He does and I claim my £5!
Brian 2: The Sunday papers witchhunt goes on
- Thread starter TinyCrendon
- Start date
- Status
He does and I claim my £5!
Mrs Magpie
On a bit of break...
Sorry FTP, he thought he'd bought a place in Lambeth and discovered after he'd moved in that it was yards beyond the boundary.......
BTW congrats on your Court result
BTW congrats on your Court result
OOOOOOOOPS!
My mistake.
Cheers Mrs. M!
My mistake.
Cheers Mrs. M!
L
LordofKaos
Guest
Ohh I have seen loads, I have been party to loads of crimes, in my younger days some more serious (petty theft and breaking into cars) now its the same ole routine of soft drug taking.
The difference is I am not arresting people for commiting those same crimes. I am not putting myself forward as an upholder of the law.
You do know what hypocrite means don't you?
Like I said in the other thread that you didn't want to reply to, how would you feel if some police officers decided off their own backs that racial hate crime was not worth persuing? or that they decided to turn a blind eye because it suited them?
You would be upset and you would be here moaning at the police just as fast as you could, so if anyone is a hypocrite it is you, go look up the word you will see I am right.
Saying its half editor only counts when its a large number, 150 is NOT a large number. 150 is infact such a small number that any researcher basing any argument on a 27,000 (nearest figure I could find) population on questioning 150 people would be laughed at by serious scientists.
Thats 0.5% of the police, so one half of one half of a percent of police officers admitted to smoking cannabis 'at some point'.
Well thats conclusive proof then isn't it.
Also there is a difference in letting the letter of the law go for community reasons, and doing it because it is your friend.
That is what is commonly called prejudice.
editor
hiraethified
Ah. Because you didn't like the results of the poll you're simply going to extrapolate the data to suit your argument? What a shame.
And your twisted comparison between a partner harmlessly smoking a joint in the privacy of their home years ago and race hate crime is as off-the-mark as it is disingenuous.
The only 'crime' committed in the former is the crime of Daily Mail-fuelled 'outrage' - and if you want to shout about hypocrisy, why don't you wonder why the Mail isn't paying tens of thousands of pounds to track down its own reporters who smoke dope? Or start shouting about other self-confessed public figure dopeheads like Prince William and MPs?
To compare the act of watching someone smoke a joint with race hate crime - where there is a clear victim and often violence and intimidation - is utterly despicable.
Thank fuck we don't live in the zero tolerance world you seem to advocate.
Oh and I know what hypocrite means, thanks. It's the act of criticising one person for doing something while you do exactly the same. Sound familiar?
You'll also find that Paddick's approach to cannabis use is entirely consistent with many other officers. As the Rowntree Foundation report concluded:
The..."study reveals widespread inconsistencies in policing of cannabis on the streets. Many police officers have effectively decriminalised possession of cannabis by turning a blind eye to the offence, or issuing informal warnings. But a small minority of patrol officers ‘specialise’ in cannabis offences, accounting for a disproportionate number of arrests for possession.
The picture of widespread inconsistencies in the treatment of cannabis possession offences emerges from a unique street-level study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based on hours of observing what happens ‘on the beat’ as well as interviews with police and those they arrest. It finds that the chances of being arrested depend on the force areas where an offence is discovered and on the experience and attitudes of individual officers"
And your twisted comparison between a partner harmlessly smoking a joint in the privacy of their home years ago and race hate crime is as off-the-mark as it is disingenuous.
The only 'crime' committed in the former is the crime of Daily Mail-fuelled 'outrage' - and if you want to shout about hypocrisy, why don't you wonder why the Mail isn't paying tens of thousands of pounds to track down its own reporters who smoke dope? Or start shouting about other self-confessed public figure dopeheads like Prince William and MPs?
To compare the act of watching someone smoke a joint with race hate crime - where there is a clear victim and often violence and intimidation - is utterly despicable.
Thank fuck we don't live in the zero tolerance world you seem to advocate.
Oh and I know what hypocrite means, thanks. It's the act of criticising one person for doing something while you do exactly the same. Sound familiar?
You'll also find that Paddick's approach to cannabis use is entirely consistent with many other officers. As the Rowntree Foundation report concluded:
The..."study reveals widespread inconsistencies in policing of cannabis on the streets. Many police officers have effectively decriminalised possession of cannabis by turning a blind eye to the offence, or issuing informal warnings. But a small minority of patrol officers ‘specialise’ in cannabis offences, accounting for a disproportionate number of arrests for possession.
The picture of widespread inconsistencies in the treatment of cannabis possession offences emerges from a unique street-level study for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, based on hours of observing what happens ‘on the beat’ as well as interviews with police and those they arrest. It finds that the chances of being arrested depend on the force areas where an offence is discovered and on the experience and attitudes of individual officers"
L
LordofKaos
Guest
27,000 in the Met force alone and they spoke to 150 and this somehow makes your claim that "a large amount" is accurate?
You supplied the source and now you complain when the source is shown to be widely inaccurate. If you do not want your sources to be shown as useless I would suggest finding better and more complete sources.
Did he take the drugs off of his friend? Did he give him a warning whether verbal or written?
Then his actions are NOT entirely consistent with other officers. Since most of the officers that I have heard of atleast take the drugs away and issue a verbal warning.
