# Message from Brian



## Brian (Mar 21, 2002)

I really appreciate all your support.  Please try not to make life difficult for my officers - they are good people, overwhelmingly, who are doing a difficult job to the best of their ability.

I must now defend myself through the investigation process and not through these boards or through the media.

I am still here and I will not be driven away but I have to keep quiet for a while.

Brian


----------



## isvicthere? (Mar 21, 2002)

Good luck, Brian.


----------



## tarannau (Mar 21, 2002)

Best of luck too. Here's hoping for your quick return.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 21, 2002)

I didn't think we were trying to make life difficult for them!
You have an awful lot of support out there, and -as you probably now know - campaigns are seriously under way.
I cannot believe the conduct of the _Mail_. This whole affair is outrageous.
Good luck, Brian.


----------



## GaryWary (Mar 21, 2002)

It is cos of Brian that I now waste a few hours on this site.

That's not to say that I am here to gatecrash and spoil 'your u75 scene'.  I did stumble upon these boards a year or so ago, but never took the time to chat.  I am interested in lots of fairness and environmental issues.  This board seems to be very friendly (compared to others I have visited).  And full of good stuff...

From what I understand of the situation, Brian seems to be a good man.  And the witch-hunt is proof indeed that the sytem really does suck.  The Mail is hardly the voice of reason.  The Mail is a shit newspaper in a fine tradition of shit newspapers.

The End.

Sorry for another un-interesting post.

Back to the application forms..  (I am currently a jobless 2:1 graduate engineer).


----------



## Cautious Fred (Mar 21, 2002)

... For fuck's sake bin that application to join the Met!


----------



## GaryWary (Mar 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Cautious Fred _
> *... For fuck's sake bin that application to join the Met! *



I don't wanna become one of them..  looks like a frustrating life...


----------



## drfranni (Mar 21, 2002)

"If you can see the words you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools
And see the work you gave your life to, broken
And bend and build it up with worn out tools.."

A popular poem by an unpopular poet.

Strength and courage to you and those around you


----------



## Aitch (Mar 21, 2002)

Good Luck


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 21, 2002)

*Brian*

  Good to know you're still reading stuff here occasionally and are thus aware of  the overwhelming support


----------



## Ae589 (Mar 21, 2002)

Brian, if you continue to be allowed to make the difficult decisions you started making, life will only get better for your officers.

Good luck.


----------



## flygirl (Mar 21, 2002)

Brian,
You have my support and respect. 

I just went to listen to the results of your Lambeth experiment, and they were very encouraging. You have made a difference and that inspires me. 

I had a banner which read 'Paddick changed my mind about policing'. It's true.

fly


----------



## MysteryGuest (Mar 21, 2002)

I still feel that a lot of good will manage to come out of this.  Much worthwhile debate has been stirred up and the tabloids’ position looks, perhaps, just a bit lonelier and more stupid than it did before.

And I’m sure you know you’re made of better stuff than tabloid hacks will ever be.

Much, much support and respect


----------



## LDR (Mar 21, 2002)

Brian,
I have the utmost respect for you.  
I have yet to meet anybody who doesn't support you.  This includes the people I know who read the papers which have been having a pop at you.  That says something in itself.
If nothing else is achieved at least you can take heart knowing that some peoples perception of police officers has changed for the better.  I know mine has.
Keep your chin up,
Scott.


----------



## catbabe (Mar 21, 2002)

Brian, much support and respect.


----------



## Rollem (Mar 21, 2002)

Brian
As ever you have my support and respect. You have made some brave decisions that have made a lot of headway in an otherwise mishandled issue.
Keep up the good work, not long before you are back walking the streets of Brixton where you belong.
Keep ya chin up!


----------



## Stefan26 (Mar 21, 2002)

just to echo what everyone else has written really..

Im a new user, again drawn to this site by all the recent stuff surrounding Brian...

just wanted to say Good luck mate, and keep up the excellent professional stance...you carry yourself well, so stuff the News Of The World!


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Mar 21, 2002)

*Good luck, Sir!*

and remember, you pay your Federation contributions too.


----------



## mach v (Mar 21, 2002)

*Go Brian!*

Deep respect and much support from this Brixton resident, come back soon! 

marky


----------



## Jock_MacGrim (Mar 21, 2002)

As an ex-Brixtonian, and as someone who had a not-inconsiderable number of run-ins with the law in my wild youth, I would  like to add my voice to the ever-increasing number of unlikely people offering their respect and support for your efforts, and my sympathy, for what it's worth, for the appalling stress you must be under. 

Whatever happens, you have changed an awful lot of people's perceptions of the police for the better, and started a much-needed debate. I only wish there were many more police officers like you. All the best.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2002)

Don't worry about Pro-Paddick Riots in Coldharbour Lane. All the action that is being planned is along the petitions, posters and flyers, toot if you support Paddick kind of stuff. Following on from the way you have done things in Brixton it's all around communication, talking to people, discussing the issues. There may well be people making a lot of noise, but it's all pretty joyful light-hearted stuff, like the Monty Python spoof flyer with a picture of you on it that I saw in Brixton yesterday

The Life of Brian.
Reinstate Paddick
He's not a very naughty boy
He's the Messiah!

Hang on in there, we'll get you home!

I agree that it must be hard for your officers, particularly with all the media spotlight on them.
I think that the officers around Brixton should be greeted cheerily and told that we support them, after all they are as much part of 'Team Brian' as we are. Without their support, Brian Paddick would not have been able to do the things for Lambeth that he has.


----------



## Albert (Mar 21, 2002)

What more is there to say. Good luck to you - hope the situation resolves itself and you're allowed to get back to your post ASAP.


----------



## bang (Mar 21, 2002)

who is this brian guy anyway?


----------



## muffin (Mar 21, 2002)

GOOD LUCK!! 

I'm a new member too, so I hope you don't mind that I feel that I need to contribute.

Brian, you have my overwhelming support, and more power to you for having the balls to stand up for what you believe.  If more people were like ytou, maybe this country would be a nicer, more honest palce to live!!

Don't let the bastards grind you down!

Best of luck!!


----------



## dr256 (Mar 21, 2002)

thanks for actually comeing to engage with us in the first place. 

I sincerley appreciate that...


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Mar 21, 2002)

*Aye*

All the best & good luck Brian.

This country definitely needs more people like you.


----------



## DailyMailReader (Mar 21, 2002)

*Good luck, Sir!*



> _Originally posted by LaraCroftbb _
> *and remember, you pay your Federation contributions too. *



I'll think you will find he doesn't.

But then again, he probably doesn't want Glen Smyth defending him after what the police federation said.


----------



## Jazzz (Mar 21, 2002)

*fingers crossed, Brian*

*May 'the force' be with you...*


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 21, 2002)

Would anyone want Glen Smyth defending them? He comes over as a very unpleasant character.


----------



## Griff (Mar 21, 2002)

I don't read the Brixton forum very often, and this is probably my first post here, but it's just to offer a bit of support.

So, good luck to you, more forward thinkers are nescessary.


----------



## mark b (Mar 21, 2002)

Good luck Brian
Hope you come through the investigation ok and get back to your good work in Brixton. Lets hope it’s not sabotaged while your not there.


----------



## han (Mar 21, 2002)

There's a hell of alot of support out there for you, Brian, for communicating with, and listening to the community!
I hope you're reinstated soon. It's true, the gutter press are the ones looking like fools in this situation. But it's obvious that the majority of the Lambeth community are behind you! Three cheers and good luck!!!


----------



## mapatchli (Mar 21, 2002)

Good luck,
 you can see that there is a hell of a lot of support for you out there. Just wish there were a few more forward thinking people like you about. Perhaps that is what scares the living daylights out of the mail!


----------



## mysterygirl (Mar 21, 2002)

Just visited to say 'Good Luck' to Brian

And upon your return, here's hoping you are willing, and able, to pick up where you left off.


----------



## Shar_Shalom (Mar 21, 2002)

*Lambeth Positive Action......*

  Just to add to the words of support. Whilst you're temporarily at the Yard, it might be a good time to re-read your reports on the Lambeth Experiment as it seems it has been again endorsed by Big John. 

With a bit of luck it may go Met wide  



 Don’t feel down just think, once the investigations over you can personally do the Mail for "Wasting Lambeth Polices Time...." 

 Respect to the Commander....


----------



## free spirit (Mar 21, 2002)

*Keep on making a difference.*

Ultimate respect to you Brian for being prepared to stick your neck out and discuss your policies on an open forum like this. I'm sure that you knew that sooner or later the knives would come out, but you still carried on posting regardless. 

I've not really come across your posts before, but just waded through some of the mamoth Brixton threads to see what all the fuss is about. What I've read leads me to believe that you are the most capable, forward thinking member of the police I've ever come across (and I've come across a few in various capacities). 

Any police officer who is capable of debating and defending their policies on an open forum like this, while taking on board the views of the community they're policing wins my vote any day.

If every high ranking officer was like you this country would be a far better place to live in.

You are an example to the rest of the force, and the vast majority of this country is with you on this one.


----------



## oicur0t (Mar 21, 2002)

Hope you get put back in charge asap! Then I can moan at you to catch the guy doing the twoX50p scam on the high street.  

My advice - do what you can, it's all you can do!


----------



## agricola (Mar 21, 2002)

good luck, i am sure you'll be back at work well quickly


----------



## TinyCrendon (Mar 21, 2002)

Respect to Brian. Don't give 'em your right name mate ! 

adz


----------



## Taxamo Welf (Mar 21, 2002)

read your profile in the Grauniad yesterday Brian, you've done some impresive and inspiring thjings to say the least!
''Brian paddick has changed my opinions on policing'
here here 
You have our full support.


----------



## Walter Mitty (Mar 21, 2002)

Good Luck Brian, I've a lot of respect for you.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 21, 2002)

*What Shar Shalom said in another thread he (inadvertantly?) started*



> Don’t feel down just think, once the investigations over can personally can do the Mail for "Wasting Lambeth Polices Time...."
> 
> Respect to the Commander....



Top plan! Wasting Police Time LOL!!! [crosses fingers]

I imagine you'll be chatting to a lawyer or two at some point Brian  

Respect

W of W


----------



## Anneth (Mar 21, 2002)

good luck Brian.

we need more enlightened people like you willing to engage with the community and introduce new ideas to help solve old problems.

you've got my support


----------



## grayzone (Mar 21, 2002)

*Good luck, Brian*

You are fighting the the good fight.  Don't let the B******s grind you down.

Maybe not totally relevant, but I'd like to say that you're an inspiration not just to gay people, but to those who want to believe that an individual can make a difference!


----------



## viperman (Mar 21, 2002)

*take the time off.............*

 to reflect on what has happened. First and foremost you are (were)  in a position of responsibility to uphold the law.  Because of your own personal views you decided to pervert the law in an area that is a haven for lawbreakers so it is no wonder you have widespread support for your views, does that not bother you.  you have let your officers on the street down and I have spoken to a lot of them recently who were disgusted by what you are and how you got there.


