View Full Version : Dick Quinn vs Brian Paddick
In terms of results - there is no comparison.
When Paddick was (unfairly) hounded out, there were 300 or so crack houses.
Now there are less than ten, and they are shut within 48 hours of detection.
You can't dent the impact that Quinn and the partnership with Lambeth council have had on the borough.
Even Lambeth have pulled their act together - calls to their centre actually get answered these days.
So as much as I admired Paddick - I'm afraid to say the three-pronged approach of Dick Quinn actually gets results.
In terms of results - there is no comparison.
When Paddick was (unfairly) hounded out, there were 300 or so crack houses.
Now there are less than ten, and they are shut within 48 hours of detection.
You can't dent the impact that Quinn and the partnership with Lambeth council have had on the borough.
Even Lambeth have pulled their act together - calls to their centre actually get answered these days.
So as much as I admired Paddick - I'm afraid to say the three-pronged approach of Dick Quinn actually gets results.
It's an unfair comparison. Paddick's reign coincided with a massive upsurge in street crime in every London borough.
It's a fair comparison when you compare the crime stats of Brixton with those of Camden and Hackney over an 18 month period.
Operation Refresh is a success - anyone walking down Coldharbour Lane these days would notice.
Hardly any crack dealing scum anymore.
Stobart Stopper
16-10-2004, 09:38
I think Paddick did a great job in Brixton, from what my husband has heard from some of the officers who woked there at the time, he was highly respected for his achievements and the fact that his door was always open to anyone who had a problem, be they poice officers or members of the public. I don't doubt that Quinn is a good copper. I just think it's a shame that Paddick wasn't allowed to finish the job he had started before the homophobic hate-campaign was stepped up by the establishment who used the media to smear him.
He'd have made it to Commissioner if they had left him alone. And if he had been a straight, married bloke with a couple of kids, etc. :rolleyes:
miss minnie
16-10-2004, 11:33
I just think it's a shame that Paddick wasn't allowed to finish the job he had started before the homophobic hate-campaign was stepped up by the establishment who used the media to smear him.
He'd have made it to Commissioner if they had left him alone. And if he had been a straight, married bloke with a couple of kids, etc. :rolleyes:
indeed! paddick did not seem to have the full support of his staff, imo, he was hindered by prejudice from some of his subordinates and stymied by their will to see him fail. at the time i had much to do with the police, as dealers and users had taken up residence on our property. when (if) the police turned up to handle an incident they were reluctant to act and quick to blame all problems on paddick's policies. their lack of motivation and their cynicism at the time was blatent.
after paddick's 'experiment', lambeth's police force were given a survey to complete. out of over 700 officers only 50 bothered to return the questionnaire. that's how interested they were in assisting the experiment.
2 Hardcore
16-10-2004, 11:51
Errr, to return to the matter at hand.....
Isn't it the case that a lot of what's been happening in Lambeth in terms of drugs/crack house policing since is down to the use of antisocial behaviour legislation that wasn't in place when Paddick was at the helm? Given that he's always spoken out against dealing and hard drugs, might not similar results have been seen if he'd had that legislation to work with?
Stobart Stopper
16-10-2004, 11:51
after paddick's 'experiment', lambeth's police force were given a survey to complete. out of over 700 officers only 50 bothered to return the questionnaire. that's how interested they were in assisting the experiment.
Do you feel that the good work that Brian did back in 2001/2 has now been ignored and all the credit has been given to the people who have just taken up where he was forced to leave off though? That's how I see it.
miss minnie
16-10-2004, 11:57
Do you feel that the good work that Brian did back in 2001/2 has now been ignored and all the credit has been given to the people who have just taken up where he was forced to leave off though? That's how I see it.
yes, that's how i see it too. no-one can be certain if brian's experiment would have ultimately worked but i don't think it was given a fair chance.
another thing that happened at the time was westminster's policy of street clearance. lambeth copped nearly all of westminster's street-dwellers then. it started because of the queen mum's funeral - we had people sleeping in every doorway and binroom in our street - and it coincided neatly with the lambeth experiment.
Stobart Stopper
16-10-2004, 12:05
it started because of the queen mum's funeral - we had people sleeping in every doorway and binroom in our street - and it coincided neatly with the lambeth experiment.
:eek: I didn't know that! That's appalling.
Stobart Stopper
16-10-2004, 12:08
OK, we are going shopping for some new saucepans. I will test them out on your heads when we get back! ;)
Behave!