I do believe that Zero Tolerance is NEEDED in some places, places where street crime is rife and out of hand.
I also think that the stance that most police officers take to cannabis in most situations is the correct stance to take, remove the drugs from the person and either give them a verbal warning or take them to the police station for a proper warning. Thus you are obeying the law in essence and not choosing what to obey and what not to, and yet you are not causing more unneccessary paper work for something that most sane people see as no worse then having a few beers.
I myself have had both happen to me, both a verbal on one occasion and a written on the other.
The difference here is that a Police officer choose to ignore the law for his friend.
That in its essence is wrong, it doesn't matter what the law is, it is wrong.
The police should not be allowed to ignore laws that their friends have broken no matter what that law is.
Thats the basic bottom line, Brain Paddick had no right as a police officer to ignore the law breaking of his friend.
As to the daily mail, I couldn't tell you I have never read that newspaper, I have no idea what their journalists get up to or what their headlines scream.
You supplied the source and now you complain when the source is shown to be widely inaccurate. If you do not want your sources to be shown as useless I would suggest finding better and more complete sources.
Did he take the drugs off of his friend? Did he give him a warning whether verbal or written?
Then his actions are NOT entirely consistent with other officers. Since most of the officers that I have heard of atleast take the drugs away and issue a verbal warning.
I do believe that Zero Tolerance is NEEDED in some places, places where street crime is rife and out of hand.
I also think that the stance that most police officers take to cannabis in most situations is the correct stance to take, remove the drugs from the person and either give them a verbal warning or take them to the police station for a proper warning. Thus you are obeying the law in essence and not choosing what to obey and what not to, and yet you are not causing more unneccessary paper work for something that most sane people see as no worse then having a few beers.
I myself have had both happen to me, both a verbal on one occasion and a written on the other.
The difference here is that a Police officer choose to ignore the law for his friend.
That in its essence is wrong, it doesn't matter what the law is, it is wrong.
The police should not be allowed to ignore laws that their friends have broken no matter what that law is.
Thats the basic bottom line, Brain Paddick had no right as a police officer to ignore the law breaking of his friend.
As to the daily mail, I couldn't tell you I have never read that newspaper, I have no idea what their journalists get up to or what their headlines scream.
L
LordofKaos
Guest
I am sorry, are you now denying that there is ANY violence and intimidation involved in the drugs trade?
Certainly seems that way.
editor
hiraethified
This directly contradicts the findings of the Rowntree Foundation (see above), so once again you are choosing to ignore facts you don't like.
Have you any alternative figures or studies to dispute these findings or are you basing your comments entirely on your own prejudices?
And seeing as you're insistent that zero tolerance is necessary in some areas, would you be so kind and name these areas along with your experiences of them?
As along term resident of Brixton, I think zero tolerance in entirely inappropriate for Brixton and Paddick's approach was correct.
How about you?
editor
hiraethified
I've never heard of violence and intimidation being involved when someone is watching their partner smoke a joint in the privacy of their own home. Have you?
(Not that it's relelvant to your thoroughly dishonest attempt to link 'turning a blind eye' to race hate crime with what someone gets up to in the privacy of their own home)
L
LordofKaos
Guest
I hate to post again, but I hate to edit even more.
I understand your point of view editor you can point to me and say the same that I have said about BP. I have sat and watched several of my friends smoke joints and not done a damn thing about it, I have smoked joints myself and taken other drugs despite knowing the full consequences of doing so.
There is a difference though.
I did not sign up to be a police officer and be responisble for upholding the law.
He did.
IF he felt that the cannabis laws were so wrong that he could no longer uphold them, then he should have quit the police force.
He didn't.
He choose to remain and ignore the law for his friend.
That was wrong, and it was hypocritical.
I understand your point of view editor you can point to me and say the same that I have said about BP. I have sat and watched several of my friends smoke joints and not done a damn thing about it, I have smoked joints myself and taken other drugs despite knowing the full consequences of doing so.
There is a difference though.
I did not sign up to be a police officer and be responisble for upholding the law.
He did.
IF he felt that the cannabis laws were so wrong that he could no longer uphold them, then he should have quit the police force.
He didn't.
He choose to remain and ignore the law for his friend.
That was wrong, and it was hypocritical.
L
LordofKaos
Guest
I don't know about Brixton I don't live there and I have not to my knowledge done more then drive thru on a couple of occasions.
Where do I think Zero tolerance should be.
How about Hackney, with its 55 stabbings and shootings per MONTH, with its 8 murders in 2 years within a mile of each other, where the residents actually do live in fear of going out of a night.
That sounds like the perfect place to instigate zero tolerance and give the people of hackney the chance to be able to feel safe in their borough.
I did not ignore your report, your report stated that 'many police officers..turn a blind eye or issue a verbal warning'
That is hardly conclusive, how many is many for instance, is that many of 27,000 or many of 150? And how many decide to turn a blind eye compared to actually taking the drugs away and issuing a verbal warning.
Its not a very good report if it is using words like many and then counting two or three instances within that many, it doesn't really give any clear indictation of how many do what.
It could be 5, that is many. That means one officer turns a blind eye and 4 issue a warning. The report is not very useful when talking in the terms we are talking. If it was even slightly more accurate then it might have some use in this debate.