----------



## editor (Mar 22, 2002)

You're sounding awfully like ColinTheCop, 'viperman'.

But of course, all cops 'pervert the law' regularly when it suits them: turning a blind eye to a pub lock in, letting off a pretty face for speeding, ignoring spliff smokers at Notting Hill Carnival etc.

The only difference is, of course, is that most officers don't have to face the wrath of sleazy Mail on Sunday waving wads of cash around their ex-lovers, desperately digging for dirt.

That and the fact that Paddick has managed to reduce street crime levels significantly and gained the trust of the hard working and honest community of Brixton with an 83% approval rate.

Oh, and have you worked out the difference between 'backing anarchy' and 'expressing an interest in the concept of anarchism; yet, or are you still relying on the tabloids to work it out for you?


----------



## Celt (Mar 22, 2002)

Brian you have respect.  I hope you are soon back at your old job.  Many, many people are thinking of you. Hope your troubles are soon sorted


----------



## viperman (Mar 22, 2002)

*bit of an oxymoron*

Hard working and honest people of Brixton


----------



## cataplana (Mar 22, 2002)

What on earth do you mean, viperman?  

All credit to you, Commander Paddick, for having dragged the police force into the real world.

I wish you well, although I expect when you are rightfully reinstated your troubles will really begin.   They really are very frightened of you.

That said, good luck!


----------



## meltbaby (Mar 22, 2002)

Highest respect to you Brian and remember you always have the support of your other community (beside Brixton that is


----------



## theoderic (Mar 22, 2002)

> _Originally posted by drfranni _
> *If you can see the words you've spoken
> Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools
> And see the work you gave your life to, broken
> ...



A misunderstood and unfairly maligned author, I think.

Not his best poem, though.


----------



## Voley (Mar 22, 2002)

Hello Brian,

Just a few words to echo what everyone else has said:

You made a genuine attempt to consult with the people of Brixton directly; in a manner that was mercifully removed from the stifling atmosphere of a public consultation meeting.

You have my total support: I hope that you are soon restored to your post and we can all reap the benefits of your progressive policies.

Cheers, NVP.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 22, 2002)

I'm sure you don't need another good luck message, since there seems to be plenty of support out there for you - and quite rightly so.  

All the same, best of luck.


----------



## A German (Mar 22, 2002)

*Good luck from someone not related to Brixton at all*

Hi,

I read of Commander Brian in an online Article and i was curious who this guy may be and what he is saying... So i jumped in here and followed some of the threads he was involved in.
I am impressed... It´s seldom to find someone with such well thought off statements. In the Position he has and it also very brave for someone in this position to post with his real Name in such a forum with such Topics.
If he loose his Post, you will loose an extraordanary Police Officer...
I wish you Good luck

G. Walze

P.S. ecxuse my "jolty" English, i normaly use a more "Scientific" English... I hope i was able to express what i want to say


----------



## sonicdancer (Mar 22, 2002)

Anyone have any report of the protest yesterday in Brixton, couldnt get there me self working....


----------



## calimero (Mar 22, 2002)

Best of luck Brian. I respect your bravery and honesty enormously. It's very sad that the gutter press has reacted to it with such cynicism, but I don't think that their vindictiveness is in any way representative of how the vast majority of people feel towards you, as has been shown by the overwhelming support on this thread. Here's hoping that you will be reinstated quickly and can continue the good work!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 22, 2002)

*Supported intenationally ...*

Your good name is getting about further and wider, Brian! See the post from A German 

Herr Walze, Wilkommen, Guten Tag! Stick around  Your English is fine ...


----------



## mapatchli (Mar 22, 2002)

Viperman- 
                 are you afraid of your own sexuality so much that you get on your high horse about Brians lifestyle choice. Perhaps me thinks you secretly yearn for a bit of gay pleasure!!!  
 Also wonder if you have ever not partaken in a joint or line at one time or another but can imagine you being rat-arsed every friday night and kicking some poor bastard's head in for looking at you


----------



## [z]orkus (Mar 22, 2002)

*support from switzerland*

good luck brian
you have my support and respect.

mach witer so, da chunnt guet.


----------



## Bond (Mar 22, 2002)

Best of luck from me as well Brian, you have lots of the local people in brixton in your support as well.


----------



## Dimitrios (Mar 22, 2002)

I am not from Brixton or London or even the UK but I do understand (to a certain extent) the problems of the area and the work that you have done in order to resolve them. You have my support (if that counts to anything... )

Good luck Brian


----------



## Mad_Sk8er (Mar 22, 2002)

Good luck Brian. Although this has changed my perception of police in that theyre not _all_ bad, weak, and abusive, i still have my general problems with them as ever. If actions get taken against you this'll only cement my general resentment.


----------



## Brian (Mar 23, 2002)

And the winner so far is.....Rollem.  I just love this smilie! 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





By the way I am 95% sure I know who ColintheCop is.  I challenged him twice, face to face, and he completely blanked me - as in he carried on talking about something else as if he never heard the question (which he clearly did).  

Then he comes up to me this week in Vauxhall, showing me the Evening Standard letters of support and asking if I want to go and have a drink with him!

Either he is completely schizophrenic or he realises the only way to get attention here is to troll.  Sorry, completely unfair to those who suffer from schizophrenia.

Anyway, just wanted to say thanks and 'I'm still here'.

Love

Brian


----------



## viperman (Mar 23, 2002)

*Hey Brian*

Did you read the letters of support you had in the Sun yesterday.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 23, 2002)

> Did you read the letters of support you had in the Sun yesterday



Who gives a toss?  If I were in Brian's position I'd much rather have support from peeps on here than from the Scum and its half-witted readership.


----------



## mapatchli (Mar 23, 2002)

I've got half a mind to read the sun
Thats all you need 
Only joking- wouldn't waste my time reading(???) the sun and as for the letters , do you actually believe they're real. You'll be telling me the stories in Readers wives are genuine. Ha


----------



## Andrew.R (Mar 23, 2002)

*Who's really at fault?*

IMHO, the villain of the piece is the sneaky so-and-so who went public with his allegations.  The things some people will do for money!  Has he no shame?

The more lurid the story, the more people will want to believe it, especially when it concerns someone of Brian's eminence.  Mud sticks, and even if he is vindicated, I fear that Brian will always be tainted by this sad episode.

Andrew


----------



## Cautious Fred (Mar 23, 2002)

> IMHO, the villain of the piece is the sneaky so-and-so who went public with his allegations.



Er ... the person who 'went public' is actually a long-standing member of U75, who also writes for the Big Issue.

He/she spoke to Brian before the article was published, and Brian was quite happy for it to go ahead, I understand.

The real villains are the homophobic shits at newspapers like the Mail on Sunday and the Sun who used what Brian had posted here in a witch-hunt to get him sacked.


----------



## easy_does_it (Mar 23, 2002)

Fred isn't Andrew referring to Brian's former lover who sold his story.?


----------



## Mad_Sk8er (Mar 23, 2002)

Although im new to this topic  didnt Brian say that if his views on U75 were ever traced, hed be in a pile of shit? How could he have OKd them to be published?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 23, 2002)

Brian agreed to the (truthful) article in the big issue.   He weathered the subsequent tabloid storm concerning U75 and kept his job.  It was the cheque book journalism of the Mail on Sunday that caused his temporary removal from his Lambeth post.


----------



## adi baby (Mar 25, 2002)

People are terrified of change and will resist it whenever possible BUT people also love it when their lives start improving and their problems start getting resolved.  To make the changes that will bring the improvements however, has always required people with bravery, vision and intelligence ( the opposite of viperman).

So keep on keeping on Brian and 'Team Brian' - your place in the history books is assured for trying to make this country a better place to live in ( the opposite of the editors of The Scum and The Hate Mail ).


----------



## maurice0 (Mar 25, 2002)

Brian,

Any chance of a little side-e-ways slip to the 'boro of Hackney? We definitely need some sensible policing or even some policing at all...

I believe that promotion is the only way out of this one. Head of Urban Policing sounds about right. No pay rise tho I'm afraid. But a suitable post where your obvious and documented skills, tactics and results can be rolled out to other urban areas in dire need of new direction.

Good luck Brian and remember

You're a VERY naughty boy.

*big group hug*


----------



## WESSEX (Mar 25, 2002)

*Commander Paddick*

In a very long teaching career, I had too much to do with the effects of drugs on children's lives. Very young children only get one chance to be educated properly while they are developing and I watched too many adults screw up children's lives. I have had to manage and support staff dealing with the problems arising from hard drugs that have blighted and scarred children's lives.
I was appalled by the extreme right wing press campaigning against Commander Paddick. Melanie Phillips has moved from stridently castigating the teaching profession for years to the police, but her views are even more extreme as she now comes out as a true blue homophobe. The Daily Mail should be absolutely ashamed of itself for encouraging such an outrageous piece of gutter journalism. However, it is at least consistent with its attack on most public services without recourse to facts to evidence.
Commander Paddick has the evidence to prove that the policies that he has employed in dealing with a social issue are working. But don't don't let evidence get in the way of media hysteria, that would not sell newspapers !
I am disgusted that in order to try discredit a successful senior officer, the press begin a hate campaign. I smell more than a whiff of hypocrisy. 
Whatever anyone's private life, it is PRIVATE when and until it can be confidentially and discretely demonstrated to be adversely effecting job performance. Even then, it is a personnel matter to be handled appropriately and not in the tabloid press.
I have a very mature, intelligent and capable unemployed son with a 2:1 law degree applying to join the police. He and I are completely outraged at this sustained attack on Commander Paddick at a time when the police needs thoughtful and reasoning women and men to join any force, irrespective of their sexual orientation.
Brian, it seems to me that you have been open and honest in your dealings with the community and in the way you have conducted yourself in the delivery of effective policing and your sexual orientation, not that the latter should be anyone's business but yours. 
I have read the Mirror today and I hope that the articles will help begin to redress the balance in some way. Like all police officers, you have my support and encouragement to succeed in your task and to be happy in the delicate work - life balance.
 Keep up the campaign and good luck !


----------



## hatboy (Mar 25, 2002)

So who does the Daily Mail think that it's representing??

Cos even "middle England" doesn't think like they do any more.


----------



## viperman (Mar 25, 2002)

*a statement from New york*

This was a quote from former police chief Bill Bratton of New York

Bratton warned that the decision by Met police commander Brian Paddick to turn a blind eye to public cannabis use in Brixton would backfire disastrousely.  He said "it will increase crime, it's the the complete opposite of the direction we wne tin New York"
Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to a more serious use of drugs   "When police resources are squeezed, the tendency is to focus on more serious crimes.  This is a flawed approach".

Nothing to do with me, just thought i would pass these words of wisdom on from a police chief who suceeded


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2002)

Viperman: unless you apologise for accusing me of trying to hack your system, you're out of here.


