View Full Version : Paddick news
At a press conference this afternoon Brian Paddick and his legal team will show a letter from the Mail on Sunday in which the paper retracts its accusation from last year that Brian Paddock smoked Cannabis with his partner. The paper will print a retraction this Sunday.
Result!!!!!
Well done, Brian, for getting the Daily Hate Mail bang to rights.
From a press release issued by Paddick:
Brian Paddick is to receive substantial damages, an apology, an undertaking not to repeat the allegations and his legal costs in his ground-breaking action for breach of confidence against the Mail on Sunday. Mr Paddick, who is currently Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police, brought the proceedings after the Mail on Sunday published private and confidential information provided to the newspaper by his former partner and a former fiancée. The settlement came unexpectedly before the trial, which was scheduled to start in February. The Mail on Sunday have also agreed to apologise for a recent allegation that he took drugs and accepted that the allegation is completely false.
Acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner Brian Paddick said
"I am relieved that the Mail on Sunday have at last seen sense and agreed to apologise. They now accept that much of the information they printed about my private life should never have been published and that the main allegation against me was false. Whilst the press have a right to publish information that is genuinely in the public interest, I have been concerned by the increasing number of articles that unjustifiably include confidential information about people's private lives. There has to be a limit to press intrusion and this case helps to draw that line."
His solicitor, Tamsin Allen of Bindman & Partners, said
"This was a real privacy case. Mr Paddick is a senior public servant who is entitled to a private life. It is highly significant that the Mail on Sunday was not prepared to defend its decision to publish intimate details of his relationship with a previous partner. Their decision represents another nail in the coffin of chequebook journalism"
Mr Paddick will be reading a statement at Bindman & Partners, 275 Gray's Inn Road, London WC1X 8QB at 1.30pm on 19 December 2003
Notes to the editor
The articles complained of in the privacy action were published on March 17 and 24 2002. Information in the articles was provided by two of Mr Paddick's former partners and included the false allegation that Mr Paddick smoked cannabis although that was not complained of in the breach of confidence proceedings which were concerned with private and confidential information. The sources were paid £100,000 and £6,000 respectively. It has recently become clear that relations between the source and the journalist broke down after the source was shown to be lying. Nevertheless, his allegations were published.
Following publication of the article Mr Paddick was not suspended but moved sideways to a different job while the allegation that he smoked cannabis was investigated.
The allegation was investigated by the Metropolitan Police Authority and an outside police force, and it was concluded that there was insufficient evidence against Mr Paddick to prosecute him or to institute disciplinary proceedings. Mr Paddick denies ever smoking cannabis and Associated Press have now accepted the allegation to be false.
Mr Paddick contributed to political discussions on an internet message board after negative postings were made by someone who purported to be a policeman. In the course of the debate, he stated that he had always found the concept of anarchism attractive but was convinced that law and order in society was in fact necessary. He has never said that anarchy is attractive. His use of the internet to reach the local community was praised by the Commissioner.
These proceedings were issued in March 2003 and the trial was to start on 2 February 2004.
Excellent news. TMoS fought the law and the law won.
Mr Paddick denies ever smoking cannabis and Associated Press have now accepted the allegation to be false.
I think that this should read Associated Newspapers (publishers of TMoS) and not AP - which is a completely separate organisation
That's brilliant news.
Justice has been done. Well, nearly. He should be reinstated as Commander of Lambeth.
Lock&Light
19-12-2003, 13:00
Originally posted by han
That's brilliant news.
Justice has been done. Well, nearly. He should be reinstated as Commander of Lambeth.
Wouldn't that now be a demotion?
But it is great news to hear that Brian Paddick has got the Hate Mail to retract.
Brixton Hatter
19-12-2003, 13:10
This just goes to show what fucking scum the Daily Hate Mail are. All that hoohah about PC Pot etc - and it was all bollocks. Talk about a hate campaign. We were deprived of a really good copper because of those scum. Not even my granny should be allowed to buy that rag now.
A signed, sealed, and paid-for, by them, ha ha, "up yours" to the Daily Hate Mail.