Where do I think Zero tolerance should be.
How about Hackney, with its 55 stabbings and shootings per MONTH, with its 8 murders in 2 years within a mile of each other, where the residents actually do live in fear of going out of a night.
That sounds like the perfect place to instigate zero tolerance and give the people of hackney the chance to be able to feel safe in their borough.
I did not ignore your report, your report stated that 'many police officers..turn a blind eye or issue a verbal warning'
That is hardly conclusive, how many is many for instance, is that many of 27,000 or many of 150? And how many decide to turn a blind eye compared to actually taking the drugs away and issuing a verbal warning.
Its not a very good report if it is using words like many and then counting two or three instances within that many, it doesn't really give any clear indictation of how many do what.
It could be 5, that is many. That means one officer turns a blind eye and 4 issue a warning. The report is not very useful when talking in the terms we are talking. If it was even slightly more accurate then it might have some use in this debate.
L
LordofKaos
Guest
You stated yourself that this 'offense' took place many years ago, well to my knowledge Lambeth has not had a softly approach to cannabis for years, so we have to assume that this took place before that approach started.
Now lets give you a hypothetical situation that may or may not have arisen.
Brain Paddick decides to go out on patrol with a couple of his officers.
They pull over a young person who happens to have a small quantity of cannabis on them.
One of the police officers decides (as in your report) that he will charge the man for possesion of a controlled substance.
What does Brain Paddick do?
What does the man that sat and watched his friend in his house smoking this self same substance do right now?
If he forces the police officer to not arrest the man, then he is a hypocrite, he is employed to uphold the law and he isn't doing so.
If he lets the person be arrested, then he is a hypocrite for allowing someone else to be arrested for a crime that he watched his friend commit and did nothing.
Either way you look at it the man is a hypocrite.
Now lets give you a hypothetical situation that may or may not have arisen.
Brain Paddick decides to go out on patrol with a couple of his officers.
They pull over a young person who happens to have a small quantity of cannabis on them.
One of the police officers decides (as in your report) that he will charge the man for possesion of a controlled substance.
What does Brain Paddick do?
What does the man that sat and watched his friend in his house smoking this self same substance do right now?
If he forces the police officer to not arrest the man, then he is a hypocrite, he is employed to uphold the law and he isn't doing so.
If he lets the person be arrested, then he is a hypocrite for allowing someone else to be arrested for a crime that he watched his friend commit and did nothing.
Either way you look at it the man is a hypocrite.
editor
hiraethified
Just a thought: seeing as it's widely accepted that there are not enough police resources to instigate 'zero tolerance' zones even if the public wanted them, perhaps you might tell me how such a policy would improve things in Hackney?
It's all well and good self righteously banging on and on about 'hypocrisy' from afar, but the overwhelming majority of people who - unlike you - actually live in Brixton fully endorsed Paddick's policies and clearly couldn't give a fig what did or didn't happen in his bedroom two years ago.
Re: the survey into officers who have smoked dope:
I've no doubt that with such a small amount of officers interviewed, the results may not reflect the exact percentage of officers who have smoked dope, but on what grounds can you claim that it is completely unrepresentative?
In the absence of any other facts, you seem to be relying entirely on your own prejudice.
It's all well and good self righteously banging on and on about 'hypocrisy' from afar, but the overwhelming majority of people who - unlike you - actually live in Brixton fully endorsed Paddick's policies and clearly couldn't give a fig what did or didn't happen in his bedroom two years ago.
Re: the survey into officers who have smoked dope:
I've no doubt that with such a small amount of officers interviewed, the results may not reflect the exact percentage of officers who have smoked dope, but on what grounds can you claim that it is completely unrepresentative?
In the absence of any other facts, you seem to be relying entirely on your own prejudice.
just a point on those questioning the Rowntree people. Yes, this is statistically significant. Do you think they get poll numbers for voting intentions from interviewing all 22 million voters? It's nearly 25 years since I studied statistics at school and yet I remember that you can get significant results from small samples if you take the right sample and you allow for variables. these people are trained scientists and have to answer to thier peers - the most damming gap in your knowledge of how this world works. the study would have been trashed by fellow scientists if it was incorrectly arrived at.
and with regards to hypocrisy. I suggest that you'd prefer us policed by actual robotic cops rather than human beings. the whole point of community policing is to bring one set of citizens - cops - closer to another set of citizens - the policed for practical reasons of better policing as well as the greater good. we're all hypocrites in one way of another so as far as I can tell you'd prefer us to be policed by non-humans!
and with regards to hypocrisy. I suggest that you'd prefer us policed by actual robotic cops rather than human beings. the whole point of community policing is to bring one set of citizens - cops - closer to another set of citizens - the policed for practical reasons of better policing as well as the greater good. we're all hypocrites in one way of another so as far as I can tell you'd prefer us to be policed by non-humans!
L
LordofKaos
Guest
I don't for one moment believe that the resources to instigate Zero Tolerance in a borough like hackney are not available.
If you can have 300 police at a football match or at the May Day protest then you can have a reasonable number of police officers on the beat stopping street crime in a single borough.
I don't care what the people of Brixton think, that doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocrite.
