way other than the way any other officer would be treated - and that is what he is demanding. No difference, simply no discrimination.
Regards
Eddie E
adi baby
10-04-2002, 09:59
article on page 2 in todays guardian on this - looks like a few opening shots are being fired in the direction of the Met 'disciplinary' hearing. Enough false allegations against Brian to demonstrate harassment on basis of sexual orientaion and lack of comeback against proven harassers so looks very promising. U75 described as 'radical website'. so there!
Rain Man
10-04-2002, 10:07
The link to the article in the guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,681620,00.html
:)
DailyMailReader
10-04-2002, 15:23
Originally posted by Eddie E
It is difficult to allege discrimination when the subject has been promoted on at least six selection boards to the rank of Commander (equivalent of Assistant Chief Constable outside the Met).
Good point.
Brian Paddicks actions and comments, in my opinion, can be best be described as incredibly naive, some even say down right stupid. Certainly not what you would expect from a senior police officer.
Perhaps he has been over promoted, a case of the Metropolitan polices positive discrimination policy.
William of Walworth
10-04-2002, 17:02
Daily Why Oh Why Reader
Any comments to make on the fact that Mr Paddick has been investigated in internal Met enquiries more times PREVIOUS to this than any other senior cop?
It has been suggested that in two of those previous enquiries (in which he was exhonerated) the same senior Met officer (frustratingly unnamed in the Guardian report) was responsible for the allegations (totally fake) leading to those enquiries.
No doubt your paper reported the allegations prominently and ignored the exhonerations.
Does your Daily Mail addled brain accept even the possibility that he might have been stitched up in the past by other coppers who are homophobic bigots?
Does your shit rag ever report with any prominence whatsoever Police Corruption stories elsewhere in the Met (eg Crack and Cocaine dealing just a few years ago by officers based in Stoke Newington Police Station, using supplies seized from gangs whose movements were shopped to these coppers by other gangs).
Does your shit rag ever investigate why so many other Coppers found guilty (unlike Paddick in the past or, so far, in this present instance) in displinary hearings, get retired on full pension?
Do you get your information about Brian Paddick from your sister-shitrag the Mail on Sunday?
Do you ignore every other item of information (apart from the ravings of your pal in opinions Richard Littlejohn)??
Shove tomorrow's copy of your Daily Mail right up your suburban letterbox, bigot.
William of Walworth
10-04-2002, 17:09
And while you're about it, self confessed troll care to apologise to me personally for your slanderous and Mail-style distortion-style suggestion the other day (on a now deleted thread) that I was responsible for "bullying" "William" rather than the other way round, contrary to all available evidence conveniently ignored by yourself? (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5919)
Wanker.
DMR, welcome back, I thought you'd gone for good.
But please try reading this stuff carefully. It's not a particularly good point, since the suggestion appears to be that the Met has failed to properly investigate a homophobic campaign against him, not that homophobia has held back his career.
The rest of your troll is trivial: I've already said that I think his admitting some allegations was daft, but then I've never been doorstepped by a tabloid and can sympathise with an honest person in a difficult position. Really, honest naivety is preferable to a homophobic witchhunt, don't you think?
The real question is not whether Paddick has committed minor breaches of regulations, but why your organ of choice has conducted such a nasty campaign against him. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
DailyMailReader
11-04-2002, 02:35
Originally posted by William of Walworth
1. Any comments to make on the fact that Mr Paddick has been investigated in internal Met enquiries more times PREVIOUS to this than any other senior cop?
2. eg Crack and Cocaine dealing just a few years ago by officers based in Stoke Newington Police Station, using supplies seized from gangs whose movements were shopped to these coppers by other gangs).
3. Does your shit rag ever investigate why so many other Coppers found guilty (unlike Paddick in the past or, so far, in this present instance) in displinary hearings, get retired on full pension?
4. Do you get your information about Brian Paddick from your sister-shitrag the Mail on Sunday?
5. Do you ignore every other item of information (apart from the ravings of your pal in opinions Richard Littlejohn)??
Willy, I've numbered them to make the replies easier. And I'm only posting this to increase my post count. (i'll catch you yet)
1. Dont know. Perhaps he does more bad stuff. He has already admitted to some sackable things I believe.
2. Yes, I believe there was a huge investigation named Operation Jackpot. 27 officers got suspended on the word of convicted drug dealers who said 'They're not my drugs, the police planted them'
Final outcome. 1 officer convicted. Crown court judge summed up the other not guilty cases by saying 'He could not believe the magistrates of the lower court would so easily believe these obviously lying drug dealers.
