# *Brixton Movement for Justice March



## Derek (Dec 24, 2001)

On Friday evening people gathered outside Brixton Town Hall for a 'Movement for Justice' march in protest at the murders of 4 people by police in Brixton in the last few months; including Derek Bennett, Ricky Bishop and Joseph Crentsil. The march was also held to fight the politically motivated sacking of Lambeth Council worker Alex Owolade, Chairman of 'Movement for Justice' and campaigner in the fight against racism and police brutality. 

The march moved off peacefully at 6.30 and proceeded past the scenes of the 4 killings. After speeches from the families of the murder victims, a decision was then taken by the crowd to continue to Brixton police station where the demonstration against police racism and brutality would end. 

About a mile away from the police station, the still peaceful crowd were confronted in a side street by 4 riot vans full of police. The police jumped out, already tooled up in full riot gear, with batons drawn, and formed a line in front of the march. They then charged the crowd, which included children and relatives of the murder victims; who were forced to run in the opposite direction only to be pushed back by another line of police from the other side. Some initially managed to escape the second line of police and run down more side-streets, only to find themselves continually charged at by more riot police and forced to run into estates. 

Some of the crowd managed to escape onto the High Street, where some were arrested and others are currently being held in a large cordon, under Section 60 of the Public Order Act. 

In frustration and anger at the polices' violent and heavy-handed disruption of a legal march to protest at police brutality and murder, groups of teenagers smashed up shop fronts on the High Street.


----------



## editor (Dec 24, 2001)

What a shame that a bunch of opportunistic teenagers chose to smash up the shop fronts of local traders right before Christmas: it does nothing for the cause whatsoever.


----------



## johnwisehammer (Dec 24, 2001)

If what steelie says is true/accurate, then this is fucking unbelieveable - have the Brixton police learned absolutely fuck all in the last twenty years? Everyone knows that it's uncool for fuzz to be heavy-handed but they've got to be mental to do it in Brixton - a place with a track record of mass trouble kicking off after police abuses of power.


----------



## TopCat2 (Dec 24, 2001)

I disagree...In my long experience of public order situations in brixton it is entirely to be expected that if you hold an unscheduled march on brixton nick then the cops are going to tool up and have it with you...So if you are going to do it then go for it properly and in my opinion do it up west!


----------



## hatboy (Dec 28, 2001)

Well done for putting this up Steelgate. Considering the heavyhanded Police tactics (if your account is accurate Steelgate, and I beleive it is) and the continued disproportiate amount of deaths of black men (either in Police custody or as a result of Police action), I'm not sure the reaction of what Mike calls "opportunistic teenagers" is so reprehensible.

Yes it's sad when local businesses suffer (couldn't care less about the chain stores), but what are people supposed to do when they feel they have no voice and there is no change?

As JWH says "Have the Police learned absolutely fuck-all in the last twenty years"?


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 28, 2001)

This was happening exactly the same time some of us (includimg Derek) were in the Duke of Edinburgh for our pre-Xmas drink -- I didn't believe it at the time (I admit I thought the rumours were being exaggerated, and I saw no sign of it when I went to get the bus) but turns out to be true.

Nothing to add to JWH's and hatboy's reactions.


----------



## editor (Dec 28, 2001)

I've searched all the major news sites and can't find anything to back up Derek's unsubstantiated claims.

I was also in Brixton just after the events supposedly took place and didn't see any trashed shops, rampaging youths or baton wielding poicemen (although there were quite a lot of police around in vans).

Seeing as it's clear Derek wasn't actually there, perhaps he might cite his sources?

And much as I'd love to be able to jump to the conclusion that whenever gangs of youths start trashing things it's always as a justified and spontaneous reaction to police brutality and political disenfranchisement, I'm afraid I find that argument a little naive at times.

There's always gangs of yoots ready to smash stuff up, regardless of their colour, location, social status and/or political persuasion.

Sadly, many earnest and worthwhile political causes attract some of these people whose violent actions rarely do much for the objectives of the cause.

[ 28 December 2001: Message edited by: editor ]


----------



## hatboy (Dec 29, 2001)

I wasn't out and about that night Mike so maybe it didn't kick off quite as Derek said.
I hope you're not calling me naive. I don't think "whenever gangs of youths start trashing things it's always as a justified and spontaneous reaction to police brutaity and political disenfranchisement".

But I do think that it sometimes is and that it's sometimes justified.

I might add that the original Brixton riots were a reaction to "police brutaity and political disenfranchisement".


----------



## editor (Dec 29, 2001)

Hatboy: I'm not calling you naive (I know you far too well for that   ). 

There has been justified reasons for rioting in Brixton in the past, but I'd be very, very, wary of jumping to the defence of each and every act of mob vandalism that occurs there. 

Some may well be the youth articulating their feeings about police oppression in the only way they know how, but there's always  opportunistic troublemakers out for what they can get.

You've only got to look at the long history of violent minorities attaching themselves to peaceful demos for proof of such practices and I don't see why Brixton demos should be any different... 

I think we're basically agreeing anyway, although with only Derek's unattributed report to go on, I'll remain slightly sceptical about his claims!

Right enough of this serious stuff - you down the Albert tonight?!!

(edited for appalling hangover spelling)


----------



## Derek (Dec 29, 2001)

I arrived in Brixton just as the events I have described were happening and stayed around for about half an hour before going down to the Duke of Edinburgh. These events started long before everyone got to the Duke of Edinburgh for the meet up. On my way back at 11pm there was still a police presence in Brixton town centre as crowds left the Brixton Academy, with police on the streets in riot gear and a police helicopter circling above. 

If people arrived late to the Duke of Edinburgh for the meet up as most did then that must be why they missed seeing what happened.

[ 29 December 2001: Message edited by: steelgate. ]


----------



## Voley (Dec 29, 2001)

I missed it, Derek. 

I was leaving Brixton Academy after seeing The Pogues and didn't see anything like that at all.


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 29, 2001)

Sorry Steelgate but your talking out your arse....

You're the sort of person who believes what you read in THE VOICE.

I dont mind you telling lies to others but please dont lie to yourself.


----------



## freethepeeps (Dec 29, 2001)

ColintheCopper

Welcome to the boards.

It always makes my heart glow with joy, when I see such insightful, thought out and reasoned first posts!    

And how kind of you to remind us that everything the Voice prints is lies!

Is it cos it is a black newspaper, maybe?

I can certainly vouch for the fact that the protest was surrounded by cops for some considerable time, and that Brixton Town Centre was awash with cops in riot helmets when I walked through it at about 11pm that night.

Perhaps you could write another insightful post explaining how the black deaths in custody were not racially motivated, and how it was just co-incidence that several black men and no white men  died.

I await your second post with eager anticipation!


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 29, 2001)

Is there anyone on this forum who doesn't believe all the bullshit that makes the press....?

WAKE UP AND SMELL THE FUCKING COFFEE YOU CLOWNS.

It really makes me so angry to think that people still believe all copper are racist, We only arrest black people, You get beaten up when you get arrested and ONLY black peole die in police custody....

Off the top of my head go and do a search on Glenn Howard. A white man who died after being arrested. But it didn't make the papers because nobody is interested in white people dieing at the hands of the police.

Don't get me wrong it's tragic when someone dies but how the fuck can it be racially motivated....? Do we wait in the custody office for a non white prisoner and think yeah right, lets kill that one because of his colour....?

Remember if you live by the sword you die by the sword....


----------



## mobymonster (Dec 29, 2001)

freetheXmasbillions, The Voice.... just a tad biased don't you think ?

steelgate, remind me has anyone be found guilty of their murder ? if you run around brandishing a gun why get so pissed off if you get shot ? only a complete moron uses a gun lookalike, maybe that's what "cool" gangsta's use.

Colinthecopper, welcome to the twilight zone.

mobymonster


----------



## freethepeeps (Dec 29, 2001)

So why was one of them shot several times in the back, Mobymonster?


----------



## hatboy (Dec 29, 2001)

What can I say. IF you want to see Colin the Cop's track record of visionary rhetoric then have a look at the forum in Brixtonline.    

There goes the neighbourhood.


----------



## hatboy (Dec 29, 2001)

Colin - just to save people time: Based on your posts on the Brixtonline forum it's never been clear whether a)you are really a cop, b) you are black or white (you say you are a black cop), c) you are sincere, d) you are an intelligent man?

When I say "never been clear" I mean in the sense that you give the very strong impression of being none of those things. I hope if you stick around here you're gonna talk some sense because at least some of the people who come here have a brain.

So, seriously Colin?


----------



## johnwisehammer (Dec 29, 2001)

Colin: thanks for that insight into the wonderful equal opportunity world of deaths in custody. In your bonkers mind, apparantly if it's not racially motivated, it's okay. Hmmm.

Moby: what's wrong with The Voice?

"has anyone be found guilty of their murder?"

yes, dear. Welcome to the issue.


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 29, 2001)

Hatboy,

a) Yes
b) Black
c) Sometimes
d) Intelligent...? - Not very bright I'm afraid, I thought it was cool to mess around at school. If only I'd listened.

There goes the neighbourhood....?  Dont you go out your house....? Brixton was fucked along time before I arrived. It's people with their stereotypical outdated views that's stopping it getting better...


----------



## hatboy (Dec 29, 2001)

"Brixton was fucked a long time before I arrived"

Do you really beleive that?

OK, Brixton is an inner city area with it's share of problems, and these get people talking. But, I definitely beleive that there is so much more about the area that is so positive. Remarkably and uniquely so.

Yes I do go out of my house. 

To give you a chance - if we're going to communicate all I ask for is sincerity. Otherwise what's the point?


----------



## Derek (Dec 29, 2001)

That Movement For Justice march was surrounded though and placed under a section 60 order after marching up the High Street from the Town Hall. I saw it for myself. The police response seemed way over the top for a march so small as it had less than a hundred people on it. There was no need to surround the march like that and hold everyone for ages as it was totally peacefull and could easily be controlled.

I don't believe what I read in the Voice newspaper and I hardly ever read that paper anyway.


----------



## ginger (Dec 29, 2001)

I did tell a few people at the DofE when I arrived what had happened...but no matter.

Tis true. All true. Cept the section 60 part - they didn't declare a section 60 which has some legal standing, they said they were holding everyone to prevent a breach of the peace....? Despite nothing having happened.

As to those who say we should have been prepared for what happened and that it was to be expected - are you seriously saying that we should stop fighting against injustice and police brutality because the cops might be heavy handed? That is exactly what we were demonstrating about!

24 of us were held by at least 60 riot cops. There were far more cops in a supporting role as well. It was terrifying, and reminded me why I hate the police as much as I do.

As for those kids - let me tell you about them. They, as well as others on the march, had just witnessed one of their brothers being violently and arbitrarily arrested. The kid had his knees, elbows and neck knelt on as he was cuffed. And this was way before any window smashing had happened. A couple of us went with them to Brixton nick to at least make sure he had a lawyer, to be confronted by locked  doors and a handmade "closed" sign.

We had all witnessed a peaceful, if determined rally being attacked by police in riot gear. They chased the friends, families and supporters of victims of police murder as if we were dangerous animals.

The police tried to suppress and provoke our fury in order that we fall silent and become silent, disempowered and easily governed by beating our heads against a brick wall.

Those kids screamed Fuck You in their actions. Opportunistic? Nah, that's every commentator who from the safety of a keyboard and computer monitor uses their actions to defend why they were not on the march with us. Perhaps if all of you who were reading this and give a fuck about justice were there the cops would not have been able to do what they did and the kids would not have felt so helpless and infuriated that all they could do was smash a couple of windows.

Nothing has ever been achieved by sitting quietly and placidly on the sidelines. We get only that which we fight for and wrench from authority's cold grip. Our passion is our truest weapon.

I cheered when I heard what the kids had done. Cheered that they would not be cowed. A few multinationals' windows can be replaced but a smashed and defeated soul tarnishes the world


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 30, 2001)

"You cheered at what the kids had done"...?

What....?  Smashed some shop windows and got themselves some new trainers....

Yeah right on. Up the revolution. 

Is it true more people hate Gingers than hate the police.....?


----------



## Ruby Toogood (Dec 30, 2001)

No.


----------



## bezzer (Dec 30, 2001)

"Yeah right on. Up the revolution"

cringe    ... this bloke must be a copper!

good post ginger


----------



## ginger (Dec 30, 2001)

Nice to see the usual level of prejudice from the boys (and girls) in blue.

You'll be telling me next that you don't have anything *against* gingers, but they just don't fit in round here and should go back where they came from...


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 30, 2001)

So where do Gingers come from then....?

It would be nice to know who to blame....


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 30, 2001)

Sorry Bezzer, I was quoting Rick from the young ones.... I suppose I didn't make it clear.

I thought all the leftie pinkos would recognise it straight away as he is obiously their role model....


----------



## ginger (Dec 30, 2001)

Compost or Troller ?

Who is the mysterious Colin the Copper?

He even seems to be after Evil Clown status with his Young Ones reference.


----------



## Derek (Dec 30, 2001)

There have been a few campaigns for justice for white people too who had been killed in similar situations such as Harry Stanley who was shot while carrying a table leg that police thought was a shotgun. There was also another case in which a suspected IRA member was shot down on his doorstep a while back.


----------



## mobymonster (Dec 30, 2001)

> There have been a few campaigns for justice for white people too who had been killed in similar situations


 and can I assume that Alex Owolade, Chairman of 'Movement for Justice' campaigned on the white's behalf ?

mobymonster


----------



## ginger (Dec 30, 2001)

> and can I assume that Alex Owolade, Chairman of 'Movement for Justice' campaigned on the white's behalf



The united friends and family campaign were involved in the harry stanley case. I don't know whether the Brixton based M4J were involved directly but Harry's best friend was at one of the M4J things I went to, so at least some of their supporters were involved.

Police oppression is not just a race issue, and I don't know anyone who believes thats all it is.


----------



## freethepeeps (Dec 31, 2001)

> and can I assume that Alex Owolade, Chairman of 'Movement for Justice' campaigned on the white's behalf ?



What exactly was the point of this question, Moby? Surely no deaths in police custody are acceptable! Neither are deaths at the hands of police marksmen! It would be absurd to expect the M4J to be campaigning against the deaths of whites in custody, when there have been 3 black deaths in the last 4 months, and no white deaths during that period! 

If you are asking whether Alex Owolade or the M4J are racist, then the answer is NO!! There were many whites on the march and at the meetings and they were welcomed without hostility!

So, what were you trying to establish?


----------



## mobymonster (Dec 31, 2001)

freethepeeps, if you were taken hostage and had a gun pointed at you (by, what was reported at the time by locals as someone involved with drugs)I'm sure after you had stopped shitting your pants that you wouldn't give a toss how the police rescued you and are you suggesting that armed criminals should not be tackled by armed police.

It's quite simple really if you carry a gun and commit a crime tough shit if you get shot, don't want to get shot don't carry a gun or an offensive wpn. Yes I know mistakes get made and that's tragic, but it's life. The criminals who carry guns are the ones who have caused the police to be armed not the other way round.

I accept that this march started out with good intentions but as usual the rent a mob turns into violence, so what do you expect the police to do ?

You asked earlier why was one shot in the back several times, who cares, the probable answer is because thats where some of the armed police were and contary to the films one shot does not always incapacitate or kill thats why several shots were fired. If I was taken hostage by some moron I wouldn't care where he was shot, front, back and sides would do me fine and many many times would be good also.

Why have you brought race into this ? and lastly why was Alex sacked ? (I have run a search but can't get the info)

mobymonster

PS happy new year lefties


----------



## freethepeeps (Dec 31, 2001)

> I accept that this march started out with good intentions but as usual the rent a mob turns into violence, so what do you expect the police to do ?



Erm, wrong ! The shop windows were smashed after the police decided to circle the march! The police claimed that they were trying to prevent a breach of the peace! Hm - looks like they caused one!



> Why have you brought race into this ?



I thought that was you Moby - see the quote on my last post!



> and lastly why was Alex sacked ?



My understanding is that Alex was asked to condemn the violence following a march in July. He refused to do this, for similar reasons that ginger made her impssioned posts about the latest march. Shortly afterwards Alex was sacked on some trumped up disciplinary charge relating to his activities as a Union Organiser some eight months before that.

You seem to have some blind faith that the police are acting out of altruistic motives by shooting peoplke in the back. BTW they were then seen taking the lighter out of his pockets and placing it near his hand! 

You might think they are fit to be Judge, Jury and Executioner! I think that they are racist, corrupt and prejudiced in their dealings with members of the public.

BTW, how many cops have been shot in Brixton recently?


----------



## editor (Dec 31, 2001)

> BTW they were then seen taking the lighter out of his pockets and placing it near his hand



I've never seen this reported anywhere. Could you cite your sources, please?