Congratulations Brian. :)
corporate whore
19-12-2003, 14:24
Guardian says compensation expected to be between £350,000-£400,000,
:eek:
detective-boy
19-12-2003, 15:54
Originally posted by corporate whore
Guardian says compensation expected to be between £350,000-£400,000
Any media lurkers fancy invading my privacy? :D
Pickman's model
19-12-2003, 15:59
nice little earner.
i wonder if any worthy brixton charities have considered targetting a certain potential donor before the entire lot gets given to the some unworthy cop fund.
Pickman's model
19-12-2003, 16:00
Originally posted by Lock&Light
But it is great news to hear that Brian Paddick has got the Hate Mail to retract. shurely his expensive legal team?
IntoStella
19-12-2003, 17:31
One of our freelances was looking at the Brian Paddick story on the Beeb website today, so I got chatting with him about the whole thing and he revealed that he goes to the same gym as Brian and has, in fact, seen our erstwhile Commander in the altogether! :eek: :eek:
I know quite a few people who would pay good money for THAT! :D
detective-boy
19-12-2003, 18:42
Originally posted by IntoStella
One of our freelances was looking at the Brian Paddick story on the Beeb website today, so I got chatting with him about the whole thing and he revealed that he goes to the same gym as Brian and has, in fact, seen our erstwhile Commander in the altogether!
Apparently there were some naked photos involved in the "breach of privacy" proceedings at the start ... but that aspect was thrown out due to a lack of evidence!! :p
(If Bindman & Co are reading - this is meant as a joke - of course there were no such photos)
I have only one thing to say about the result...
Yes!
:D
silentNate
19-12-2003, 19:10
Originally posted by han
That's brilliant news.
Justice has been done. Well, nearly. He should be reinstated as Commander of Lambeth.
Unfortunately he was actually doing a great job in Lambeth and now he never has to return to his old post, I feel like he has gone over to the dark side:(
Stobart Stopper
19-12-2003, 19:12
Originally posted by Brian
I have only one thing to say about the result...
Yes!
:D
well done, Sir! I suppose this means a mega-shopping trip to the Clinique counter?
;)
Other-half sends his best wishes too.
Originally posted by Pickman's model
i wonder if any worthy brixton charities have considered targetting a certain potential donor before the entire lot gets given to the some unworthy cop fund. (Editor emits a loud, hopeful cough)
guinnessdrinker
19-12-2003, 20:16
so, he never smoked cannabis, then? he can't have been so cool then.
What a nice Christmas present - Ho Ho Ho.
Nice one.
Shame the Mail (http://media.guardian.co.uk/presspublishing/story/0,7495,1110639,00.html) can't show a bit of good grace - reads like a bunch of mardy lawyers there. Nothing worse than a bad loser.
Stobart Stopper
20-12-2003, 09:58
Simon Heffer is still attacking you, Brian, in today's Daily Mail.
Orang Utan
20-12-2003, 10:21
Originally posted by Stobart Spotter
Simon Heffer is still attacking you, Brian, in today's Daily Mail.
Must be doing something right then!
Originally posted by Stobart Spotter
Simon Heffer is still attacking you, Brian, in today's Daily Mail.
What are you doing reading the Hate Mail, Stobart?;)
IntoStella
20-12-2003, 13:47
Originally posted by Ms T
What are you doing reading the Hate Mail, Stobart?;) I think it's very heroic of Stobes to endure the extreme psychological suffering of reading that hateful scumrag in order to keep the troops informed of what the enemy are up to. A medal for that woman for services above and beyond! :D
Stobart Stopper
20-12-2003, 14:21
Thanks!
:D
I read the Heffer piece. Almost needless to say no mention of his bosses payout, and a bonkers rationale that linked the Soham balls up with the Paddick allegations.
Heffer sometimes writes well about politics but this piece smacked of being written after too much Port and cheese at the club.
But as has been pointed out, its Paddick who's really laughing.
guinnessdrinker
20-12-2003, 17:45
Originally posted by Brian
I drink Guinness though!
edited to say I pushed the wrong button. anyway, I am meant to say I hate coppers, whoever they are,:mad: but yet some sweet talker comes into the equation and swoons some of the more hardened dangerous anarchist activists in his evil scheme, what I am meant to do:) . anyway, are you sure guinness is my WMD of preference? better get your squad on the case, then....:)
edited further to say: no, I don't mean dope, by the way.