Errr, to return to the matter at hand.....
Isn't it the case that a lot of what's been happening in Lambeth in terms of drugs/crack house policing since is down to the use of antisocial behaviour legislation that wasn't in place when Paddick was at the helm? Given that he's always spoken out against dealing and hard drugs, might not similar results have been seen if he'd had that legislation to work with?
Don't know if it is true - but you're right that the anti crack houses stuff came in with the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 - so it's certainly possible.
It's certainly possible - though I put the success down to lateral work not only involving the Lambeth cops and their partnerships with the Council, but also St Mungos - hence the three pronged approach I referred to.
Paddick wasn't tough enough on the roots of crime, the weed dealers on the streets were responsible for attracting the middle class people from Richmond and Clapham, and thus providing the target for crime and disorder, fear of crime for locals, etc.
Although it was disappointing that the Green Leaf was closed down, anyone walking down Landor Road was subject to hassle from non-GL affiliated dealers offering skunk, coke, and the logical inevitable - crack.
As much as I love a spliff - I don't miss the constant in-your-face approach as witnessed between the KFC and the Dogstar, offers of "skunk mate skunk skunk" all the way to the Albert just pissed me off.
I score my weed off nice people, not crack dealing fucks who deal a little weed on the side.
Stobart Stopper
16-10-2004, 16:54
Well, I have got the new saucepans if anyone is interested. Prestige ones..£99 in Woolworths at Beckton....for a wok, a frying pan, a milk pan and 2 saucepans. :)
Back on topic - were the initiatives in Streatham (St Leonards area) in terms of nice public spaces, urban regeneration, put into effect during Paddick's reign or after?
The Red card scheme seems to be working among the often violent drunks and their cohorts around Windrush Square.
And that wasn't a Paddick idea.
As has been pointed out to you pk the new initiatives like the Red Card Zone new ideas that were not around when Paddick was in charge.Also its not up to the Police Commander(whoever he/she is) on their own.They have to consult the Council and organisations like the Police Consultative Committee.
Seems to me Paddick was a liberal on many issues.The criticism of him seem to come a lot from the fact that he wasnt a right wing law and order bigot IMO.
All the illiberal measures like ASBOs and Red Card Zones have come in after him.The subtext of the Quinn versus Paddick debate is that Paddick was a wishy washy Guardianista unlike Quinn.
Seems to me Paddick was a liberal on many issues.The criticism of him seem to come a lot from the fact that he wasnt a right wing law and order bigot IMO.
All the illiberal measures like ASBOs and Red Card Zones have come in after him.The subtext of the Quinn versus Paddick debate is that Paddick was a wishy washy Guardianista unlike Quinn.
Which is why Brixton is a far safer place these days than before Quinn.
another thing that happened at the time was westminster's policy of street clearance. lambeth copped nearly all of westminster's street-dwellers then. it started because of the queen mum's funeral - we had people sleeping in every doorway and binroom in our street - and it coincided neatly with the lambeth experiment.
I wouldn't be surprised by this, but, did that actually really happen?
Did Westminster adopt a policy whereby they deliberatley relocated homeless people to Lambeth?
I didn't stifle "dissenting voices". Dissenting voices no longer post.
They probably got sick of re-reading their posts to find you had edited them to say something completely different.
Did Westminster adopt a policy whereby they deliberatley relocated homeless people to Lambeth?
It wouldn't surprise me.
What is notable in the Quinn/Lambeth strategy is their working alongside St Mungos, and also ensuring that drug addicts are not just slung into prison, that provision is made for after care and rehabilitation courses.
Drugs are the blight of Lambeth, not poverty, or "misfits", it is crack that forces the girl onto Brixton Hill to sell her body, or the car to get broken into, or the person to get mugged or just violently attacked.
Tackle the crack problem head on - as I have been saying for years - and you will dramatically reduce the crime problem.
It was astounding that crack dealers were permitted to serve up in Brixton as openly as they were - if Quinn's methods were tough then they were what was needed.
There are a hell of a lot of crack dealers off the streets and they're now in a cage serving 5 years to 10, which sends a clear warning to the young upstarts looking to take their place.
The community at large is sick of the crack problem and all its associated problems - Brixton is a very different place than it was when the sus laws caused so much animosity between the black community and the cops.