----------



## WESSEX (Mar 25, 2002)

*The Commander*

I don't know about middle England having been born and brought up in London. My Dad was born in Brixton. Middle England is an interesting place, it's very similar to London, just further away, but with its own issues. The problem is that there are too many people who just believe as fact what rags like the Daily Mail care to print. Narrow vision, unquestioning attitudes, fiction dressed as fact, giveaways, glossy banners, tokens, free offers (after collecting a million tokens and therefore equal copies!) all contribute to middle England just believing what it reads. As well as this, I suspect that there are many in Hampshire more concerned about rushing around the countryside in fancy dress, hunting foxes, quietly persecuting anything not "normal" and moaning about the government and what a hard time they are all having with Labour.
People down here are not exposed to the issues facing inner city dwellers and I think they're insular and less receptive to some of the real human rights issues. It's just not city life, the problems are different and the Mail et al likes to have a go at anything that will help it sell more newspapers.


----------



## norwayguy (Mar 25, 2002)

*Good luck!!*

Hello Brian!

I read about you in a norwegian gay site and in one of the biggest papers in Norway and I must say that I will give you my full support for what you are going through. I have a friend who is gay and policeman and he is totally openminded about that to his collegies and they respect him fully. Here in Oslo it's very good to be gay, everyone respects you and that's good. You should moved to Norway and work as a policeman here, it's much better, you don't have to explain stupid things like you have to do now.
)
Well, I just wanted to give you my support and from all other gays in Norway!!

Greetings from Jo in Oslo!!


----------



## viperman (Mar 25, 2002)

*dear editor*

I never accused you.  i merely stated what had happened to me since logging on.  now if you take this as a personal attack then so be it, and of course you have the ability to ban me.  I guess if you get rid of all the people that do not agree with you then it will look like there is 100% support for what you say, bit like todays labour party


----------



## editor (Mar 25, 2002)

Nothing to do with whether I agree with you or not: it's all to do with simple good manners and respect.

You posted up suggesting that there was a direct link between you registering here and your computer being attacked. I've told you several times that you are completely and utterly wrong in your suspicions, and now, I'm waiting for an apology.

If such simple good manners are beyond you, then you'll just have to look elsewhere to post your dubious, ColinTheCop-esque rants.

Simple, really.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 25, 2002)

*viperman*

There are a number of posters here with politics well to the right of the editor, that's not the problem. The problem is that you behave like a ghastly little oik with the manners of the gutter,  barging about like some buffoonish Gilray caricature pissing on the opinions of others whilst stuffing your fingers in your ears shouting tabloid cliche and refusing to engage in any form of meaningful debate. 

To now state that you did not accuse someone from these boards of attempting to hack into your computer is a pathetic attempt at sophistry. You are just sore that your original post actually betrayed your woeful ignorance of the medium you use to attack others, and you are now attempting to backtrack. Bit like wading backwards through treacle in ill-fitting wellies for you, I think. It would be easier to apologise.


----------



## viperman (Mar 25, 2002)

*Well in that case*

Farewell, you and your friends can have what they want, no one to disagree with them, politics in the 21st century.


----------



## simonw (Mar 25, 2002)

Just want to be the n+1th person to add their support for Brian. I was drawn to this site as a result of all the media fuss, and am impressed with Brian's candour and with his generous donation of so much time to this forum. I also followed the links from urban75 to the Richard Littlejohn columns in the Sun and am completely appalled that any newspaper would give such a narrow-minded biggot an inch of column space. :-( I personally couldn't give a tinkers about Brian's personal life, and don't think it's any more business of mine than mine is of his. Keep up the good work Brian, keep focusing on the issues that matter, there are lots of people out here supporting you.

All the best,

Simon


----------



## editor (Mar 26, 2002)

re: viperman's petulant fit: I suggest you enrol in an adult education class to correct your worrying reading comprehension problems.


----------



## viperman (Mar 26, 2002)

*Oh dear.....*

when i said farewell I thought you would have understood that i was accepting your ban upon me.  
If I had fired the insults at you that have have levied at me you would have banned me, if I had fired the insults at Paddick that have been levied at Mrs Thatcher, you would have banned me.   I did not worry about the level of insults because i knew it was all the others were capable of comiing up with.  Mrs Doubtfire using her extensive vocabulary to try and hurt my feelings.  
So i hope you now  understand my last post
Yours


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 26, 2002)

*Not quite getting it ...*

Like a good whinge do we Mr V? Congratulations, point misser extraordinaire ...

Excellent second post from Wessex -- superb summary of Daily Mailthought ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 26, 2002)

*Lets slavishly copy the Yanks!*

This just in from America via viperman



> Bratton warned that the decision by Met police commander Brian Paddick to turn a blind eye to public cannabis use in Brixton would backfire disastrousely. He said "it will increase crime, it's the the complete opposite of the direction we went in New York"
> Marijuana has been proven to be a gateway to a more serious use of drugs "When police resources are squeezed, the tendency is to focus on more serious crimes. This is a flawed approach".



Thanks, viper. A more authoritative reverse endorsement of Brian Paddick's approach I can't think of ...

1.  Figures on crime in Lambeth since the new Police approach to drug offences : *look* at them.

2. Listen to *all* professionals working in the drug advice/agency field in the *UK*, and a growing number of Police. (Or perhaps viper would prefer to slavishly, mindlessly obey whatever hard right opinion in the States is instructing him to think : very *patriotic* that viperman ...).
Among the professionals, and the Police here are starting to agree, there is an almost universal consensus that the "cannabis as a gateway drug" theory has been utterly discredited. The separation model of policy as pursued in Amsterdam provides *direct* evidence that the  licensed availability of cannabis under controlled conditions actually *reduces* hard drug taking and consumption. Alanj and others here will know the exact facts and figures.

Pursue the Amsterdam separation model to its logical conclusion and you *will* reduce hard drug trading and consumption. Of course the Brixton experiment falls some considerable way short of that model, but any full change in the law is out of Brian's hands,  so credit to him for taking matters as far as he practically can.

And the Brixton experiment has been seen to work so far.

Good on yer, Brian


----------



## Geezah (Mar 26, 2002)

Respect and Support from a ex Londoner who knows what being a copper used to be like... You show an awareness and resolve to make the difference. I hope that you, your loved ones and your family are OK Brian. This whole affair just shows that 1 good copper, doing a thankless task and succeeeding in an impossible situation, with the support of the very people he polices...is what the Met has needed for such a long time...Here's to your reinstatement very very soon.

For what it's worth. If there are more like you in the Met these days, I would come back.


Respect my friend.

Geezah


----------



## Mr Day (Mar 26, 2002)

Hey - does this mean Viperman's gone now??? 
Anyway aren't you guys having your meeting in Lambeth tonight??? Have I got that right? Been ill the last few days so my heads on back-to-front - if I am right Good luck people

Nigel D


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 26, 2002)

viperman gone? I doubt it. He flounced off in high dudgeon last night, and was back 7 hours later!

Yup, Mr Day, it's our big public meeting tonight...HATBOY! Bring the petitions and the stall!


----------



## Estoppel (Mar 26, 2002)

Hi Brian,

Good luck. I'm sure your bosses are now more aware than ever of the support which you have in the course of what you have done as police commander of Lambeth and there's lots more of us out there.

Est


----------



## limeynick (Mar 26, 2002)

Hi Brian,

Just wanted to register my respect to you, and also to all those Brixtonites that post here and are coming together in your support. The reason I first came on these boards is that i filed an application with the Met back in January, and have since been following all policing stories avidly. Should my application succeed, I would be thrilled if I was posted to the Lambeth/Brixton division hopefully under your leadership, not only because I believe very much in your approach to policing, but also because these boards have demonstrated to me that there is a strong sense of community in Brixton, and a hell of a lot of people that care very much about the area. I would be delighted to be a part of it.


----------



## catbabe (Mar 26, 2002)

Respect, limeynick!  Hope your app is successful!


----------



## limeynick (Mar 26, 2002)

Cheers for the support catbabe, most of my mates in Birmingham have spent months trying to deter me...Still, i guess we've all had the odd bad policing experience in the past, but i've never been one to tar all with the same brush. Naturally I aim to follow in Mr Paddick's enlightened footsteps!


----------



## Mr Day (Mar 26, 2002)

Follow your own dream m8 - if thats what you really want to do then go for it - hope it comes together for you and I'm sure BP would be chuffed to know he's inspired you. Good luck. What are you waiting for now? An interview?

Nigel D


----------



## limeynick (Mar 26, 2002)

Ta Nigel,

Yes I await an interview date. Sent the application off 12 weeks ago, but apparently the current processing time is up to 16 weeks, and the overall turnaround time from application through to enrollment up to nine months!  So patience is truly required in this instance...


----------



## Cautious Fred (Mar 26, 2002)

*Don't do it, Limeynick!*

Surely what's happened to Brian Paddick is evidence of why the police CAN'T be reformed from the inside. People going into the police who think they can change the canteen culture end up either getting changed themselves or out on their ear.

Paddick proves the point. Here was a senior policeman attempting new ways of consulting his local community, trying new approaches to law enforcement, and he's shot down in flames. 

Many other police officers who have 'stepped out of line' have met the same fate. Women police officers have won millions in compensation from police forces around the country because of sexual harrassment. Sergeant Virdi - an Asian officer who complained that a racist attack was not being investigated properly - was framed by police colleagues for sending racist hatemail to himself and others and sacked. He recently won his case.

The Met has been officially branded 'institutionally racist.' It's institutionally sexist and homophobic, too. IMHO it's best to take the advice of Stephen Lawrence's parents and steer clear of the police. Tear up that application!


----------



## maurice0 (Mar 26, 2002)

Is this thread being driven my the PR company currently being employed by the Met for recruitment and retention purposes? They obviously didn't win the pitch for the Paddick account.

Editor?


----------



## limeynick (Mar 26, 2002)

Okay Cautious Fred, I take on board your reservations, believe me I've thought long and hard about this, not only for the reasons that you cite but also due to the erratic hours, stress of the job etc. But I've met some really lovely coppers along the way, and I truly enjoy working with people. perhaps a canteen culture does exist to a degree, but I truly don't think that you have to become a part of it.

I have already made the decision that if I find myself changing as a person into something that is different to the current me, and I mean in a negative sense, change of some sort is inevitable, than I will quit. simple as that.

Sorry to go on, I know that this thread is about Brian, but the bottom line is that although he did not initially inspire me to apply (i did so before the story broke), the fact that poilce officers such as him exist in seniors roles has confirmed in my mind that I am making the right decision.


----------



## marko (Mar 27, 2002)

Good to see you at the meeting Brian  here's to having you back soon.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 28, 2002)

*Welcome the good guys!*

Fred

If no nice guys and girls join, how will the Met ever change?


----------



## technokid (Mar 29, 2002)

Brian,

Keep up the excellent work. Even with all your open wounds, we will be here to heal them with our support. Don't forget that! What you are doing is totally harmonious with the area in which you work ... and will resonate further as time goes by.

The press is irrelevent. The olde skool Met is irrelevent. Your "X" is irrelevent. The "investigation" is irrelevent. Your current desk job is irrelevent. Its all a sad side-show, distracting from the main event. What you are doing *is* relevent. You have made - and will continue to make - a positive different to South London and beyond.