Streathamite
20-12-2003, 20:17
Originally posted by Brian
I have only one thing to say about the result...
Yes!
:D
WELL DONE THAT MAN! And, surely even daily mail readers can see their pet rag hasn't got a leg to stand on, over this one.
Guinnessdrinker-read the original "brian " threads, and swot up on the whole Renolleau affair-If we have to have coppers (and I see them as an unavoidable, regrettable necessity), then I'd rather have the enlightened, progressive policing represented by the (guinness-drinking) gentleman currently centre-stage than any other available alternative
guinnessdrinker
21-12-2003, 13:22
actually I do agree with you, but I just have an instinctive reaction against the police (especially after a few drinks ...). I don't know whether if it is in any of the achived paddick threads, but I am on record for saying that if they don't want him in Lambeth, we'd rather have him in Southwark. so don't take that last reply that seriously.
edited to add: the reason for the slight animosity in the drunken rant above is that now he is no longer the nice cuddly commander of lambeth, but the now doubt hard hitting (if he want to keep his job) boss of the TSGs as I understand it, in charge of demonstrations and so on. if he becomes commander of southwark, I'll have a pint with the man then. but for now, I'll be more suspicious, including while sober.
I still hate coppers, though.
detective-boy
21-12-2003, 18:22
Originally posted by guinnessdrinker
He is no longer the nice cuddly commander of lambeth, but the now doubt hard hitting (if he want to keep his job) boss of the TSGs as I understand it, in charge of demonstrations and so on.
You can relax G-D. He's actually in charge of "Operations Support" which sounds like it includes the TSG ... but doesn't. It includes things like ordinary patrol policy, community safety and partnership activity (the cuddliest bit of all the Met!), the National Intelligence Model and criminal justice (how to lose case files, that sort of thing).
(Well, he is this week, it'll probably all change next week!!)
Brian's lawyer writes about the legal action against the MoS.
Bought the MoS this weekend, but saw no apology.
Maybe next weekend.
http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,7558,1111437,00.html
guinnessdrinker
22-12-2003, 18:02
It includes things like ordinary patrol policy, community safety and partnership activity (the cuddliest bit of all the Met!),
so, he is inspector dixon of lambeth green, then?
detective-boy
22-12-2003, 22:39
Sure is! He'll probably bring back coppers on bikes (in standard uniform and beat duty helmets not that poncey Tour de France stuff), helmet chin straps, blue and white panda cars, bells mounted on bumpers (or at very least English two-tones), crafty pints at the back door of pubs, crafty fags (Old Shag tobacco before you ask) in back alleys, point duty, helping old ladies across roads, shaking hands with door handles, marking doors with pieces of cotton and clipping small boys caught scrumping apples around the ear ... it never did me any harm!.
Or maybe not.
Evenin' all ... don't be silly son, put the shooter down now ... bang ... aaagh! c.The Blue Lamp 1950 something.
:D
William of Walworth
22-12-2003, 23:34
So when did you retire from the Force, detective-boy?? :D ;)
Streathamite
23-12-2003, 13:08
Originally posted by detective-boy
(Well, he is this week, it'll probably all change next week!!)
The worst thing of this despondent post-closer...is that there's every chance it's true. Brian, I appreciate you can't answer this point, vut we both know detective-boy can:
so d-b; why does the, umm, management style of toppest met top brass (I exclude Brian, as he's only new in this job, and I know enough to comment only on his performance as Lambeth chief, where he was excellent) so often resemble pantomime season? and is that why you quit?
detective-boy
24-12-2003, 16:27
Well Red Jezza, where to start ...
I think there are a number of reasons why there is a certain amount of dysfunction in the Met as an organisation.
1. There are some (an increasing number) of extremely ambitious, ruthless individuals who will do anything to get on. Sometimes this involves stabbing someone in the back but more usually it involves failing to say what needs to be said 'cos the boss won't like it. Hence problems, even if very obvious to middle and lower ranks, are allowed to fester.
