Paddick may sue the Met

Discussion in 'Brixton' started by Caspar Hauser, Apr 9, 2002.

  1. Caspar Hauser

    Caspar Hauser Boy from Nowhere

  2. William of Walworth

    William of Walworth Festographer

    Good luck Brian!

    More info welcomed subject to sub judice rules!!
     
  3. hatboy

    hatboy Banned Banned

    Bravo Brian. :) I'll come back to this.
     
  4. pooka

    pooka Can't Re Member

    Erm - is this true do we think? Doesn't seem the best tactic to get his job back, at this stage leastways....
     
  5. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    Well I hope Brian and his advisors know what they're up to. Publicly backing the Met into a corner- gimme my job back or else- smacks a bit of playing to the gallery and seems more likely to polarise than to charm.

    I'd like to think that the clear evidence of a tabloid witchhunt, coupled with an effective record and strong community support would easily offset the relatively trivial charges, even with his (to my mind daft) admissions and give the Met ample room to reinstate him, possibly with a minor ticking off.

    As tactics, pushing the Met into wider human rights considerations seems to reduce their scope for face-saving compromise. It certainly gives the homophobic tabloids something else to run with. Whether that will reduce, or increase, his chances of reinstatement remains to be seen.

    Question: how long is reinstatement likely to mean? Is Brian fighting to return for six months before being moved, quite normally, to another job or would the job be his until he applies for something elsewhere?
     
  6. detective-boy

    detective-boy Banned Banned

    It's hard to say. Commanders are moved about from time to time either at their own request (career development, etc.) or because of organisational needs (due to others moving on / retiring, etc.) A move would also come with any promotion.

    If he were reinstated and wished to remain at Brixton, I would guess it would be likely that he would remain there for a year or two unless he requested a move.

    (This question opens up the whole issue of continuity of command within the police service - many officers of Insp / Ch.Insp / Supt rank now move on after 12 or 18 months. Not, in my opinion, a desirable situation when cultural change is at the forefront of the agenda).
     
  7. adi baby

    adi baby Ricin Crispies

    The article does not directly quote Brian so where does this story come from? I would guess that if this is a real story then it would only be relevant after a negative result from the disciplinary hearing anyway. Smells a bot dodgy to me.
     
  8. Jazzz

    Jazzz the truth don't care Banned

    go for it Brian!

    This is great stuff, even if it is a legal 'grey area'.

    I'll be turning up to the gallery if I can. A chance for Joe Public to make its presence felt IMO.

    As for 'shouldn't he get his job back first', well I believe it was Al Capone who observed that sometimes 'a kind word and a gun' often achieved more than 'a kind word'!

    What have they removed him on?

    The offence of not taking the opportunity to escort a live-in partner down to the cells, and some totally unsubstantiated allegations that no-one cares about anyway.

    Totally wrong IMO (if I may be allowed the subjective, somewhat Boolean two-state action-based value system, Theoderic!)

    <edited for careless proofing>
     
  9. Eddie E

    Eddie E New Member R.I.P.

    homphobia

    I suspect media liberty taking with a story.
    It is difficult to allege discrimination when the subject has been promoted on at least six selection boards to the rank of Commander (equivalent of Assistant Chief Constable outside the Met).
    Keep this discipline hearing in perspective. Association (in every sense - not just a relationship) with a person on bail is a matter to be reported, and has been for many years. It is a management effort to counter a history of officers meeting persons on bail in order to 'shake them down' for favours about the forthcoming court hearing. It has nothing to do with being gay or otherwise. If there is no suggestion of corruption, and apparantly there is no such allegation in this case, then it is a minor matter.
    Similarly I suspect that, if exposure of a police officer countenancing drug use in his premises had been made against a hard line officer, that we would all expect some form of investigation - not an alleged cover up. This is also a minor matter as many Members of Parliament have admitted previous dope use - and no-one is suggesting any prosecution.
    Brian was 'moved' away from Brixton pending an enquiry, that appears to be the most speedy I have heard of. He was not 'suspended' or dealt with other than a sideways move to allow an investigation by another senior officer without hazarding te current Brixton experiments in local consultative policing.
    It is difficult to see how the matter could have been dealt with at any lesser levels..
    That said I remain supportive of his openness, his consultation and his refreshing honesty. He may not be a saviour of policing but he is a change. That does not mean he should be treadted in any way other than the way any other officer would be treated - and that is what he is demanding. No difference, simply no discrimination.
    Regards
    Eddie E
     