Access to the library and the Ritzy for people afraid to walk past the pissheads in Windrush Square has been improved since the Red Card scheme - and in my view the needs of ONE elderly person looking to borrow a copy of Fly Fishing by JR Hartley FAR outweigh the rights of often selfish nasty old fucks drinking themselves into oblivion and urinating all over Windrush Square.
Paddick the idealist vs Quinn the realist - no comparison in my opinion.
ViolentPanda
17-10-2004, 13:52
I wouldn't be surprised by this, but, did that actually really happen?
Did Westminster adopt a policy whereby they deliberatley relocated homeless people to Lambeth?
I've probably binned it by now, but I'll have a look through our "recycle" pile, 'cos either the Grauniad or New Statesman had a short article about Westminster doing this (not just on Lambeth, but also on Southwark). Wandsworth have also been accused of "decanting" homeless and "problem families" over borough boundaries.
Streathamite
18-10-2004, 11:56
Do you feel that the good work that Brian did back in 2001/2 has now been ignored and all the credit has been given to the people who have just taken up where he was forced to leave off though? That's how I see it.
yes, exactly. quinn's good - but he wouldn't have achievd a tenth of what he has, without the foundations Brian laid.
lang rabbie
18-10-2004, 12:38
Back on topic - were the initiatives in Streatham (St Leonards area) in terms of nice public spaces, urban regeneration, put into effect during Paddick's reign or after?
They had nothing to do with the police, and community safety was not one of the main design criteria, although clearly it could be a spin-off if people are more willing to walk in the area after dark (installation of new streetlighting for the High Road is now running six months late!).
The successful bid to ODPM was put together by the voluntary sector Streatham Society working closely with an acting Town Centre Manager with an urban design background.
Thread now laboriously cleared of off-topic drivel and personal spats - so let the Dick Quinn vs Brian Paddick debate continue!
They had nothing to do with the police, and community safety was not one of the main design criteria, although clearly it could be a spin-off if people are more willing to walk in the area after dark (installation of new streetlighting for the High Road is now running six months late!).
The successful bid to ODPM was put together by the voluntary sector Streatham Society working closely with an acting Town Centre Manager with an urban design background.
Don't forget the 'Street Pastors' !
;)
Streathamite
20-10-2004, 09:31
Which is why Brixton is a far safer place these days than before Quinn.
no it ain't. it's because - as Stobart Stopper points out - of the groundwork laid by Paddick, which led the way to Brixton plod's single biggest achievement of the past 30 years - the creation of good community relations. without that - no fall in crime, no fall in violent crime. Paddick changed the atmosphere, and the dialogue, possibly for good.
no dissing quinn - we could have far worse - but he inherited an excellent situation.
Drugs are the blight of Lambeth, not poverty, or "misfits", it is crack that forces the girl onto Brixton Hill to sell her body, or the car to get broken into, or the person to get mugged or just violently attacked.
Tackle the crack problem head on - as I have been saying for years - and you will dramatically reduce the crime problem.
It was astounding that crack dealers were permitted to serve up in Brixton as openly as they were - if Quinn's methods were tough then they were what was needed.
Access to the library and the Ritzy for people afraid to walk past the pissheads in Windrush Square has been improved since the Red Card scheme - and in my view the needs of ONE elderly person looking to borrow a copy of Fly Fishing by JR Hartley FAR outweigh the rights of often selfish nasty old fucks drinking themselves into oblivion and urinating all over Windrush Square.
Paddick the idealist vs Quinn the realist - no comparison in my opinion.
You say that hard drugs are the real problem then take a swipe at the harmless old guys who have drunk outside the Library for years.Your just illiberal and right wing IMO.
Paddick was a realist not and didnt have the mentality that Coppers now best.
Inequality/poverty does play a role in how crime goes up and down over time.
no it ain't. it's because - as Stobart Stopper points out - of the groundwork laid by Paddick, which led the way to Brixton plod's single biggest achievement of the past 30 years - the creation of good community relations. without that - no fall in crime, no fall in violent crime. Paddick changed the atmosphere, and the dialogue, possibly for good.
no dissing quinn - we could have far worse - but he inherited an excellent situation.
Alright.... one at a time - I agree, Quinn did inherit an interesting situation, but by no means excellent, and let's be realistic, when dealing with the council in their "joined-up-working" mode, there's no way the upper eschelons would have allowed such liberal a Commander as Brian P to spend the coffers when minor dope dealing on the street was effectively the root of the issue... not when he was *shock horror* gay, and certainly not when one of his partners was toking spliff in his flat.