2. There is no fixed period in any particular rank before an individual can apply for promotion to the next - and as positions are rank-related promotion also means transfer. This results in very little stability at senior management level. In cases where someone has remained in the same position for some time (e.g. David Venness as Assistant Commissioner (Specialist Operations) for years and Micky Messenger as Commander (Public Order) since the old king died) the benefits are extremely plain to see.
3. Every promotion process involves months of the candidates reading up on stuff and filling application forms in, distracting them from the job in hand.
4. There is no probationary period for promotion - once you get it you stay. Thus, almost by definition, everyone is promoted one rank above where they were effective - a good Chief Supt gets made Commander, a good commander gets made DAC ... if they can't hack it as a DAC they don't drop back to commander, they remain an ineffective DAC!
5. There is little long term planning - each boss brings in their own way of doing things rather than just doing their bit with the already existing organisational plan. The building of personal Empires tends to be viewed as a means of attracting attention and thus getting promoted (you noticed Commander Andre Baker (a Stockwell Park schoolboy by the way) on the TV going on about various homicide issues a lot recently? Guess who wants to be the next DAC in charge of homicide?!).
6. The top top man tends to put his best people where the problems currently are - and as the current problem keeps changing so do the bums on seats.
7. There are some "sexy" positions and some "not so sexy" ones. The latter, even though very important, tend not to attract the best candidates.
8. There is an annual clearing house (at about this time of year) when the years Strategic Command Course finishes. All ACPO officer ranks must have completed this course. As the year progresses and vacancies become available there is a growing tendency to put the selection process on hold until this years crop of new boys and girls appears. That leads to significant numbers of posts being filled on an "acting" basis. (There's more acting in the Met than there is in The Bill ... though that's not too difficult to achieve I guess!)
9. Finally, and probably most importantly, very few senior management are willing to risk getting it wrong. They are far more likely to avoid doing something which may be a bit risky rather than taking a robust decision and standing by it. This means that decisions are avoided on a large scale and things that need to be tackled get ignored. There is lots of "following the rule book" and very little innovative policing or management.
Of course some of the same issues apply at other levels as well - how many local beat officers have you had in the last 3 years? How many Chief Superintendents, or Detective Chief Inspectors? How can a team function (and be supervised) properly when the Inspector changes every few months? I refused several postings in my time to try to stay for at least 2 years so far as it was my decision.
As for is it why I left (only last year William but most of those things I related were still just about around when I joined in 1979) ... it sure is mate! I had done everything I wanted to do as a police officer and had never wanted to be a senior police officer (which I consider to be a different job) despite being selected for accelerated promotion. I am a rebel at heart and do not fit easily into "the establishment" so it was time to go - especially when I noticed the (virtual) sign which read "Innovative thinkers need not apply".
Sorry this has gone on a bit but I do believe the public should know alternative viewpoints - hope it helps.
guinnessdrinker
24-12-2003, 16:31
I am a rebel at heart and do not fit easily into "the establishment" so it was time to go
so, you are one of these dangerous anarchists, aren't you?
detective-boy
24-12-2003, 16:53
I'm with Brian on this one - an attractive hypothetical concept but one which would not stand a chance of working in the real world where there are the strong and the weak.
The apology has appeared in the MoS this morning, at the top right hand corner of page 2.
Still at least Brian has the last laugh; promotion, an apology AND substantial damages. Hope he spends it on something nice.
So there we have it, in black and white in the MoS. The cannabis allegations were false and they should not have printed the information about my private life (most of which was untrue anyway).
So why have I had to go through the last 21 months of hell?
Well, I now know what injustice feels like and I would not wish it on anyone. That has got to be a good thing for a senior police officer to feel.
Ms T posting as Hendo:
So are you planning to hitt the sales in a big way this week then, Brian, courtesty of the Hate Mail? ;)
Why you?
In the Mail's view: why not you?
The Mail/MoS has made a lot of money by catering to the bigotry of a branch of the English Middle Class. Somewhere in their heads is an idealised view of our country which existed for about thirty five people some time around 1934. They want the clock turned back.