TK


----------



## coyos (Apr 1, 2002)

*Full Support*

You have my upmost support, Brian, both in what you try to achieve and support to get through this.

I have given consideration, and still do, to joining the Police.


----------



## maxwell (Apr 1, 2002)

*good luck*

  hi I´m living in spain and I saw the new paper and the news and I wanna wish you the best
good luck

Max


----------



## Another Number (Apr 5, 2002)

*It is only Cannabis*

At the end of the day this is Cannabis we are talikng about.  Big Deal, if it remains illegal we will still smoke it, if they make it legal we will still smoke it.  The end effect will be the same.

Brian truly does deserve recognition and admiration for his deeds, but lets not cloud other issues...like how do we Fuck up the Crack and Heroin Dealers now, burglars are also shitsters that need locking up.

Keep the Dialogues going, but let's get more serious...

Passes the spliff to Brian....


----------



## Brian (Apr 5, 2002)

Sorry, I don't touch the stuff (passes it back to Another Number)...


----------



## TinyCrendon (Apr 5, 2002)

The way to mess up hard drug dealers is to remove the profit motive.

addicts need to get their fix from their local doctor (or similarly valued `professional`) so they dont burgalrise/prostitute themsleves/others and steal. so they turn to someone who wants to help them rather than sell them more drugs.

at that point you have to bite the bullet and say where is the said addicts' initial `taste` for heroin/crack going to come from ? a smaller criminal market or a regulated controlled market ?

we can debate that at leangth.

but I was talking about this with a partner in a commercial law fiirm yesterday, nice guy, pal of mine...can you imagine if crack and heroin are still illegal-like-now when `our` kids are our age (in our thirties) say twenty five years from now ? how many more thousands of dead and in jail there would be just in the uk let alone the putrid bloody trade across the world ? what would it have done to our cities, our young fellas and women ? its not even worth comtemplating...


----------



## adi baby (Apr 5, 2002)

absolutely - agree 100% - the only people to disagree with this must have hidden agendas or simply be profiting from sales of illegai drugs - full stop.


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 5, 2002)

> Sorry, I don't touch the stuff (passes it back to Another Number)...
> _Brian_



lol... apologies for being really pedantic here, but one cannot pass something back without first touching it!

I am convinced what Brian *really* meant to say was "Sorry, I don't touch the stuff _(refuses to accept from Another Number)_"


----------



## Another Number (Apr 5, 2002)

*The Spliff was dead anyway*

Thanks Brian,

I wasn't attempting to ridicule, or tempt you in any way, shape or form....I really didn't expect you to reply, but with hindsight I should not even have put that comment there.  Particularly with the old Paper Hounds sniffing!

Thought!...Brian passed me a Spliff, does that mean he "supplied" me?

Is there a way of legalising all drugs, with success.  I do not think so.
It would be silly to think that the "black Market" would cease to exist.  It might even go so far as to making stronger than legal "E's" ( pretending that they were legal", more readily available and cheaper Heroin and Crack.  After all, I doubt anyone would be able to simply purchase Heroin at the local Superdrug, there would be heavy restriction on it's availability.  The black Market is set up already, almost a recognized industry, too much cash is made, too many people are involved for it to cease.  To stop it's attachment to illegal hard drugs the overnment would need to swamp the whole country with the stuff.

I believe that the answer lies in some form of inoculation or vaccination against these drugs, the vaccination could perhaps stop you from reacting to Heroin and Crack, or maybe just ability to get high, or addicted...I don't know.  I am not in that field, but there are those who are, I wonder of this idea has been discussed...probably.  Wouldn't it be great if you could just get a shot of this vaccination if you were a Heroin addict, or if all kids had this jab along with there MMR vacs.  End of problem.

This must be a near possibility in this day of genetic engineering, research  on those with addictive personalities and those without has been done in the past.  If it's a matter of funding, well then legalize Cannabis and use the proceeds to fund the research.

The Police, Customs and Excise and the Government...and Us are ALL losing the battle against these hard Drugs (I do not think of Cannabis as an Illegal Drug and haven't for quite some time).  It is about time a collaborative effort is made by the whole of this country into tackling it.  

Public Objection into Research
They are bound to object because of poor NHS funding, Cancer and AIDS research.  After all Drug Addicts have some degree of blame as to why they are Drug Addicts.  So fund research using proceeds of Cannabis - there would be Millions made each year.  After Use the Cash for NHS, Cancer, AIDS victims, homelessness.  
Just think, in 300 years time there could be people laughing at the day Cannabis was ever illegal, legislation and sale could really change the Financial State of this country.  

Headlines of the Future?

Ex-Foot and Mouth Farmers say they have never felt so HIGH

The Dew is Wet, But the Grass Is Sweet

All that land WASTED.

Come Chill Out in The Country-Tourists on the Increase

Hmmm Well?


----------



## Another Number (Apr 5, 2002)

*oH dEAR*


----------



## pooka (Apr 5, 2002)

Just a thought re above.

Spend the £10bn net (ASH's estimate) that the state (ie all of us) makes on the back of one narcotic (nicotine) on serious treatment for ALL addictive drugs. It's a  lot of money.

Won't happen of course, because it would require about 7p on basic rate tax to make up the difference - which very few of us would vote for.

Which says something about our hypocrisy re the "war on drugs"


----------



## theoderic (Apr 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pooka _
> * the state (ie all of us) *


 Please tell me you didn't mean to say that!


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2002)

I think on this issue, it stands theodoric. More generally, I accept that we are each implicated to differing degrees in the actions of "the state", depending on how much power we have - but implicated we are. Power comes from lots of sources. People who fund the Daily Mail by buying it have, in some sense, exercised power over policing in Brixton.

{edited for syntax}


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 6, 2002)

Pooka - I agree with you, we all bear responsibility for the society in which we live, most of us, myself included, have just sat on our backsides and our apathy has let it happen. I don't know what the solution to drug taking is, I used to think the first step must be to decriminalise all drugs and try to control the supply through legitimate suppliers. But unless you make the drugs free then you are not going to remove one of the core problems  - poverty. It saddens and angers me that we live in a world that has enough wealth in it to ensure that everyone can have enough to eat, a roof over their heads, and adeqaute health care. I have come to beleive that the human animal has more than a tendancy to addictive behavior, and we all have our 'drug' of choice. For some of us it is no more harmful than chocolate, for others it is much more destructive. With many people who take drugs I seem to recognise a degree of frustration at not having a voice, and not living in a society that is willing to accomodate their views and lifestyle. I also seem to see a degree of selfeshness in the view that I want to take drugs, it's my choice and my right, and I don't care whether you like it or not. Well what about the rights of those who don't take drugs and don't want the criminal behavior that seems to go hand in hand with hard drugs. Looking at how our species has become the most dominate on the planet, it seems to me that one of the things that has enabled us to do that is co-operation. It is that spirit of co-operation which I hope will bring us to a way of finding a workable solution. I do not take recreational drugs, I never have and I never will, it just does not interest me, but I do not want to take away the right for other people to take drugs if they choose. I sometimes wonder if, in the same way that we have to pass a driving test, you want to take drugs you have to pass a test to show you understand the risks, and then you are give a licence to purchase the drug of your choice. Many reasons why that may not be practical, but something of the sort may be possible. What do you think ?


----------



## technokid (Apr 6, 2002)

The term "drugs" is getting on my nerves. It's meaningless. Its a collective noun with so much scope and means different things to different people. I say we discuss one molecule at a time concentrating on its merits and demerits, and most of all, our freedoms as humans. I think this "Message from Brian" debate will work best if we focus on weed, hash, THC. We'll deal with the other ones later 

TK


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2002)

I agree Peter that drug addiction should be health and not a criminal issue. Criminalisation just gives power to criminals. 

I think there is a difference between habit forming (like chocolate or watching telly, browsing the web, smoking dope) and addictive (like herion, cocaine, nicotine and for some alcohol). I'd classify molecules into those two groups.


----------



## Another Number (Apr 6, 2002)

I agree with the use of the word Drugs, that term includes aspirin and cat worm tablets....

As far as not tackling all drugs in one go...it's gonna get worse before it gets better anyway...I think it's about time we took the "Bull by it's Horns" and opened up the whole collective mess open for debate.

Heroin, Crack and cocaine are seriously ruining our lives and our Country, and we are watching it happen, we all know of ways that we could tackle this problem, suggest them, between us we have alot of sensible, workable ideas..lets get them on the table.

How about a thread where H Dealers are named and shamed, I am sure Brian would accept PM's for intelligence.  Be his eyes as well as his friends, help him help us!

And we could all wear Denim Jeans with "Hands" on our arses, ride Raleigh Choppers with tassles..and be known as "The Red Hand Gang"!!!


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 6, 2002)

technokid - ok, so the term drugs is getting on your nerves and yes it covers too wide an area to be useful in this debate, so lets talk about cannabis, hash what ever you want to call it. I think the approach in Brixton is right because of the circumstances. Recreational use of cannabis by individuals is not causing a major crime problem on the streets as I understand it, and if people want to smoke dope in their own environment then they should be allowed to do so. With the limited resources at his disposal Brian Paddick decided to confiscate small amounts of cannabis and issue a warning, thereby allowing officers to consentrate on hard drug users and dealers. From what I have read the mind altering effects of cannabis present no more danger than alcohol. Cannabis is, in my understanding, more likely to cause lung cancer that tobacco. Cannabis can also cause mental health problems but I am not clear if this is any more than say alcoholism would, and not everyone who drinks is an alcoholic. If the Brixton police had the resources then maybe the decisions would not have been made about cannabis users, but I still beleive that cannabis should be de-criminalised.

Pooka sensibly said that we should focus the debate on addictive substances so lets do that. As I see it the a big problem with hard drugs in Brixton is poverty. People become addicted, cannot afford the habit and take to crime to feed the addiction. I do not know if, when hard drug users are arrested, they are given help with their addiction. Perhaps someone could tell me what happens. If they are not then I think they should. But should you force them to or should it be their choice ? In my view they would have to accept treatment, as far as I am concerned they made the choice to use hard drugs and they must accept the consequences of that choice. The police should and are targeting the dealers, but what is being done about stopping the supply of drugs entering the country I don't know. Hard drug use in my view should always be a criminal offence until we get the science to make it more easily curable. As far as I can tell from my own friends and from what I read, hard drug users are still a minority. As much as I want people to have the freedom to do as they please safely, and not infringe the rights of others by partaking in their own particular pleasures, we are a long way from that type of society. In my view we have no choice at this time but to deal with hard drugs harshly. We must, in my view, at the same time deal with issues like povery, education, single parent families on low incomes, anti social behaviour, and the low acheivement and low asperation of some young people living in inner city environments. At the same time I want people to be valued as people and not for what they own or can purchase. I don't think there is one simple solution, but I beleive that we have no option but to start with tough policing of those who sell and use highly addictive substances.  What do you think.