I'm not taking away any of his achievements - I'm saying how easy it is too see the rather more hardline approach of Quinn has meant a happier community as a result.
If the only people moaning are the pissheads, weed pushers and the crack dealers... well, fuck 'em - the community on the whole have more important needs... like I said - one old man getting to the library without fear is more important than some useless drug deal.
Nobody has commented on the St Mungo's hook-up....
You say that hard drugs are the real problem then take a swipe at the harmless old guys who have drunk outside the Library for years.Your just illiberal and right wing IMO.
Harmless?
OK, to you they might be - but sorry, they ain't to the young woman unsure of the area, or the casual observer, and my "taking a swipe" stems from my observation of some of them taking a swipe at each other when the Special Brew cans run dry.
To me, they aren't just harmless drunks reminiscing in the park, away from the shoppers and kids and clubbers and commuters, they are an antisocial mob standing in the way of a progressive community.
Paddick was a realist not and didnt have the mentality that Coppers now best.
Inequality/poverty does play a role in how crime goes up and down over time.
I'm kind of confused by these lines, Paddick was a realist - I take nothing away from his refreshing and honest approach, but perhaps he paved the way for swift action, which is the only way to deal with relatively sophisticated drug syndicates... as for inequality/poverty and the crime issue... I for one believe that a frightened community will allow crime to flourish - if the community is given the chance to assert itself and the chance to rely on a 999 to deal with an anti-social problem, rather than be told that "there are more important issues" then the same community will be able to restore pride and dignity to an area long needing some care and attention, without the fear of crack dealing scum to poison what has always been the jewel in London's multicultural crown.
And fuck it - I'd sooner live in Brixton than Hackney, any day.
I do get the feeling that Quinn is a fall-guy, a little disinterested in the future of Brixton, like a troubleshooter but no more than that - whereas Paddick was a stayer - but you have to hand it to Quinn, he cleaned up the town like a proper Sheriff.
Respect for that alone, no?
PK - What is always disturbing about your posts is the continual attitude that some humans are worthless.
If humans are better or worse than eachother, it's certainly not by conventional ideas of status.
If you looked harder, you might find good in bad and bad in good. And then where would you be..... lost or found?
Mm.
You may be surprised that I agree with alot of what you've said on Quinn. I just think you see things in too polarised a way.
I don't like your attitude to humans in general as presented via the internet.
silentNate
23-10-2004, 11:43
I've met Dick Quinn anmd he was very nice to me.
No other comment really though I consider Brixton safer and friendlier than it was ten years ago :)
PK - What is always disturbing about your posts is the continual attitude that some humans are worthless.
If humans are better or worse than eachother, it's certainly not by conventional ideas of status.
If you looked harder, you might find good in bad and bad in good. And then where would you be..... lost or found?
Mm.
You may be surprised that I agree with alot of what you've said on Quinn. Alot of it (IMHO) is spot on.
I just don't like your attitude to humans in general as presented via the internet.
Piss off, condescending hypocrite... you don't know anything about my attitude.
I'm kind of confused by these lines, Paddick was a realist - I take nothing away from his refreshing and honest approach, but perhaps he paved the way for swift action, which is the only way to deal with relatively sophisticated drug syndicates... as for inequality/poverty and the crime issue... I for one believe that a frightened community will allow crime to flourish - if the community is given the chance to assert itself and the chance to rely on a 999 to deal with an anti-social problem, rather than be told that "there are more important issues" then the same community will be able to restore pride and dignity to an area long needing some care and attention, without the fear of crack dealing scum to poison what has always been the jewel in London's multicultural crown.
Getting rid of the sophisticated drug syndicates would I think be something accomplished by a specialist Met squad rather than local plod.So Im not sure Quinn could take all the credit for this.
As I have posted before I had no problem with the closing of Visits/Paedro Keys-this was a targetted action against organised crime in the area which has improved CHL.
You mix up organised crime linked to drug dealing with supposed ASB.Street drinkers are not a "mob".
So in your view the folk hanging out in Windrush Square are not exhibiting anti-social behaviour?
I can't agree with this.
They're in the way of the general public accessing the Ritzy and the library without fear of being abused, assaulted, leered at, yelled at, or generally exposed to beligerant action typical of your common street drinker.
There are pubs for those gentlemen, where their behaviour may or may not be tolerated, but regardless of how long they have been in the square - their time is up.