So they don't like
a. Gay men. (They don't really acknowledge the existence of gay women, and Paul Dacre famously bans pictures of women wearing trousers).
b. Drugs, because it apparently leads to
c. Burglaries and other acts of savagery against Middle Class people.
d. Sensitivities of minorities, and foreigners/asylum seekers generally.
e. Anything that's upset Simon Heffer recently.
f. Labour.
Anyone in the public eye falling into the above groups risks the full treatment from Dacre's hate-troops, and as you've seen Brian, they're a dreadful crew when they get going.
And its not been unheard of for some serving police officers to ring them with information; both about their fellow officers and others.
Probably, if you got the Mail executives in a room, they'd admit to the above and justify it as a sound commercial strategy.
detective-boy
28-12-2003, 15:33
Originally posted by hendo
And its not been unheard of for some serving police officers to ring them with information; both about their fellow officers and others.
To say the least! The Mail and Mail on Sunday are well known recipients of "unofficial" leaks from New Scotland Yard and the Home Office, either from individuals or the orgnaisations themselves.
By the way, the Mail and MoS are not the usual printers of kiss and tell stories - Mr Clifford would always advise that the NoW, Sun, Mirror, People or even the Express would pay far more for such crap.
Mmmm. Wonder how this one ended up there then .... ?
fat hamster
28-12-2003, 16:10
Originally posted by Brian
So why have I had to go through the last 21 months of hell?
Well, I now know what injustice feels like and I would not wish it on anyone. That has got to be a good thing for a senior police officer to feel.
Respect. :cool:
I should say that I don't mind people of all professions whistle blowing to the press, in fact I think thats a good thing.
But police officers selling confidential data to private detectives who then sell it to hacks is dodgy as hell, IMHO.
Stobart Stopper
28-12-2003, 17:17
Originally posted by hendo
So are you planning to hitt the sales in a big way this week then, Brian, courtesty of the Hate Mail? ;)
I reckon Brian should buy a:http://www.clock.org/~ambar/cats/jpgs/beauty.jpg
detective-boy
28-12-2003, 18:23
What would he want with a pussy? ;)
So Brain, are you going to make a donation to the server fund?
Please do, even if it is only a token, it will still piss off the DM/MoS and it might gain more publicity for your case against the DM/MoS in more newsworthy papers.
I am sure the editor could do with the dosh and any positive publicity.;)
William of Walworth
28-12-2003, 21:02
Originally posted by hendo
Why you?
In the Mail's view: why not you?
The Mail/MoS has made a lot of money by catering to the bigotry of a branch of the English Middle Class. Somewhere in their heads is an idealised view of our country which existed for about thirty five people some time around 1934. They want the clock turned back.
So they don't like
a. Gay men. (They don't really acknowledge the existence of gay women, and Paul Dacre famously bans pictures of women wearing trousers).
b. Drugs, because it apparently leads to
c. Burglaries and other acts of savagery against Middle Class people.
d. Sensitivities of minorities, and foreigners/asylum seekers generally.
e. Anything that's upset Simon Heffer recently.
f. Labour.
Anyone in the public eye falling into the above groups risks the full treatment from Dacre's hate-troops, and as you've seen Brian, they're a dreadful crew when they get going.
And its not been unheard of for some serving police officers to ring them with information; both about their fellow officers and others.
Probably, if you got the Mail executives in a room, they'd admit to the above and justify it as a sound commercial strategy.
Major respect hendo for the above post. My deepseated loathing of the Mail rags and all their works and influence is known to some around here and other forums. In fact I have a REAL problem with anyone who reads those papers, and I find it very hard to avoid assuming automatically that they will be a bigotted smallminded fuckwit. This almost always turns out to be correct, with the honourable exception of those who manage to read it for 'know the enemy' purposes ...
Congratulations to Brian for his persistance in sorting them out on this occasion :cool:
Fat Hamster's post also seconded.
Streathamite
31-12-2003, 09:38
detective-boy: cheers for that long post answering mine, and sorry I didn't answer before now. Loads of interesting points in both your and hendo's long posts.
Many congratulations to Brian for getting an apology from the Mail.
A well deserved and fitting end to a nasty episode of Daily Mail reactionism.
Any comments from Stevens ?
Anyway best of luck from the Cannabis March and Festival organising crew for 2004.