When you can prove to me that he isn't a hypocrite then you will have a case to answer to, as it is, all your saying is I agree with his actions so its ok.
Funny but didn't people like DMR and Watchtower say the same thing about the police officers beating up the 16 year old kid in the football thuggery incident, and wasn't they berated for that view?
I see one rule for you and what you believe in and another for what other people believe in.
I am not relying on anything Editor, its your souce not mine, YOU said 'a large amount' and claimed that the report backed up YOUR argument, it doesn't, I showed that, and now all of a sudden I need to bring proof to the table? Proof of what? I didn't claim anything. Your the only one making claims you cannot back up.
Unfortuantely Pcanning, you seem to be getting confused, firstly the report that only included 150 police officers was not a report done by the Rowntree people, it was infact made by a journalist from the Times, and those people are not scientists who have peers they have to answer to.
Secondly the Rowntree report from what was posted did not give ANY numbers at all.
This is the rowntree report in different words, i will give you the information that they give us and ask you a question based on that information, see if you can get the answer right,
"Many people are in a room, Black people are in the room and white people in the room"
That is the extent of the Rowntree information, now for the question.
"How many black people are in the room"
When you can tell me how many black people are in the room based on my statement, then and only then will I put ANY store in the rowntree report.
As it stands right now, other then getting a feeling from it that the police are mainly taking an unofficial stance on cannabis it says nothing at all.
If you can have 300 police at a football match or at the May Day protest then you can have a reasonable number of police officers on the beat stopping street crime in a single borough.
I don't care what the people of Brixton think, that doesn't change the fact that he is a hypocrite.
When you can prove to me that he isn't a hypocrite then you will have a case to answer to, as it is, all your saying is I agree with his actions so its ok.
Funny but didn't people like DMR and Watchtower say the same thing about the police officers beating up the 16 year old kid in the football thuggery incident, and wasn't they berated for that view?
I see one rule for you and what you believe in and another for what other people believe in.
I am not relying on anything Editor, its your souce not mine, YOU said 'a large amount' and claimed that the report backed up YOUR argument, it doesn't, I showed that, and now all of a sudden I need to bring proof to the table? Proof of what? I didn't claim anything. Your the only one making claims you cannot back up.
Unfortuantely Pcanning, you seem to be getting confused, firstly the report that only included 150 police officers was not a report done by the Rowntree people, it was infact made by a journalist from the Times, and those people are not scientists who have peers they have to answer to.
Secondly the Rowntree report from what was posted did not give ANY numbers at all.
This is the rowntree report in different words, i will give you the information that they give us and ask you a question based on that information, see if you can get the answer right,
"Many people are in a room, Black people are in the room and white people in the room"
That is the extent of the Rowntree information, now for the question.
"How many black people are in the room"
When you can tell me how many black people are in the room based on my statement, then and only then will I put ANY store in the rowntree report.
As it stands right now, other then getting a feeling from it that the police are mainly taking an unofficial stance on cannabis it says nothing at all.
agricola
a genuine importer of owls
LoK
Policing for events like football, mayday, indeed any major demonstration usually comes from what are called "aid serials". some of them will be from the area in which the event takes place, most of them however will be from (usually surrounding) boroughs, or, in the case of Mayday, from the Met, the BTP and City. The "local" policing is almost always carried out by officers on relief or sector teams; most (if not all) boroughs are stretched and so are unlikely to be able to provide "aid" for Hackney, Brixton or anywhere else, unless a major incident happens (the aftermath of the Movement for Justice march, Operation "Calm" etc).
correct me if i am wrong but these are allegations made by someone else against him; if he is found to have committed these acts - your argument against him on the basis of hypocrisy comes largely from yourself:
and
QUOTE]Originally posted by LordofKaos
As it stands right now, other then getting a feeling from it that the police are mainly taking an unofficial stance on cannabis it says nothing at all.
this is a pilot approved by the Home Office and the MPA, and popular with the people of Brixton as well as the overwhelming majority of police:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,464568,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,709108,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,671496,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1873000/1873970.stm
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/news/press/02-031.asp
http://195.167.170.93/downloads/pspm-020411-12-appendix01.pdf (this is an adobe acrobat file)
Policing for events like football, mayday, indeed any major demonstration usually comes from what are called "aid serials". some of them will be from the area in which the event takes place, most of them however will be from (usually surrounding) boroughs, or, in the case of Mayday, from the Met, the BTP and City. The "local" policing is almost always carried out by officers on relief or sector teams; most (if not all) boroughs are stretched and so are unlikely to be able to provide "aid" for Hackney, Brixton or anywhere else, unless a major incident happens (the aftermath of the Movement for Justice march, Operation "Calm" etc).
correct me if i am wrong but these are allegations made by someone else against him; if he is found to have committed these acts - your argument against him on the basis of hypocrisy comes largely from yourself:
and
QUOTE]Originally posted by LordofKaos
As it stands right now, other then getting a feeling from it that the police are mainly taking an unofficial stance on cannabis it says nothing at all.
this is a pilot approved by the Home Office and the MPA, and popular with the people of Brixton as well as the overwhelming majority of police:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,2763,464568,00.html
http://society.guardian.co.uk/drugsandalcohol/story/0,8150,709108,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/drugs/Story/0,2763,671496,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1873000/1873970.stm
http://www.mpa.gov.uk/news/press/02-031.asp
http://195.167.170.93/downloads/pspm-020411-12-appendix01.pdf (this is an adobe acrobat file)
editor
hiraethified
And that neatly sums up why Brixton residents can safely ignore your inaccurate ramblings.