And one other thing: does anyone know what windows were actually smashed? I didn't see any shops with broken windows as I walked through Brixton directly after the event.


----------



## freethepeeps (Dec 31, 2001)

The claim about the cigarrette lighter was made openly at M4J meetings and rallys, including during the meeting with the Mayor!

I don't know what windows were smashed, but hopefully Ginger can provide more information on this!


----------



## drfranni (Dec 31, 2001)

I watched the "riot" for a while and then, like several correspondents, walked through Brixton much later when there were a great many police on the streets but general good humour and distinct lack of broken glass. Maybe the broken windows were right down at the end, past the police station because that is where the very small crowd was - outnumbered several times by police, it appeared.

Actually I didn't mean to post about that - it is the use of the term "racism". It becomes increasingly clear to me that the goal posts have moved on this word. It is extremely rare that I am ever in the company of a "white" person who makes any remark which even the most paranoid or politically correct could claim as rascist and I am very happy about that(but din't kid myself that it has vanished, simply become less acceptable, even amongst taxi drivers!) However when I am in the company of friends from a vaguely caribean background (I mean that either they or their parents came to the UK from the caribean) I hear a great deal of racism - mostly directed at asians and africans. Although I know fewer asian people, I am told that the same applies and have certainly heard very unpleasant generalisations from asian friends. This racism has already claimed lives locally and yet it sometimes seems to be a subject too "sensitive" to broach


----------



## mobymonster (Dec 31, 2001)

freethepeeps: 





> BTW they were then seen taking the lighter out of his pockets and placing it near his hand!



If that is true and I doubt it, then indeed there would not seem any reason to shoot.

Sometimes when you shoot someone in the "front" they can spin round , further shots fired at almost the same time will enter the back or side. I don't have a problem about shooting an armed criminal in the back.

Surely ALL violence should be condemed  or ALL violence is OK which is it ?. If Alex is happy with violence against the police then you can't complain about their violence can you ?.



> You might think they are fit to be Judge, Jury and Executioner! I think that they are racist, corrupt and prejudiced in their dealings with members of the public.



But if ever you have a crime committed against you, I'll bet you won't hesitate to call them and if you think that all police are what you say you are wrong IMO.

drfranni, 
So called "black on black" racism is something that I believe is covered up and not discussed as it would not fit in with the sterotype only whites are racist view.

mobymonster


----------



## bezzer (Dec 31, 2001)

moby...
its not something which is coverd up, its more the case that a lot of people from different backgrounds dont mix socaliy enough, to relise the internal politics between different ethnic groups.

[ 31 December 2001: Message edited by: bezzer ]


----------



## johnwisehammer (Dec 31, 2001)

"But if ever you have a crime committed against you, I'll bet you won't hesitate to call them"

But that's a complete bollocks of a statement, isn't it? I chip in towards a fair, efficient and publicly accountable police service - if I get pissed off when I receive an inefficient, bigoted and self-serving police force, does that somehow invalidate my right to police service? Of course it fucking doesn't.

"If you carry a gun and commit a crime, tough shit"

Apparantly, it's also tough shit if you commit the perfectly innocent task of walking down the street while carrying a table leg or even sleeping naked in your bed at home, 'cos you still end up dead.

If all police killings are mistakes and "tragic" (as if they were some kind of predestined natural phenomena beyond the control of humans) and inevitably happen, why is that a quite disproportionate number of these "tragedies" happen to nonwhites? And if these police killings are sadly necessary and nothing to do with race, can we expect a commitment from Brian Padddick to increase the year-on-year number of white people shot to a proportionate level? I think not.


----------



## mobymonster (Dec 31, 2001)

> Apparantly, it's also tough shit if you commit the perfectly innocent task of walking down the street while carrying a table leg or even sleeping naked in your bed at home, 'cos you still end up dead.



I haven't said that have I.

mobymonster


----------



## Derek (Dec 31, 2001)

If all police killings are accidents then obviously there is something very wrong with police firearms training which needs to be put right. A lot of police oppression is deliberate though for exmple the way certain demonstrations are handled is way over the top and aggresive.


----------



## drfranni (Dec 31, 2001)

I've been professionally involved with a couple of deaths in police custody and it has been my impression that the police are absolutely terrified of this - it represents an total "worst case scenario" for them. Their actions are not always sensible and they do sometimes take bad decisions and are not immune to the temptation to "adjust" records - human beings, every last one of them. But the events leading up to the deaths which I have seen have always been a series of cock ups, rather than brutality or deliberate badness.

I don't suggest that this makes them acceptable, merely that young and inexperienced officers often find themselves in incredibly difficult and complex situations which get out of hand before wiser heads can intervene


----------



## hatboy (Dec 31, 2001)

Dr Franni - yeah anyone with any sense and experience of people knows racism can go on between, well, anyone really. What made me laugh about your post however was the idea of you sitting around with all your "vaguely Caribbean" mates slagging off Africans. Don't you have any vaguely non-racist, vaguely Caribbean friends?

Seperate point: This thread has degenerated to a pretty dumb level in my opinion.


----------



## drfranni (Dec 31, 2001)

Hmm - well, I'm sorry that I am being so dumb.

Actually, my point was that racism may be endemic but is not longer seen as "acceptable" in some social groups whilst it is alive and well in others. And if you attempt to put a contrary view you are told to shut up as this is a matter you could not possibly understand, due to your skin colour. I disagree, I think racism does not require very profound "understanding"


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 31, 2001)

The thread need to degrenerate to a dumb level.... So I can understand it.

"The police took the lighter out of his pocket"

I really hope you don't believe that. Cant you see the facts for what they are without being twisted by your own hatred... Well I suppose it's better then saying the officer took it out of his own pocket.


----------



## hatboy (Dec 31, 2001)

Dr Franni - your comments made me laugh. What I thought was really dumb was other stuff. I said "separate" above but maybe it wasn't clear.

Colin - I, for one, am sceptical that the lighter was removed from Derek Bennett's pocket and placed beside him (tho open to the idea that it is possible). He shouldn't have ended up dead tho should he? The Police should have other non-fatal technologies for incapacitating people.  There is the gun that fires a small bean-bag for instance. This may sound silly, but in fact delivers a punch hard enough to put you on the ground in a dazed state but it does not kill.


----------



## Derek (Dec 31, 2001)

The worst police force in Britain is the RUC now renamed the Northern Ireland Police Serivce, this force is definitely racist against the catholic minortiy as it is 90 per cent protestant and has a long history of brutality towards the catholic minority in Ulster. A couple of years a go a catholic man was kicked to death by a loyalist gang after leaving a club while an RUC landrover was only yards yet the RUC men inside did notthing to help the man, despite passers by banging on the vehicle and shouting for them to help.


----------



## mobymonster (Dec 31, 2001)

> There is the gun that fires a small bean-bag for instance. This may sound silly, but in fact delivers a punch hard enough to put you on the ground in a dazed state but it does not kill.



nor does it always work, there are incidents of people being hit many times and not being affected enough to drop the wpn.

mobymonster


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Dec 31, 2001)

Hattie,

I'd be happy to carry a bean bag gun, as long as all the wannabe ganstas carry then instead of the real ones....


----------



## hatboy (Jan 1, 2002)

Moby and Colin - you've missed the point. The point is that non-killing devices offer alternatives for incapacitating people. I'm not saying the Police don't need conventional guns. I'm saying there are many occasions when something else could be used instead... and lives would be saved.

I am aware that the bean bag gun doesn't always work. It's just an example. I beleive there are other alternatives to guns too. Surely they should at least be looked into.

And Colin - Derek Bennett was not a gangster, he was a traffic warden.


----------



## ColinTheCopper (Jan 1, 2002)

Tell that to the bloke he took hostage on the Angel town and held a gun to his head when confronted by police....

Do you think the bloke thought... Oh it's okay, this geezers a traffic warden and that thing he's holding to my head, that looks like a gun, will only mildly scorch my temple if he pulls the trigger....

[ 01 January 2002: Message edited by: ColinTheCopper ]


----------



## J-Bob (Jan 1, 2002)

It was a particularly realistic fake gun too (handle taped up, fingerprints etc). I'm not saying he neccessarily deserved what he got, but you go around waving a realistic looking weopon anywhere (and particularily an area with a prevalent gun culture like Brixton) and take a hostage...well what do you expect ? What would have happened if it had been a real gun, he had killed the hostage and the police had done nothing to protect that citizen ? 

For some reason, I almost feel they'd have been less of an outcry.

[ 02 January 2002: Message edited by: J-B ]


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 2, 2002)

sorry folks I have been away for a bit but please let me explain my much earlier post..

If you are going to go on a march described above then why bring the kids? It seems inapropriate in my opinion to take your children on a do that may well kick off...

further i feel that the police are going to feel threatened by such a march and will overreact if any bother occours..Consequently when the march rerouted to brixton police station it is naive in my opinion to expect the police to let you get there without a fight..So if you are going to go for it then perhaps leave the kids at home, get masked and tooled up and do all you can to win...looting in br9ixton town centre is a bit of a waste..and a distraction...

Happy new Year to you all..(except Colin...you go fuck yourself you pig cunt..)


----------



## GaryJenkins (Jan 2, 2002)

Steelgate

Just to provide a bit of balance, one of the reasons why NIPS/RUC is 90% protestant is that catholic extremists were likely to kill catholic police and intimidate their families, unsurprisingly it made people living in Catholic areas think twice before joining.  Mind you the IRA scumbags were pretty non-sectarian in deciding who to murder - around 300 police killed in 30 years.


----------



## Brian (Jan 5, 2002)

Well, well, well (or should it be hello, hello, hello, what's all this 'ere then?)

We really thought that the MFJ march was going to be hijacked like the last one and end up with loads of shops trashed.  We did not attack anyone - we just kept them from going back to the town centre because we did not want any trouble.  No windows went in either - well none that were reported to us anyway.

On the reason for the march, I deeply, deeply regret that anyone should lose their life.  No matter what the circumstances, no one deserves that.  OK stun guns might be OK (like if the other guy has a knife) but not when the other guy has a gun.  I do not know why Alex lost his job.  I know nothing about that.

I can understand the real concern and suspicion all this stuff churns up with the police.  I try to build confidence and reassurance and this stuff just undermines it all.  There are no winners here.

If you think its useful me participating OK but if you think I'm invading your space I'll butt out!


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 5, 2002)

That's funny, you would expect an Oxford graduate to have better spelling/ punctuation/ grammar skills and to be more articulate than that.


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 5, 2002)

Lets suppose that you really are a copper, and taking into account that your writing style is a little less jarring than Colin the coppers, and that your attitude to the local populace appears a little less harsh than his, why would you want to be on these boards? You accept that your presence might be unwelcome! And maybe you understand the reasons for that! And yet you still post, so what is it about?

Is this some kind of exercise in "public consultation" ? Are you claiming the time for this as work? Are you responding as a copper or a human being? How do you view this board?Are we some kind of guinea-pigs for you? 

Perhaps if you answered some of these questions, it would help us to evaluate whether we want to engage with you or not!



> We really thought that the MFJ march was going to be hijacked like the last one and end up with loads of shops trashed. We did not attack anyone - we just kept them from going back to the town centre because we did not want any trouble.



We thought he might have a gun, so we shot him!

We thought he was ugly, so we kicked him and beat him up!

We thought he was a waste of space, so we smashed his head against the cell wall!

Its all so handy for coppers at the moment isnt it. They just have to "think" something might happen, and that allows them to pen people in and to deprive them of their rights and liberty for as long as they "think" it is necessary! Well, there was nothing expected for that march! And those who were involved are not likely to have improved their feelings about the police whilst the bully boys strutted their stuff on the pretence that some copper "thought" something might happen.  Ihello

If you are now into the business of stopping crime before it happens, I guess we can look forward to a copper on every street corner in Brixton, can we. Including all the spots where people are regularly attacked! And where houses are regularly burgled. And where crack is openly sold on the streets! 

Or is just demonstrators that really concern you at the moment. Are you out to stop crime or just to crush dissent?


----------



## ginger (Jan 5, 2002)

> We really thought that the MFJ march was going to be hijacked like the last one and end up with loads of shops trashed.


Hijacked? How can a march be hijacked? Planes are hijacked. Marches are full of autonomous people who can make their own decisions about what they want to do EXCEPT when they are surrounded by lines of riot cops - then they are corralled into smaller and smaller spaces, their friends concerned queries about what is going on can be ignored and they can be held for two and a half hours before being released without any charges ever being made.

Fuck you with your pussying around and attempts at nice words. The reason you overreacted is because you know why we hate you, and you know we're right and will win, otherwise why the over reaction to what you already knew was a small demo? Surely not because you're trying to intimidate people away from expressing their feelings?



> We did not attack anyone - we just kept them from going back to the town centre because we did not want any trouble.



Bollocks. I was there. I saw it. I was thrown to the ground at one point. You DID attack us.



> No windows went in either - well none that were reported to us anyway.



The mothercare windows were done. And I wonder why nobody bothered reporting them to you? Possibly because (a) Brixton police station was closed (b) nobody trusts you.



> On the reason for the march, I deeply, deeply regret that anyone should lose their life.  No matter what the circumstances, no one deserves that.



You sound like Tony Blair! And just as useful... You know that as a cop you are immune from facing the same fucked up justice system we do. You know that no cop has even gone to jail for any of the over 1000 killings by cops in the UK. That if you are investigated it will be by other cops.



> I can understand the real concern and suspicion all this stuff churns up with the police.  I try to build confidence and reassurance and this stuff just undermines it all.



You are a part of the system. You uphold the injustices every time you put on the uniform. You allow it to happen. You are the bully boy upholding your rich masters' unfair property laws in return for the occasional scrap from his table and a pat on the head. You are not trusted or treated as a human being by those same masters. We're on different sides. You, I'm afraid, are the misguided foot soldier for the enemy and therefore we hate you.


----------



## whiskey (Jan 6, 2002)

Come on Commander.......nothing has driven me more to post this message than the desire to hear your answer to the last two......


----------



## hatboy (Jan 6, 2002)

I don't beleive that this is Commander Paddick. Can you offer some proof of your identity Commander? And if you are Mr Paddick, who the hell was Colin the Cop?


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 6, 2002)

Colin the cop is an imposter from Inverness! See the other thread he was posting on!


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2002)

Please note that 'Whiskey' is using the same ISP as 'the Commander' and is quite probably Colin the Cop/Blair Peach/Phoenix etc, the useless, trolling lying bullshitter from Inverness.

What's the matter Colin - are you *too scared* to put your own name and identity to your posts?

(Note: ALL IP addresses are logged, time-stamped and traceable and continuing abuse of these boards will result in an official complaint to the ISPs concerned)

[ 06 January 2002: Message edited by: editor ]


----------



## Brian (Jan 6, 2002)

Where do I start?  I am here as myself.  I am a police officer and a human being.  These are my own personal views.  I am not giving some official view.  I am doing this in my own time because I want to.  I think it is really important that I talk to all sorts of people from all backgrounds to make sure I have a more balanced view of life.  I really want to try to move beyond all the hate and anger people feel although I understand people are expressing how they really feel.  This board provides an important place where people can express themselves and I would like to express myself as well.

I have to say that I was not in charge of the policing of the march although I was there.  These things are a very difficult call.  It is about balancing rights.  It is about balancing the rights of people who want to protest against the rights of others not to have their properties broken into and their belongings stolen.  We can debate forever whether the police were justified or not.  The last march in the summer was convened by the same people, involved many of the same people and followed the same route.  The organisers refused to tell the Brixton Superintendent what route they planned to take as required by the law.  Deja vue or reasonable cause to think their might be trouble again?  Shop owners and many others in the community said the police should have known their was going to be trouble and the police should have prevented the looting.  I think what the police did was within the law and reasonable.  Others will disagree.

I think there are many problems with the criminal justice system from start to finish.  In general I think it does more good than harm and until we can think of a new system or changes to the existing one, I have to try to make it work the best it can for everyone.  I am no lapdog of my political masters.  I do not say the things I say here or elsewhere to impress anyone.  I say what is on my heart and it often gets me into trouble, mainly with my bosses!  

I love people.  I love Brixton.  I want to do my best for everyone, particularly for those whose voices are not often heard.  Two choices I guess.  You either think this is some kind of propoganda or a genuine attempt to broaden my understanding.

By the way, one of my tutors at Oxford said that whilst I was bright, he did not think I would do very well at exams as I had difficulty expressing myself on paper.  So, sorry about the spelling and punctuation but I write like I speak.  Never mind the gift wrapping, look at the content!!


----------



## editor (Jan 6, 2002)

The Commander: if you are who you say you are (I'm afraid I have my serious doubts, such is the nature of the web), please mail me - *from a Metropolitan Police email address - * and I'm sure we could set up a proper interview here.