Another Number - can we have a secret handshake as well !


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2002)

Another number - whose hands?!


----------



## Another Number (Apr 6, 2002)

The Red Hand Gang used to have a print of a hand on there jeans!

Peter Matisse

"We must, in my view, at the same time deal with issues like poverty, education, single parent families on low incomes, anti social behaviour, and the low achievement and low aspiration of some young people living in inner city environments. 

Some of these would be more easily solvable if Hard Illegal Drugs were not in the equation


----------



## Mysterymonster (Apr 6, 2002)

*Brian*

Just to echo what others have already said.  Big respect to you.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 7, 2002)

Another number, are you suggesting immunising everyone just in case they might have a predisposition to take hard drugs?  Isn't that just a wee bit police state-esque?


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 7, 2002)

Pooka - How about;

the hand that rocks the cradle

the hand wearing the Tiffany bracelet

the hand that has a finger on the button (and don't you dare come back and say who's button)

the hand that takes the pulse

the fickle finger of fate.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

*whose or who's?*

Erm...you've lost me there Peter, but I am a bit literal (or is that littoral?)


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 7, 2002)

Sorry Pooka meant to type whose, trying to lighten the mood a little.


----------



## technokid (Apr 7, 2002)

Cannabis was banned because it came from hemp, which was used in the making of thread, and hemp posed a threat to the revenue to be gained from a new thread called Nylon.

True or False?

TK


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

Glad me nan didn't hear about hemp sheets - nylon ones are bad enough!

Sounds improbable to me technokid. Nylon mostly replaced cotton - I think hemp fabrics weren't that common in the 1950's


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 7, 2002)

Hemp sheets? Nothing like Nylon......hemp cloth is much more like linen. I'd love to be able to buy linen or hemp sheets....what a luxury!


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

In which case Mrs M, get yourself down to Morleys when they have their sale - they do enormous white Egyptian linen sheets at ok prices.


----------



## technokid (Apr 7, 2002)

Why was cannabis made illegal?

TK
P.S.
just did a search on hemp sheets ... it came up with

Westbourne Antique Arcade, 283 Westbourne Grove. Tel: 020 731 3693. 7.30am-5pm. [snip]  linen/hemp sheets [snip]

(I was in Portobello Road on Saturday too as it goes  )


----------



## technokid (Apr 8, 2002)

How about ...

Cannabis was made illegal because capitalists bribed the government to introduce the ban. From a capitalist's perspective, humans are only labour fodder. Being chilled is an anathema to their sense of greed. Note: There was a thriving booze industry ... but that wasn't banned. Had we had a thriving cannabis industry ... this campaigning wouldn't be happening.

Or how about (this one's for fun) ... around 1925 (when the ban was introduced) it was realized that the then new elements of so-called civilisation were intrinsically dangerous (cars (road accidents!), planes (crashes), machinery (mangled limbs) etc then entering the scene) and that life could no longer be carefree (that *is* sad) as people are prone to err when exposed to these elements. IMO, cannabis in itself poses no real danger, no more danger than say crossing the road or a weekend skiing. However, technological progress has made our world a more dangerous place to live. And now the environment is fucked!

TK
P.S.
Here's a quote from
http://www.thisiscannabis.co.uk/history.htm

"   Until the early twentieth century, cannabis was perfectly legal. Doubts about social problems began to surface when, at the Second Annual Opiates Conference in 1924, an Egyptian representative complained that workers prefered to lie around smoking hashish than do anything constructive. [snip] In 1925, the Dangerous Drugs Act became law, and cannabis was made illegal in Britain, just thirty years after the Indian Hemp Commission declared that "absolute prohibition is out of the question".    "


----------



## DrR (Apr 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by technokid _
> *
> 
> Cannabis was banned because it came from hemp, which was used in the making of thread, and hemp posed a threat to the revenue to be gained from a new thread called Nylon.
> ...



I also heard that the use of hemp in papermaking conflicted with the forestry interests of American newspaper millionaires, especially Hearst, who then used their platform to campaign about the evils of the drug in order to inhibit these other uses. I hadn't heard the nylon one before though. Also I don't know how much the American campaign affected things here, anyone know? They went ahead and outlawed alcohol, which I believe was never done here. It certainly created income opportunities for entrepeneurial Canadians ;-/


----------



## maurice0 (Apr 8, 2002)

I heard that it was the threat to the cotton industry that nailed the finals for hemp.


----------



## adi baby (Apr 8, 2002)

if you go to the hash museum in Amsterdam, you will find a lots of evidence to suggest that the US could be energy self-sufficient from help by turning over 10 % of the land for hemp cultivatio - hemp can be fed sewage, crops four times a year with no pesticides, can be used to make clothes, papers, plastics ( from the oil ) and a list of other products as long as your arm.  Hemp seeds also contain every amino acid and compound necessary for life ( ie a superfood) so the total ban which i think was 1935 they claim was pushed for mainly by the oil companies although as you can see their are plenty of industry sectors that would not like to see too much free hemp around or the technology to process it into everyday necessities.

The museum is in the red light district quite near the sex museum - those crazy dutchies


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 8, 2002)

I wondered if the ban on cannabis happened as a result of opium and the problems that caused, coupled with the fact that hemp is easier to grow and therefore cheaper. Thus more workers could afford to smoke it and, as has been said, not turn up for work to make nice fat profits for the boss. 

They have tried with drink, have you ever come across the engravings by Hogarth about the evils of gin drinking. At that time there was a great outcry about reports of child neglect due to women getting drunk on Gin. Hence gin was called 'mothers ruin'

I'm just going to get my Anorak now.


----------



## WESSEX (Apr 8, 2002)

One of the key issues in this debate are the economic factors. The legitimate revenue gained from the tax on alcohol and tobacco is never up for discussion because of the huge annual amount the Treasury benefits from the sale of licenced, legalised addictive products. However, the arguments as to whether they should be banned, criminalised etc is never aired. Society seems to accept that there will be universal pain, suffering and misery caused by their consumption which is not outweighed by the copious amount of revenue gained. It's a spurious argument. We have the two most attainable and legalised drugs that cause enormous problems (if not consumed sensibly) that are never mentioned in the debate about how to deal with the consumption, regulation, cost and effect of illegal drugs. This is not a pro-drugs argument, more a wish for a realistic and balanced debate about how to manage serious illegal drug abuse issues against a backdrop of universal legitimate drug consumption that provides revenue through taxes.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Peter Matisse _
> *They have tried with drink, have you ever come across the engravings by Hogarth about the evils of gin drinking. At that time there was a great outcry about reports of child neglect due to women getting drunk on Gin. Hence gin was called 'mothers ruin'
> 
> I'm just going to get my Anorak now. *




Hmmmmm it depends which anorak you mean. Gin was called Mothers Ruin because if you drank enough of it in the early stages of pregnancy it was reputed to cause an abortion. Gin is flavoured with Juniper berries. An old common name for Juniper was Bastard Killer. The cry on protest marches for a womans right to choose before abortion was made legal was 'No more gin and knitting needles' (actually it was a song...can't remember much of it but the last line was 'a womans right to choose.')


----------



## pooka (Apr 9, 2002)

I thought the restrictions on licensing of liqour sales came in during the first war, because munitions workers were turning up for their shifts pissed?


----------



## A. Spies (Apr 9, 2002)

Brian,
Don’t let those fuckers at the mail get you down.
Just by looking at this topic you can see the huge amount of admiration and respect you’ve culled from people of every type of background and people from every part of the political spectrum.

Good luck and all the best.
I’m sure you’ll be back where you belong soon.
Ben.


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 9, 2002)

Mrs Magpie - I have heard of the 'gin and knitting needles' used in abortions. I have aslo read that very hot baths and jumping off tables have been recomended as methods as well. The term 'Mothers Ruin' was certainly used in Hogarth's time in relation to gin drinking women neglecting their children. Perhaps it would have been more accurate maybe to call it 'Womens Ruin' if you are correct. You have to have have children to be a called a mother.


----------



## Another Number (Apr 10, 2002)

*How long do you Reckon....*

How long do you reckon it would take to get Cannabis sold in outlets packaged and ready for sale?

I am sure that I read that Cigarette companies had already registered trade names, web sites and had machinery in place to get rolling.

If this is the case then the country could theorectically alter its economic state very quickly indeed.  And alter it for the better.  The Government must have lost millions in recent years through revenue made from cigarette sales.  How many now smoke rolling tobacco instead...and where do you get it?.....how many gave up altogether, or get them from abroad....more serious crimes than posession...Tax Evasion!

So the gap in Tax losses must be filled before Public Services grind to a halt or we all pay the cost, whatever that may be...

Legal Taxed Sale of Cannabis would create the money this country is in dire need of.

Cannabis
Ultra
New
Tokes

A Potential Brand name?...anyone fancy a C@*t?


----------



## newbie (Apr 10, 2002)

There have been rumours for donkeys that names like Panama Red and Temple Ball have been trademarked by to baccy companies.  Doubtless they update them periodically 

AIUI complete legalisation is not possible by international treaty.


----------



## ats (Apr 11, 2002)

*How long do you Reckon....*



> _Originally posted by Another Number _
> *I am sure that I read that Cigarette companies had already registered trade names, web sites and had machinery in place to get rolling.
> *


*

This is an old doper rumour, the most extreme form of which states that cigarette companies have 'warehouses full' of joints already rolled and waiting.

I don't believe it for one moment.  It has all the characteristics of urban myth.  Like - nobody can ever quite remember where they heard, or explain how the information has become public.

If you think about it, it doesn't make any business sense.  If dope becomes legalised, it will become a very different kind of business.  The companies that profit out of it will be those that meet the potential demands of the market that exists at that time.  It'd be a bit of a pisser to have spent millions of pounds on machinery, only to have your market reserach reveal that that's not what's needed.  

Big capitalist concerns aren't going to tie up capital on machinery that may well be obsolete by the time its needed.  Why should they have developed web sites using what will be obsolete software?

A bit of forward planning, couched in appalling marketing jargon?  Some discreet ongoing market research?  That I wouldn't be so surprised about.  But the rest is just stoned conversation.*


----------



## Silicon (Apr 11, 2002)

Hey, Brian...

I've been beaten up by the police, arrested scores of times and been spat-on, abused and humiliated by them more times than I could care to remember...

...but it's because of people like you that I will forever do what I can to help others understand that police officers in Britain do an extremely difficult job very well in dire circumstances. You have as much support from me and my friends than you could ever hope for...

...good luck and God bless...

S.


----------



## Another Number (Apr 11, 2002)

What you say makes good sense..thanks..


----------



## Clapham Omnibus (Apr 12, 2002)

*Best wishes Brian*

Best wishes that the whole matter will be over soon and you will be back at your post.
That is what you enjoy and so do the people of Lambeth


----------



## Jazzz (Apr 12, 2002)

off thread topic somewhat... but just want to say that I had heard similar reasons for the original prohibition laws... and that they had nothing to do with paternalistic health concerns.