And if you think that any London borough has the resources to instigate a policy of zero tolerance, arresting every single person who commits any kind of crime - from dropping litter to being drunk and disorderly - then you're clearly living in cloud cuckoo land. Why do you think Paddick was forced to introduce his cannabis experiment?
And as for the statistics I have provided, perhaps I'd better explain the procedure: I have offered independent evidence that strongly suggests that a significiant amount of police officers have smoked cannabis.
If you think those figures are wrong, the onus is on you to produce a credible contradictory source, otherwise it's clear that you're basing your opinions on nothing more than your own pure prejudice.
It's clear you know fuck all about policing Brixton and even less about available police resources, but feel free to explain exactly how this zero tolerance would improve community relations and clear up gun crime in Brixton and who would foot the immense costs of implementing it.
D
DailyMailReader
Guest
So does a vast under resourcing make it alright to ignore some laws ?
Why should a kid stopped in a 'quiet' London borough get a criminal record for drugs and a kid stopped in Lambeth not get one ?
How do we decide what laws the police can turn a blind eye too and what ones they can't ?
editor
hiraethified
DMR: please get your facts right.
The police are NOT repeat NOT 'turning a blind eye' to dope smoking in Lambeth. Got that?
If you openly deal cannabis you will be busted. If you openly smoke it on the streets, you will be given a warning and your cannabis confiscated - much like what regularly happens elsewhere.
Perhaps you think that wasting a huge part of an officer's day processing someone caught harmlessly smoking a spliff is worthwhile, but I would prefer scarce police resources to be directed at the things that are causing real harm in MY community: like gun- related crime, smack/crack dealing and street robberies.
And I'm not the only one that thinks that way: 83% of Lambeth residents endorsed Paddick's policies recently, but as a non-resident of Lambeth your complete lack of comprehension of the community's needs is understandable.
But seeing as you've been so quick to constantly criticise, what would you have done in Paddick's position, given the limited resources and crime profile of the area?
I wonder if you'd be prepared to pay the vastly increased taxes needed to finance the kind of policing you want in inner cities?
The police are NOT repeat NOT 'turning a blind eye' to dope smoking in Lambeth. Got that?
If you openly deal cannabis you will be busted. If you openly smoke it on the streets, you will be given a warning and your cannabis confiscated - much like what regularly happens elsewhere.
Perhaps you think that wasting a huge part of an officer's day processing someone caught harmlessly smoking a spliff is worthwhile, but I would prefer scarce police resources to be directed at the things that are causing real harm in MY community: like gun- related crime, smack/crack dealing and street robberies.
And I'm not the only one that thinks that way: 83% of Lambeth residents endorsed Paddick's policies recently, but as a non-resident of Lambeth your complete lack of comprehension of the community's needs is understandable.
But seeing as you've been so quick to constantly criticise, what would you have done in Paddick's position, given the limited resources and crime profile of the area?
I wonder if you'd be prepared to pay the vastly increased taxes needed to finance the kind of policing you want in inner cities?
L
LordofKaos
Guest
I like the way that you completely ignore my statement that blows you out of the water Editor, nice bit of avoiddance there.
Let me repeat if for you though, and see if you can come up with a legitimate answer this time, instead of just ignoring it. I will even put it in bold so you cannot miss it.
as it is, all your saying is, I agree with his actions so its ok.
Funny but didn't people like DMR and Watchtower say the same thing about the police officers beating up the 16 year old kid in the football thuggery incident, and wasn't they berated for that view?
When you can deal with that you might have some sort of leg to stand on, as it is you have nothing.
You want one rule for yourself and what you think is right and one rule for everyone else.
Look I have already torn that report to shreds, the ridiculously low number of police officers it asked makes it meaningless, yeah it sounds good saying half of police officers asked, but when it turns out you only bothered to ask two police officers it kinda takes away from the credability.
Its not upto me to produce evidence that refutes something that by its own is meaningless. Produce some evidence worth refuting and I will endeavour to find something that refutes it, when I can refute the evidence on its own due to its lack of scientific basis I have no need of further evidence.
And when exactly did I say i know anything about policing brixton?
Please show me?
I talked about a hypocrite who let a friend disobey the law, a policeman whose job it is to uphold that law.
Like I said before its one thing to allow a bit of leniance because it is better for the community, it is another thing entirely to do it because it is your friend.
You know it, I know it, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it.
There was talk in that other thread on the holigans about other policeman coming forward and giving evidence on their friends.....funny how the comparison can now be made isn't it.
Many of the people here feel that these policeman should come forward and give evidence against their friends, yet they felt it was totally ok for this policeman to not do anything about his friend....why? because they agree with what that person did,
Yet when it is clearly shown to you that people like DMR and WT are quite inclined to say the same thing about the police beating up a football holigan, "he got what he deserved" you are up in arms and the first to complain, because you do not agree.
Your all fucking hypocrites, its ok whilst you agree but then once you don't agree anymore you want it differently.