Brixton is smartening up and waking up to the fact that certain elements need to change or get out, and not before time IMO.
If they are causing behaviour that is liable to be a breach of the peace the police can move them on.The Red Card Zone is different it bans drinking altogether and puts a blanket curfew on under 16s after nine.
You are saying all street drinkers are the same-a "mob".Funnily enough the Cops seem to be leaving them alone as long as they are not causing trouble.You better complain to Quinn as hes clearly falling done on his job.
Pickman's model
23-10-2004, 16:15
They're in the way of the general public accessing the Ritzy and the library without fear of being abused, assaulted, leered at, yelled at, or generally exposed to beligerant action typical of your common street drinker.
why do you not consider them part of "the general public"?
If they are causing behaviour that is liable to be a breach of the peace the police can move them on.The Red Card Zone is different it bans drinking altogether and puts a blanket curfew on under 16s after nine.
You are saying all street drinkers are the same-a "mob".Funnily enough the Cops seem to be leaving them alone as long as they are not causing trouble.You better complain to Quinn as hes clearly falling done on his job.
If they're not causing trouble then their presence is tolerated - but with development plans for Windrush Square in the pipeline, it would be sensible to move them on sooner rather than later, no?
The entire area stinks of rancid piss - another unfortunate side effect of drunks residing in an area over a long period of time.
Completely incompatible with the future of Brixton, one which I am optimistic about.
Don't tell me they have nowhere else to go - they're not there when it's raining.
Pickmans - when I mentioned the general public - I meant the decent people who want to use the facilities such as the cinema and library, hubs of most communities, the public are put off by the sight and smell of the pissheads.
The needs of the pissheads are nothing compared to the needs of the community looking to make Brixton a better place to live.
Drunks add nothing whatsoever to the area, other than the aforementioned fragrance of stagnant urine and empty beer cans.
"scum... mob... decent people... bla bla bla"
black/white hot/cold right/wrong........
http://www.vteens.org/LisaGraphics/forcesofevil.jpg
All this talk about Paddick versus Quinn, street drinking and weed dealers is a joke. If you really want to impress me with an analysis then please go back further to include Foy, use some actual crime statistics, analyse the real underlying causes of crime and focus on *serious* crime - eg violent crime, assaults, rapes, murders, robberies and burgularies etc.
Also, does anyone really think that local police commanders are allowed, off their own back and with no reference to the Home Office, to launch thier own "experiments". Come off it. It was obvious that many police forces before Paddick's time were actually using an informal system of cautioning for weed and thius was the case in Lambeth under Foy even. The experiment was more about media relations and putting it on a 'formal' basis, to soften up the media for a change in the law that was in the pipeline, rather than anything that was engineered soley by Paddick, no matter what either the Home Office or Paddick say - they both have their reasons for taking credit or avoiding blame surely, and it was one way of "selling" what was happening to the media.
Even if we want to talk about the non-issue of street-drinking outside the Ritzy, then even Foy was discussing this back in 1997/8. The council wanted to bring in a zero-tolerance zone, and he stood up at a meeting of the Lambeth Environment Forum (local agaenda 21) and totally demolished the proposals as put forward by the then crime Tzar (Cllr Kirsty McHugh).
Sorry, pk, but please try a bit harder if you are going to impress with razer sharp analysis mate. ;)
Give it up pal.
You're quick enough to label me as 'scum', so that just makes you a fucking hypocrite.
You're just mad because you can't edit what I say any more.
:cool:
Your 'misfits' need to get help, not just left to their own devices.
Perhaps drying out would do them some good, either way, leaving them in the middle of the square is not an option soon. Good news IMHO.
Crack dealers are scum, miserable fuckers exploiting the addictions of vunerable people and dishing out violence every time their precious profits are threatened.
You agree with me anyway so why the pointless non-contributions to the argument?
I've always been this intolerant to the crack peddling wankers, why feign surprise now?
the real underlying causes of crime and focus on *serious* crime - eg violent crime, assaults, rapes, murders, robberies and burgularies etc.
One word, Teejay.
Crack
And I'm comparing Paddick and Quinn, not Foy.
The zero tolerance approach as opposed to the ineffective liberal one.
Not popular with some here but the results speak for themselves, my "razor sharp analysis" (the result of working recently with Lambeth Council's PR people) is just a debating point.
the result of working recently with Lambeth Council's PR people
Wow! PR people!!! Well, must be right!