Stobart Stopper
06-01-2004, 13:09
Littlejohn in the Scum today....
"Commander Brian Paddick, the man who turned Brixton into an open-air drugs den, has milked his homosexuality for all it's worth in his relentless assault on the greasy pole."
They never let up, do they?:mad:
detective-boy
06-01-2004, 13:21
Why, oh why does this country continue to give space to twats like Littlejohn - racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, pandering to the irrational prejudices of some imaginary "middle England"?
I haven't got the circulation figures for the Sun, but yesterday noted that the Mail now sells two and a half million papers a day.
:(
William of Walworth
06-01-2004, 22:52
And don't forget that on average, most daily newspapers are read by (or at least looked at by) more than one person.
:( :mad:
From memory, the Sun's circulation is somewhere beween 3 and 4 million ...
Littlejohn does seem somewhat erm obsessed by homosexuality doesn't he? I wonder why that might be? ;)
Streathamite
16-01-2004, 13:04
And don't forget that on average, most daily newspapers are read by (or at least looked at by) more than one person.
:( :mad:
From memory, the Sun's circulation is somewhere beween 3 and 4 million ...
In fact, on average each copy of each issue of the Sun is read by an average of 3 1/2 people (IIRC, I'm in the ballpark anyway)
Treat Littlejohn with the contempt he deserves and ignore him, or sue?
There are lots of LGBT officers all over the country who are incensed by the Littlejohn article, not just about what he said about me.
In fact I have never been promoted since I "came out" publicly. I publicly declared my sexuality, having discussed it with, and with the support of, the Commissioner, when I was a Commander. My substantive (true) rank is still Commander. My last promotion panel did not know I was gay. So much for exploiting my sexuality in order to get promoted!
:confused:
Don't sue, Brian.
It's what they want.
Mr Retro
16-01-2004, 14:07
Treat Littlejohn with the contempt he deserves and ignore him, or sue?
There are lots of LGBT officers all over the country who are incensed by the Littlejohn article, not just about what he said about me.
In fact I have never been promoted since I "came out" publicly. I publicly declared my sexuality, having discussed it with, and with the support of, the Commissioner, when I was a Commander. My substantive (true) rank is still Commander. My last promotion panel did not know I was gay. So much for exploiting my sexuality in order to get promoted!
:confused:
Please sue him.
I reckon Littlecock browses these boards, would peeps agree?
If you do Rich, why don't you engage in debate here? Not confident when you must argue your case? Easier to preach your ignorance from a position where you can't be questioned? A certain interview springs to mind. The one where you appeared with Will Self and were taken apart by your intellectual superior. Remember that?
Treat Littlejohn with the contempt he deserves and ignore him, or sue?
There are lots of LGBT officers all over the country who are incensed by the Littlejohn article, not just about what he said about me.
In fact I have never been promoted since I "came out" publicly. I publicly declared my sexuality, having discussed it with, and with the support of, the Commissioner, when I was a Commander. My substantive (true) rank is still Commander. My last promotion panel did not know I was gay. So much for exploiting my sexuality in order to get promoted!
:confused:
Sue if you think you can win - the worst thing though would be to lose to a tosser like him. It strikes me that proving either side of the case is quite difficult since the only way to prove that you've never used any aspect of who you are in your favour is for nobody to have ever known it... as I understand it though the general libel laws would place the burden of proof on The Sun so maybe you could win. Good luck whatever.
detective-boy
16-01-2004, 20:21
Treat Littlejohn with the contempt he deserves and ignore him, or sue?
Remember the old Instruction Book, Brian. "Idle and silly comment is not worthy of response ..." as I recall.
BTW, where did they get that promotion board from that didn't know you were gay? Were they found on Mars? Or are the Met's higher echelons getting ever more out of touch with current affairs? :D
Streathamite
19-01-2004, 14:25
Treat Littlejohn with the contempt he deserves and ignore him, or sue?
There are lots of LGBT officers all over the country who are incensed by the Littlejohn article, not just about what he said about me.
In fact I have never been promoted since I "came out" publicly. I publicly declared my sexuality, having discussed it with, and with the support of, the Commissioner, when I was a Commander. My substantive (true) rank is still Commander. My last promotion panel did not know I was gay. So much for exploiting my sexuality in order to get promoted!