3. I guess because they've paid in their contributions all their service and they get what they are owed. Should we also stop anyone getting a pension who has ever done anything wrong in their life ?
4. Yes, amongst others.
5. No, not normally.
Have a nice day.
RJ x
Edited because of all the red wine
Oh god, is this all in the Brixton board? Do I have to read it? :rolleyes:
"People were also not just "calling for more visible deterrent patrolling, but for a style of policing responsive to local problems and local needs"
Report by two criminologists, commissioned by the Met - see todays Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682252,00.html
From the Beeb's coverage:
"Short-term targets are diverting resources away from "holistic" measures to build long-term confidence and trust in the police among increasingly diverse communities. "
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1922000/1922652.stm
William of Walworth
11-04-2002, 07:36
<loses will to live>
Sorry hatboy! :o
theoderic
11-04-2002, 08:26
DrJazzz: if you can't let it go, let's take it to the epistemology forum, where it belongs:). But thanks for spelling my name right (it's Gothic, not Greek).
Interesting articles in the FT and the Guardian, no doubt planted by Brian's "legal advisors" (his term), for what purpose one can only speculate. And, unless and until we hear from Brian on the subject, I for one am not going to speculate.
Brian hasn't been heard from in these parts for almost a week, which shouldn't surprise us given that he has other pressing concerns right now, and that he's obviously walking on eggshells in posting here under the scrutiny of a hostile press (I was going to say something about banana skins, but decided against mixing culinary metaphors).
But he's clearly not under the scrutiny of the Guardian's correspondent, Nick Hopkins, who seems unaware of Brian's 43 postings to u75 since his attributed "last" one!
The legal aspects of an action against the Met for encouraging (or not discouraging) homophobia are well covered, as far as I can judge, in the Guardian, and the tactical question of playing that card at this stage is something we're too far from the action to comment on, usefully.
But there are aspects of the wider campaign (i.e. the one we're engaged in outside the Met) that are worth commenting on in the light of this, of Ken Livingstone's less than helpful comments at the time of the Assembly Rooms meeting, and so on. And the main aspect is that this is a campaign about open policing, the engagement of the police with the community. Brian is more than just a symbol of this, he's on the street regularly, he listens and replies to people with genuinely-felt grievances (I'm thinking primarily of Mrs. Bishop), and uses any means available, such as u75, to communicate.
That's what the support BP campaign is about. What it's not about, except contingently, is homophobia in the Met, or rationalising the policing, and ultimately the legal status, of drugs.
Let's keep focused on that. To do otherwise is to fight the battle on the enemy's terrain. The Sun thinks homophobia is good for circulation: the Mail, perhaps more justifiably, thinks its War On Drugs strikes a chord with its Valium-sotted readers.
We know that Brian has enemies in the Met who probably fear above all the threat to vested hierarchical interests posed by "policing by consent". And they, perhaps, have allies in "commerce". You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask cui bono?, as I'm sure detective-boy will verify.
Personally, I hope that when the inquiry is over Brian and his legal advisors will hit the Mail with a libel action that puts it out of circulation!
[edited for typos]
Mrs Magpie
11-04-2002, 11:20
Originally posted by theoderic
thanks for spelling my name right (it's Gothic, not Greek).
mmmm yes, I have been guilty of the Greek not Gothic...which is a bit rich considering I had a rant about people getting Paddicks name wrong..........................My desperate and hastily concocted excuse is that I thought of you as a pillar of classic proportion. Goes away muttering deric not doric, deric not doric........
Peter Matisse
11-04-2002, 12:46
There was an article on The Independent on Wednesday about Brian. In the article it said that he was considering whether he could use the human rights act. It goes on to say that Brian ' is understood to have had talks with friends and colleagues about the possibility of legal action. But he stressed yesterday: ' I have made no decision about whether or not to sue the Met. I'm not threatening legal action at this stage.' It goes on to say, at the end of the article, that Brian met, on Tuesday, with Gordon Clark the Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, who has been brought in to head the police enquiry. If anyone is interested the Humberside police have a web page which you can get to by typing - humberside police - in your search engine.
Part of my job is Personnel, and if I am correct in what I perceive, then Brian is making sure that the investigators know he is going into the investigation well informed about his rights. It is only what I would expect anyone called before a disiplinary hearing to do.
