Brian Bows Out of Brixton

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Brian, Dec 6, 2002.

  1. pooka

    pooka Can't Re Member

    I think perhaps Friz you're imposing logic to events to fit your world view, rather than the other way round. You would do well to read through the history. The bare bones are that:

    Paddick was removed from his post because of allegations bought by the Mail on Sunday;

    These allegations did not amount to anything which meritted either criminal or disciplinary action of any form;

    Failure to return him to his post is a capitulation to that newspaper, allowing them to dictate policing appointments.

    That's the long and the short of it.
     
  2. Friz

    Friz New Member

    The Metropolitian Police is run as a service to both the state and the public. Lambeth happens to be part of the whole. It is funded by the state through taxation. I suppose the 'customers' are in the end all taxpayers.

    You are right. The Commissioner was defending his own position. It's always someone elses fault when the shit hits the fan. Paddick knows perfectly well the rules of the game and took calculated risks. Lets get real!

    It is far to simplistic a view to say Paddicks removal was a capitulation to the newspapers. Far be it from me to defend the gutter press but are they not an institution of freedom? They have an important role in the exposal of public hypocrisy and wrong doing of those in public office. They may be a sad lot but we would be worse off without them.
     
  3. Caspar Hauser

    Caspar Hauser Boy from Nowhere

    You have not answered my question who actually owns the service 'police'.

    The 'Daily Mail' as an institution of freedom? :eek:
    That's a joke, isn't it. Or have you completely lost your mind? :rolleyes:
     
  4. Friz

    Friz New Member

    You may consider my post as a joke but try telling that to folk who live in a country where the press are completely controlled by the dictators in power.
    Yugoslavia for example when Milosovich ran things. There's a long list of countries today where the press is just a state organ.
    Thing is, if you have something for long enough you regard it with contempt. Have you ever lived under in a country without freedoms? Of course the UK press abuse their position but millions buy their papers. I would rather live with that than in a country that controlled access to information.
    You need to wake up to a few realities mate.
     
  5. Friz

    Friz New Member

    Oh, and of course the police as I have said so often are a state institution. In your value judgement 'owned' but the use of English is wrong.
     
  6. Stobart Stopper

    Stobart Stopper Well-Known Member

    The Queen owns the police.
     
  7. agricola

    agricola a genuine importer of owls

    st,

    not any more..... burrell "owns" us now

    ;) :D
     
  8. TeeJay

    TeeJay New Member

    A better comparison is between America with its first amendment protection of free speech and Germany and France with their prohibition on certain forms of "hate speech". Which model of "free speech" actually delivers a more free society and prevents abuses, hatred, racially motivated violence, political and business corrupution etc etc.

    Another example is the "moderation" of discussion boards on the internet. I personally find a much more intelligent and inclusive level of debate on forums which have clear rules than others which have an 'anything goes' attitude but where the whole thing either disintegrates into virtual warfare or separates into mutually exclusive ghettos of people preaching to their own little 'congregations' - be they 'right-on' or 'extremist' of some sort.

    Don't think that the only way to have freedom is to follow the American model of freedom.

    How does this apply to this thread? I believe that the Mail is guilty of deliberate defamation of anyone in public life they dislike for political reasons. Why? Because they know that they can't win the argument by telling the truth and setting forth intelligent arguments. They are trying to silence people and drive them out of public life, and they have a long list of victims behind them. How does this in any way make us more free?
     
  9. pooka

    pooka Can't Re Member

    Friz; You set up a straw man in order to knock him down. You suggest that people in UK who feel that the Fourth Estate exerts undue influence per force are arguing for state control of the media. What nonsense.

    In this country, we have no written constitution worth talking about. Conventionally, our freedoms our meant to be protected by a web of checks and balances. Between the crown, the judiciary, the two house of the legistlature, the press and the institutions of civil society (trades unions, professional bodies, voluntary associations and so on).

    In that context, the check against the power of the media resides in the capacity of other, democratic agents to resist the press's sectional interests, most often the interests of their proprietors, not their readers. To comment that the balance has swung too far in the media's favour is not to argue for state control, and people have every right to hold politicians to account when they behave in such craven ways.

    You also suggest that the sales figures of newspapers give legitamcy to their sectional, polictical interference. But when asked why they buy a particular newspaper, most people respond with the sports coverage, followed by the crossword, the horoscope, the TV listings, the weather. In the case of the Sun, half naked women may figure whilst the Mail specialises in lifestyle advice, such as where best to get your bikini line waxed.