Make up your fucking minds.
You either want the police to uphold the law even when it involves their friends or you don't.
Let me repeat if for you though, and see if you can come up with a legitimate answer this time, instead of just ignoring it. I will even put it in bold so you cannot miss it.
as it is, all your saying is, I agree with his actions so its ok.
Funny but didn't people like DMR and Watchtower say the same thing about the police officers beating up the 16 year old kid in the football thuggery incident, and wasn't they berated for that view?
When you can deal with that you might have some sort of leg to stand on, as it is you have nothing.
You want one rule for yourself and what you think is right and one rule for everyone else.
Look I have already torn that report to shreds, the ridiculously low number of police officers it asked makes it meaningless, yeah it sounds good saying half of police officers asked, but when it turns out you only bothered to ask two police officers it kinda takes away from the credability.
Its not upto me to produce evidence that refutes something that by its own is meaningless. Produce some evidence worth refuting and I will endeavour to find something that refutes it, when I can refute the evidence on its own due to its lack of scientific basis I have no need of further evidence.
And when exactly did I say i know anything about policing brixton?
Please show me?
I talked about a hypocrite who let a friend disobey the law, a policeman whose job it is to uphold that law.
Like I said before its one thing to allow a bit of leniance because it is better for the community, it is another thing entirely to do it because it is your friend.
You know it, I know it, but you cannot bring yourself to admit it.
There was talk in that other thread on the holigans about other policeman coming forward and giving evidence on their friends.....funny how the comparison can now be made isn't it.
Many of the people here feel that these policeman should come forward and give evidence against their friends, yet they felt it was totally ok for this policeman to not do anything about his friend....why? because they agree with what that person did,
Yet when it is clearly shown to you that people like DMR and WT are quite inclined to say the same thing about the police beating up a football holigan, "he got what he deserved" you are up in arms and the first to complain, because you do not agree.
Your all fucking hypocrites, its ok whilst you agree but then once you don't agree anymore you want it differently.
Make up your fucking minds.
You either want the police to uphold the law even when it involves their friends or you don't.
L
LordofKaos
Guest
In reply to agricola.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he had admitted to it? I could be wrong, but if I am he should be making more of a public denial as this is the idea that I have gotten.
Also,
Brain Paddick said that.
So how exactly does Brain Paddick go about confiscating and giving a verbal warning to someone smoking in his own house?
Not to mention that this incident supposedly happened years before he said this and years before the laws on cannabis were relaxed.
I am glad that the laws on cannabis are changing, it can only be a good thing, but that does not mean that I agree that police officers who are paid to uphold the law are entitled to ignore that law for their friends. Even if the people of Brixton agree.
As I stated above in my reply to editor that is a dirty and nasty road to be walking down.
Correct me if I am wrong but I thought he had admitted to it? I could be wrong, but if I am he should be making more of a public denial as this is the idea that I have gotten.
Also,
Brain Paddick said that.
So how exactly does Brain Paddick go about confiscating and giving a verbal warning to someone smoking in his own house?
Not to mention that this incident supposedly happened years before he said this and years before the laws on cannabis were relaxed.
I am glad that the laws on cannabis are changing, it can only be a good thing, but that does not mean that I agree that police officers who are paid to uphold the law are entitled to ignore that law for their friends. Even if the people of Brixton agree.
As I stated above in my reply to editor that is a dirty and nasty road to be walking down.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Oh gawd! 
It's amazing how little a clue some people have isn't it! How have you got through life this far without opening your eyes? 
Still, it's not fair of me to look down on you, you just haven't learnt yet.. maybe you never will, let's hope you do! I sound like one of those annoying christian recruitment people innit!
One serious question tho "Lord" - what would you do if you caught your partner speeding, or littering, or smoking a little bit of dope? Ring the police, perform a citizens arrest? I'm genuinely interested and hope my previous piss-taking doesn't stop you from answering.
It's amazing how little a clue some people have isn't it! How have you got through life this far without opening your eyes? Still, it's not fair of me to look down on you, you just haven't learnt yet.. maybe you never will, let's hope you do!
I sound like one of those annoying christian recruitment people innit! One serious question tho "Lord" - what would you do if you caught your partner speeding, or littering, or smoking a little bit of dope? Ring the police, perform a citizens arrest? I'm genuinely interested and hope my previous piss-taking doesn't stop you from answering.
ChrisFilter
Like a boss.
Couple of other things - what do you do for a living? do you continue to do this once you are at home, having got back from work?
If Brian has have arrested his partner IF he was smoking weed, would you be happy to have his overtime come out of your pay packet in the form of tax?
one more, lordofkaos - seems like a completely unchaotic, even drab world you want to live in.. lordoforder perhaps?
If Brian has have arrested his partner IF he was smoking weed, would you be happy to have his overtime come out of your pay packet in the form of tax?
one more, lordofkaos - seems like a completely unchaotic, even drab world you want to live in.. lordoforder perhaps?
L
LordofKaos
Guest
You really are clueless arn't you.
I would do nothing, because I did not sign up to uphold the law.
Can you get that through your head? how there is a difference between what I do and what a police officer does?
Again I point you to the holigan thread, how people said it was one thing for the holigans to be using violence but it was wrong for the police to be using the same violence, why? because they have to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Now take your petty name calling and piss off, cause you are clearly not intelligent enough to enter this debate.