Also in the article it said that Brian denies smoking cannabis, but has admitted allowing his former partner to smoke it in his flat, and breached police guidelines by not informing his superiors that his partner was on bail whilst the were having a relationship. I would like to ask Detective Boy if he could tell us what disiplinary action Brian is likely to face for what he has admitted. The reason I ask is that I heard on the radio recently that a Detective on the Jill Dando case, who had been sacked for giving information to the press without authority, had been re-instated on appeal and fined 13 days pay. If something like that happens to Brian, I for one would be happy to go out and shake a collection tin, and I'm sure many residents of Brixton would join me.
Brian - If you get to read this I hope it was a positive meeting with Gordon Clark - Hang in there.
theoderic
11-04-2002, 12:56
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
a pillar of classic proportion
Meaning I'm thick at the bottom and taper towards the top (or is it the other way round?) ...
Either way, I grant you I could lose a few pounds, Mrs M. But let's observe the proprieties.
Mrs Magpie
11-04-2002, 18:02
ummm no I meant pillar in the sense of pillar of the community, um, classic, well you know Greek and Latin, and um, (digs herself in deeper) proportion, well, you've got a sense of proportion.
theoderic
11-04-2002, 21:40
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
pillar of the community
... sense of proportion.
Well, if you're just going to hurl insults ...
theoderic
11-04-2002, 21:43
deleted for duplication (and the 5th amendment)
Mrs Magpie
11-04-2002, 21:51
Aha! I notice that you don't deny knowing Greek and Latin!....Can you translate something into Latin for me?...I only did Latin for about two years, reasonable vocab, augmented by my horticultural knowledge, but crap grammar...I want to make a T-shirt with "Does my bum look big in this?" in Latin.
theoderic
12-04-2002, 16:06
Mrs M.
How about: grandes videntur nates?
Or, more radically: grandispicit haec pugam?
Further discussion in the Latin thread (http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6185), if I can be arsed.
Mrs Magpie
12-04-2002, 16:14
Thanks Theoderic, brilliant! I have been following the Latin thread in the General Forum with interest.......
<comes over all Daily Telegraph like.........that's what's wrong with Britain today.......no good grounding in the Classics any more in schools these days. It's a national disgrace!>
Hello!
See my letter to the FT published yesterday (Thursday).
1. I have not threatened to sue the Met.
2. I am not subject to disciplinary action - I am being investigated.
3. I have never admitted allowing drugs to be stored in my flat (they refused to publish that point).
4. If in the future I decide to take legal action against the Met., such action will not be dependent on the outcome of the investigation.
To explain point 4.: I am not saying 'sack me (or demote me) and I'll sue'. What I am saying is, if you have treated me unfairly and there is a legal remedy for this unfair treatment, I may, at some point in the future, consider the possibility of taking legal action, whether I get my job back or not. I am not thinking about this at the moment and I have not taken legal advice on this point. Nor do I have, at this stage, the financial backing to take legal advice or legal action against the Met. I think that's clear.:confused:
Thanks Brian!
just to clarify, does this mean....
You are not presently pursuing any course of legal action, but of course keep all options open?
and as for point 3..... what drugs?! :)
Peter Matisse
12-04-2002, 21:12
Another article about Brian on the front page of the Independent today (Friday 12th April). It is about the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) setting up an inquiry into a complaint that Brian has made, about a Commander who knowingly repeated false allegations made against him. Whilst reading this I remembered that when I first read about Brian in the Independent he had said that there was a witch hunt against him because he is gay. Something else struck me as well, I have read how Brian is well thought of and well respected by his officers because of his style of management, how difficult it must be for a gay officer who has a Commander who is homophobic. One of the reasons I think it is important to support Brian is the example he sets for new recruits to the police force, as well as the results he and his officers have acheived in Brixton. I have lived here for a long time and have seen so often the people of Brixton fobbed off with less than the best, in my opinion Brian Paddick is one of the best Commanders in the country, and, as I understand it, he still is our Commander, he has been removed from active duty whilst the investigations are taking place, but has not lost his job. Reading again about some of what he has had to content with during his career my admiration for him grows. I have wondered how the press picked up on the original story, now I wonder just how much initialy came from within the police force itself.
Thanks Brian. It's a shame point 3 wasn't made strongly before now, as your 'admission' has been rather widely reported.