AFAIK hemp clothing was practically indestructable... and lasted a damn long time which was as popular to DuPont etc. as the everlasting light bulb. Gold diggers used to wear hemp jeans to safely hold the gold in their pockets (I hear).


----------



## Brian (Apr 12, 2002)

Don't have anything to add but wanted to show I'm still here.

BTW, anyone see the cartoon early on in 'The Independent'?  One cop says to another "He had a little _grass_ in his flat"!


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 12, 2002)

Brian - Yes I did see the cartoon, it made me laugh, those cartoons on the front page usually do. I hope they don't drop them now the Indy has had a redesign.

Best wishes.


----------



## pooka (Apr 12, 2002)

Good to hear from you Brian, hope it's not _too_ dire for you at the moment - your humour seems intact. Stick with it and "get well soon".

Btw, does the Met have a policy on hemp sheets?


----------



## Another Number (Apr 13, 2002)

*GOOD TO HEAR FROM YOU*

Hope things are bearable for you, when you are low think of the Public Support that you have, you have already succeeded where many in the public eye have failed.  You have won the people's confidence, for a Police Officer this is as rare as "rocking Horse shit".  I am also sure you have the admiration of your Officers.


----------



## nosos (Apr 14, 2002)

well put AN


----------



## Stobart Stopper (Apr 14, 2002)

*Chin up, Brian!*

maybe someone will make a website entitled Commander-Guy. We could have little pics of you in obscure places, like the Commissioner's office in NSY!


----------



## SmokingPC (Apr 16, 2002)

Why are you all up Brians Arsehole, lets not forget the man is a PIG and all you out there that smoke the weed are criminals and the b**t**d wouldn’t think twice about charging you if it suited him.
I’m wondering what is really behind Brians thinking?
Why is he writing on this web site for a start and right back at the beginning of his postings he just happened to give out his real name by mistake  Right
Why did he give his real name? Come on this is the Internet 
And
The shit with the Police E-Mail?
If Brian had been offered a job, say as head of "The Fight Against cannabis unit" with a 25% increase in wages, before his boyfriend grassed him up do you think he would have took the Job. Of course he would.
He is using cannabis as a tool to get what he wants and if cannabis had been legalised 10 years before his time he would be still doing the same but using another tool.
I say your on one side or the other, you choose to fight crime so carry on doing so These days you can properly sleep all though the night. Leave the smoking of the weed to us.
Your a none smoker of the weed Brian. Right I bet your a 2 bucket a day man. One in the morning one at night.
I think cannabis could and should be legalised and Brian should be sacked and maybe if he does feel so strongly about cannabis he could become the spokesman in the fight to legalise cannabis. This would be a good move in your mission to rule the world Brian.


----------



## white rabbit (Apr 16, 2002)

I wouldn't put it so strongly but I was thinking about this the other day. Assuming Brian is reinstated it is inevitable that he's going to make an unpopular policy decision so isn't this going to put the people who have been canvassing for him so strongly in an awkward position?

It seems like something of a hostage to fortune anyway.


----------



## editor (Apr 16, 2002)

You surely can't beat a Johnny-come-lately new poster (from nowhere near Brixton) charging in to these boards telling all us sillybillies how things *really * are, can you?

Shame he's got his facts more than a little confused.  

And the name gives off a slight whiff of troll, don't you think?

(Edited to add: and the immediate PM from this 'new' poster demanding to know "what you writing" adds to my suspicions)

(Edited again to add: After  *eight* more idiotic PMs, I'm afraid this guy just had to go!)


----------



## hatboy (Apr 16, 2002)

SmokingPC - I support Brian but that doesn't mean I'm not suspicious of the Police.  The main issue here is not in fact cannabis, but policing by consent of the community.  This is discussed at length elsewhere on these boards.   The "all coppers are pigs and that's how it will always be" way of thinking doesn't move anything forward.  

White Rabbit -  Brian will be even more accountable locally if re-instated. Myself and many others will be watching, and hoping for his continuation of the successful relationship he has built with local people. I haven't sworn life-long allegiance to him. If he let's us down I'll stop supporting him. This won't make me look bad. This will make me look like someone with independent opinions, which I am.


----------



## TooBad (Apr 16, 2002)

*WARNING  * 
You will only get one chance per name to post if the EDITOR doesn’t like what you have to say.
Like what happened to Smoking PC. Poor Chap got the Chop.
That doesn’t seem very fair to me. What happened to freedom of speech and all that?
I say bring back SmokingPC and sack Brian.
This is what SmokingPC said incase you missed it.

<edited as mentioned below>


----------



## hatboy (Apr 16, 2002)

Toobad - you are very obviously the same person as SmokingPC. You're not being fucked-off because the editor doesn't agree with you. It's because you're uninformed and antagonistic.  I notice you have ignored my reasonable response to you above and reposted your previous garbled rant.   You don't need to post the same thing twice so close. That is just annoying.

For your information I too can delete your stuff as I'm often on the Brixton board and help keep an eye on things here too. I haven't done this because I'd like to see if you can calm down and come up with a more thought out argument.


----------



## TooBad (Apr 16, 2002)

Thanks Hatboy ofcourse im SmokingPC and im sorry but with all the mess on getting back here after the ED give me the chop i missed your post. I am calm and im not insane. However i dont like the one sided view this forum is given on the Dear Brian. 
If it wasnt for this E-Mail Address of Brians i would think that Brian is really the Editor.
He is not a nice chap in his private messeges back to you.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 16, 2002)

OK - I've tidied up your double post. The Editor (he's called Mike) is not Brian I assure you. I have met both.   The large proportion of support here for Brian is not the result of rampant editing - it does genuinely echo the widespread support Brian has received locally and elsewhere for his engagement with people (both in the street, on here and with local community groups) and his original approach. Like I said, people are still suspicious of the Police, but this guy does seem different and has proved that.  It's not fair to think that all Police, Traffic Wardens, Bouncers (or whatever authority figure you like) will always revert to type.  There is a human being under there somewhere.  The Met is a trenchantly conservative institution - and that is why we so desperately need radicals like Brian Paddick.

If you want to stick around here keep your hair on and slow down abit.  Afterall, it is Mike's site and if you piss him off he has the right to chuck you off.

Also, you don't know what it is like to live in Brixton (nothing to indicate you know anything about it so far) so maybe you do need to listen to others opinions here. OK now mate... deep breaths.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 16, 2002)

Oh and I don't think Brian made a mistake when using his real name in his original posts.  I think the idea was to be open about communicating with people (local and others) via a website. This openess is what's made him popular with ordinary people round here and unpopular (added to their homophobia) with the establishment, the right-wing media and some of his colleagues.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 16, 2002)

Hatboy, you win politest trollbuster of the year award!!! Respect


----------



## Rain Man (Apr 16, 2002)

I started looking at the site after the articles published about Brian posting here 

(being someone who lives in the area) I would like to say that the work Brian has done to improve the community is greatly appreciated. 

The worry now is that sooner or (hopefully) later Brian will be replaced as the Commander of Lambeth. At which time who will replace him, and what policies will be introduced? One can only hope that the example set by Brian (particularly in community policing) will be continued not only in Lambeth, but also introduced throughout the Country

Good Luck and Best wishes to Brian, hope you are back soon.

R.M.


----------



## Brian (Apr 16, 2002)

You see, listening to what local people want from their police is not just a nice, liberal, friendly sort of approach to take.  It is the ONLY way to succeed in getting rid of the guns, the robbers and those who, with no thought for anything except their own profits, supply the chaotic drug users who have to rob and steal to pay them.  

It is about what WE want, not about what the police want.  I am not saying I disagree with the Commissioner who also wants less damage, less violence and people to feel safer.  Is that not what we all want?  I am just saying we should try a different means of achieving the same ends.  On my return, no doubt I and my staff will, from time to time, make mistakes and you will hold me to account for these mistakes.  But at least we will be talking and trying to find a way through together rather than turning our backs on each other and getting nowhere.

Blind faith, blind condemnation - they are as bad as each other.  Critical support and constructive criticism should be the way forward.


----------



## adi baby (Apr 16, 2002)

You got a nice letter in the Big Issue last week saying basically that you have tried to reach out to the community that you serve and that from a black community perspective this makes you a very different and respected cop, so there you are.  As for Mr Troll, just save it for another time another day OK?


----------



## Rain Man (Apr 16, 2002)

I've yet to meet one person (face to face) who does not appreciate the work that has been done so far to improve the community. (regardless of there views on police in general)

Thanks very much.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 16, 2002)

*I like that nutshell ...*



> Blind faith, blind condemnation - they are as bad as each other. Critical support and constructive criticism should be the way forward.



Nuff said I think ...


----------



## Lightning Brother (Apr 16, 2002)

*Another vote for Brian*

I don't have anything original to say, but I just wanted to add my support for Brian  There aren't enough coppers about with a human face, like him.

As for people like SmokingPC/TooBad (???!!!)  shouting about freedom of speech, etc - maybe the poor guy needs to just skin up, lie back and chill....  The police do misuse their power on many occasions - we all know that - and they've got some pretty nasty prejudices between them - but someone has to cope with keeping the streets reasonably safe for the rest of us to live in (I wouldn't fancy being in the firing line of some of the shit they have to deal with).  Give the guy a break - it's good cops like Brian who are defending your freedom of speech (IMHO)


----------



## technokid (Apr 19, 2002)

The UK's "how to behave" ethos seems to be split between them(Church/Polititions) and us. In reality there is only really the people and the antagonists are outmoded institutions with more momentum than they know what do to with 

TK


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 20, 2002)

Thinking about some of the recent posts and policing Brixton I wanted to add something. I have come to think that the streets of London are actually safer now than in any time in our history. That is not to say that violence and robbery do not occur and I realise that in some areas it is more common than others, but it has always been that way in large cities, and probably will be so for the forseeable future. What we seem to have at the moment is a media that would have us beleive that as soon as you set foot outside your door, you will be beaten to the ground and robbed before you reach the end of the road. That does not fit with my experience and yes I realise I am only one of millions, but it does not fit with the exerience of my friends either. Since becoming a supporter of Brian I have tried to read, watch and learn more about policing and crime. There was a program recently about policing in the West End, and something one of the Commanders said about what he saw as one of the main reasons for crime in that area was interesting. He said that one of the main causes of street robbery etc. was aspirational consumerism among young people, and that drug related crime came second to that. The point that I am trying to make is that the society in which we live is not static and neither are the problems that arise within that society. If we are to respond to these problems then surely we must be flexible and creative in our problem solving also. This, it seems to me, is what Brian is trying to do in establishing a dialogue with the people of Brixton and beyond. And if you stop to think about that, do you not think that it is an incredably brave thing to do, given his position as a Commander in the Met. And do you wonder why he has bothered, knowing as he must have done, that he ran the risk of a less than positive response from some of his colleagues. If he had known what else was about to fall on his head perhaps his approach would have been a lot different. Other people have said in their postings not to forget that Brian is a policeman, the inference I take it is that his motives should be treated with suspicion. Well I do not forget that, just as I do not forget that he and his officers are trying to do the best they can for the people of Brixton. And if they are allowed to succeed then more than just the people of Brixton will see the benefit. I love living in SW9, and I love Brixton, but I have never been so proud as I am of the response of people to 'our' Commander. I resolutely believe that it is the voice of the people of Brixton that should be listened to when deciding policing policies in Brixton, and not the furtive braying of homophobic police officers or the circulation figures of the Daily Mail. Brian has and is listening to us, which is why I beleive we must do all we can to get him back in his job and keep him there, irrespective of our own personal or political ideologies.