    You fall back on the refrain of every world weary cycnic. "Get real". Well, it's getting real that has resulted in turnouts in General Elections below 60% and in local elections below 30%. And that's where the real risks to freedom and order lay.
     
  10. Friz

    Friz New Member

    I think that I made it clear in previous posts that I was not defending the behaviour of the press. I tried to make a point that if you go down the road of selective censorship of the media as in France, accountability is reduced. Political and institutional life becomes corrupted. People in power and I include the likes of Mr Paddick are less concerned that their activities will be held up to public scrutiny. Public life in France is moribund with a political elite who behave in a disgraceful and corrupt way. I think this is in no small part because of a muzzled media that is largely state controlled.

    I believe that the public have a right to know if policeman and politicians et al; behave in a hypocritical or dishonest way. Without an intrusive media how else are we to know? I accept this was not the case with Paddick and we are getting off the subject a little. However he was fully aware of the character and behaviour of his lover. He must have realised the risks he was running and how his high profile policy in Lambeth could be brought into discredit. He took those risks and paid a price that's how it should work.
     
  11. Caspar Hauser

    Caspar Hauser Boy from Nowhere

    Keep your thinking within the box and your head below the parapet and everything will be all right.
    Never fall in love with someone, because if the relationship breaks down your ex may sell you to a newspaper with a political agenda.
    But as you said that's the way it should be.
    What a wonderful world. :rolleyes:
     
  12. Friz

    Friz New Member

    It's a question of judgement. Senior policemen and others who aspire to positions of control over society are required to have lots of it. The rest of us can live as we please.
     
  13. TeeJay

    TeeJay New Member

    Sorry Friz but you are compaining about a political elite and then you say there is one rule for them and another for us.

    Thank God the UK is becoming less like that.

    Did you know that the leader of the lib dems is presenting a leading comedy show on tv?

    Do you realise that some of our best MPs are gay, balck, women, in their early 30s etc etc

    "We" are taking over and becoming "them" and vice versa

    You've got these 'senior policemen' coming online to urban75 and talking to us just like you or me

    Are you saying all these things are bad

    FFS
     
  14. Friz

    Friz New Member

    Not at all. All those things are a positive sign that British society is dynamic. Why do you assume that because those who aspire and achieve positions of control are an elite? They just have control therefore they need perhaps a greater level of judgement than the rest of us. By definition without judgement they would be fairly useless. I believe very much in a society without elites of any description and without state control. However, as long as the status quo remains and they have contol over my life I want them to have good judgement. I believe that Paddick lacks that essential quality. I have arrived at that conclusion by an in depth study of the whole picture. I do not doubt that he did some good in Lambeth, certainly in PR. However he is just an instrument of a policy and his successors will maintain that policy if it works. Time will be the judge of that but at least the baggage of Paddick will not be around to discredit it.
     
  15. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated


    I'm with you most of the way on the role of the press, but that's too sweeping. His judgement was thrown in to question, was examined in detail in both public and private, and he's still got his job, albeit a different position. Essentially his judgement has been shown to be within the bounds of acceptable for someone in his position.
     
  16. pooka

    pooka Can't Re Member

    Erm....from France? Pomposity rarely adds weight to an arguement, Friz.
     
  17. Friz

    Friz New Member

    Personal insults usually indicate an exausted argument.
     
  18. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    So what would have been your real-world, pragmatic, achievable alternatives that would have created a similar amount of positive change in Lambeth and earned a similar amount of backing from the public?
     
  19. Friz

    Friz New Member

    'Positive change' is a subjective statement. It can mean many things to many differing view points. As an example:-
    I would regard change as positive if crime, particulary violent crime and street robbery were reduced. On the other hand enabling it easier for the drug pedlars to operate would be for me a negative. However this is not about me or you Editor it is about how law enforcement is effective for a whole community. I stress the word whole because appealing to minorities does not always mean the whole community. Do not confuse marshalled activism with majority community support. It's like saying the views of U75 posters reflect the feelings of the community of Lambeth.
    Police work is about effective law enforcement. With community consent and support it makes the job easier so that's desirable. However enforcement is the bottom line. That's their 'raison detre'. I believe in the legalisation of all drugs but as long as there's a law of prohibition it should be respected. Where does it end? What other laws can be disregarded because it does not suit a section of the community? Law is the last line of defence for society against chaos. W.H. Auden wrote a wonderful poem about law. The first line reads..... Law, say the gardeners, is the sun. It's worth a read. It's too long to repeat here but it makes a good point.
    Good PR usually brings support at least among some of the population so Paddick's policy achieved something there. Maybe that will continue. That's positive. I am not a policeman so I do not think it appropriate for me to suggest how to Police Lambeth. That does not disqualify me from having an opinion why Mr Paddick's removal was justified. I see no point in labouring the point.
     