The other clarifications make a lot of sense, and point 4 seems entirely unexceptional.
Best wishes
Mrs Magpie
12-04-2002, 23:33
Just to add;
Brian, there was a reasonable two-page spread about your policies in Lambeth on Thursday in The Standard, which I handed over to Mike in The Albert in a plain brown envelope tonight (I lie, it was actually an A4 white envelope). Hopefully it will get featured on the Paddick page.
Clapham Omnibus
13-04-2002, 02:55
Everyone here is presumbing the worst possible cenario!
Brian has a right to defend himself just as any other person. Also the MPS has a right to prove it takes complaints against police officers seriously.
I think in this case there is an exception. However when does the exception become the rule?
Just in any democracy you cannot have people putting their will before the peoples. That is why we have elections. And contery to some beliefs they are not rigged in this country.
I have an idea who Colin- the- cop is also but I have no evedence to post and anyway I would use MPS diciplinery procedures rather than open a can of worms.
The former would not do the MPS MPA or any other body I can think of, justice in they way the collective think.
I reitterate my previous postings on this subject especially so given Brian's ex-wifes comments last month in the printed press.
Good Luck Brian. Get back to what you and your customers want.
C.O.
Unfortunatly you will have to go through the proceedures and my poor spelling for a few months longer. Unless Mike can do something about the latter.:) :):p ;)
just thinking, if it has been reported that Brian has admitted to storing drugs at his flat, when in fact he vehemently denies such a criminal offence, then that would seem to be libellious.
Sue them Brian!
Mrs Magpie
13-04-2002, 19:57
Dr Jazzz,
The flaw in that cunning plan is that libel is a rich mans game. If Brian doesn't have the wherewithall to consider a legal case against the Met, he's hardly likely to potentially ruin himself in the Libel Courts. These papers, eg The Mail on Sunday have huge resources and fancy-schmancy QCs and although I believe that he has right on his side, he is likely to be crushed like a butterfly on a wheel.
There appeared briefly, in the last week, a press release on the Mets website saying that Professional Standards Committee (or some such) had started an enquiry into the complaints against BP by fellow officers. It has now disappeared and can't be retriieved through the Search facility. {edited to add} http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=284086
covers it. The sound of stable doors perhaps...
Streathamite
15-04-2002, 17:43
I can't help feeling that if some anonymous "low-flier" PC had had the same allegations (ESPECIALLY with the same time-lapse factor, and financial gain accrued therefrom, by the maker of the allegations) it would be seen as slap-wrist time, at the most a stiff official reprimand. I may be wide of the mark here, but this whole issue reeks of homophobic witch-hunt.
I would also be interested, Brian, in knowing how much support the Police Fed have given you?
Astonishingly enough, whilst remaining supportive of Brian, I should point out that as an officer gets more senior rank, greater responsibilities and greater remuneration - it is expected to result in ever higher consistant standards of behaviour (generally, not related to sexuality) and it is equally expected that any allegations will be the more rigorously explored.
Don't overreact, at least not yet. This may well be a matter of a slapped wrist and advice. And the sooner it is sorted the better, for Brian and Brixton.
Regards Eddie E
detective-boy
16-04-2002, 22:01
Originally posted by Eddie E
Don't overreact, at least not yet. This may well be a matter of a slapped wrist and advice. And the sooner it is sorted the better, for Brian and Brixton.
I'll second that - patience is necessary unfortunately as these things tend to take weeks and months not hours and days.
I think there have been reports in the press of four months? Which would point to the autumn perhaps, given the way these things go....
Which should perhaps inform strategy for the "campaign"?
DailyMailReader
18-04-2002, 13:35
Originally posted by Mrs Magpie
I want to make a T-shirt with
If you're in Brixton I'd wear this one.
NOMINA STULTORUM PARIETIBUS HOERENT
It makes me laugh everytime I walk past a wall.
Yeah right, very accessible, thanks. What does it mean then?
It means "The names of fools are seen upon the walls." :confused:
Hatboy good luck, if I lived in that ward you'd get my vote.
(edit to add, I meant to respond to the Greens thread, durr!)
DailyMailReader
18-04-2002, 16:47
It's meant as a dig at all the idiots who think it's clever to spray their 'tags' all over the walls.
But somehow I reckon they might not understand it.
Bill stickers and grafitti artists. I hate them both, and Brixton seems to have more than its fair share.