----------



## ginger (Jan 6, 2002)

I am an anarchist and therefore believe their are higher "rights" than property rights. I believe that the arbitrary division of the world into pieces that can be owned and withdrawn from use by another human being serves only those who managed to obtain the bits of land before laws and titles came into being.

I believe that if such things as universal rights exist (and this is something I'm still deciding on) that they include the right to not be killed or physically harmed because of the action or inaction by another human being. And the old "do as you will but harm none" which includes a right to act freely, responsible to your own conscience.

As a policeman you do not have the freedom of your own conscience. The opposite - you are ordered to not just consider some set of laws as absolute for yourself, but to impose them on others. This is whether you personally agree with them or not. In fact your training is aimed at eradicating any thoughts that law might not be the absolute measure of what is right and wrong.

I believe we can never have laws that represent what is absolutely right and wrong. Apart from the historical evidence showing how bad laws can be (slavery, rape not existing within marriage and millions more) there is the truism that every circumstance is different and therefore only the people present can know and judge what happened. 

At best laws are patched together to try and handle the complexity - for example differentiating out "battered wife syndrome" to recognise that self defence need not always be because of an immediate threat. As a software engineer I am familiar with systems where new situations are continuously handled with a quick hack - they fast turn into unmanageable unwieldy monsters forever at breaking point (MS Windows anybody?). The best thing to do is start again from scratch as they are the result of a bad initial design.

At worst, and I would say usually, they are cobbled together by politicians scared of losing their jobs by doing anything other than cater to the current whims of the Sun. It reminds me of the NF's easy response to paedophiles (oh that thread again) which is string em all up, and as we discussed before is not at all helpful. But the politicians have no more choice than we as individuals do - they must play the system or be written out of the game because were they to try and recognise the true complexity of human interaction in their policies it would require intelligence, inhuman foresight and courage.

I believe we can come together to form a better society that works better and does not impinge on human beings freedom to live in the way that our current mess of a system does. I believe in true communism - anarchy. Where all economic entities (factories, services) are run by the workers and users of the system. Where we are free from property crime. We are free to concentrate on what makes human beings better off and not what turns a profit. Where we seek to bring out the best in everyone, not assume the worst.


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 7, 2002)

Top post Ginger ! 

"Commander" - you write convincingly! Maybe you could clear up this little matter of "whiskey" who writes less well, but from the same ISP! And if you really want some form of dialogue, then consider taking up the editors offer!



> I think there are many problems with the criminal justice system from start to finish. In general I think it does more good than harm and until we can think of a new system or changes to the existing one, I have to try to make it work the best it can for everyone. I am no lapdog of my political masters.



What good does the criminal justice system do?  Who benefits from it? You can't just make a claim like that, without substantiating it! 

And I fully agree with Ginger: If you spend your life "going along with things", taking orders, (even if you find them distasteful) then you are a lapdog!You cannot be your own man within the system! Alex Olowade has discovered this to his cost!




> Shop owners and many others in the community said the police should have known their was going to be trouble and the police should have prevented the looting



So once again, we come back to this: you treat all protestors as criminals! You feel justified in detaining us, without arrest, before any crime has been committed! You oppress us! The same way as Black people have been oppressed! You stereotype us, dehumanise us and seek to neutralise us!
And then you write:



> I really want to try to move beyond all the hate and anger people feel although I understand people are expressing how they really feel.



And we do not respect the police, or like them, or trust them! And we realise that they are the enemy. Their role is to protect the system at all costs! As long as they are around, they stand in the way of freedom, of liberty and of justice!

So, could there be any point in continuing with a discussion I ask myself. I know this; I would never be a cop! And I will never believe that the Met is a benign organisation! I will never grow to respect it!


----------



## Brian (Jan 12, 2002)

Hi Guys. Sorry it takes me a while to get back to you but I am very busy in the week! Anyway...

The concept of anarchism has always appealed to me.  The idea of the innate goodness of the individual that is corrupted by society or the system.  It is a theoretical argument but I am not sure everyone would behave well if there were no laws and no system.  I believe there are many people forced into causing harm to others by the way society operates at the moment.  They would not have to behave in this way if the current system did not exist or was radically different.  What am I saying here?  I am saying that the way society operates at the moment, with all the injustice and discrimination, pushes people to act against their nature to damage and harm others.  Eradicate all injustice and discrimination - would that  stop all people damaging and harming each other - I am not sure.  If there were still people who would continue to exploit and harm others, how would you stop such injustice if you had no system, no society?

ginger nuts there are certainly higher rights than property rights.  The right to  physical and spiritual well-being of the individual must be higher rights.  Why should people have arbitrary rights over pieces of the world?  Of course if you believe in the innate goodness of the individual, in the absence of 'the system' all would work to the good of everyone - each according to their ability and each according to their need.  Have we not tried this?  The problem is, if individuals are innately selfish, out for what is in it for them, they will only or primarily work for the good of themselves and not 'the whole'.  

"Do as you will but harm none" is the principle that I try to work to, within the constraints placed upon me.  I have the freedom of my own conscience to the extent of the priorities I place on what I and my officers do.  Does smoking small amounts of cannabis harm anyone else other than the smoker?  I do not think so.  Can I, as a police officer not enforce the law and get away with it.  Probably not.  So I introduce a pilot scheme where we do not arrest people for cannabis in Lambeth.  

I am looking at a new strap line for the police in Lambeth - and this is spooky because I thought of it before I read your latest post ginger nuts - "Don't damage my community".  What does that mean?  I guess you could translate it into "DO as you will but harm none."  Is this dialogue influencing me or am I not miles away from the thinking of my fellow posters?

Every circumstance is different and that is why police officers have discretion to enforce the law or not in a particular situation.  It has advantages and disadvantages.  It is open to getting much better resolutions and it is open to abuse.

freethepeeps I think the Editor says Whisey is Colin (obviously a master of disguise!)  I e-mailed Ed. from work yesterday.  Ed. if you did not get it call me in the office!

What good does the criminal justice system do?  Well I guess it has the potential to enforce the "do as you will but harm none" ethos.  If you do harm someone else, should there not be a sanction against that person.  Now I am not saying that tradtional punishments like prison are the right or the most effective sanctions, but the criminal justice system has identified those who have unjustifiably harmed others and 'punished' them for that.  

Of course whether you are talking about philosophies or religions or legal systems, they are all the products of, or have been interfered with, by human beings (even if the Bible is the Word of God, it is interpreted by human beings, etc.)  I think all human beings are fallible and whatever you are talking about, if there are humans involved, it is flawed.  The criminal jusice system is flawed.

I am trying to do the best I can in the job I do within the system that currently exists.  I guess that puts me in the other camp to those who want to overthrow 'the system'.  I do not treat all of anything as criminals - all protestors, all black people, all straight people (!)  I try to treat each individual as an individual.  Do not treat all police officers as lapdogs of a corrupt capitalist system.  Dogs sometimes turn on their owners.  They are notoriously unpredictable and they can end up working against the people that keep them!  Kept dog is OK, I can live with that.  Lapdog - in your dreams!

I admire anyone who passionately believes in their cause and I will defend their right to promote that cause provided they "harm none".


----------



## pk (Jan 12, 2002)

Well, I've ignored ColinTheCop's posts, as he's clearly a twat, but this Commander guy is making the effort and for that we must be grateful.
He seems to have a proactive approach - regardless of whether he's a cop or not, and so I think we could give him the space to let him argue his point or it'll all get a bit one sided.

And my own opinion of gun carrying in Brixton or anywhere else is simple - if you go out onto the streets armed, don't you dare come crying when you get shot.

The nutter with a cigarette lighter that was shot dead?

No pity whatsoever. Even if he was mentally ill. 
I'd rather the guy was laid out cold on a mortuary slab where he can do no harm than left to terrorise people and encourage others to go out in public with a gun, seemingly immune to the laws in this country.


----------



## hatboy (Jan 12, 2002)

I fucking hate your board personality PK. I don't think you are as harsh in real life, but the stuff about Derek Bennett is really inhumane.

Yes, Derek Bennett, or anyone waving around what appeared to be a gun, on the streets of Brixton is asking for big trouble, and risks being shot dead. I know that. But the whole point is that it would have been better if he could have been stopped without being killed. (I have suggested methods for this elsewhere on these boards).  There is also the issue of some Police appearing to (or in reality) be more trigger happy when it comes to black men. This also links to the disproportionate number of deaths of black men in Police custody.

Derek Bennett may not have been a very plesant charater (I don't know) but that doesn't mean he should have ended up dead. He was also the cousin of a friend and neighbour of mine that I have a great deal of respect for.  

Perhaps you'd like to be introduced so you can say to his face how glad you are that his cousin is dead.     

[ 12 January 2002: Message edited by: hatboy ]


----------



## hatboy (Jan 12, 2002)

About The Commander - yeah the above is all good, but I beleive it's not him.  A clever impersonation maybe.

*Commander - will you please contact the editor (Mike) from a Metropolitan Police email address or offer some other conclusive proof of your authenticity. *

I have some stuff I want to talk to you about, but until we all know for sure that you are genuine I won't be reading yor posts. Thanks.

One more thing. I am not as right-on in real life as some people might think I appear here, but I do beleive strongly in truth and natural justice. I also know a wide variety of people in Brixton and care strongly about the area.


----------



## editor (Jan 12, 2002)

> I e-mailed Ed. from work yesterday. Ed. if you did not get it call me in the office!



I have repeatedly asked you to conclusively identify yourself by posting from a verifiable Met Police email address, yet you have failed to do so.

I've absolutely no intention of wasting my time on the phone asI can't think of any reason why your mail shouldn't have come through,

But to make it even easier for you, I've set up a special mailbox, just for you! 

Feel free to mail me  at this address:
MetPolice@urban75.com

Anything coming from a non-Met Police address will be ignored or reposted here.


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2002)

Ho hum. Another day and *still* no email from the (ahem) 'Commander'.

Could it be because - surely not! - that he's nothing more than another sad alter ego of that pitiful loser, Colin the Cop?

You decide!


----------



## Brian (Jan 14, 2002)

Dear Ed.

I am having trouble e-mailing from work.  But I am posting this from work - I usually only post at weekends from home!  Is that good enough for you?

I am very angry at being accused of being Colin the Cop.  An apology would make me feel better!


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 14, 2002)

So is he Colin the saddo or Brian the weird?? I think we should be told...


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 14, 2002)

If you're having trouble with email at work, perhaps you could give someone in Bob Youldon's department at DoI a call? I'm sure they'd be only too happy to help (unless of course they're too busy losing videotapes, audiotapes, CCTV footage, files, etc).


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2002)

Seeing as this mail has indeed come from a Metropolitan Police address (at last!), that goes some way to establishing that you are who you say you are - in which I unreservedly withdraw my comments about you being anything to do with the idiotic 'Colin The Cop'.

As a policemen, you're no doubt aware that it is prudent not to take things at face value and this becomes especially apparent in cyberspace, where all manner of idiots  can trot out unverifiable nonsense and lies (witness Colin The Cop's recent disgraceful comments on Brixton Online (now thankfully deleted)

Although your approach to this board has been a little unorthodox so far, I would be happy to set up something where you could respond to points raised by Brixton posters - perhaps in the form of a dedicated and moderated forum?

Naturally, I would have to meet you face to face before proceeding, and I would also value the feedback from regulars on these boards...

[ 14 January 2002: Message edited by: editor ]


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 14, 2002)

as long as he is who he says he is then just let him post here like everyone else...

I suggest he spends some time reading the various threads concerning heroin and possible tactics to alleviate the problems caused by addiction...

But otherwise I welcome him like any other poster here..

Mike check him out beyond doubt eh?


----------



## editor (Jan 14, 2002)

> Mike check him out beyond doubt eh?


Indeed. 

A Met Police posting address doesn't guarantee it's the same person and I shall remain extremely sceptical until it's proved beyond doubt!


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 14, 2002)

Well, fuck me ragged!


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 14, 2002)

SSHH john, thats obscene words and behaviour!


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 14, 2002)

> Mike check him out beyond doubt eh?



No-one ever asked me if I freed any peeps.

No-one ever checked if Panda Killer does what it says on the can!

No-one asked Addict to prove that he has a substance problem!

The Commander has now proved that he has access to a Met computer, and from his writing it appears that he knows something about policing. He also suggests he is Paddick, and if he is not, opens himself up to all sorts of potential difficulties!

Is that enough tho?

Commander,

How do we know that you won't try and track us down if you don't like our posts?

Under what circumstances would you see yourself demanding IP addresses from the editor?

What do you hope to gain from a dialogue on these boards?

Will you address the points made in my last post about preventing crime!

I await your response with bated breath!

freethepeeps


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 14, 2002)

And you can try being all fluffy about things but are you going to refuse to send your officers to act illegally and undemocratically on events like May Day like you did last year? I think not!


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 14, 2002)

I remain suspicious ... is he actually a cop at all? He might just be a civilian employee of the Police with access to one of their computers as has been suggested.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 15, 2002)

It is quite amusing though..Will people self regulate their posts knowing we have a rozzer on board..? If it indeed is Paddick well he does seem to be one of the more reasonable policemen but no doubt he would do the usual perjury to defend his more knuckle head collegues....


----------



## Brian (Jan 15, 2002)

This is really weird.  On the one hand I want to be taken seriously so I can have a decent debate with you guys.  I have never had so much trouble trying to prove who I am before but I guess I cannot show my warrant card on the internet!  On the other hand I want to be completely open about my own personal views.  If I do prove who I am beyond any doubt, who is to say that the more controversial things I might be tempted to say might not appear in the Press?  There are real dangers in this for me as well!

TopCat, this is like the comments I get at parties.  "You'll have to watch what you drink now Brian's here".  That record is a bit worn out.

freethepeeps take a look at the South London Press Friday quoting me at the Police Consultative Group meeting.  I said whilst I did not agree with what Alex said most of the time, I would defend his right to say it.  This is not the thought police.  This is about finding out what people really think.  I am here in my private capacity, as a thinking human being who wants to check out what he does and what he thinks against other people. In the position I am in, if my thinking is wrong I could do a lot of people a disservice.  

I cannot see me ever asking the editor for IP addresses and I am sure the editor will never give them to me.  You asked me before what I want out of these boards.  I want to talk to people from very different backgrounds who would never otherwise meet with me or talk to me.  People with radically different ideas (or that is what we might think) who can help me check out my own frame of reference and my own ideas.  If you have senior police officers who refuse to listen to alternative views, we are on course for some very unhealthy situations.  (I cannot see what you mean about 'crime prevention' but that is probably me being dumb!)

Ed. - you should have my work e-mail by now - lets meet!  Unless of course you want to keep your readers in suspense!


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 15, 2002)

Ok so I will stop the cheap jibes here...

I am curious that there are police who are interested in the views of those who recieve the service, i have the enduring impression that most of the met live outside of the area that they police with consequensial lack of empathy for the service users and a lack of responsibility for their actions.

could you not encourage your officers to live in lambeth or have all the police flats been sold now?


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 15, 2002)

"I cannot see me ever asking the editor for IP addresses and I am sure the editor will never give them to me."

You've never heard of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, then?


----------



## Spud Murphy 2.0 (Jan 15, 2002)

Well, I'm not too bothered myself. It's not like the Old Bill are going to come round your work and drag you away somewhere, never to be heard of again. This isn't Turkey.

If Mr Paddick wants to debate issues with people here, that's fair enough. Unfortunately, I can't say anything about Brixton cos I don't live there. 

TopCat has made a good point tho, and that is, wherever possible, police should live in the communities they work in. If you are only getting recruits from places like Gravesend and then putting them to work somewhere like Brixton, they are going to have a *lot* to learn. The best way they can get to understand what people in an area are really like is to live there.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 15, 2002)

it would also encourage better behaviour from the police if they l9ived in the communities they policed...When I was a 10 year old the cops once stopped us thinking we were theiving which was crap and we told them so..their response? to stamp on my instep to the extent I could not get a shoe on for two days..   

if the cop lived on my estate he would never of done such an act as I would of made the git's life a misery..Further I would probably been better behaved if I knew the local cop and respected him...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 15, 2002)

I'm starting to wonder? if my suspicions might be misplaced on this   I'll wait for Mike to decide!


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 15, 2002)

"If you are only getting recruits from places like Gravesend and then putting them to work somewhere like Brixton, they are going to have a *lot* to learn."

Apparantly, unlike the Met which recruits on a rolling basis, a lot of the regional police forces only recruit a small number of people every couple of years. When a yorkie or taff punter turns up at their local recruitment office (or whatever), they get told to sign up in London, serve a couple of years and then transfer back to the village. Hence the number of disinterested "foreigners" in the London police force that can't seem to deal with anyone that's not white and English.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 15, 2002)

er John they can be quite obnoxious to white english peeps too!


----------



## hatboy (Jan 15, 2002)

Briefly - to the Commander. If it is you Mr Paddick, as a Brixton resident who's followed your work and attitudes I applaud you. I also like what appear to be sincere, reasonable posts on here. I think that it could be a good idea for you to stick around for awhile.

However, in view of the fact that there have been afew malicious people posting up crap lately under multiple idents I remain deeply suspicious of your true identity.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 15, 2002)

Mmmm...Well I find that so far Mr Paddick has broken some interesting ground in his career..I think it is good that there is a decent role model for gay cops to find strength through and further his policy on cannabis was risky for him but enlightned which is also good.

I do object to the calm reasonable tone to his posts howevere and also the disgusting way he is prepared to take concepts on board that would usually get you a kicking from some of his subordinates...How am I expected to maintain a virulent malicious attitude towards the police if he continues? 

next we will be haveing a U75 benefit do to raise cash for the metropolitan police orphans fund...


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 15, 2002)

Ooh, I know, TC - but the assault you get off them in that case is an equal opportunity kicking, innit?


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 15, 2002)

Commander

This is the question which i am interested in your answer to! Sorry about the confusion, it was 3 posts ago!



> If you are now into the business of stopping crime before it happens, I guess we can look forward to a copper on every street corner in Brixton, can we. Including all the spots where people are regularly attacked! And where houses are regularly burgled. And where crack is openly sold on the streets!
> 
> Or is just demonstrators that really concern you at the moment. Are you out to stop crime or just to crush dissent?


----------



## Derek (Jan 15, 2002)

I think that those people at officer.com sometimes visit our boards. They knew that Fat Mike was from here when he posted on there a few months back. Some of the views on officer.com are a bit extremist.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't **think** The Commander seems to be in that mould at all Derek, most of them at that site are out and out barking and he appears to come across as reasonable.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 16, 2002)

Ooh i have not tried Officer.com..i'm off for a mooch about their site...


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2002)

Have fun .. call yourself Top Criminal ...


----------



## sonicdancer (Jan 16, 2002)

Quick question ..

Is "The Commander" Brian Paddick or not ??

Can someone please confirm...I see "The Commander" has posted Brian's email address openly on another thread in the Brixton bit. But anyone could do that, and I wouldnt have thought that it would be a done thing from someone in such a position of authority. surely if he wanted to be contacted it would be by way of PM with legitimate reason for contact being explained not this way round ??

sceptical sonic


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 16, 2002)

> Christian
> 
> I confess!  It is me.  You win the prize for being the first person to
> reply!!
> ...


 he is who he says he is! Ooh er...


----------



## Brian (Jan 16, 2002)

As our head honcho does not want to play anymore I have no choice.  If you believe that only the real Commander has access to the e-mail Brian.Paddick@met.police.uk, you can find out if it is me by e-mailing.

For those sad people who think this is a trap to find out who your are, it adds an element of risk for you thrill seekers out there!

I am moving on Friday and I really thought I was moving into Lambeth - turns out I am 100 yards over the border.  Near enough to take a personal interest in my work though, would you not agree?  It would be good if more cops lived locally but we have sold off almost all our police property in the area.

freethepeeps we tried putting a cop on every street corner in 1981 - Brixtonians did not like that.  I am adopting a new policy (you heard it here first) to put more visible cops into the worst crime areas in Lambeth.  I have no interest in crushing dissent - I would have to beat myself up regularly if that was the game I was in!  Protest to your hearts content wherever and whenever you want but '...harm none.'  It's a difficult judgement...blah, blah as before...!


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 16, 2002)

> we tried putting a cop on every street corner in 1981 - Brixtonians did not like that


 Err it was a bit more erm assertive than that was it not? i remember Swamp in all it's glory, please do not go down this route again, if woolworths gets smashed up again as a result where oh where am I to buy my pick n mix?


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 16, 2002)

Commander

I tried emailing you, and it came back as undeliverable - possibly cos I use hotmail.

Maybe you could email me on freethepeep@hotmail.com as I would like to know that you are genuine!

FTP


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 16, 2002)

TopCat says you're for real, so I'll accept that.



> freethepeeps we tried putting a cop on every street corner in 1981 - Brixtonians did not like that. I am adopting a new policy (you heard it here first) to put more visible cops into the worst crime areas in Lambeth. I have no interest in crushing dissent - I would have to beat myself up regularly if that was the game I was in! Protest to your hearts content wherever and whenever you want but '...harm none.' It's a difficult judgement...blah, blah as before...!



Blah, Blah, Blah just doesn't do it for me!

The question is about what the police really stand for!

How is it that they feel vindicated in "preventing crime" at protests, but appear to have no interest in preventing the crime that hurts people all the time?

It is becoming common practice to incarcerate protestors (and unfortunate passers by) in kettles - and yet I cannot imagine a street being cordoned off and everyone being held against their will because a mugging has taken place or 
*might take place.*

You say that the "people" didn't like it when Brixton was swamped in 1981 - however, is it not true that there are many who don't like the way that demonstrations are swamped in 2002!

This is an attack on the right to protest, and if that right is diminished, then the "democracy" that we are told we have, and that we killed Afghani babies for, is totally discredited!

Are you happy to be part of a system that attacks protest, that robs protestors of their human rights because some officer *thinks* a crime might be committed?


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 16, 2002)

I don't think much will be achieved here in discussion with The Commander if everyone tys to make him own all the behaviour and policys of the police in general. He is hardly in a position to defend all their "practices" over the years and is obviously trying to change some aspects of how they work..

Oh and look NVP, I haven't called him a git once!


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 16, 2002)

If that was directed at me TopCat, I am confused! The "Commander" posted on this thread, and as far as I can work it out, the last post is part of a discussion that we had already started, and I am not asking him to own anything, I am asking him what he, as a human being thinks.

I am also genuinely interested in his view on the "right" to protest, and how the police handle that "right".

But, as he has come on these boards, and outed himself as a policemen, it would be no surprise if people raised their "police" related matters with him, would it?


----------



## RubyToogood (Jan 16, 2002)

Perhaps a quick phone call to Brian Paddick's office would sort this out...

By the way, freethepeeps, I think you've spelt your email address wrong there?

[ 16 January 2002: Message edited by: RubyToogood ]


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 16, 2002)

No it was not really directed at you, it was a folorn hope that we might get a good bit of mileage out of discussing issues...i reckon we could easily scare off The Commander if we berate him too much.Then again he must be mad of stern stuff so maybe not. I am not used to any sort of consultation with the police so it's all a bit unusual.. No offence eh?


----------



## freethepeeps (Jan 16, 2002)

None taken!


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 16, 2002)

Cool...


----------



## Brian (Jan 16, 2002)

Sorry freethepeeps, no disrespect what I meant by blah, blah was what I previously posted:

'These things are a very difficult call. It is about balancing rights. It is about balancing the rights of people who want to protest against the rights of others not to have their properties broken into and their belongings stolen. We can debate forever whether the police were justified or not. The last march in the summer was convened by the same people, involved many of the same people and followed the same route. The organisers refused to tell the Brixton Superintendent what route they planned to take as required by the law. Deja vue or reasonable cause to think their might be trouble again? Shop owners and many others in the community said the police should have known their was going to be trouble and the police should have prevented the looting. I think what the police did was within the law and reasonable. Others will disagree.'

No disrespect to any of you guys but I have the police in Lambeth to run and I am moving home this weekend so I am not around for a while.  I am not deserting you, promise and please say what you think - that's what it's all about isn't it.  Just make usre there is some fact and logic mixed up with the emotion.  Good talking to you.

Brian


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 16, 2002)

Personally, if someone's gone far enough to fake that email address and TC says it's kosher, I'm prepared to be taken in by it and accept the geezer as genuine. (I've got to say, I'm fucking gobsmacked).

Perhaps we could have a new - possibly moderated - thread for a fresh discussion?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2002)

I agree (about the gobsmackedness and the moderated board).

Respect to the man for making the effort!


----------



## J-Bob (Jan 16, 2002)

Let's hope it's genuine, I know how easy it is to fake 'em. Any news yet Mike ?


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 17, 2002)

.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 17, 2002)

> Also I thought it was brilliantly subtle racism making ganja `legal` in Brixton too. Amazingly effective in creating tension. Which great mind thought that up ? Campbell, Blunkett...you ? All it has done is connect black and poor people with drugs and create resentment (amongst pot smokers and others the majority of whom are white and not londoners) that Brixton and Black people are getting `preferential` soft treatment. The BNP couldnt have done any better.



What a load of bollox.   I know of noone who thinks like this.Justify this (IMO) load of tosh please.


----------



## mach v (Jan 17, 2002)

Coo, I dunno Brixton Leads the way and Adam gets upset. Brixton is multicultural, NOT a poor black borough!


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 17, 2002)

All the stoners I know think that the brixton trial was brilliant and were/are confident that it was/is a prelude to a more liberal enforcement of the misuse of drugs act..further it's true! What with Blunketts plans to make it a class c this is happening...


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 17, 2002)

I disagree that multiculturalism is a matter of them and us - there was no unitary culture for immigrants to be absorbed into and nor can there be. Culture isn't just living in the same place, obviously, and there's no particular limit to the number that can coexist, subsume or overlap.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 17, 2002)

Exactly John..beautifully put..


----------



## mach v (Jan 17, 2002)

John : perfect.


----------



## hatboy (Jan 17, 2002)

I to want to disagree with the idea that loosening the cannabis laws in Brixton was "brilliantly subtle racism". That is not how it appeared from inside the area. It was/is a practical and good idea.

I also believe that Brian Paddick is not a racist.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 17, 2002)

On the ganja : I think Adam has been smoking too much of the special "Paranoia" strain ... how about the least complicated explanation? That the initiative had little to do with govt.,  but came from the Police on the ground who in Brixton hadn't enough bods on he beat to hassle petty dope smokers all day long when they were supposed to be concentrating on crimes that were really crimes.

How about the still-open possibilty that if this initiative works **to the Police's saisfaction** (see below) it will be extended London-wide? And then country wide? Many forces in many places beyond Brixton  **already** turn a blind eye to public smoking (so long as people don't blow smoke from a foot long jay into a copper's face) to formalise the Brixton experiment everywhere (and I **do** see this happening) will remove or at least much reduce scope for Police inconsistency.

Any hassle petty dope possessors/smokers get in London these days is either because they are stupidly obvious about it (it's a piece of piss to avoid attention) or MORE SINISTERLY I'd agree, because the Police are hassling them for something else.

I am not being co-opted (Copted?) by the Police, I will continue to hold a healthy distance from and suspicion of them. And I would thoroughly agree that the kind of hasslement and physical attacks Adam has had from Police in and out of the UK is OUTRAGEOUS.

But on ganja, the Police by force of circumstance are largely ahead of Government thinking. Lets take advantage of their pragmatism.

I'm sure Mr Paddick may have something to say ...


----------



## J-Bob (Jan 17, 2002)

> Considering Im a journalist I find it odd the OB didnt give me the same sort of attention when I was at the Evening Standard or Loaded. Why is that ?



Presumably, because you weren't covering the same issues that you are now and weren't at demo's where police brutality is common, even to those non-journalists among us.

Have you actually been to Brixton, Adam ? Do you know what you're talking about ? It was a good idea to run the pilot scheme there because more people were getting nicked there for personal possession of cannabis than anywhere else. It would have been a bit silly to run it in Knightsbridge, which is not renowed for its street life and its open drug dealing.



> Also I thought it was brilliantly subtle racism making ganja `legal` in Brixton too. Amazingly effective in creating tension. Which great mind thought that up ? Campbell, Blunkett...you ? All it has done is connect black and poor people with drugs and create resentment (amongst pot smokers and others the majority of whom are white and not londoners) that Brixton and Black people are getting `preferential` soft treatment. The BNP couldnt have done any better.



Actually, it was in the borough Lambeth - but never let the facts get in the way of a good rant, eh ? Lambeth has a diverse mix of people, income's, housing stock etc. As for the second bit about racism, which others here have discredited admirably; is this not more a reflection of your own thinking ?

[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: J-B ]


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 18, 2002)

No I dont agree with you. 

I know plenty of people who just think its Brixton getting preferential treatment. They dont, as you might realise, come from the same political strand as me. Or most of you lot.

In Brixton/Lambeth it may well be seen as a positive thing. Outside London however the connection between Brixton/black people/poor people and drugs is one made over and over again by the right over the years. This is no different, just a liberal version of the same. Why for example not pick a different are for this `pilot scheme`...why Brixton/Lambeth. Why not Gateshead or Leamington Spa, afater all they have dope smokers too.

As for `multiculturalism` this is the sort of state initiative that would have been useful in the 1950s but not now.
There's plenty of other writing on the subject from people like AFA and Spiked and the like. I, for example, dont beleive that a bloke whos Mum and Dad came from India has a different `culture` to me. I think the differences are miniscule. The underlying `culture` of any country should involve security, food, water, heating, accountability and other general underlying factors about how people live their lives. The fact that one bloke may have eaten more goat curry and rice and someone might have eaten chips and someone else might have eaten blinitz more or less as they grew up is a toatal irrelevancy. Religion, music, dress also...

Every time some liberal comes on the TV and starts on about `multiculturalism` my mates who arent white just despair...

But what about me then? Im a half Yid. Where do I come in the multicultural racial classification table. Near-white? Do I need special help ? Eat less bagels ? Should I be more English ? More Jewish ? 
Do you get my drift ? Do you think there are no questions to be answered here ? I think we on this board can do better than just go bollocks/you smoke too much weed etc...

Separating out cultures is devisive, as we have seen.

And if you disagree with me can you hold on to the abuse I dont think ive ever abused any of you except in jest. If you can convince me Im wrong, as youve seen in the past, I go `ok, youre right I was wrong` do I not ? Ok?

also: yes i know, and like, Brixton...the journalism question was an obvious rhetorical one aimed at the OB chap...


JW: "I disagree that multiculturalism is a matter of them and us - there was no unitary culture for immigrants to be absorbed into and nor can there be. Culture isn't just living in the same place, obviously, and there's no particular limit to the number that can coexist, subsume or overlap."

Exactly. But the non-unitary Britain that you speak of has had immigration for hundereds of years. The more recent immigrants to the UK have also been here for many years (lets say 40-20). So why bring it up now? Why point it out now ? Since this whole `initiative` things have got worse not better. To me the `multicultural` notion is merely a smokescreen for the straight up and down racism that exists, especially within the state (police, army, judiciary etc etc).
What it has done is exacerbate areas of public life who were far less racist than the state by making (mainly white) people think that black people, asian people, jewish people, assylum seekers etc etc are now getting a `better deal` than they are. 

phew its a long one...

[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: AdamP ]


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 18, 2002)

Just one thing ... I disagree with the idea that music is irrelevant. I see your point about surface differences being unimportant between different parts of the single human race, compared to common interests uniting us,  but music to me has been a very important force for breaking down barriers .. or is that only amongst the liberal Guardian reading wankers?

I **am** cautious about using the term "multiculturalism" because it does have cliched connotations as does "vibrant diverse community" blah blah ... but there's nothing wrong with the CONCEPT/IDEAL. The argument is over how best to achieve it.

I still think you've got it wrong about the ganja thing. It was the right thing to do as a GATEWAY   to softening/removing restrictions elsewhere.


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 18, 2002)

W.O.W - Ok, I hope the ganja laws are changed everywhere v quick. As I remember when Blunky annaounced cat c status it was supposed to come into force in mid-Jan, I dont know when its going to happen though. But I still dont like the association I feel was made for home counties/rural UK.

I hope I made the point about why i find the term/political concept `mc` divisive. But OF COURSE I want a multi-racial,(also mutli-ethnic) society. In fact I'd say we already have a multi-racial society, its here, its not going away and everyone who doesnt like it hard fucking luck. I love it. &lt;dances about middle fingers to nazis tongue out&gt;

As a brief generalisation I would say that all peeps, (wherever they/their parents/gparents came from), want is to be accepted as an individual with their `race` `ethnicity` etc not brought into question, whether you do good OR bad. EG: If I kick you on a Sunday morning playing footy and you call me a `cunt` thats fine. If you call me a `Yid cunt` i'll (try and) bash you. 

From that starting point people who then go on to proclaim their `superiority` because of their whiteness/blackness/religous affiliations etc can be criticised. 

Huey Newton of the Panthers for example hated the Nation of Islam because he saw them as "cultural nationalists". (see Sieze The Time by Bobby Seale)

Tony Blair preaches `mc-ism` but then cements segregation in schools (see cultural nationalism above) as if that kind of `mc-ism` is helpful. (of course im also against Catholic/Jewish/C of E  exclusive schools too).

Check out these articles: AND NO I DONT SUBSCRIBE TO THE TOTALITY OF THESE SITES VIEWS the articles are interesting though.
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/5602/main.html 
http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/00000002D35E.htm 
http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/392/after_bradford.html 
http://www.redaction.org/race_and_class/contents.html


----------



## hatboy (Jan 18, 2002)

I'll let others more eloquent debate this. I can see that the current political spin on "multicultural Britain", could feed right into the hands of the right wing - emphasising difference rather than human similarity.

I don't really believe that this situation has been deliberately engineered.

And I am certain that the Lambeth experiment with cannabis was a practical measure originating locally. I feel sure there is no hidden aganda here. If some people outside the area see Lambeth/Brixton in terms of drugs/black/poor in that one-dimensional way then they must be pretty unthinking.  

I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think you are over-intellectualising or something Adam.  I'm not against you and I'm still listening but I don't think "yes this guy's been there, he knows what's what". Sorry.


Edited to say this was put up before I saw the above post which seem abit more straight talking.

[ 18 January 2002: Message edited by: hatboy ]


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 18, 2002)

I just don't understand what you're saying: multiculturalism in the UK began (really) with Roy Jenkins in the 60s, talking about an alternative to the crushing and demoralising process of assimilation, which was the alternative (as pursued in France, unsuccessfully and to the chagrin of cultural minorities there).

I don't really understand what you mean when you say culture isn't constituted by diet, religion, dress, music and so on, when these are exactly the things through which cultural identity creates and recreates itself. If you strip all that away, all we are is consumers - which I agree is pretty much homogenous across Europe (in fact, just about everywhere West of Jerusalem).

I don't really understand why you pursue the BNP's idea that accepting that cultures other than your own makes you less of your culture, or why you think there's a racial classification table for culture (also a bizarre BNP line, confusing culture and race), or why you think it restricts your identity choices. Multiculturalism doesn't mean you have to eat more or fewer bagels, it means that the bagel shop can be opposite the Turkish bakery.

As a side note, I don't think that you can separate multiculturalism from what was happening in the UK's white populations at the time - the cracks in the English Protestant (Francophone) upper class dominance of the UK were beginning to crack, the Catholics in NI were kicking off, the Scots were getting slightly restless. IMO, multiculturalism is as much an acknowledgement of the cultural diversity of the aboriginal British populations as much as the more recent immigrants.

I don't quite understand why you think it's a coverup for prejudice in civil institutions either. I basically just don't understand what you're saying!


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 18, 2002)

jw - quickly 

"I just don't understand what you're saying: multiculturalism in the UK began (really) with Roy Jenkins in the 60s, talking about an alternative to the crushing and demoralising process of assimilation, which was the alternative (as pursued in France, unsuccessfully and to the chagrin of cultural minorities there)."

*I was referring to the Tony Blair version not to the 60s version.*

I don't really understand what you mean when you say culture isn't constituted by diet, religion, dress, music and so on, when these are exactly the things through which cultural identity creates and recreates itself. If you strip all that away, all we are is consumers - which I agree is pretty much homogenous across Europe (in fact, just about everywhere West of Jerusalem).

*I would say that we would be `citizens` rather than consumers. Equal in every respect. *

I don't really understand why you pursue the BNP's idea...

*Er...I dont *


...that accepting that cultures other than your own makes you less of your culture...

* i dont at all *

...or why you think there's a racial classification table for culture (also a bizarre BNP line, confusing culture and race), or why you think it restricts your identity choices. Multiculturalism doesn't mean you have to eat more or fewer bagels, it means that the bagel shop can be opposite the Turkish bakery.

* Isnt that multiethnic ? Food isnt `culture` *

As a side note, I don't think that you can separate multiculturalism from what was happening in the UK's white populations at the time - the cracks in the English Protestant (Francophone) upper class dominance of the UK were beginning to crack, the Catholics in NI were kicking off, the Scots were getting slightly restless. IMO, multiculturalism is as much an acknowledgement of the cultural diversity of the aboriginal British populations as much as the more recent immigrants.

* Im not sure about this, what is `aboriginal` ? Sure Irish, Scotish people and so on should be respected *

I don't quite understand why you think it's a coverup for prejudice in civil institutions either. 

* because it places the emphasis on `accepting` our multi racial society that is already here on ordinary people. it fails to address the fact that the vast majority HAVE accepted it as opposed to the state which has not *

HATboy

"I can't quite put my finger on it, but I think you are over-intellectualising or something Adam."

* I hope not I was just responding to all the arguments in one post *

"I'm not against you and I'm still listening but I don't think "yes this guy's been there, he knows what's what". Sorry."

No probs...have a look at those articles I pointed out, what do you think of them ?


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 18, 2002)

I don't think that multiculturalism weakens citizenship (formal, distinct from community - or should be), I think it strengthens it. I certainly have no desire to be "just a citizen" like everyone else in the EU at the expense of my identity groups! Citizenship is something that's organised/administered by the state, while culture and state are mutually constitutive with a very tetchy relationship.

Food isn't culture?

Surely you're not trying to ignore the role food plays in society and culture? The way it's served, the dishes and ingredients chosen, the timing are all deeply significant. Christmas cakes, Pimm's, hot cross buns, cucumber sandwiches, haggis, those big Italian cakes - if it wasn't cultural, then there would be no reason why those things above were served at specific times of year or associated with specific nationalities/identity groups. In fact, if food wasn't cultural, then the rice and peas/Jamaican and bagels/Jewish associations wouldn't make sense at all.


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 18, 2002)

.


----------



## hatboy (Jan 18, 2002)

Phew, I need a drink.


----------



## Cautious Fred (Jan 18, 2002)

I notice that copper's scarpered.


----------



## Brian (Jan 23, 2002)

Hi Guys!  I did say I that I would not be around for a while as I have just moved home...oh and I do have a police service to run.

The cannabis pilot was my idea for a number of reasons.  A cop at Brixton was arrested for seizing cannabis and then throwing it away instead of doing things officially (more to it than that but that is what the other cops thought).  His colleagues rightly said they were going to arrest everyone in the future rather than dealing with it informally as they did not want to get nicked.  I did not want them to do that.  Second, ever since I was a sergeant here in 1982, cannabis has never been a big deal for local people.  I did not think there would be much opposition.  The police have got more important things to do in Lambeth that local people really are concerned about.  I wanted an official short-cut way of dealing with cannabis so we did not waste too much time on what local think is a minor issue.  Nothing to do with race just practicalities.  Why Lambeth?  Because I am the Borough Commander for Lambeth!  Simple, no hidden agendas, just common sense (well I thought so!)

Multiculturalism - yuck!  What I want is this.  I'm gay.  I do not want to be accepted because I act straight (well most of the time!).  I want people to know I am gay and to accept me for what I am.  I want black and Asian and whatever minority people to be accepted for who and what they are in the same way.  Not because they act or behave or try to look like the majority but because people are broad minded enought to say "s/he's different, that's OK with me".  Not very intellectual, but hey, what do you expect from a plod!!  (If you want to get familiar, I try to get everyone to call me Brian).


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2002)

Do you have any opinion about Fred Broughton's evidence to the Commons Home Affairs Committee, Commander?

His views seem to be somewhat at variance with yours ...


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 23, 2002)

Commander - why are you bringing homosexuality into a discussion about multiculturalism? 

"Not because they act or behave or try to look like the majority but because people are broad minded enought to say "s/he's different, that's OK with me"."

Why "yuck"? That's exactly what multiculturalism _is_ - it's assimilation where everybody has to act the same no matter what their heritage/ ethnicity/ race/ nationality is.


----------



## hatboy (Jan 24, 2002)

I imagine the Commander brought homosexuality into a discussion on multiculturalism because he is (as am I) in that minority, albeit not an ethnic one. Some gay guys (not all) have a greater understanding of what it is like to be outside the majority population and to experience prejudice. It may not be the same as racial prejudice, but there are similarities.

Secondly, why shouldn't he mention it?

"Big up the battyman babylon!", that's what I say. Well actually that's not how I speak atall, I just thought that was funny.

I think it's great that you are contributing here Brian, and I understand that you get the thumbs up from Jo Negrini and Darcus Howe for starters. I do hope you're not gonna get undermined by more reactionary members of the Met? I fear you will get moved on for rocking the boat.

So, when you coming round for a spliff mate?


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 24, 2002)

> That's exactly what multiculturalism is - it's assimilation where everybody has to act the same no matter what their heritage/ ethnicity/ race/ nationality is.



Er if thats multiculturisem then you can keep it... I am perfectly happy that our society is made up of different types of people with different ways of doing things. i don't demand that people conform to some mythical english culture vive le difference...


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 24, 2002)

Hatboy - he might well be gay - but that's not a culture in the proper sense of the word that multiculturalism emerges from. It's a subculture - you're still English, Pakistani, Nigerian or whatever.

TC - bollocks, I've not explained it very well, have I? I'm saying that what The Commander is describing as multiculturalism is *actually* assimilation. They're two different things: assimilation is where everybody acts the same no matter what (like in France when they went through a period of pretending everybody's ancestors were the Gauls, even if you were an Algerian or a Alsatian) while multiculturalism is where everybody gets to do their own thing in the private sphere and everybody has to respect each other. I think assimilation is shit and multiculturalism is great.


----------



## mach v (Jan 24, 2002)

> Hatboy - he might well be gay - but that's not a culture in the proper sense of the word that multiculturalism emerges from. It's a subculture - you're still English, Pakistani, Nigerian or whatever.



That's just ethnic cultures, but Commander and HB are right you can't call homosexuality a sub culture if it spans all other cultures, it becomes it's own culture in its own right. 

Multiculturalism (for me, anyway)  is about all cultures, be it sexual, sex, age, ethnic, class, _whatever_ coexisting  along side and tollerating each other within the same space. 

_"Vivre le Difference!"_


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 24, 2002)

> Multiculturalism (for me, anyway) is about all cultures, be it sexual, sex, age, ethnic, class, whatever coexisting along side and tollerating each other within the same space.
> 
> "Vivre le Difference!"



But for me there are limits to tolerance..I won't respect those who practise "female circumcision" for instance and I have a thinly veiled contempt for religous types especially those whose religion is a cover for the oppression of women.


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 24, 2002)

.


----------



## TopCat2 (Jan 24, 2002)

The commander did send me an e-mail from a met police address that belongs to Mr Paddick so that checks out..Plus he seems to ring true no?


----------



## hatboy (Jan 24, 2002)

Thanks for the back-up Mach V. I personally don't really think about whether being gay is a sub-culture or a culture. But it pisses me off when other people get too theoretical about what is my everyday life. I know you are quite an intellectual person JW, but I don't need you to tell me whether being gay is part of a sub-culture or a culture. I know what it's like to be gay. Unless you are gay you don't.

Which brings me to what I wanted to say, which is that above Mr Paddick excuses himself for not being an intellectual - "what do you expect from a plod?" - Irrelevant. Brian, you seem to exhibit a fair amount of empathy and humanity. If you continue to do that, it doesn't matter that you don't see yourself as an intellectual.

Sometimes so-called "intellectuals" are quite out-of-touch with people anyway.


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 24, 2002)

Hatboy: I'm not really sure what your point is - one of the many points of discussion on this thread is exactly what multiculturalism is (its roots and origin, and how the concept has evolved), which in turn asks questions about what culture is. Yes, it's a discussion about words and political concepts at one level.

Culture (like community) is a word that gets chucked about until it loses its meaning and doesn't become helpful any more. If you ask me (which no-one did but then if everybody waited to be asked, this would be a very quiet place), culture is a more all-embracing notion than sexuality and the things associated with that: it's also a lot of fuzzy and imprecise things like religion, diet, rituals on life events, (folk/ collective) history, knowledge and belief systems and anything else you care to shake a sociological shitty stick at that's produced and reproduced by the state, family and society. In my opinion, not least for the precise reason that homosexuality is present across all cultures while markers of gayness differ through them, "gay" or even "UK gay" is not a distinct culture, it's a subculture or some other form of social organisation. It's quite possible to be a multiculturalist and a raving homophobe (though I've never knowingly met anyone who is). You do see why being Roma and being gay are qualitatively different, don't you?

If you don't like that opinion - fine, I'm not self-important enough to believe it makes the slightest difference in the grand scheme of things what I think and what you think about what I think - but to just effectively say "this discussion is shit and I'm not going to participate in it but even if I did, I'd be right" is just childish. If you think the discussion is irrelevant, ignore it - if you think your disagreement/participation is important - then get stuck in by all means - explain what you mean.

Personally, I couldn't give a fuck if a copper is supposed to be an intellectual or not (ooh, shades of Adrian Mole here) - someone who stops his officers beating the crap out of people, enforces the law and doesn't suppress democratic process might be a good start. If The Commander does start ripping on pretty important bits of political policy in Britain like multiculturalism, then it would help if knew what the fuck he was talking about - not least because unlike me (who also doesn't necessarily know what the fuck he's talking about), the way he translates this into his professional attitudes have a big impact on society.

[ 24 January 2002: Message edited by: JohnW ]


----------



## marko (Jan 24, 2002)

Umm...... so we've established that gayness isn't a "culture" in *exactly* the same sense in which Indian-ness is a "culture". So?   

I think the parallels between sexual (or musical) sub-cultures and national cultures are actually very striking. It's just that the latter tend to be stronger, and to affect peoples' lives in a greater variety of ways, as you point out.

However! I think this not a difference of kind, but only a difference of degree. The sheer volume of shared ideas and references you get from belonging to a national group may be greater than the volume associated with belonging to a sexual group... but a 2nd generation Indian will have less Indian ideas/references than his parents, and one who is 2nd generation but with only one Indian parent even less. So the degree to which this person participates in "Indian culture" may be less than a scene queen's participation in "gay culture". I don't see a valid distinction between the two.


----------



## johnwisehammer (Jan 24, 2002)

Fair enough, nothing wrong with that. It's interesting to hear you explain your opinion and your opinion of mine.


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 24, 2002)

.


----------



## hatboy (Jan 25, 2002)

There aren't any!  Well alright, a handful I suspect.

I didn't say, or effectively say "this discussion is shit and I'm not going to participate in it but even if I did, I'd be right". 

I just thought I'd spotted this discussion disappearing up it's own, that's all. Guess I'm not in a "let's have a heated debate" mood today.  



[ 25 January 2002: Message edited by: hatboy ]


----------



## TinyCrendon (Jan 28, 2002)

.


----------



## RubyToogood (Feb 19, 2002)

Bumped for interest- the Commander's anarchism comment is on page three. If you look at it in context he was simply replying to ginger...

Shall I put the music on, Adam?


----------



## Paul (Feb 22, 2002)

Commander Paddick the policeman,  the Buddhist......

Urban cool  

We need more police officers like Paddick 

Leader
Thursday February 21, 2002
The Guardian 

Commander Brian Paddick, the policeman in charge of a part of inner-city
London, is one of the rarest figures of the modern day. Prepared to engage
in frank and liberal conversation with the people he serves, Commander
Paddick appears an offbeat and welcome voice in public life. But his latest
outburst of honesty is unlikely to be well received by superiors in the
Metropolitan police. It is not certain how much of the Met logs on to
www.urban75.com, a Brixton-edited website favoured by anarchist and
anti-capitalists, but many will be now pointing their browsers there.

Here they will find "Brian: The Commander" offering himself for a chat on
the site's bulletin boards. Some of it is philosophical musing, which
surprisingly for a policeman has Commander Paddick attracted to anarchism
and the ideal that "the innate goodness of the individual... is corrupted by
society". Some of it is telling the world about the way it is. "I have some
of the bravest, fearless, unarmed cops who care enough to tackle
gun-carrying drug dealers... and still go back for more." Some of it is
remarkably personal, given that Commander Paddick is the first openly gay
commander in the Met. "Someone has found out which gay club I go to and is
trying to cause some SERIOUS shit for me." 

All of it is compulsive reading. Perhaps other officers should face public
cross-examination on the web. Rather than being cheered, there are calls for
Commander Paddick to be sacked from the right-wing press, former officers
and the Metropolitan Police Federation. But the attack from these canteen
culturalists, motivated in part by a barely disguised loathing of a
successful progressive policeman, should be shrugged off. Commander Paddick
is an asset in a Met, where Londoners look and rarely see themselves.
Brixton, where drugs and guns are all too visible, needs someone like
Commander Paddick who is prepared to take the fight to the criminals. His
forward-thinking has put him ahead of the curve. Before the Home Office
planned to decriminalise dope, Commander Paddick experimented with cautions
rather than arrests for people caught with small amounts of cannabis in
south London so police could spend more time tackling the society-sapping
menace of cocaine. A success, the scheme has saved 2,500 police hours, and
arrests for harder drugs rose by 19%. As urban75 put it: Respect To The
Commander.


----------



## canadian_punx (Feb 22, 2002)

I'm disgusted that something like this could happen!  
Why is it that the police seem so lost about what going on, and act violently as a result of their fear?  Where's the compassion you should be able to expect in people who are meant to SERVE the people, not beat them.  Makes you believe that there can be no such thing as order. 
If you can't trust the people who are meant to protect you, then who can you trust?  Who do you turn to when you're in need?


----------



## Paul (Feb 22, 2002)

"Why is it that the police seem so lost about whats going on, and act violently as a result of their fear?". 
Police officers are human beings too, they like anyone take influences from society, a little more feel the fear and do it anyway would help.  This is of course difficult to action when the likes of the American Government drive that fear train to attain control.   When breakdown in society occurs its relevance affects us all.   "Makes you believe that there can be no such thing as order", this chaos period is leading us to order or extinction, either way its getting sorted.


----------



## steve5312 (Feb 24, 2002)

Well well well. This forum is particularly quiet, considering all the press coverage that's been going on recently.

Just out of interest, why was everyone so interested in making sure Brian Paddick was a bona fide police officer? He made it clear that he was here as an individual, not a policeman, and so his occupation shouldn't really be of relevance. Believe it or not, coppers can form opinions of their own - they don't all blindly follow their masters.

If Brian still reads this thread and wishes to contribute further, I'd be interested to see what he's got to say about the past week's events in the media. Personally I found it interesting and indicative of the nature of today's tabloid press that many of the papers concentrated solely on his sexuality and not the views he expressed.

Perhaps Adam can help me understand that. Why do papers think the public really care if the guy was gay? It's entirely irrelevant, and about as uninteresting as today's News of the World front page "exclusive" about some Cold Feet actor cheating on his wife. Who cares????

It would've been nice if last week's events have made the Met sit up and realise that Brian's comments have received huge support from the general public, "anarchists" or otherwise. Sadly, due to the hype about his sexuality, it looks like he is instead going to be viewed as an embarassment rather than a free-thinker.


----------



## JohnnyR (Feb 28, 2002)

Anarchy, anarchy!
You lot just hate the police, rules and regulations. 
Well, let's do away with them and get back to basics.
No rules, laws, just take it all as it comes? Hey?
Will this work? Methinks not. Hasn't History taught us any lessons? Rules etc were being formulated in the IRON age!!!!
In my University days I was a bit of an anarchist...going on the anti this and anti that protest. I shook my head with Rotten! Met him as well! Cool chap.
When you grow up a bit you realise that this can NEVER work.
How can it? Someone tell me PULeeeeeeeeese.
When you get a bit older like me (sadly) you still want a bit of fun but crap things like mortgages, jobs, kids, etc, get in the way.
Fact of life for many like me, educated and very middle class. So what, it matters not. 
Do you know all I want? Safety, SAFETY in the streets and a frigging good justice system. I want justice....For those evil bastards who have no regard for life. What pisses me off is that those poor idiots who tried to rob that millenium diamond got longer than the Bulger Killers who are now walking free. That is a fucking disgrace.
Brian Paddick is entitled to his views. Gay or not, it matters not.
Get the scum off the streets, then we can go back to *no rules/law* and all be happy and safe.

Come on, argue with me

PS I still go on marches---------anti-hunting and anti fur these days.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 28, 2002)

*Gotta go!*

Ahem, "Interesting" ... no time ... welcome JR but I think a little debate will son be happening with you ...


----------



## hatboy (Feb 28, 2002)

Johhny R - there's quite a variety of people and opinion here as it goes. I'm not "you lot", I'm just me. The only argument I'd have with you above is that I don't really like calling people scum. Human beings are such complex creatures and I'd rather dislike certain behavior than condemn the person.

Anyway welcome, but don't assume you've got us all sussed when you've just arrived.


----------



## JohnnyR (Feb 28, 2002)

*Didn't just arrive*

Actually, arrived in this life 30 years ago.
That gives me a bit of life experience!

Come on you annies, argue with me.

As a philosopher, I will argue the boots off you all, probably not get anywhere.
We can but try!
Hey, isn't freedom to say what one wants, one of the supposedly cool things of ANARCHY!
Actually, I hate others more..fucking idiot dumb footballers who earn obscene amounts when others are grasping to get food. The likes of the Stupid beckhams should be shot in cold blood
I do have a social conscience and hate many things in this world.
I want Justice and fairness. Not these Twats who do nothing for the good of society, yet earn mega bucks.
Something ain't right in this society.......


----------



## soulctrla (Mar 12, 2002)

*The commander maybe who he says he is*

Lets just see ...

I just looked at my yahoo home page and totally out of curiosity I followed a link about a police commander getting his wrists slapped for making comments to www.urban75.com forums

and it quotes the stuff he said about being fascinated by anarchy.

Now... Id look at this and see what you think guys..

I have just looked for the link but I cant find it.. I was amazed to see this site on yahoo home page thats why I m here

I do not agree with all that anarchists do.. but I dont agree with the die hard capitalist regime either...

We just need to get along.. and stop breaking each others shit


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 12, 2002)

> _Originally posted by JohnnyR _
> *Anarchy, anarchy!
> You lot just hate the police, rules and regulations.
> Well, let's do away with them and get back to basics.
> ...



Johnny as a "philospopher " I'm sure you understand that it is imporatant to define the terms that you wish to "argue" (debate surely?) about. If you are going to assume that the media portrays anarchy (or anything else) accurately it's going to be a very limiting debate. Understand what anarchists mean by the term anarchy and anarchismJohnny, and it might be worth having a debate with you!



Try reading these FAQs for starters!


----------



## Saxon Rillet (Mar 15, 2002)

*Cmndr Paddick*

I am new to all this and learnt of the website because I read about Brian Paddick in the Press.
Paddick's comments has been wholly misunderstood by many people.
When he spoke of anarchy, he was not talking about some lawless society in which everyone rampages around doing whatever they want.
Anarchy is a system in which laws exist, just not in name or even in the heads of men.
It supposes that all men have become rational and as such do not need to commit crimes - to steal, harm or destroy one another or to have a set of rules to guide their behaviour - where everyone lives in perfect harmony in a society in which laws have ceased to exist in name because there is no use for them.
In a true anarchist state, laws have withered away; rational human beings have no need to be governed in this way.
That is what Paddick meant when he spoke of innate goodness in humans: The corollary of discovering that goodness is the death of laws.
He was talking about a utopian society free of crime.
I do not, however, agree that an anarchist state is either possible or desirable.
And I find it remarkable that Paddick, a senior cop in south London who must frequently be exposed to the worst in people, can hold that an anarchist state could ever be achieved.
As a footnote, I wholly disagree with a message further up the page that we need more cops like Paddick; we need fewer social and outreach workers masquerading as police officers.


----------



## LDR (Mar 15, 2002)

Saxon Rillet - 





> As a footnote, I wholly disagree with a message further up the page that we need more cops like Paddick; we need fewer social and outreach workers masquerading as police officers.



Why do you think this?  I would have thought as the police are there to protect communities that more socially aware they are the better.


----------



## Palestinian (Mar 15, 2002)

*Guns and the Police*

2 innocent black americans killed in the past 3 years in New York.  Both were unarmed and both shot dead. The latter one was shot 17 times. This is the problem with guns. 
These are by no means the only deaths but are relevant as they happened under Rudolph Guiliani's tenancy of the Mayoral office. Lest we not forget the brutal rape of a Haitian immigrant by some New York cops. 
Just as guns are bad in the hands of criminals, guns and the power they bring can be as bad in the hands of the Police.


----------



## marshstarman (Mar 15, 2002)

I'm a bit late on this one, but after seeing all the uproar over our human police friend in the press, I have to salute you Brian.  I always thought that all positions of authority in our country were taken up by pompous prats.  But, from what i've read of your posts, it's quite clear that freedom of speech seems to be taboo from the press side of things.  Good stuff Commander Paddick.



After reading the Guardian today regarding re-classing pot, something I noticed, which never occured to me before..  Having it as class B is in fact a potentially dangerous, as this 'encourages' youngsters to compare it to other class B's like speed.  I was discussing it with a colleague at work, and he told me of a story of when he was at school, where two of his classmates had smoked a bit of pot when at school.  Well, a few days or weeks later, the headteacher warned of the dangers of drugs in assembly where they were going on about how dangerous dope is, and how dangerous smack is.  Well, they tried and enjoyed ganja, and after assembly, they became smack addicts.  My mate says they are still mugging and burgling for their habit to this day.

But we've got to be careful with what is done with pot though, because there is no escaping the fact that it can turn you into a sub-human lazy arse twat.  Which most of our teenagers are already.


----------



## Another Number (Mar 18, 2002)

*Colin the Copper*

Colin,

If you are a Police Officer you are only adding to peoples concern that Policew Officers are incompetent thugs!

I doubt you are a Police Officer, certainly your demeanor should be of concern, hardly conduct suited to a Keeper of The Queens Peace!.

If you are a Police Officer and this is your normal behaviour you take a fair shame of the blame for the Police Service having a poor reputation. (Note Service, NOT Force !)

How many times do people have contact with a Police Officer under normal, everyday circumstances? - Rarely, if ever.

How many times do people have contact with Police under any other circumstance? - Again, probably not often, in the main the majority will have little if any contact throughout their lives.  This deprives ability to really hold a personal and valid opinion of the Police Service and it's condition.  What opinions have been made are from those experiences of others.  Whoever is telling the story is almost certainly one of two things, either a criminal, no matter how slight the crime (ie speeding), or a victim.  Maybe you view the speeding person the Victim.  Anyway, the point I am trying to make is that Police Officers are always onto a loser before they get to speak out.  Criminals always dislike Police to some extent. Victims, nine times out of ten feel the Police could of and should have done more for there complaint.

Something here was missed by Sir Patrick Sheehy when he made his, mostly welcomed, recomendations some years ago.

Colin, I will prove that I was once a Plodder!

I CAN TELL WHEN YOU ARE TALKING SHITE!!

IT'S EVERYTIME YOUR FINGERS HIT THE KEYBOARD!!


----------



## calvinball (Mar 18, 2002)

*That copper in the news*

Was amazed to see the urban 75 website on sky news today when i went round to my parent's house for sunday dinner, as I was just browsing the site the other day.  Caught a little bit of the news, about Brian Paddick and how he had dared to talk to anarchists.  I've browsed the archived messages and can't see what the fuss was about on the news.  Brian, don't be disscouraged by those b'stards; remember, they're covering up genocide, so don't feel too bad about the sh't they're giving you.  It means you're doing something right (either that, or they're trying to distract us from more important stuff like the babies frying to death in Afghanistan or Iraq).

Anyway, I think its brilliant that a copper is engaging in dialogue with anarchist types, instead of bashing them over the head with a truncheon, though I can't say I wouldn't be wary seeing as the police up here went out of their way to get me a criminal record for using CHALK to write an antiwar slogan.

Some sort of dialogue with the police here up north would be brilliant, although they're not the easiest lot to approach.  Any tips on how that might be done would be appreciated, Brian.

take care,

Ronan


----------



## zenpostman (Mar 19, 2002)

WHAT did we really expect?? I have followed the developing story about Commander Brian Paddick. With his forward-looking ideas about the law regarding cannabis, the refreshingly open-minded attitude he has in his role as a public servant and his openness about his sexuality, it was no surprise that the right wing vultures in the press and certain elements in and out of the police establishment wanted him nobbled!!

You could see this coming a mile away. A pity. Whatever you may feel about the police, he genuinely seems to be trying to do his best for the public he serves within the constraints of his profession. He was a maverick and a free-thinker who was doomed the moment he sought to try to speak the truth


----------



## meercat (Mar 20, 2002)

*Brian*

I just want to say that we have just seen the authorities and the Press doing what they always do. Taking Brian's reasonable comments and twisting them. It is a shame that it is impossible to have a discussion without the Mail and Sun etc getting their nickers in a twist. Brian P deserves our support and thanks for trying to listen to and engage with the people he serves. Perhaps the Labour government can take a leaf out of his book. I doubt it. Brian if you read this. Thanks for the posts.


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 27, 2002)

Found this on Indymedia 

On the evening of the 21/12/01, a small rally was held outside Brixton Town Hall in defence of Ales Owolade, who spoke out denouncing the police murder of Dereck Bennet, and was as a consequence sacked from his job at Lambeth Council. 
After a lively rally led by young people, the group marched to the site of Dereck Bennet's murder. 
The march was peaceful with the marchers shouting out for all the community to hear, 
"Who killed Dereck Bennet, 
the Police killed Dereck Bennet!, 
How did they kill him? 
They shot him in the back! 
How many bullets? 
Six bullets! 
Who are the criminals? 
The police! 
Who are the murderers? 
The police!" 
Outside the house where Dereck Bennet was shot dead, his friends and family spoke about the need to fight for justice and for a communtity safe from Police violance and harrassment. 
The group then attempted to march to protest outside Brixton Police Station. 
As the demonstraters reached the road leading out of the estate, around 60 Police in full riot gear blocked the street. 
They threw one demonstrater to the ground where she screamed in pain. 
To avoid further confrontation with the police, the group ran back through the estate and managed to reach Brixton road. 
The police armed with shields and batons pursued in 7 vans. 
They attacked the demonstration and seized the brother of Dereck Bennet, whose sister continued to cling to her brother begging the police not to take another of her family. 
Demonstraters tried to reason with the Police but were told to piss off! 
Finally the police released the captive and he left shaking with his sister. 
Somebody not so fortunate was a twenty year old asian man who was walking at the back of the demonstration. 
7 Policemen threw him to the ground, two knelt on his ankles, two officers knelt on the backs of his knees and two more knelt on his elbows, while for further restraint another officer forced his face to the ground. 
The crowd demanded to know why he was being arrested so forcibly, but were once again told to piss of by the Police. 
A rally of twenty five, mainly young people continued to demonstrate outside Brixton Regestry office near the Police station. 
Despite the fact that no violence had occurred other then brutal arrests, this small group bearing a hand made banner demanding freedom from police harrassment, were encircled by seventy cops in full riot gear with their shields and batons raised. 
After sometime the riot police forced the group out of Brixton down towards Oval. 
The Police response was harrasmemnt taken to extremes. 
This community is being denied Justice and the freedom the feel safe.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2002)

FTP: it's a shame you weren't at the meeting last night. If you had, you might have learnt how Paddick's 'open and transparent' investigation towards police deaths has gained the admiration and trust of many black community leaders.

And while it's important that people be made aware of events from last year, some of us are trying to move forward. That's why so many people who live in Lambeth are offering support to Paddick because he's seen as the first progressive cop who's been seen to make a difference. He stopped the use of Section 60. Stopped arbitary stop and searches. Spoke directly to a wide range of community groups and used innovatory means to establish dialogues with those who might view the police with deep suspicion.

Seeing as you've made your dislike of Paddick and his policies clear, what real-world, achievable solutions have *you*  got for Brixton community policing?

No rhetoric, please, just pragmatic achievable solutions that will earn the same unprecendented support from a community previously reknowned for its bad relations with the police.

I'm listening...


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 27, 2002)

Ed

We've been here.

You can lock up as many dealers as you like, there will still be a trade in drugs. I have to say that Coldharbour Lane has never stopped being a dangerous place, as far I am concerned.

As for "moving on", I think that the article is very relevant to the thread, no?


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2002)

We have indeed been there. 

And I'm still waiting for you to offer something other than the negative, destructive and backward looking.

Paddick is the first officer I've ever known in Brixton who seems interested in listening to the community and directing policies and (scant) resources accordingly. His positive approach contrasts with people like you who seem to have nothing to offer but criticism.



> Coldharbour Lane has never stopped being a dangerous place, as far I am concerned


 Unlike you, I *live* on Coldharbour Lane and walk up and down it every day, so perhaps you're not the best person to comment on its supposed 'dangers'....


----------



## TopCat (Mar 27, 2002)




----------



## devilmaycare (Mar 27, 2002)

I work as a youth worker in London and know that black and Asian youths suffer considerable harrassment from the police.
I do not think FTP is being negative but  more realistic about a bad situation.
The police have been proven insitutionally racist and their reaction in Brixton in December proves that to be sadly the case.
I think that the police and Paddick are the least deserving causes for our campaigning spirit.
In 1993 Virginia Bottomly decided to give the Cruciform building which at the time housed University college hospital, to the MOD for research.
The nurses fought a massive campaign to prevent this. 
They had marches and pickets galore. The police fed spoke to the nursing unions and said that if the nurses wore their uniforms on the picket lines then they could expect police support as police and nurses are forced to work closely together.
This was defined as no violence towards the nurses on the picket lines.
Things did get heated and the police did charge the picket line and uniformed nurses came under a hail of police batons.
The police can never be trusted, therefore deserve no support.
There needs to be a reality check, Paddick should stay out of the lime light and speak to his fed rep to deal with work harrassment.
I am not convinced by his departments' record that he is worth any more of our time.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2002)

devilmaycare: so your positive *solutions*  might be what exactly? 

Don't make the mistake of thinking I'm defending all police everywhere or I'm making Paddick out to be some kind of perfect hero. He's not. But as a Brixton resident, I appreciate his open and candid approach and the huge support he's earned from the community speaks volumes. Could you imagine any other Brixton cop getting 83% approval fromthe community at any other time in the past 15 years?

But I'm getting really fed up with the notion that because I support Paddick on this specific set of issues, then that somehow equates to unquestioning support for all police.  

That couldn't be further from the truth - I've done more than most in fighting police abuses and even ran an entire campaign (Footie Fans vs CJA) on the issue.

But that doesn't make so bigotted as to announce, "police can never be trusted, therefore deserve no support.

I judge as I find, and so far have found Paddick to be a refreshing and effective contribution to Brixton.


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by editor _
> *We have indeed been there.
> 
> Unlike you, I live on Coldharbour Lane and walk up and down it every day, so perhaps you're not the best person to comment on its supposed 'dangers'.... *



And you know all about when and where I lived in Brixton do you?

Unlike you I haven't made any money out of this Paddick affair!


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2002)

*Come on! (FTP, and devilmaycare too)*

Yellow card, FTP!

I think Mike's question was fair .... it would be interesting to see some constructive suggestions from you or others  for improvements in Brixton that are practical. Do you see these as coming from a non-Paddick scenario?

I feel slightly insulted by the suggestion/implication that people campaigning for Paddick's reinstatement are somehow slavishly pro-Police/pro-Establishment (?).

Many of those campaigning for his reinstatement have been VERY critical of Policing in Brixton (and elsewhere) in the past and still are if reactioanary traditional Police methods are involved. There could *in pragmatic reality* be a return towards those if Paddick is not reinstated. I don't say he's sufficient (and his room for manoeuvre may now be restricted even if he *does* come back) but he may very well, at this time, be necessary. Is anyone *more* radical than him in terms of Policing methods going to take charge in Brixton at any time soon?

There's nothing wrong (at all) with being idealistic and radical, but there's room for pragmatism too. Paddick is popular for some legitimate reasons, not least hostility towards *ASSOCIATED NEWSPAPER-led* sleaze-hunts, but also because of the experience of ordinary peeps in Brixton on the ground.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 27, 2002)

Free the peeps said:





> Unlike you I haven't made any money out of this Paddick affair!



Well I would imagine that Mike will be a tad upset by this? I mean it's not true eh? Mike has certainly welcomed his new notoriety but I can't see where he has made any dosh...


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2002)

> Unlike you I haven't made any money out of this Paddick affair


 That is quite the most offensive post I've read here for a long time. Twat.

Still, I guess you'll do anything to avoid answering those awkward questions  - like what positive, real-world, achievable solutions have you got for Brixton community policing? 

And, as a resident of 10 years, I've every right to challenge your claims about Coldharbour Lane.

Where is it you live?


----------



## drfranni (Mar 27, 2002)

Fair play Ed, let us remember the merchandising - I've seen those trucks taking away the latest line in Brian Paddick dolls. Then there's the lunch boxes and novelty toilet seats - and that doesn't include your gift book stylee "The Little Book of Paddicks"

I myself must confess to having made several thousand pounds selling posters and stickers

Nice little earner, peaceful protest - doncha think?


----------



## boomclick (Mar 27, 2002)

i get a fiver from MI5 every time I alert them to someone giving up on reasoned debate and posting abusive (and slightly envious & catty) messages to disguise their lack of original thought.

cheers ftp, that's me dinner sorted tonight  

i think the 'paddick worship' has got to have peaked.  he's not the messiah and we shouldn't forget that.  brixton has policing issues, and brian hasn't resolved all of those.  yet.

having said that, he is the freshest, most engaging policeman i've ever encountered, and he's turned my views on policing and the police right around.  

to be honest, it's not even the policies that made me think, it was the fact he came to where i hang out and asked me for my opinion that did it for me.  he had nothing to gain from asking, beyond a different perspective and insight, and a lot to lose.  

no politician, councillor, copper or priest has *ever* done that for me, and for that i respect him and support him.


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 27, 2002)

> That is quite the most offensive post I've read here for a long time. Twat.



I found your claim that I had no right to comment on Coldharbour Lane pretty offensive.

As did I your previous suggestion that I had never attended a RTS!

This exchange came about because I posted an article about the MFJ march on the MFJ thread. I posted the thread without comment. I was then asked to give my ideas for "positive policing" in Brixton - and as the MFJ thread is about out of order policing against members of the community, in Brixton, under Paddick's rule, I still question whether the "golden age of Paddick" is myth or reality.

I did not choose to make this exchange personal. But as I have previously noted, I have observed several incidents where the editor has challenged protestors to prove their credentials, which is actually quite a personal thing.

Likewise, I was accused of "whining like a schoolboy" for having the temerity to suggest that it was considered "bad form" to post anything that is viewed as "anti-Paddick", and I have to say that I found that offensive as well. Especially as nothing I have seen since has done anything to dispel that perception.

If it is relevant, I lived on Acre Lane for some years, my daughter lives in Brixton half the time and I go there fairly frequently. So I think that I can safely claim that I do have local connection and that I see no reason that my view of Brixton is any less valid than anyone elses.

And asking an anarchist to suggest how Brixton should be policed is unlikely to get any kind of positive reaction, surely. I do not believe in using force to control people, I believe that we should be dealing with issues as individuals and communities, not looking to "important people" to sort out the mess that other "important people" have created.

I apologise for any offence that I have created editor.

TopCat
I believe that when newspapers commission you to write articles, they pay money.


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 27, 2002)

*Shame*

Unfortunate that it's got like this, cos I'm sure Mike and FTP can find more common ground on relevant issues than it appears from the last few posts 

Mike I agree he was out of order here but he *has* contributed positive, well informed insightful stuff as well, quite a lot ...


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2002)

FTP: seemingly embarassed by your inability to offer a single, solitary alternative to Paddick's successful community policing, you appear to be adopting the time-honoured Mail on Sunday 'Operation Discredit'  approach, with irrelevant suggestions of self interest and money...

"I believe that when newspapers commission you to write articles, they pay money"

Indeed they do. And, as a working journalist, I would expect to be paid too. Not a lot, but something for my troubles. You got a problem with that? 

But if you think that somehow equates to me 'making money out of Paddick' you're living in cloud cuckoo land.

Who do you think finances this site? Pays for the domain name? The bandwidth? The tools to build and update it? Who finances your right to post personal digs here? 

And on the direct issue of the Paddick campaign - who's paying me to attend meetings,  interviews, monitor the boards, talk to endless journalists, take photos, make flyers, help out campaigners, create and update information and resources on this site and generally sacrifice a sizeable chunk of my time?

Do you think that one single payment from the Guardian comes even remotely close to paying anything but the tiniest fraction of those costs? 

Oh and as for this, "I found your claim that I had no right to comment on Coldharbour Lane pretty offensive", I'm afraid that's a plain lie. I made no such statement. 

But if you think it's unreasonable to posit that an occasional visitor to Coldharbour Lane is going to know less about the place than someone who's lived, worked, drunk and clubbed there for 10 years solid, I'd love to hear your reasons.


----------



## Another Number (Mar 27, 2002)

*Ashamed*

If what you say is true, (I do not disbelieve you!), then did anyone have presence of mind to note the Police Officers Collar Numbers...or were they taking the Minor Strike approach of removing such numbers, (I doubt it!). It would also be wise to report these incidents to the most senior officer you can complain to, although you would most likely be directed to an Inspector. It will not matter that those reporting were Protesting, the Officer taking the report must take the matter seriously, even if the Officers suspicion might be that the complaint is false. There would then be a set Procedure for that Officer to follow, but it would not be to simply throw the report in the bin! 

All good Police Officers would want these types out of the Service, it is obvious from the reaction here that these incidents cause great concern and distrust amongst the public. Not helpful when you wish to have everyone's help in fighting crime, this is what Brian Paddock is trying to achieve.... 

Just of interest, how many people have read P.A.C.E - Police And Criminal Evidence Act. I strongly believe that this should be taught at Schools as part of mandatory education. If more people were aware of there exact rights then the Police would have to be come more proficient.


----------



## Another Number (Mar 27, 2002)

Just did a quick search on PACE - well, nothing really detailed at all!!!

This is though...

www.police-law.co.uk

I'll keep out now.  Thanks

AN


----------



## hatboy (Mar 27, 2002)

Freethepeeps said:

"I believe that we should be dealing with issues as individuals and communities, not looking to "important people" to sort out the mess that other "important people" have created".

That is exactly what the community in Brixton is doing. Brian Paddick's open and accessible policing style is a part of that. 

For your information FTP, despite the fact that I have become prominent in this,  I  am quite happy to criticise and hear criticism of Commander Paddick.  The point is that he has proven himself to be a man who actually listens to it.

Do you think people like Lloyd Leon (ex landlord of the Atlantic, now Dogstar) and Colin Marriot (respected youth worker, and about as in touch with what's really going on round here as you can get), both Carribean men here since the sixties who've seen it all before, would be supporting Paddick if he wasn't something really special? They both are - vociferously.

And please stop having a go at Mike. He's pretty sound really you know.  He hasn't asked us all for a U75 subscription yet has.... don't you dare Mike   .... nor does one of the busiest independent websites (this one) have any advertising on it.


----------



## devilmaycare (Mar 27, 2002)

> _Originally posted by editor _
> * That is quite the most offensive post I've read here for a long time. Twat.
> 
> Still, I guess you'll do anything to avoid answering those awkward questions  - like what positive, real-world, achievable solutions have you got for Brixton community policing?
> ...


It is a bit rude to call some one a twat, when we are discussing our ideas and views, especailly as editor you have to show some sort restraint. 
You have achieved a certain amount of notoriety as editor of this site, so may be it is fair enough to ask what you are getting out of this situation.
Positive policing......
The policing that I witnessed in December in Brixton was out rageous. 
I have experienced al sorts of protest policing and the move to violence from the police on that occasion  was near enough instant. Usually there is quite a time before the police make such a move.
It seemed to me because most of the protestors were black there was a completely different and more intolerant appraoch.
There are two reasons that I think that the situation with Paddick is out of hand. 
The first is that I do not think he has improved Brixton or helped to solve the atmosphere of intimidation that young black and asian people suffer daily from the cops.
The second being, the crowd that are supporting Paddick actually booed down the sister of a victim of police murder when she tried to speak at the meeting.
Positive policing, no such thing but community support by the police could be a start IE responding to situations where people are attacked and harrassed.
Not attacking small demonstrations could be another.
Learning not to be rude and patronising when communicating could even be a third option.
I have grown up around the police and the children of cops. I have seen alot of corruption at first hand, I do not feel that the insitution of the police force is worthy of defence.
Paddick get another job in a better profession if you really are a good guy!
Are you thinking of running as an independent MP for Lambeth?


----------



## ats (Mar 27, 2002)

I think an important thing to remember is that all this isn't just about Brian Paddick.  It's also about the Brixton community, which has been organising its responses to policing for the last twenty years. As a result of the Scarman Report on the 1981 disturbances, Lambeth introduced lay visiting, where members of the community are authorised to go into police stations and check on the welfare of people being held there.  We were the first place anywhere to do that, and now it takes places nationwide.  

And the reason it was possible to hold an emergency meeting of the Police Community Consultative Group is that we HAVE a PCCG, which has been raising questions about policing in Lambeth for a long time.  

There's nowhere else in the country where issues such as use of CS spray, stop and search and deaths in police custody would be put under as close scrutiny as they are in Lambeth. 

Brian Paddick is important because he values that process; I do believe that he respects our community and genuinely wants to work with it.  But he'd have mcuh less to work with if this community hadn't been working for itself for the last twenty years.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 27, 2002)

ats, Just for clarity, it's the CPCG. It's taken me years to learn that acronym, it stands for something like the Community Policing Consultative Group (thats the bit I haven't quite committed to memory!)
You are absolutely right. BP has not been operating in a vacuum.


----------



## editor (Mar 27, 2002)

devilmaycare: you may not think that Paddick has improved Brixton but the statistics contradict your claim: street crime and buglaries are down and he has achieved an unprecedented 83% support for his policies.

Your comment about "the crowd that are supporting Paddick actually booed down the sister of a victim of police murder when she tried to speak at the meeting" is more than a tad unfair.

Where you at the meeting? If you were, you would have seen that she wasn't 'shouted down' because of who she was - she was shouted down because she loudly tried to disrupt the meeting by shouting incoherently without any explanation. No one had any idea who the woman was - and why should they be expected to know who she was?

But - and this is the important bit - as soon as her identity and case was established, far from being 'booed' she was given the microphone and people listened in silence as she stated her case. She was also then invited to attend a further meeting on the issue.

(Oh, and if you're going it get indignant, at least get your facts right: it was Ricky Bishop's mother, not his sister).  

But looking forward, I maintain that the links that Paddick has forged in the Brixton community - white, black, asian and more - are having a positive result. Why else were there black leaders there?!

You clearly don't agree, so (for the second time) what practical, real world and achievable suggestions have you for the policing of Brixton?

And as for the question of 'what am I getting out of this situation', the answer is absolutely nothing at all, apart from a vague and probably naive hope that  maybe - just maybe - I might be instrumental in making things a teensy weensy bit better round these parts. 

I've been doing much the same for many years now, so perhaps you might understand why I get a little pissed off when it's suggested that there's some financial motive going down. 

If I wanted to make money, believe me, there's many, many less stressful and time consuming ways of doing so!


----------



## newbie (Mar 28, 2002)

From where I sat, just across the aisle from her, I'd say that she sat quietly listening, but started protesting when the crowd gave BPs sudden arrival a standing ovation.  

She shouted "This is offensive" a couple of times and was bellowed at by some people nearby.  One man in particular caught my attention by getting out of his seat and moving towards her, yelling at her to shut up.  

She subsequently became rather incoherent, so her heckling of BP wasn't particularly effective.  As I said before, I think she was taken by surprise and whatever her intention for the evening, reacted rather hastily. 

Her attempt to speak later was pointedly ignored by the chair (though that may have been because by then she had tied herself to Alex O: the alpha-male antagonism between Lee and Alex was a wonder to behold), and when she did, eventually get the floor the meeting was beginning to break up, and the problem with the mic didn't help either.  So she didn't really get a proper hearing.

Her disruptive behaviour was nothing more than a bit of shouting and some heckling.  That is commonplace at political rallies, and didn't deserve the rudeness she received (which IME is not commonplace). 

*There is nothing wrong with dissent.* 

 I don't suppose she feels she put her case across particularly well (whatever her case is, I didn't really find out), but I think she has some reason to come away from that evening feeling pissed off at the way she was treated.


----------



## detective-boy (Mar 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by newbie _
> *
> There is nothing wrong with dissent.
> *



Quite.  Isn't that where Brian came in?


----------



## devilmaycare (Mar 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by editor _
> *devilmaycare: you may not think that Paddick has improved Brixton but the statistics contradict your claim: street crime and buglaries are down and he has achieved an unprecedented 83% support for his policies.... *


ED

 What I was actualy saying in my question was It may be fair enough to ask what you are getting out of this situation as a point for discussion, not what are you getting out of it.
So if you are going to get indignant then please read my post properly.
I am not accusing you of any thing, I am just asking you to show restraint and to avoid calling board contributors names.
I did offer some practical solutions in my post.
As to black community leaders communicating with Paddick, that does not mean so much it just means that he is more open to dialogue with the community.
Yes this is good but I am arguing that there are other people more in need of campaign support the Paddick.
Statsitics mmmmm always a dodgy one only got to see how the employment figures get cooked to learn not to get too excited by them!
Don't get too stressed!!


----------



## TopCat (Mar 28, 2002)

I think the Paddick worship has gone too far when you have the rightly indignent mother of a man recently killed by police shouted down as she (rightly in my opinion ) heckled Mr Paddick.

This Paddick episode has brought out peoples true colours all right. One the one hand you have the liberal reformists who hanker after a few reforms in our police force in order to have a slightly better and less offensive force. On the other you have the anarchist tendancy who continue to put forward far reaching ideas involving abolishing the police totally and replacing them with something better run by us all.