  10. adi baby

    adi baby Ricin Crispies

    article on page 2 in todays guardian on this - looks like a few opening shots are being fired in the direction of the Met 'disciplinary' hearing. Enough false allegations against Brian to demonstrate harassment on basis of sexual orientaion and lack of comeback against proven harassers so looks very promising. U75 described as 'radical website'. so there!
     
  11. Rain Man

    Rain Man Guest

  12. homphobia

    Good point.

    Brian Paddicks actions and comments, in my opinion, can be best be described as incredibly naive, some even say down right stupid. Certainly not what you would expect from a senior police officer.

    Perhaps he has been over promoted, a case of the Metropolitan polices positive discrimination policy.
     
  13. William of Walworth

    William of Walworth Festographer

    Read the Guardian story!!!

    Daily Why Oh Why Reader

    Any comments to make on the fact that Mr Paddick has been investigated in internal Met enquiries more times PREVIOUS to this than any other senior cop?

    It has been suggested that in two of those previous enquiries (in which he was exhonerated) the same senior Met officer (frustratingly unnamed in the Guardian report) was responsible for the allegations (totally fake) leading to those enquiries.

    No doubt your paper reported the allegations prominently and ignored the exhonerations.

    Does your Daily Mail addled brain accept even the possibility that he might have been stitched up in the past by other coppers who are homophobic bigots?

    Does your shit rag ever report with any prominence whatsoever Police Corruption stories elsewhere in the Met (eg Crack and Cocaine dealing just a few years ago by officers based in Stoke Newington Police Station, using supplies seized from gangs whose movements were shopped to these coppers by other gangs).

    Does your shit rag ever investigate why so many other Coppers found guilty (unlike Paddick in the past or, so far, in this present instance) in displinary hearings, get retired on full pension?

    Do you get your information about Brian Paddick from your sister-shitrag the Mail on Sunday?

    Do you ignore every other item of information (apart from the ravings of your pal in opinions Richard Littlejohn)??

    Shove tomorrow's copy of your Daily Mail right up your suburban letterbox, bigot.
     
  14. William of Walworth

    William of Walworth Festographer

    I've a good mind to sue YOU!

    And while you're about it, self confessed troll care to apologise to me personally for your slanderous and Mail-style distortion-style suggestion the other day (on a now deleted thread) that I was responsible for "bullying" "William" rather than the other way round, contrary to all available evidence conveniently ignored by yourself?

    Wanker.
     
  15. newbie

    newbie undisambiguated

    DMR, welcome back, I thought you'd gone for good.

    But please try reading this stuff carefully. It's not a particularly good point, since the suggestion appears to be that the Met has failed to properly investigate a homophobic campaign against him, not that homophobia has held back his career.

    The rest of your troll is trivial: I've already said that I think his admitting some allegations was daft, but then I've never been doorstepped by a tabloid and can sympathise with an honest person in a difficult position. Really, honest naivety is preferable to a homophobic witchhunt, don't you think?

    The real question is not whether Paddick has committed minor breaches of regulations, but why your organ of choice has conducted such a nasty campaign against him. Perhaps you could enlighten us.
     
  16. Read the Guardian story!!!

    Willy, I've numbered them to make the replies easier. And I'm only posting this to increase my post count. (i'll catch you yet)

    1. Dont know. Perhaps he does more bad stuff. He has already admitted to some sackable things I believe.

    2. Yes, I believe there was a huge investigation named Operation Jackpot. 27 officers got suspended on the word of convicted drug dealers who said 'They're not my drugs, the police planted them'
    Final outcome. 1 officer convicted. Crown court judge summed up the other not guilty cases by saying 'He could not believe the magistrates of the lower court would so easily believe these obviously lying drug dealers.