William of Walworth
18-04-2002, 17:13
When were you last in Brixton then?
What provides you with the expertise to sneer this?
But somehow I reckon they might not understand it.
Would you care to share with us the reason for your amazing arrogance?
DailyMailReader
Trainee sycophant
Registered: Mar 2002
Location: Location, Location [5018 old incarnation posts]
Posts: 64
Same attitude to the truth as your paper has, I see.
Then you wonder, or pretend to wonder, why I call you, and almost everybody else here thinks you, a fucking twat.
I am very interested in design and the built environment and agree tagging looks a talentless mess. But big, colourful graffiti looks great and is an acknowledged art form. Also on the corrugated metal that surrounds many derelect plots in London I'd much rather see bright pop fly-posters than the grey metal. The objection to the latter always seems to me to be based not on how the fly-posters really look but on indignation that the advertisers haven't paid for their few feet of wall and that their activities are somehow not legitimate. Fuck legitimacy, let's see some art.
DMR and William - can you please stop taking over threads with your bickering. Aitch has provided you with a thread especially for this. Get in there boys (or boy and girl)! Seriously tho Will, don't rise to the bait so, you keep fuelling the fire. And haven't you said (very eloquently) all you want to say about the Mail and it's readers now? :)
DailyMailReader
18-04-2002, 19:59
Originally posted by William of Walworth
When were you last in Brixton then?
What provides you with the expertise to sneer this?
Probably more recently than you.
Because whenever I've seen someone taging they've been spotty 12 year old sniffing deoderant and wearing back to front baseball hats.
And I have to agree with Hatboy. I'm talking about the twats that spray things like 'TURBO' or some other shite.
Now that thing above the old barbers in Coldharbour just before the Somerlayton turn off, I think it's fantastic. A bit dated but still fantastic.
Strictly speaking that is a mural not graffiti art. (Abit pedantic, sorry). It's called "Nuclear Dawn" and it certainly is extremely redolent of the mores of it's time, the early eighties.
Now have you two stopped fighting? Good, because if things carry on like this I'll have to get the headmaster. ;)
William of Walworth
18-04-2002, 20:37
if things carry on like this I'll have to get the headmaster.
Please do so hatboy. Sooner the better :mad:
Not sure the distinction between tagging and graffiti is so clear in the minds of the perpetrators though:(
William of Walworth
19-04-2002, 11:08
I agree pooka. I have problems all over with this issue, and I think us nice leftie greeny alternativey types are in danger of being over indulgent towards what is basically vandalism a lot of the time. Don't worry I bought me Guardian this morning a usual not .... any other "news"paper ... ;)
I do recognise to some extent some of the social issues, youth alienation, youth culture etc etc that lies behind this phenomenon ...
But bottom line, an awful lot of the time it makes buses, council estates, walls, etc luck as ugly as fuck.
I don't mind tagging myself as I think of it as urban art - I can see why other people may disagree all the same.
I rather see some scribble by a young kid in my neighbour than a billboard advertising some kind fast food, etc.
Sorry this is off topic. I'll go now. ;)
Erm - well, I think once it takes hold, it becomes a bit indiscriminate Scott and so its not just billboards, but the places where people live, their belongings and so on. It's also become synonymous "run-down, shitty area that no-one who has a choice would want to live in". The taggers and graffittists are degrading their own and their neighbours environments. It's rarely original, which seems to me to be a pre-requisite of art.
I must admit my attitude has become more focussed through personal experience. I used to run a white van (indeed, a white van person!) and about once a year, would have to get the T-Cut out to try and get of some inane scribble. It was a pain in the butt and left the paintwork a bit on the thinning side. Interestingly, cars in the street rarely got done - just my van and the doors, walls of the Doctors surgery. Became more than a pain in the butt when the buggers took to using glass cutters to etch their tags on windscreens, which pretty much everyone in the street got a taste off and which often means replacing the windscreen.
So, I've gone from nice liberal " wow, what vibrant urban art" to "bugger, what mindless vandalism - find these kids something better to do!".
William of Walworth
19-04-2002, 14:58
Spot on pooka!
pooka - Good point well made. I can't argue with that.
It just doesn't bother me as much as maybe it should.
Nor me, though it's too dated and unimaginative to be interesting. What's the matter with them, surely it's possible to do something with a spray can that isn't a copy of 1975 New York?
vBulletin® v3.6.10, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.