I would do nothing, because I did not sign up to uphold the law.
Can you get that through your head? how there is a difference between what I do and what a police officer does?
Again I point you to the holigan thread, how people said it was one thing for the holigans to be using violence but it was wrong for the police to be using the same violence, why? because they have to hold themselves to a higher standard.
Now take your petty name calling and piss off, cause you are clearly not intelligent enough to enter this debate.
There was a police recruitment campaign some time ago. I can't remember when it was in the '70s or '80s I think. It described a situation where you were a policeman out with your mates at a party and someone started to skin up. What do you do? It was a breakthrough in recruitment. It appealed to people who had already realised that this is a grey area and that the old notion of how a policeman should act was outdated. It was a huge success and there was a surge in applications. This was a long time ago LoK but you seem still to be bound up in it. Being a copper means having to uphold the law obviously, but if you are to be effective it also means that you have to take the responsibility to evaluate what is sensible in a given situation. No one can be expected to be a Dalek and follow the letter of the law all the time. That would not only be illogical, it would be ludicrous. If you want the police force to be like that then fine, you go off and try to recruit those people. I wish you luck! In the meantime realise that rational decisions have to be reached that make policing sensible and effective.
L
LordofKaos
Guest
Ahh logical debate, now thats a lot more like it.
It must have been in the 70's WhiteRabbit because I have no memory of it at all.
And in the last 20 odd years I can remember I have never seen another like it.
I understand that the police are not Daleks, and that whilst at a party they might decide to not get involved with what is small time drug taking.
I can also understand why Brain Paddick did it.
There is a difference though.
That is a party where someone else is doing it, possibly someone you do not even know.
Here is Brain Paddick in his own home watching his partner do it.
There is a subtle but very obvious difference here.
Is he ignoring the law because its petty and he doesn't really want to get involved...as in your example.
Or is he ignoring the law because it is his friend.
There is the difference between the two, and if you are honest you must see that there is a difference.
- oh and as an edit, considering the amount of bantering in this thread about evidence, could you provide some to prove this advert existed?
It must have been in the 70's WhiteRabbit because I have no memory of it at all.
And in the last 20 odd years I can remember I have never seen another like it.
I understand that the police are not Daleks, and that whilst at a party they might decide to not get involved with what is small time drug taking.
I can also understand why Brain Paddick did it.
There is a difference though.
That is a party where someone else is doing it, possibly someone you do not even know.
Here is Brain Paddick in his own home watching his partner do it.
There is a subtle but very obvious difference here.
Is he ignoring the law because its petty and he doesn't really want to get involved...as in your example.
Or is he ignoring the law because it is his friend.
There is the difference between the two, and if you are honest you must see that there is a difference.
- oh and as an edit, considering the amount of bantering in this thread about evidence, could you provide some to prove this advert existed?
Guardian
Sunday August 19, 2001
Police face random drug tests: Officers who fail could be sacked
Nick Paton Walsh
Police officers are to face random drugs tests in an unprecedented crackdown on the growing problem of substance abuse in forces throughout Britain.
To the dismay of some serving officers, anybody failing a test could face dismissal under the controversial proposals being drawn up.
The scheme, which is expected to be introduced first in the Metropolitan Police, will see officers of all ranks tested. They may also face random alcohol testing.
The move comes amid growing evidence that drug use within the police is becoming commonplace, particularly among younger officers, in line with the growing acceptance of drug taking among the public.
But sources say the police cannot be seen to be charging members of the public for drugs offences when officers are themselves committing them.
'We want to be flawless when it comes to substance abuse,' said a senior Scotland Yard source. 'Drug use has no place in a modern police force.'
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Britain's most powerful policeman, has ordered one of his deputies to implement random drug testing for all officers in London. Other forces are expected to follow suit.
Stevens has instructed Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, head of the Met's new Drugs Directorate, to find the best method of introducing tests.
The move is supported by Ministers and senior police officers in other forces. The police union in London, the Metropolitan Police Federation, said last night it was not opposed to random drug tests, provided they were of a high quality.
Federation vice-chairman Dave Rodgers said: 'No one would want to work with someone whose ability is impaired by substance abuse. We do not want to see officers committing an offence either. The tests would have to be of the highest quality - which can be expensive. The stigma of an incorrect test result is hard to shake.'
Research has revealed a burgeoning 'drug culture' within forces proportionate to that among members of the public.
A Home Office-sponsored questionnaire by North Yorkshire Police and Middlesex University, the results of which will be published in October, found cannabis use among officers growing, mirroring public consumption - 42 per cent of 16- to 29-year-olds have taken the drug.
However, alcohol abuse was found to be 20 times more damaging to safety and productivity than the use of other substances. Senior officers may extend the new tests to cover alcohol.
Experts believe the tests could improve health and safety. Last year 25 people died in accidents involving police cars - a 178 per cent rise since 1997. Officers also take 11.5 sick days a year - nearly four more than the national average.
It is expected that tests will also form part of the recruitment process, with all potential recruits being asked to participate.
Guidelines published by the Association of Chief Police Officers outline a framework in which chief constables are permitted to introduce 'rolling random drug and drink testing'. But legal experts believe compulsory testing is a grey area.