The truth is, the world changes and moves on. Your 'Quinn v Paddick' analysis doesn't acknowledge:
1. Street crime started to fall in November 2001, 6 months before Paddick left.
2. The rise and fall in Street Crime, though spectacular in Lambeth, was mirrored across London and the country - hence the Downing Street summits.
3. Paddick was operating with around 800 officers; there are now 950 plus CPSO's
4. The Cannabis Trial (consfiscation and warning for personal quantities) is now national policy.
5. The success against crack houses has been in large measure down to the partnership working between the LA and the police (and £5.4m of Commmunities Against Drugs money), a partnership Paddick was sent to set up.
6. The s4 of the Anti-Social Behavior Act (the Red Card) was chosen in preference to an AntiDrinking Zone precisely because consultation suggested that people were bothered about dealers, not the drinkers.
7. The drinkers haven't always been there; they've been asked where they came from and turns out they used to drink in the Queens and the Railway Hotel. Like the rest of us, they probably used to pee in public toilets too.
Truth is we've seen a steadily improving relationship between Police, Community and Local Authority. Paddick, Moore and Quinn all played their part in that. Moore and Quinn had the advantage of substantially increased resources.
The world is usually a more complicated place than simple slogans admit.
Now the community has taken over a private house impounded from a convicted drug dealer and turned it into a mini-police station and community centre. "This is the best partnership and Quinn is the third of three excellent commanders we've had here," Jasper says.
Source (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/conservatives2004/comment/0,15018,1322592,00.html)
"scum... mob... decent people... bla bla bla"
black/white hot/cold right/wrong........
http://www.vteens.org/LisaGraphics/forcesofevil.jpg
You could add broken and record to that list n'all H.B :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=TeeJay]
Also, does anyone really think that local police commanders are allowed, off their own back and with no reference to the Home Office, to launch thier own "experiments". Come off it. It was obvious that many police forces before Paddick's time were actually using an informal system of cautioning for weed and thius was the case in Lambeth under Foy even. The experiment was more about media relations and putting it on a 'formal' basis, to soften up the media for a change in the law that was in the pipeline, rather than anything that was engineered soley by Paddick, no matter what either the Home Office or Paddick say - they both have their reasons for taking credit or avoiding blame surely, and it was one way of "selling" what was happening to the media.
QUOTE]
If I remember correctly Paddick did say that informally police had been turning a blind eye to minor infringements of the law like dope smoking.Part of the reason he wanted to regularise this was to stop his officers from getting into trouble for not carrying out their duties to the letter.
If they're not causing trouble then their presence is tolerated - but with development plans for Windrush Square in the pipeline, it would be sensible to move them on sooner rather than later, no?
The entire area stinks of rancid piss - another unfortunate side effect of drunks residing in an area over a long period of time.
Completely incompatible with the future of Brixton, one which I am optimistic about.
Pickmans - when I mentioned the general public - I meant the decent people who want to use the facilities such as the cinema and library, hubs of most communities, the public are put off by the sight and smell of the pissheads.
As Pookas pointed out the lack of public toilets hardly helps.The one in Windrush sq was closed years ago.It wasnt the street drinkers putting people off the Ritzy/library but the dealers.
Nor do I like dividing people into the categories of "decent" versus "pissheads".Ive known a couple of people who live in the streets in central London.They once were "decent" people.It doesnt necessarily take much to cross that line-if you know their life histories.
detective-boy
26-10-2004, 17:44
If I remember correctly Paddick did say that informally police had been turning a blind eye to minor infringements of the law like dope smoking.Part of the reason he wanted to regularise this was to stop his officers from getting into trouble for not carrying out their duties to the letter.
Quite right. For at least ten or fifteen years the majority of operational officers dealt with minor, personal use cannabis offences by way of a verbal warning. This left the problem of what to do with the bit of weed. You could not officially seize it and book it into the system for disposal - you would have got a bollocking or been disciplined for not arresting the suspect - so you usually just got them to drop it down a grid.
Unfortunately there is no power to require anyone to do this and, though 99.9% of people realised they had had a result, the odd one complained. Again officers found them in trouble for exceeding their powers, albeit for the best of reasons.
One of the principal reasons for Cmdr Paddicks initiative was to formalise this situation and allow officers to issue a formal immediate caution and confiscate the weed officially and submit it for disposal. He was able to do this off his own bat as it was simply underwriting a particular exercise of discretion by patrol officers.