    3. I guess because they've paid in their contributions all their service and they get what they are owed. Should we also stop anyone getting a pension who has ever done anything wrong in their life ?

    4. Yes, amongst others.

    5. No, not normally.

    Have a nice day.

    RJ x

    Edited because of all the red wine
     
  17. hatboy

    hatboy Banned Banned

    Oh god, is this all in the Brixton board? Do I have to read it? :rolleyes:
     
  18. pooka

    pooka Can't Re Member

    "People were also not just "calling for more visible deterrent patrolling, but for a style of policing responsive to local problems and local needs"

    Report by two criminologists, commissioned by the Met - see todays Guardian
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,682252,00.html

    From the Beeb's coverage:
    "Short-term targets are diverting resources away from "holistic" measures to build long-term confidence and trust in the police among increasingly diverse communities. "

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_1922000/1922652.stm
     
  19. William of Walworth

    William of Walworth Festographer

    You are in denial DMR!

    <loses will to live>

    Sorry hatboy! :oops:
     
  20. theoderic

    theoderic Apostate

    DrJazzz: if you can't let it go, let's take it to the epistemology forum, where it belongs:). But thanks for spelling my name right (it's Gothic, not Greek).

    Interesting articles in the FT and the Guardian, no doubt planted by Brian's "legal advisors" (his term), for what purpose one can only speculate. And, unless and until we hear from Brian on the subject, I for one am not going to speculate.

    Brian hasn't been heard from in these parts for almost a week, which shouldn't surprise us given that he has other pressing concerns right now, and that he's obviously walking on eggshells in posting here under the scrutiny of a hostile press (I was going to say something about banana skins, but decided against mixing culinary metaphors).

    But he's clearly not under the scrutiny of the Guardian's correspondent, Nick Hopkins, who seems unaware of Brian's 43 postings to u75 since his attributed "last" one!

    The legal aspects of an action against the Met for encouraging (or not discouraging) homophobia are well covered, as far as I can judge, in the Guardian, and the tactical question of playing that card at this stage is something we're too far from the action to comment on, usefully.

    But there are aspects of the wider campaign (i.e. the one we're engaged in outside the Met) that are worth commenting on in the light of this, of Ken Livingstone's less than helpful comments at the time of the Assembly Rooms meeting, and so on. And the main aspect is that this is a campaign about open policing, the engagement of the police with the community. Brian is more than just a symbol of this, he's on the street regularly, he listens and replies to people with genuinely-felt grievances (I'm thinking primarily of Mrs. Bishop), and uses any means available, such as u75, to communicate.

    That's what the support BP campaign is about. What it's not about, except contingently, is homophobia in the Met, or rationalising the policing, and ultimately the legal status, of drugs.

    Let's keep focused on that. To do otherwise is to fight the battle on the enemy's terrain. The Sun thinks homophobia is good for circulation: the Mail, perhaps more justifiably, thinks its War On Drugs strikes a chord with its Valium-sotted readers.

    We know that Brian has enemies in the Met who probably fear above all the threat to vested hierarchical interests posed by "policing by consent". And they, perhaps, have allies in "commerce". You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to ask cui bono?, as I'm sure detective-boy will verify.

    Personally, I hope that when the inquiry is over Brian and his legal advisors will hit the Mail with a libel action that puts it out of circulation!

    [edited for typos]
     
  21. Mrs Magpie

    Mrs Magpie On a bit of break...

    mmmm yes, I have been guilty of the Greek not Gothic...which is a bit rich considering I had a rant about people getting Paddicks name wrong..........................My desperate and hastily concocted excuse is that I thought of you as a pillar of classic proportion. Goes away muttering deric not doric, deric not doric........
     