Sunday August 19, 2001
Police face random drug tests: Officers who fail could be sacked
Nick Paton Walsh
Police officers are to face random drugs tests in an unprecedented crackdown on the growing problem of substance abuse in forces throughout Britain.
To the dismay of some serving officers, anybody failing a test could face dismissal under the controversial proposals being drawn up.
The scheme, which is expected to be introduced first in the Metropolitan Police, will see officers of all ranks tested. They may also face random alcohol testing.
The move comes amid growing evidence that drug use within the police is becoming commonplace, particularly among younger officers, in line with the growing acceptance of drug taking among the public.
But sources say the police cannot be seen to be charging members of the public for drugs offences when officers are themselves committing them.
'We want to be flawless when it comes to substance abuse,' said a senior Scotland Yard source. 'Drug use has no place in a modern police force.'
Sir John Stevens, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and Britain's most powerful policeman, has ordered one of his deputies to implement random drug testing for all officers in London. Other forces are expected to follow suit.
Stevens has instructed Deputy Assistant Commissioner Andy Hayman, head of the Met's new Drugs Directorate, to find the best method of introducing tests.
The move is supported by Ministers and senior police officers in other forces. The police union in London, the Metropolitan Police Federation, said last night it was not opposed to random drug tests, provided they were of a high quality.
Federation vice-chairman Dave Rodgers said: 'No one would want to work with someone whose ability is impaired by substance abuse. We do not want to see officers committing an offence either. The tests would have to be of the highest quality - which can be expensive. The stigma of an incorrect test result is hard to shake.'
Research has revealed a burgeoning 'drug culture' within forces proportionate to that among members of the public.
A Home Office-sponsored questionnaire by North Yorkshire Police and Middlesex University, the results of which will be published in October, found cannabis use among officers growing, mirroring public consumption - 42 per cent of 16- to 29-year-olds have taken the drug.
However, alcohol abuse was found to be 20 times more damaging to safety and productivity than the use of other substances. Senior officers may extend the new tests to cover alcohol.
Experts believe the tests could improve health and safety. Last year 25 people died in accidents involving police cars - a 178 per cent rise since 1997. Officers also take 11.5 sick days a year - nearly four more than the national average.
It is expected that tests will also form part of the recruitment process, with all potential recruits being asked to participate.
Guidelines published by the Association of Chief Police Officers outline a framework in which chief constables are permitted to introduce 'rolling random drug and drink testing'. But legal experts believe compulsory testing is a grey area.
LoK: I assure you I'm not making this up. I've had a quick search on the web with no success but I remember this campaign very clearly. Nevertheless, there are circumstances when obeying the letter of the law does you more harm than good. That was the point I was trying to make. Even if what you are saying is correct, and I don't think enough is known about the situation to say with certainty, what possible good would it have done for him to escort his then bf down to the nick? I think that there a very good argument that it would have been an altogether worse thing to have done than to have let it lie. But I repeat, there is too much about this whole situation that is either contentious or just unknown for us to say anything definitively.
Let's also not forget that this has been the subject of an investigation and he has been exonerated. Not something they are likely to do unless there is a very good reason.
Let's also not forget that this has been the subject of an investigation and he has been exonerated. Not something they are likely to do unless there is a very good reason.
L
LordofKaos
Guest
I didn't think you were White Rabbit, but since evidence and proof are being bandied about in the thread, I felt it would be appropriate that if you could, you should provide evidence.
Pcanning, that is by far better evidence to back up editors claim of 'a large number' then any he has produced, he should be in shortly to thank you.
I don't think it actually changes the basic argument, is a police officer allowed to ignore the law where his friends are concerned, I don't think they are.
White Rabbit whilst I agree that nothing could have been gained by his taking his partner to the local police station and charged, he should never have let it happen.
It should have been clear that this sort of behaviour was not acceptable.
I should point out that BP was accused of smoking cannabis himself which he has strenously denied.
I should point out something else as well, I am not looking for BP to get the sack, be demoted or have any other kind of serious charge made against him.
But he has broken the rules, no amount of running around on these boards can change that. And for that he needs to be disciplined.
You cannot have a major police officer break the rules and have nothing done about it, no matter how much you might like the man (and frankly I do like the man) it doesn't matter about your personal opinions.
He broke the rules, he has to be disciplined.
Pcanning, that is by far better evidence to back up editors claim of 'a large number' then any he has produced, he should be in shortly to thank you.
I don't think it actually changes the basic argument, is a police officer allowed to ignore the law where his friends are concerned, I don't think they are.
White Rabbit whilst I agree that nothing could have been gained by his taking his partner to the local police station and charged, he should never have let it happen.
It should have been clear that this sort of behaviour was not acceptable.
I should point out that BP was accused of smoking cannabis himself which he has strenously denied.
I should point out something else as well, I am not looking for BP to get the sack, be demoted or have any other kind of serious charge made against him.
But he has broken the rules, no amount of running around on these boards can change that. And for that he needs to be disciplined.
You cannot have a major police officer break the rules and have nothing done about it, no matter how much you might like the man (and frankly I do like the man) it doesn't matter about your personal opinions.
He broke the rules, he has to be disciplined.
- Status