  20. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    "I would regard change as positive if crime, particulary violent crime and street robbery were reduced. "
    There was a huge reduction in street crime.

    "On the other hand enabling it easier for the drug pedlars to operate would be for me a negative."
    There was a large increase in arresting street dealers.

    "Do not confuse marshalled activism with majority community support" I was basing my opinion on the unprecedented support at public meetings, from speaking to locals, the vibe in the pubs and street markets, from the words of community leaders and from a MORI poll.

    What were you basing your opinions on?

    More facts
     
  21. Friz

    Friz New Member

    If all what you state is correct then the policy will continue.
     
  22. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    No need to take my word for it - just look up the official figures!

    And sadly, things didn't continue thanks to the Daily Mail who would rather dwell on tawdry muckraking, homophobic witch-hunts and paper-shifting sensationalism rather than reporting on anything positive happening in Lambeth.

    Paddick should have been supported by the press and the issues debated publicly. Instead the Mail went round offering tens of thousands of pounds to publish irrelevant ancient stories from an ex-lover.

    The trouble with any kind of sensible, pragmatic drug policy is that it invariably gets middle England up in a self righteous lather - and that's why we're stuck with a ludicrously botched, spineless, half-baked and backward-looking approach.

    And that's why I supported someone who had the bottle to try and get on and actually do something constructive.

    If nothing else, Paddick drove the issues of cannabis decriminalisation, drug policy and community policing on to the front pages - something most activists have been unsuccessfully trying to do for years.
     
  23. solano

    solano New Member

    i've been a way a while, so not had the opportunity to answer this.
    Mr editor, i have read dozens of threads on these boards where people have refered to you as Mike & you ain't batted an eyelid, i simply call you Michael and you get a big blue vain accross your forehead. strange...

    btw i'm called alan.
     
  24. Friz

    Friz New Member

    I find it difficult to understand why the policy did not continue if it was as successful as you say. The Mail article was surely only an unwelcome distraction to the wider view.. The Home Office and The Commissioner would look very silly if they ignored an apparent solution to Lambeth's problems handed to them on a plate.

    I'm just wondering if this is not perhaps all about personality. Supporting the man not the objective.
     
  25. Jessiedog

    Jessiedog Keeping the faith.

    My understanding is that the policy is continuing and will be extended across the Met and (essentially) nationwide.

    :)

    Woof
     
  26. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    Here's the big difference, Alan.

    It's when someone 'new' shows up on these boards and immediately starts aggressively slagging me off by MY FULL NAME.

    And if you can't see the difference between that and a regular poster mentioning my first name in polite conversation, I suggest you get an adult to explain it for you.

    PS What's your real surname? Where do you live? Where do you work? If you're going to pretend you don't mind people making use of your personal details (even though your board profile is conspicuously empty), you'd best back it up or give up your 'argument'.
     
  27. editor

    editor Forked with electrons

    It's not me making any claims about its success, I'm just referring to the official figures.

    But in stead of expecting me to do your thinking for you, why don't you look up the official figures and then try and work out why they weren't adopted nationwide?
     
  28. Caspar Hauser

    Caspar Hauser Boy from Nowhere

    Are you sure you live in France and not in Utopia? :p
    Look, the Netherlands have the most effective drugs policy in Europe. Surveys show that they have far less problem drug users, far less drug related deaths and even far less young people who are using dope than the UK. But the UK is still not prepared to adopt the Dutch model.
    Why?
    Because the drugs issue isn't about logic. It's about ideological, political and economic interests.

    As far as I understand it, the main reason for the support Paddick received from the residents was not his drugs policy but that he was prepared to talk to them and more important to listen. He was visible on the streets. He engaged with the Brixton community and didn't despise its members as so many have before.
    And that Friz is a personal quality.
     
  29. Friz

    Friz New Member

    This is also my understanding. So Paddick has taken on a pioneering role and does not need the cult of personality. Unless as a useful basis for a future career or advancement in the one he's in.
     
  30. solano

    solano New Member


    when have i ever used your full name? or any other personal details of yours?, Never, if anyone needs to sort their shit out it's you.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice