Brian 2: The Sunday papers witchhunt goes on

[Mrs Magpie]

DMR

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

 

[editor]

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

But I thank you for your apology.

 

[Roadkill]

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

Go Mrs Magpie!

 

[DailyMailReader]

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

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

 

[Anneth]

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

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

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

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

 

[Roadkill]

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

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

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

 

[DailyMailReader]

Roadkill,

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

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

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

 

[Anneth]

roadkill

whoa!

easy now . . .

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

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

 

[editor]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, and I live in Brixton too.

 

[agricola]

has anyone asked the Commander whether he inhaled?

 

[DailyMailReader]

Can I have some more humble pie please ?

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

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

 

[editor]

DMR: you're doing it again!

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

So why do you insist on repeating the same lie?

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

 

[Mrs Magpie]

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

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

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

 

[Roadkill]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[GaryJenkins]

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

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

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

BUT

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

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

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

 

[editor]

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

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

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

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

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

Shame on them.

 

[hatboy]

Mike said:

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

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

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

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

 

[William of Walworth]

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

DMR = trolling twat.

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

 

[Alanj]

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

 

[Anneth]

yep yep yep to alanj

couldn't agree more

 

[Joel]

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

 

[William of Walworth]

The Copper-Establishment want him out

I agree with him more than you

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

 

[Joel]

The Copper-Establishment want him out

Originally posted by William of Walworth
I agree with him more than you

You talking to me?

 

[William of Walworth]

To Anneth actually .....

 

[treelover]

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

 

[William of Walworth]

Treelover, was that aimed at me?

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

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

 

[detective-boy]

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

 

[Mrs Magpie]

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

 

[LordofKaos]

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

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

large amounts of the police force.

- Editor

And you can back this up with factual evidence.

- DMR

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

- Editor

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

What I don't understand is this:

In the research 150 frontline patrol officers.

- Editor

75 police offices are NOT "a large amount"

75 Police officers is a TINY amount of police officers.

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

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

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

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

I am sorry but that makes him a hypocrite.

 

[editor]

75 police offices are NOT "a large amount"

It is when it amounts to HALF the police officers questioned.

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

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

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