Unfortunately his initiative was somewhat hijacked by a variety of parties and was portrayed as something far more radical than it actually was.
As for Paddick or Quinn, knowing them both and having seen both at work I would say that they are both equally good ... albeiit it in very different ways. Each has particular strengths and those strengths are in totally different areas. Likewise Simon Foy - very good again but in a way I would place somewhere between the other two. Ch Supt Foy however had to grapple with a wholly unsuustainable level of senior management - one Ch Supt, three Supts and about six Ch Insps to deal with a borough which was bigger (in staff, budget, population, crime, other problems ...) than Warwickshire (Ch Constable, Dep Ch Con, Ass Ch Con, at least four Ch Supts, loads of Supts and Ch Insps).
The point made about Dick Quinn being able to build a fairly hard approach on the community support made possible by Brian Paddicks community involvement, etc. is very well made. Without the community support that was there I suspect strong police action would have caused significantly more local problems, and received significantly less wideranging local support, than it did.
Mrs Magpie
26-10-2004, 21:16
Likewise Simon Foy - very good again but in a way I would place somewhere between the other two. Ch Supt Foy however had to grapple with a wholly unsuustainable level of senior management Dunno about that but his people skills were sadly lacking.......every dealing I had with him (as a member of the public involved in Community-based projects) made me grit my teeth to avoid losing my cool...I thought him a arrogant twat to be honest.
detective-boy
27-10-2004, 09:08
I thought him a arrogant twat to be honest
Mmmm...Yep...Think I can understand how that happened! Could come across like that sometimes.
hmm, did anyone else this in the paper the other day? is this for real..? islington council's taking a slightly different approach to the 'problem' of old men drinking in the streets...
Special benches will be installed around the trees leading up to Old Street station as part of a £1m regeneration of a rundown area close to the City financial district. The seats will be designed to lean inward, so the eight to 10 men who frequent the area can drink and chat in peace. The architects of the scheme believe that sitting inwards is best for adult drinkers, whereas teenagers preferred to sit higher up.
Also provided will be ashtrays, bins, and a low wall for privacy as one's tipsiness increases.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1335324,00.html
lang rabbie
27-10-2004, 09:52
hmm, did anyone else this in the paper the other day? is this for real..? islington council's taking a slightly different approach to the 'problem' of old men drinking in the streets...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1335324,00.html
I saw a brief story on it (Standard website?) on Monday but was unable to find any further details. I did begin to wonder if this is the architects taking the piss (oops, no pun intended) given that their original designs for a "Promenade of Light" along Old Street were criticised in Building Design Magazine
In Tonkin Liu’s drawings of the Old Street scheme (News August 6), there is scant evidence that any of the following issues were either considered by the architect or required by the Architecture Foundation jury: analysis of the social dynamic of the area; demography of local users; analysis of the effect on the economic dynamic; the social, cultural and economic context; any idea of the specific requirements of the user population; any idea of how the context will change over the projected life of the proposal; or any idea of how the site is used programmatically and by whom.
(full story only available to subscribers, and mine has lapsed)
However, their design proposals did sound a lot more interesting than the grand plans for Brixton Central Square
The Architecture Foundation is holding an event to present Tonkin Liu’s winning scheme for "Any Old Street?", a competition to transform the public space around Old Street, this Friday 15 October between 12-7pm at 49 Old Street (formerly the Quiet Revolution).
Tonkin Liu’s ‘a promenade of light’ scheme for the open area outside the shops on the north side of Old Street, west of the roundabout, is due to start on site in spring 2004. The local practice’s design was announced as the winning scheme for Phase 1 of the competition from a shortlist of five in August of this year.
The proposal develops the idea of a promenade as a community-owned space, creating new spaces for interaction, animated by light. Lifted at each end to house a café and kiosk beneath it, the promenade celebrates community activity and could be transformed into a space for markets, concerts and festivals. Lighting installed in the tree line, creating a lit green canopy, would be activated by natural light levels and the movement of people.
Brixton Hatter
27-10-2004, 13:24
Don't know if it is true - but you're right that the anti crack houses stuff came in with the Anti Social Behaviour Act 2003 - so it's certainly possible.Yes, I believe this is correct. The legislation allowing councils/police to close crack houses within 48 hours is very recent indeed - and might even have only come into force earlier this year. Paddick did not have this power at his disposal.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.