:confused:
Sue him! CERTAINLY go to the PCC, at the very least-and please feel free to PM me if there is any practical assistance you feel I could offer
Miscellaneous
19-01-2004, 15:50
Or are the Met's higher echelons getting ever more out of touch with current affairs? :D
have you seen some of the new spin they are putting on???? :eek: I think top-brass are slowly losing touch with everything , let alone current affairs.... :rolleyes:
and Brian- sue the malicious fucker...... :)
Manda
xxxxxxx
sleaterkinney
19-01-2004, 16:21
I wouldn't sue, He'll just whinge on about "political correctness gone mad" and free speech. I'd push the Met to handle it
detective-boy
20-01-2004, 13:52
I'd push the Met to handle it
Sorry, got to go to the window and wave to Pinky and Perky and their mates flying past in formation! ;)
Streathamite
20-01-2004, 20:17
Sorry, got to go to the window and wave to Pinky and Perky and their mates flying past in formation! ;)
:D :D
all this almost makes me wish to see a bit of that famed old time OB vindictiveness heading littledick's way
detective-boy
22-01-2004, 00:11
So much for my cynicism ... my sources tell me that Brian has been selected as a Deputy Assistant Commissioner (the equivalent of a Deputy Chief Constable) as of today!
Well done mate!
So much for my cynicism ... my sources tell me that Brian has been selected as a Deputy Assistant Commissioner (the equivalent of a Deputy Chief Constable) as of today!
Well done mate!
As shown here (http://www.mpa.gov.uk/news/press/2004/04-002.htm)
Congratulations!
Streathamite
22-01-2004, 09:32
It was amusing to read about it in The Standard the other day-talk about Spin-the whole piece was slanted to make it look like Brian got off on a technicality, as opposed to the actual situation of the whole of DMG making prize arses off themselves. They haven't put it on their website, more's the pity....
Mr Retro
22-01-2004, 10:55
Great news
Unbowedphoenix
23-01-2004, 10:42
As my grandmother used to say "Self-praise is no advertisement"
lang rabbie
09-02-2004, 10:15
There's an interview (http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/story.jsp?story=489234) with BP in today's [Independent]
He still believes he was right to use the website and attempt to talk to a section of society which normally shuns the police. "It is about time we lost this conservative label and started talking like ordinary people. The people I was talking to on that website understood exactly what I meant when I said 'help the addicts and screw the dealers'."
He continued: "The Met is not as conservative as people make it out to be."
"It's elements of the media that are ultra conservative and take grave exception to police officers using that sort of language - suggesting radically different approaches - and find the idea of an openly gay man in any position of authority abhorrent, not the police service."
From the comments that follow they have made a short news story (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=489257) with the headline of this posting.
On the issue of the recent reclassification of cannabis from a class B to a class C drug, he fears that the changes are going to result in the worst of both worlds.
The concern is that some members of the public mistakenly believe that cannabis has been legalised, while many officers are going to ignore the proposed changes and continue to arrest, rather than warn, the majority of people caught in possession of marijuana.
"If police officers carry on as they always have done and ignore the reclassification because they still have got the power of arrest then you are not saving anything to put into more serious crime, so no gain, but a lot of pain because there is this danger of people wrongly assuming that because it has been reclassified it's safe."
Urban 75 is described (by the Indy journalist) as a "radical internet chatroom".
Should Urbanites be :eek:, :confused: or :mad: at this.
On reflection I think Mike should sue for the "chatroom" description. :)
Streathamite
09-02-2004, 12:15
I would add to Brian's comments in that article: the people are more enlightened the media, too.
When I and others did the "Support Brian Paddick" stall at the Lambeth County Show, we were rushed off our feet. HUNDREDS of people signed the petition - and there were only 3 'antis' all day (one drunk homophobe, one godbotherer, and one token sane person whose point of disagreement was concerning 'drugs').
Brixton Hatter
09-02-2004, 13:29
Fairplay to Brian for getting in the national media again with the right messages - long may it continue. I hope it really REALLY annoys the Daily Mail/Evening (sub) Standard set :D
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.