  22. Peter Matisse

    Peter Matisse Queering the Mail

    There was an article on The Independent on Wednesday about Brian. In the article it said that he was considering whether he could use the human rights act. It goes on to say that Brian ' is understood to have had talks with friends and colleagues about the possibility of legal action. But he stressed yesterday: ' I have made no decision about whether or not to sue the Met. I'm not threatening legal action at this stage.' It goes on to say, at the end of the article, that Brian met, on Tuesday, with Gordon Clark the Deputy Chief Constable of Humberside, who has been brought in to head the police enquiry. If anyone is interested the Humberside police have a web page which you can get to by typing - humberside police - in your search engine.

    Part of my job is Personnel, and if I am correct in what I perceive, then Brian is making sure that the investigators know he is going into the investigation well informed about his rights. It is only what I would expect anyone called before a disiplinary hearing to do.

    Also in the article it said that Brian denies smoking cannabis, but has admitted allowing his former partner to smoke it in his flat, and breached police guidelines by not informing his superiors that his partner was on bail whilst the were having a relationship. I would like to ask Detective Boy if he could tell us what disiplinary action Brian is likely to face for what he has admitted. The reason I ask is that I heard on the radio recently that a Detective on the Jill Dando case, who had been sacked for giving information to the press without authority, had been re-instated on appeal and fined 13 days pay. If something like that happens to Brian, I for one would be happy to go out and shake a collection tin, and I'm sure many residents of Brixton would join me.

    Brian - If you get to read this I hope it was a positive meeting with Gordon Clark - Hang in there.
     
  23. theoderic

    theoderic Apostate

    Meaning I'm thick at the bottom and taper towards the top (or is it the other way round?) ...
    Either way, I grant you I could lose a few pounds, Mrs M. But let's observe the proprieties.
     
  24. Mrs Magpie

    Mrs Magpie On a bit of break...

    ummm no I meant pillar in the sense of pillar of the community, um, classic, well you know Greek and Latin, and um, (digs herself in deeper) proportion, well, you've got a sense of proportion.
     
  25. theoderic

    theoderic Apostate

    Well, if you're just going to hurl insults ...
     
  26. theoderic

    theoderic Apostate

    deleted for duplication (and the 5th amendment)
     
  27. Mrs Magpie

    Mrs Magpie On a bit of break...

    Aha! I notice that you don't deny knowing Greek and Latin!....Can you translate something into Latin for me?...I only did Latin for about two years, reasonable vocab, augmented by my horticultural knowledge, but crap grammar...I want to make a T-shirt with "Does my bum look big in this?" in Latin.
     
  28. theoderic

    theoderic Apostate

    Does my bum look big in this?

    Mrs M.

    How about: grandes videntur nates?

    Or, more radically: grandispicit haec pugam?

    Further discussion in the Latin thread, if I can be arsed.
     
  29. Mrs Magpie

    Mrs Magpie On a bit of break...

    Thanks Theoderic, brilliant! I have been following the Latin thread in the General Forum with interest.......

    <comes over all Daily Telegraph like.........that's what's wrong with Britain today.......no good grounding in the Classics any more in schools these days. It's a national disgrace!>
     
  30. Brian

    Brian Local friendly ex-cop

    Hello!

    See my letter to the FT published yesterday (Thursday).

    1. I have not threatened to sue the Met.
    2. I am not subject to disciplinary action - I am being investigated.
    3. I have never admitted allowing drugs to be stored in my flat (they refused to publish that point).
    4. If in the future I decide to take legal action against the Met., such action will not be dependent on the outcome of the investigation.

    To explain point 4.: I am not saying 'sack me (or demote me) and I'll sue'. What I am saying is, if you have treated me unfairly and there is a legal remedy for this unfair treatment, I may, at some point in the future, consider the possibility of taking legal action, whether I get my job back or not. I am not thinking about this at the moment and I have not taken legal advice on this point. Nor do I have, at this stage, the financial backing to take legal advice or legal action against the Met. I think that's clear.:confused:
     

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