----------



## hatboy (Apr 20, 2002)

Peter - great post.  There are still officers of lower rank in Brixton who get it very wrong however so I wouldn't agree with this "and his officers are trying to do the best they can for the people of Brixton".   I'm afraid they not all trying hard enough.  (I have heard only yesterday of an incident of brutality by police against two teenage boys).


----------



## ats (Apr 20, 2002)

Note the carefully chosen adverb in Brian's opening post on this thread: 'they are good people, overwhelmingly'.


----------



## Brian (Apr 21, 2002)

When I was young I could not understand the difference between 'excellent' and 'perfect'.  Now I understand.  

The police are a collection of human beings, all of whom make mistakes and some, very few, are 'bad' people.  We cannot afford to have 'bad' cops - they have too much power (to use force, to arrest).  So this is not excusing their behaviour - they should have the courage to say they are not cut-out for it and leave.  

Of the very few 'bad' ones, some simply cannot control their tempers to the almost super-human extent necessary.  Sometimes they have to face totally unreasonable and unbelievable provocation.  They are expected to be professional and not over-react.

Others have a distorted view of the world as a result of seeing too many people at their worst  (e.g. ColintheCop's 'all Brixton residents are bad people').  If you spend all day, every day going from one crime to another where all you deal with is either perpetrators or victims of crime, and you see nothing else of an area, there is a danger of getting a distorted view.  Of course some people only see what they want to see.  There are some of Hatboy's 'not trying hard enough' amongst this second group because they do not believe the people of Brixton are worth trying hard for.  They are not paid to judge other people but to serve all equally and in any event they are just completely wrong in their assessment.

Of the very few 'bad' ones, there are even fewer who are evil (discriminatory, corrupt, gratuitously violent).  They belong in prison.  We are talking very, very few in this group.


----------



## Tubthumper (Apr 21, 2002)

Looks like I'm the first one up today  Just like to say that your post Brian does re-inforce my current opinion of the police. Having said that, I've never been sure that what I've 'thought' has been anywhere near the truth or not, so its good to hear I may not be a million miles from it. I'd be interested in your opinion of percentages of 'bad' cops though ? (I'm sad with numbers )


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 21, 2002)

I think Brian's post answers some of hatboys reservations about the police. You may accuse me of being a 'Pollyanna' but I just cannot believe that anyone joins the police with the intention of being a bad cop. Circumstances change people. We rightly demand very high standards from police officers under very difficult conditions. But we are dealing with human beings, just like us, and we all screw up sometimes. It shouldn't happen, but it does. It is not difficult to understand how some police officers come to have the view that they have. If you spend all of your working day dealing with people who have, or are suspected of, breaking the law, and you do it believing that you are helping to protect the law abiding, then these same law abiding folks, under different circumstances, are abusive and violent towards the same people who sometimes risk their life and well being to protect them, how would you feel. I sometimes think there are so many double standards at work here. We have to have laws for our present society to work. Somebody has the job of enforcing those laws. Some of those laws are there for our protection. The people that police our society, on our behalf, deserve our support, our understanding,  and sometimes our censure, but above all they deserve that we never forget that they are human beings. We may not like some of the laws that impinge on what we see as our right to behave according to our own personal creed, but that does not give us the right to vent our anger on the police and expect them to stand by and take it.


----------



## DailyMailReader (Apr 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brian _
> *If you spend all day, every day going from one crime to another where all you deal with is either perpetrators or victims of crime, and you see nothing else of an area, there is a danger of getting a distorted view.  *



Someone once said:-

'Whoever deals with monsters should see to it that in the process they do not become a monster, and when you look into an abyss the abyss looks into you'

But I have no idea who


----------



## pooka (Apr 21, 2002)

Peter; Nice to hear from you again. 

I think the balance of sentiment has settled down on this thread, and most contributors support the need for the law and its policing. They view the police as a heterogenous institution, in much the way that yourself, and Brian and others have pointed out. They may differ on the extent the "bad apples" within the police or the extent of institutional, inappropriate values, and these differences I suspect are down to particular, personal experience. None the less, there appears to be a workable concensus.

But we shouldn't forget that there are others who aren't contributing here. One is a group that seems to have fallen silent, but remain vocal on other threads, whose preoccupation is with the policing of protests. Within that group, there seem to be some have a problem with any notion of the law and the police and denounce both as agencies of the "system" or the "state", whose world view is so at odds with the vast majority of citizens that it's pretty much impossible to have any constructive dialogue with them. But there are also some appear to have reasonable concerns about maintaining the rights of assembly and protest in a free society. That is a reasonable concern, and one which we should all share (including I would have thought, the police) for three reasons:

Stifling legitimate protest usually leads to worse;
The use of the police to do so can poison the prospect of effective community policing;
Our freedoms are worth preserving.

(I think Northern Ireland provides us with a good object lesson in both these respects)

The second group is one that rarely contributes here, except as the occasional "troll". They don't live in areas like the one in which we do, rarely visit and when they do keep their car doors locked, and view inner city areas to be sinks of iniquity full of "loosers" who would get out if they could. They see the police as "their police" whose job it is to, basically, keep the lid on what they percieve to be the threat that these "sinks" represent to them. Newspapers like the Mail have a political agenda to whip up their fears and feed their prejudices, and (in my view) it is of that which  Brian Paddick has fallen foul, together perhaps with innapropriare attitudes within the Met.

What's to do? Well, best to start local. I've given up on those who don't recognise the need for law and the police - they're small in number and so rooted in a miasma of theoretical gobbledegook as to be impossible to engage with. I don't have an answer to the problem of how to prevent that group subverting legitimate protest and thereby contributing to the "ratchet" which I think is putting the police in conflict with (for want of a better term) "law-abiding protestors".  But I think we can, in howsoever small a way, contribute something to protecting the possibility of concensual, effective policing in our neighbourhood, against both the wreckers and the hysteria of "middle-england". For that reason, I'm keen to hear in what constructive ways the campaign for Brian Paddicks move back to Lambeth is going to be carried forward, beyond the petition. 

On a broader note, this whole issue has made me realise that whilst I try, as far as earning and having a living permit, to "put something back", I don't do much of that on my own doorstep. This whole issue has made me reflect on that and set about finding effective ways in which I might. So, thanks for that Brian!

Sorry, bit of a ramble but I think we all have a bit of a tendency to use posts here to get our ideas straight!

PS. Just a suggestion Peter, but could you put an occasional paragraph break in your posts? Makes them a lot easier to read


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 21, 2002)

Pooka - You are right there is a meeting of minds here and yes some with more extreme views have fallen silent. That is a shame from my point of view as I have learned much from reading the views expressed. I decided a long while ago that as far as I was concerned that I would not allow my views to become 'set in stone'. I feel that solutions, if that is the right term, are neither universal nor everlasting, and have to be refined and modified as changes occur in the way we live our lives. I have been thinking, as you have, what will happen once the issue of Brian has run it's course, and like you I have decided to find a way of putting something into the community that I have lived in for so long. 

I would like the debate that Brian has started to continue, and to widen, bringing in as many different views as possible from the people who live in Brixton. I would also like to show people who do not live here how great a place Brixton is. But first I want to help find a way to make the streets safer, and free from the debris of drug use, so that the peple of Brixton do not have their  lives clouded by the minority who wish to use and sell drugs. I believe that at the moment the way to acheive that is by tough policing, and if, at this time, that means that some innocent people are arrested from time to time, then so be it. 

I do not think that in the short term the personal freedoms of a small group of people, who knowingly indulge in illegal and socially unacceptable behaviour, should be alowed to destroy the quality of life for so many. I realise that this view could be seen as the first step towards a totalitarian state. That is far from my intention, the rights of minorities should be upheld and respected, but in my view that is a two-way street. If you wish me to respect your views and not interfere with your way of life, then you must do the same for me.  

I see no reason why it is not possible for people of different views to live together harmoniously, providing they are prepared to treat each other with respect and consideration. However, in my view, when people are taking drugs they lose some of their humanity, and the capacity to interact on a reasonable human level. Sadly, at this time, I see no other way than to remove them as quickly as possible fom our streets.

People choose to take drugs, as far as I am concerned if you make a choice, you must be prepared to face the consequences of that choice.

What do other people think.


----------



## pooka (Apr 21, 2002)

I'd go along with much of that Peter, but would draw distinctions:

In terms of what we class as "drugs" - on balance I'd draw a line between alcohol, nicotine, cannabis, perhaps cocaine on the one hand and heroin and crack cocaine on the other. The latter not only destroy their users lives but also lead to extremes of anti-social behaviour which is damaging for everyone.

And in the case of these latter, I'd draw a distinction between users, who've made some bad choices when they were in a position to make choices but are no longer in control of their actions and need help, with a bit of coercion if needs be - and those who profit off their dependency. Utimately, hard drug use should be a health issue and dealing a criminal one.

Thanks for the para breaks, btw

As regards the "more extreme voices" falling silent - well, I've read some of the postings on other threads, and some of the links posted, and it isn't heartening. Sadder still is that some of it I remember from interminable student union EGM's almost thirty years ago. Interesting to see how much Marxism has been rebranded Anarchism since the fall of communism. All I've learned is that that stuff is alive and well - and still offering more feel-good to its proponents than practical programmes for the rest of us.


----------



## TinyCrendon (Apr 21, 2002)

Sorry i cant agree with you Brian.


----------



## nosos (Apr 21, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DailyMailReader _
> *
> 
> Someone once said:-
> ...



Neitzche


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 21, 2002)

*Make sure you hear both sides ...*



> _Originally posted by hatboy _
> *(I have heard only yesterday of an incident of brutality by police against two teenage boys)*



I hope you have had both sides of the story (i.e. the officers account - any history, any background to why the interaction even began, what they say the boys did / didn't do, etc. etc. etc.) before feeling able to quote this as fact.

If so, great - you've heard both sides, balanced them and drawn a conclusion.

If not, not so great, especially for a would-be councillor.  There is ALWAYS another side to the story.  Its like me saying "I heard another story of two officers being attacked by ... (fill in any group) yesterday" without finding out why it had happened, what the officers had done / were doing, and how.

On the global scale, we have the USA saying "We've been indiscriminately attacked by international terrorists" - some people say the other side of that argument is "Why have you been attacked - what are you going to do about that?".  

Many go with the simplistic approach and believe the story they're told by "their" side.  What sets people apart (within the police and the community) is the willingness and ability to see both sides, balance them and draw a fair and just conclusion.

The answer you find may support your original suspicions, or it may not.  Be ready for both.  Be able to accept either.

I'm not saying the boys were not subject to "an incident of brutality".  I don't know.  They may have been or the force may have been justified.

We need to be careful about stating things as fact - until we know words like alleged, apparent, seemingly, etc. are pretty useful.

Good luck with the election by the way.


----------



## Clapham Omnibus (Apr 22, 2002)

Good post detective-boy.

Let us not be judge and jury on the evidence given in the media.

In this country we all are innocent untill proven guilty and not the otherway round.

Of course there are bad policemen. There are also bad doctors, footballers the list is endless. However the great majority of them are good hardworking and dedicated.
Do you think they would put up with an organisation that did not have as a core value its service to the people.
What do you think they join for?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 22, 2002)

It's not my business to go into this in too much detail here Detective-Boy, especially as the people involved in the incident I related above are making an official complaint.  

No I haven't spoken to the police involved. Yes I am aware that there are two sides to all stories. But I trust the judgement of the person who relayed this story to me implicitly.  

I can't fault your post however and that is the approach I do try to take in life.  So I'll revise what I said above and add "alleged".


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 23, 2002)

I absolutely agree in principle to your post detective-boy, but on the other hand I also know that hatboy is very measured in his appraisal of situations. I'm glad however that he bunged in 'alleged'. He is by no means the first to cry "Foul"....not a good metaphor, I'm pretty sure he's not into football. 

In the recent(ish) past I have witnessed breathtakingly blatant racism...a friend, upstanding, honest and law-abiding, a black single parent, was broken into in the middle of the night, through her two sleeping sons open bedroom window, and had money and stuff like a walkman taken. She woke when the burglar came into her bedroom. There was £300 in cash that she had taken out of her National Savings account to pay for a new cooker, I think it was. 999 was dialled, the investigating officers came, one quiet and the other very much the 'boss'. When he established that £300 in cash had been taken, he accused my friend of being on the game and started to poke around looking for drugs paraphernalia, NOT clues regarding the break-in......his rationale was that a black female single mother could not possibly have gained £300 lawfully, and that her Savings Book didn't prove otherwise....When she told me all this I urged her to complain but she said that it wouldn't achieve anything......

The next family brush with the police was when her 13 year old son was stopped by the police when he was visiting his Dad in West London and was going to the corner shop on a shopping errand. They said that he answered the description of someone who had just stolen a car. The lad laughed, because his first thought was "Do they think I've got it hidden in my pocket?"
That was a mistake because they thought he was being mouthy and cocky and it turned nastier. He was shouted at and shoved and he got very frightened. He wasn't arrested, mainly because they got a call about the stolen car on their radios and they leapt back in the van and sped off without him.

Now, none of this family have ever been arrested.  They are good people, they do not ever do anything criminal. They are hugely cynical about the police. They would think twice before reporting a crime, or acting as a witness. Their experience is, that even if you are a victim of crime or a suspect, the police are not to be trusted. I think that this is an appalling state of affairs that the Police have now got themselves into. Not only have the police got to weed out racists, educate the well-meaning but ignorant and strive to make the Met an unsafe environment for racists, they have to win back the trust of families like hers. Not an easy task.

There are still racists in the Met, same as there are still racists in the NHS, the Fire Service, the Civil Service, the Education system etc etc. There are some really outstanding people in all these institutions too, and I like to think that the vast majority of the rest are good people with a desire to be in a job that benefits society. People like Brian Paddick and detective-boy are working hard to give us the Met that we all deserve. I believe hatboy is part of that process too.

Anyway...I must go...I'm supposed to be doing something else....just needed a break from it.

edited to add. Have reread this I see there's an ambiguous bit. I didn't witness either of these incidents, obviously, but I have witnessed racist incidents. I also noticed a spelling mistake...still, not bad for a stream of consciousness.....


----------



## ats (Apr 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mrs Magpie _
> *Now, none of this family have ever been arrested.  They are good people, they do not ever do anything criminal. They are hugely cynical about the police. They would think twice before reporting a crime, or acting as a witness. There experience is, that even if you are a victim of crime or a suspect, the police are not to be trusted. I think that this is an appalling state of affairs that the Police have now got themselves into. Not only have the police got to weed out racists, educate the well-meaning but ignorant and strive to make the Met an unsafe environment for racists, they have to win back the trust of families like hers. Not an easy task.*



I think that's an absolutely key issue.  The police in Brixton do not have the trust of the black community - and with good reason.  I think this is one of the things that's so important about Brian Paddick.  He knows Brixton, he understands the importance of having the consent of the whole community, and he has shown himself willing to reach out to that community.

The police have got to continue to reach out, and they also have to deal with the people who have been losing the trust of the black community and the wider Brixton community at large.

But they should not be expected to do that in isolation.  Those of us who care about Brixton also have a responsibility to try to assist the process.  That means supporting what is good in the police, drawing the line at what is bad, and pointing the finger when it needs to be pointed.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 29, 2002)

*Hi Hatboy*



> _Originally posted by hatboy _
> *I can't fault your post however and that is the approach I do try to take in life.  So I'll revise what I said above and add "alleged".   *



Sorry about the delay in responding but I've been unable to post for a few days for some reason (probably due to stone-age hardware!)

Majorly mature response mate!  You sure you're cut out to be a politician?   

Good luck in the vote


----------



## Sparky… (Apr 29, 2002)

All the best Brian

Hope you get back soon to where you are wanted and belong in Brixton

Its a shame I'm sure we could get back to some of that togetherness and community we seem to have lost in areas around London... if only we had a few more bobbies like you who work hard for the community and the people and not for their badge and their ego.

Get back soon


----------



## pcanning (Apr 30, 2002)

Pooka



> I'm keen to hear in what constructive ways the campaign for Brian Paddicks move back to Lambeth is going to be carried forward, beyond the petition.



Strikes me that some sort of broader evidence, like the survey supporting the cannabis experiment, should be found on the broader community policing policy in Lambeth. Let's have 'evidence-based' policing. Then that should be implemented in the rest of London (to start with). Get rid of Commanders like the idiot in Hackney. If things are as sucessful as we believe they are in Lambeth it's time to start evangelising.

[edited to add: assuming we've won and Brian gets back of course!)

IS anything of this happening?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 30, 2002)

Peter Matisse says:

"I want to help find a way to make the streets safer, and free from the debris of drug use, so that the people of Brixton do not have their lives clouded by the minority who wish to use and sell drugs."

It's more than a minority who wish to use drugs.  And those people want someone to buy them from.  Surely it's not  "drugs" that are the problem. Please be more specific? Don't you mean crack and heroin?   I thought you were a person who realised the harmlessness (non-addictive, no violent behavior) of cannabis?


----------



## pooka (Apr 30, 2002)

I think Peter was speaking loosely Hatboy, he's made his position clear elsewhere.

But as for "more than a minority" - d'you reckon? There's over a quarter of a million people in Lambeth, what proportion would you say use currently proscribed drugs?


----------



## hatboy (Apr 30, 2002)

Well obviously I don't have exact knowledge of that. But I would have thought virtually everybody has taken prescribed drugs and about half have tried illegal ones.


----------



## pooka (Apr 30, 2002)

Proscribed/prescribed - have I the wrong usage? Anyway, I meant illegal. Across all 270k people, and all ages - my bet would be a good deal less than half.


----------



## Another Number (May 3, 2002)

> _Originally posted by DailyMailReader _
> *
> 
> Someone once said:-
> ...



I remember this quote, from a criminalogist book about Serial Killers (To Catch a Monster was the title), sorry , I fail to remember the  Author.  But I thik that comment stands as a true statement.  Recently a peadophile ring was smashed, one of them said that they became interested after looking at Child Porn on the net...
So...a degree of truth...But I beleive a good copper is only a fine line away from being a good criminal, they have to be if they want catch the crims.  A grasp of the criminals mindset must be had in order to predict the next moves made, this would be more apllicable to the more serious crimes...I strongly believe that each Police Station should have a permanet Criminologist onboard to assist in all crimes, certainly I feel Officers do not have enough knowledge of the science of Criminology, which I perceive to be a weakness.

AN


----------



## Lightning Brother (May 3, 2002)

*Monsters & abysses*

I think it might have been Nietzche


----------



## irishmade59 (May 3, 2002)

*Mrs Magpie..*

Re: your tales of racism and lack of trust..

I live in a "supposed" middle class area. My parents were "professional" people. My mother absolutely loathed the police because of what she perceived to be their "persecution" of my brothers. My opinion was that the pair of them chose to frequent a local pub that was known as a den of iniquity and they were making themselves obvious targets for suspicion. 

I treat the police in general with respect and I have always taught my children to do the same. Even though the youngest is a "junkie" she still regards the local bobbies as people she can turn to when in trouble. (Even if she ends up being arrested lol!)

Oh, and we're not of ethnic origin despite being Irish!

I don't think it's all down to racism, much of it is stereotyping and the misguided beliefs in same. At the moment whenever I hear a scouse accent in my local I immediately think "junkie" or "thief" because we have had an influx of the scallywags! No offence to scousers on here!! 

hope this makes sense!

irish x

PS my mother also ended up loathing social services because of their "persecution" of my alcoholic sister but that's another story!


----------



## pooka (May 3, 2002)

Blimey irishmade, you've had your share of troubles!


----------



## isitme (Oct 10, 2008)

This place was loads better in the old days


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 10, 2008)

Yes yes once was all fields etc...


----------



## isitme (Oct 10, 2008)

Kid_Eternity said:


> Yes yes once was all fields etc...



no, it was intelligent debate with people saying what they thought rather than post modern shite


----------



## rennie (Oct 10, 2008)

isitme said:


> no, it was intelligent debate with people saying what they thought rather than post modern shite



And then you came along.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2008)

isitme said:


> This place was loads better in the old days


It was certainly a lot better when people didn't pointlessly resurrect interesting threads for no good reason.


----------



## isitme (Oct 10, 2008)

It was so interesting to read I thought I'd share it. fair took me right back


----------



## TopCat (Oct 10, 2008)

The arse kissing of Paddick on these boards was an embarrassment.


----------



## editor (Oct 10, 2008)

TopCat said:


> The arse kissing of Paddick on these boards was an embarrassment.


There's only thing worse than dredging up a long defunct thread for no reason, and that's dredging up a long defunct argument for no reason.


----------



## purves grundy (Oct 10, 2008)

Good luck Brian


----------



## hipipol (Oct 16, 2008)

TopCat said:


> The arse kissing of Paddick on these boards was an embarrassment.



You jealous, you live in Croydon, all you life is belong to Chav


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Oct 16, 2008)

isitme said:


> no, it was intelligent debate with people saying what they thought rather than post modern shite



LOL! And how would you know Mr Joined in 2007?


----------



## editor (Oct 16, 2008)

This thread is an important part of urban's history and I'm not going to see it turned into a pointless spat. Thread closed.


----------