Mikes rather sneering tone towards the anarcho's grates a bit and reminds me of many Labour party types when faced with criticism of their deeply shit capitalist party. "But what are you doing to help change" was a bleat I heard again and again from those trying to defend the obvious lurch to the right.

I can't see how to reconcile the two positions either, Padiick is either a possible force for reform in a basically ok police force or he is a largely irrelevent distraction in the search for a better society.


----------



## newbie (Mar 28, 2002)

Well in that sense the whole issue is clearly a distraction.  But us liberal reformists actually welcome things that make peoples lives better.  

IMO there are clear gains that can be made from the current contradictions.  I think the reforms are more important than the man, but the man is an icon because he has personally made a difference.  That's all any of us can hope for.  So I support him, but (to co-opt a slogan) without illusions.

The bullshit detector needs to be kept in good working order.


----------



## Steve (Mar 28, 2002)

All positive reform is beneficial, it moves things forward.

Extremists on either side cannot accept the validity of gradual reform because they both live in a (fantasy) world of absolutes.

However extremists find it very difficult to rationally defend their position, their world is one of constant and endless "war" with the other side, and indeed with anyone who does not agree totally with their absolute purist position. No reconciliation is possible with this sort of mindset. Its also, tellingly, very heavily orienated towards villification of other people based on crude stereotyping.

Most people recognise the utter futility of this, not least because of its impractical nature, which is why extremists ultimately become sidelined. They have nothing to offer but conflict.


----------



## boomclick (Mar 28, 2002)

TopCat,

do you think mike's 'sneering' tone towards anarcho's might be due to the difference between a theoretical dicussion of anarchism and the practical issues of day to day policing in lambeth?

even the most committed anarchist must be able to differentiate between opposition to concept's around which society is based (capitalism, authoratarianism, patriarchism), and the practical issues of street crime, choatic drug misuse and policing.

to say 'all coppers are bastards and what we should do is get rid of all police' (not saying you've said this btw) is a great theory, but for those of us living in the real world there are pragmatic day-to-day things that need to be taken care of.  even with the abolition of the state as the ultimate aim, there are many steps that need to be taken before it's achieved.

the discussions on u75 at the moment are having real effects, on real people.  this is an opportunity for the community in lambeth (of which u75 is a part) to have an influence in how it's policed.  

and frankly, anarchy, while 'attractive in theory' (as someone once said), isn't really part of what is currently practically and pragmatically possible, and to draw it into a debate on how lambeth should be policed is relatively unhelpful.

i don't think mike has been 'sneering' though, he's just asking for practical, positive suggestions rather than rhetoric.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 28, 2002)

The criminalisation of cannabis smokers is an issue that causes many people to come into conflict with the police and to have a distrust of the police.

This does not make those people radical really. Many people would have no problem with the police if they could smoke their spliffs without fear of arrest.

Brian Paddick's move to be more liberal with dope smokers does little or nothing to alter the relationship between the police and the policed. 

The police will continue to support their masters wishes with the full range of weaponry available to them.

The right to smoke dope in Brixton is going to be cold comfort to the mother of a man shot dead by police.


----------



## boomclick (Mar 28, 2002)

the marginalisation of cannabis smnokers from the law has been one of the greatest barriers between my generation and the law.  

i agree, decriminalization may have a de-radicalising effect.

also agreed that it would be cold comfort to a woman who's son has been shot by the police.  

*however*, 

a police force that is working with the community to reduce the harm caused by certain drugs, may prevent another mother mourning the death of her son from swallowing crack.

i'm not sure i understand your ultimate aim.  do you want no policing whatsoever, or do you accept the need for some from of social defence against violence & theft?  (genuine question)


----------



## TopCat (Mar 28, 2002)

I have put forward several "reformist" ideas concerning improving policing in Lambeth tight here at the beginning of this thread.

For me the criminalisation of cannabis is not a big problem between myself and the police.

My biggest problem with the police had been their willingness time and time again to violently attack anyone who opposes the current distribution of wealth in this country/world.

Further, the mindset needed to behave in this manner invariably attracts some of the most brutal, bigoted shits to the force with the consequences of deaths in custody and defenceless shootings that have become so familiar.

Mr Paddick has decided join this awful force to "change it from within".

I prefer to try to change it from without.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 28, 2002)

> _Originally posted by TopCat _
> *The right to smoke dope in Brixton is going to be cold comfort to the mother of a man shot dead by police. *



There are lots more black mothers who have lost sons and daughters shot by gangsters than by the police. Although Derek Bennett was shot by the police within a few hundred yards of my flat and was mentally ill, many local people I know, black and white, feel desperately sorry for all involved, including the officer that shot him. Derek Bennett had a very realistic replica gun and had already forced his way into someones flat. Later, after leaving the flat he attempted to take a hostage. There had been 999 calls from frightened residents about a gunman running around. Tough call for the officer from the ARU to make I'd say.

My neighbour of 13 years was a 67 year old black man, who had not long moved to nice new low-rise flat where he was shot by gangsters and then his body set on fire in his own flat. Luckily the tenants living above managed to escape the ensuing fire. Miss Irie was shot in the head in view of her two small children by a teenage gangster. Paddicks policies, along with the Mets Operation Trident are working hard towards preventing the slaughter of black men and women. 

No-one in Brixton has the right to smoke dope. It's still illegal and apparently seizures of cannabis* have gone up in Brixton. 

*posted on these boards by someone, I can't remember who, and this is the only thing that I'm not 100% sure of in this post.


----------



## TopCat (Mar 28, 2002)

Mrs Magpie said:





> There are lots more black mothers who have lost sons and daughters shot by gangsters than by the police.



Er I have struggled and failed to see the relevence of this. (perhaps it's cos i'm full of cold)

I am sure that there are lots of black mothers who have lost more sons to disease too...

So the point is?


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2002)

Top Cat: why do you keep dishonestly spouting the same misinterpretation of events?

"I think the Paddick worship has gone too far when you have the rightly indignent mother of a man recently killed by police shouted down as she (rightly in my opinion ) heckled Mr Paddick."

For absolutely the last time: she was *not*  shouted down because of who she was,  but she was shouted down (now read carefully) because she was disrupting the meeting by shouting loudly and incoherently and *no one knew who she was*.  

When her identity was established she was given the mic at the end and listened to in absolute silence (necessary after the mic unfortunately conked out). She was also invited to a further meeting where her opinions could be listened to in more detail.

So, no malicious 'shouting down' then, so why do you keep suggesting that was the case? (Were you at the meeting, btw?)

And my supposed 'sneering tone towards anarcho's' is the result of sheer exasperation at all the negativity. I live here. I want things to get better and believe they can with a little give and take.

Empty, unachievable rhetoric and blanket condemnation of anything that doesn't fit the ideological agenda isn't going to make the streets any safer, get rid of the crack dealers or make the police any more accountable towards its citizens.

There's only so many times you can listen to people who are full of words, but not so good on real world solutions to help people *now*, not in some rose-tinted, Nirvana.

Funnily enough, you might find that many of our ultimate hopes for society are quite similar, but right now the people of Brixton want action to clean up the streets, not more words.


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 28, 2002)

> but right now the people of Brixton want action to clean up the streets,



That sounds well sinister!


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2002)

What's 'sinister' about the clearly stated aims of trying to get the smack and crack dealers off the streets?

Or, as Paddick put it, "screw the dealers, help the addicts"


----------



## boomclick (Mar 28, 2002)

not that sinister if you think about it.  

for 'clean up' read 'get rid of gun-toting dealers and muggers'

any objections to removing either from the street of brixton?


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 28, 2002)

*Who's controlling the broom?*

Yup, then we could "remove" graffitists, jaywalkers, protestors, drunks, shoplifters, faredodgers, soapdodgers, heathens, hippies and any other group that we decide we don't like! Like the Sun editorial said:



> Locking up violent and unsavoury characters, and cracking down on even the most trivial offences, will make people feel safe again.
> 
> Crime can be smashed with an iron fist. That’s the only way.




I got this in an email from a community group in Brixton, yesterday:



> In the Labour manifesto for the elections (we crashed their launch yesterday), their first point of what they will do is this: "And we're proposing to overhaul the youth services and establish a New York-style Hit Squad to target everyone you dont want to live next door to."  -They go further to explain who will be targetted: aggressive beggars, graffitti, fly posterers, people who ride their bikes on the pavement, people who spit, ticket touts, badly behaved youth .......  The council and the police are together a team for the repression oppression of this burough.  Labour is the party of complete support for the police, more CCTV, more Stop and search, more tagging, Hit Squads!!?!?  It is NOT coincedence, the two are not separate issues.




Hmmmm, much easier to criminalise peeps than to address the underlying problems. 

Now, I don’t know about you, but the stuff from the Labour manifesto makes me a teensy, weensy bit concerned. 

Once you start down the road of “cleaning” streets, you find that there’s so many peeps making them untidy – and then hey, someone decides it’s you that’s a bit untidy!


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2002)

FTP: Just so you know: your entertaining rant about "graffitists, jaywalkers, protestors, drunks, shoplifters, faredodgers, soapdodgers, heathens, hippies"  hasn't even the slightest resemblence to the meaning of my original remark.

Oh, and 'jaywalking' isn't an offence here.

But to get back on topic: I'd like the violent crack dealers and smack dealers off my streets and the addicts offered treatment.

Don't you?


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 28, 2002)

I would like to see the problem dealt with yes. But I am not so sure that a "street cleaning campaign" is going to achieve very much. Let's not forget the USA's War against Drugs, where mucho resources were sunk into attempts to stop the traffic in drugs, and it failed miserably. The problems is much wider than being purely a Brixton issue, no?

If you are happy to see dealers locked up, so be it. They will be replaced. Then you can lock their replacements up. And their replacements, and then their replacements, and so on. Okay, now the jails are filled to bursting points, it's easy innit, more jails and more dealers locked up. Of course all the stop-and-search may be a tad bad for community relations, but what the hell, these people have to be dealt with. 

I don't feel happy with the prospect of that at all. Why is there a drug trade in Brixton? Why are people drawn to dealing? Why are people getting hooked on the shit? Those seem to me to be the questions that need asking.  Remember that old mantra:

TOUGH ON CRIME
TOUGH ON THE CAUSES OF CRIME!

Seems like the second bit just got forgotten along the way, and now we are looking at a society that is beginning to think that it needs zero-tolerance policing in order to be safe. AND ZERO TOLERANCE POLICING IS BAD FOR ALL OF US!

My little rant about hippies, heathens and other misfits is on topic, once you sanction a line that it is ok to "clean the streets", to take tough measures to make the streets safe, you set the ball rolling. And I don't believe that it will stop at the dealers.

The difference between what you are agreeing to, and what the Lambeth Labour manifesto is calling for, is not that big, it's a matter of degree,  they are part of the same continuum.

Which is why I have nothing to offer in terms of suggesting how Brixton can be effectively policed. I see that there is a danger that the black community is attacked, that advances made in community relations are lost, that the idea of "street cleaning" is used against an increasingly wider part of the community, and that eventually we are at risk from it as well.

Short term coercive action may stem the tide temporarily, but it is wider long term societal change that is needed to make society better to live in.

Dealers are "scum" in the eyes of many. They are also sons, fathers, husbands, neighbours, . We can dehumanise them, demonise them and destroy them. We do so at our own cost. Every time.


----------



## editor (Mar 28, 2002)

> Which is why I have nothing to offer in terms of suggesting how Brixton can be effectively policed


 In that case, why condemn someone who is clearly battling to work within the considerable constraints of the system to make things quantifiably better for the community? 

A figure of 83% support for police policies would have been absolutely unheard of only a few years ago, and that support is coming from a very borad section of the community, with Paddick earning praise for his open and accountable style.

He's made sure that arbitary stop and search now is no longer the easy option for racist cops, he lowered the antagonism by getting rid of sniffer dogs at the station and has won praise from black community leaders for his extreme openness during the investigations into the two black deaths in custody.

As you rightly say, the problems are far, far bigger than just getting rid of the odd crack dealer, but it seeing as the Big Issues aren't exactly topping the political agenda these days, why can't you at least acknowledge that Paddick has made a positive diference to the ordinary people on the streets of Lambeth? 

It seems your 'solution' is just to give up completely, condemn anyone who doesn't match your set of personal philosophies and offer the community nothing apart from some vague and distant hope of the world changing overnight?

Right now Brixton needs solutions, safer streets, help for the addicts and a more accountable police force who listens to needs and concerns of the community. As a long term resident, I believe progress is slowly being made in those fields.

Philosophy can come later.


----------



## hatboy (Mar 28, 2002)

Freethepeeps - I don't believe your quotes from the Lambeth Labour manifesto are genuine I'm afraid.  If that is correct then they are going too far.  Zero tolerance is not what I want, nor do many people here.  And, nor does Brian Paddick, crucially. You talk about not demonising people - I agree. Surely a step in the right direction is not to criminalise cannabis users. I'm sure we both know people with very minor cannabis related convictions who have found this an obstacle to employment. Brian Paddick does not condone the arrest of cannabis users. He has practical ideas for tackling gun-crime, crime associated with hard drugs and street robbery. He also wants to help addicts.

More than this, I am attracted to support him because he seems like an honest, likeable man. And a man with a sense of humour and a knowledge of what it is like to be different and in a minority. Just what Brixton needs IMO.

You may have seen how me and Mikee and Offshore were portrayed in the Standard article. I am hardly your conventional law-abiding model citizen although I have strong moral values on a humane level.  You're not talking to "disgusted of Tunbridge Wells" here, with either me or Mike.

I think you need to realise that the current position in Brixton requires compromise.  Perhaps in the future the world will move nearer to your ideal. For now compromise will do me.


----------



## Caspar Hauser (Mar 28, 2002)

Some thoughts from an outsider

Sorry guys, but just some thoughts from an outsider.  
I agree with you FTP, I don’t like the slogan of “cleaning the streets” either. And I think you are absolute right about that we should not start to dehumanise people.
But I think you also have to accept that for example the Europaen countries with the highest social inclusion (Norway, Finland, Austria) all have a form of “zero tolerance” politics. Not in the New York way, of course. 
Finland and Austria for example have the lowest prison population in Europe. But if in Helsinki or Vienna a window is broken it will be replaced immediately. If there is an abandoned car it will be disposed before someone can burne it. If there are to many graffitis the councils will overpaint it...
If you let that kind of things happen unchecked the whole situation will turn ugly. Of course it have to be backed with huge investments in social programmes for drug addicts, homeless people, especially children in povertry...
After, I think, 18 years of Tory desaster and 5 years of New Labour, who have a lot of work to do.   

Sorry for my English, but even after 8 years as a main subject in school it is still difficult to express myself properly.


----------



## ats (Mar 28, 2002)

<I am attracted to support him because he seems like an honest, likeable man. And a man with a sense of humour and a knowledge of what it is like to be different and in a minority. Just what Brixton needs IMO.>

He's also a very humane man.  I was once called in as a lay visitor to act as observer when the news had to be broken to a detainee that, after he had been arrested, his father had had a heart attack.

He took the task himself - some people would have delegated to avoid an emotionally difficult situation - and handled it with enormous sensitivity.  I was tremendously impressed.

So don't let anyone say he's just a careerist.  He's the genuine article.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 28, 2002)

To reply to Another Number who said "It will not matter that those reporting were Protesting, the Officer taking the report must take the matter seriously, even if the Officers suspicion might be that the complaint is false. There would then be a set Procedure for that Officer to follow, but it would not be to simply throw the report in the bin!" 

I admire your belief in the ability of the police to follow the law and procedure but from experience i know they don't. One example i have is the cop in charge of complaints at Lincolnshire police TELLING people NOT to complain... [long story... from two years ago] 

I think like Top cat says "I can't see how to reconcile the two positions either, Padiick is either a possible force for reform in a basically ok police force or he is a largely irrelevent distraction in the search for a better society." however, i think that those who think reform is possible should try that and those who don't follow another path. AS for Steve the Boss and his nonsense; society as it is produces conflict which you are happy to uphold, it is you who are extreme in that you believe things are basically OK as it is... and your fantisys about what 'extremists' are meant to think are mere delusions... you should grow up a bit and widen your horizens... ALL political positions have validity, just because some appear to be dominant now doesn't mean it will always be like that... 

Robert Reiner an eminent criminologist says we witness today "a return to a pre-democratic view that regarded whole classes of society as effectively outlaws. In this view the poor are regarded as the flotsam and jetsum of society - presented as somehow threatening. What this kind of language and labelling are doing is reversing 150 years of movement since the industrial revolution towards a more inclusive society in which everyone belongs, has equal citizenship and is guarenteed a minimum of rights. Now we are returning to the ideas of the undeserving poor, of the 'dangerous classes' who, through their poverty, will always be prone to crime" (1996) Anything that reinforces this view IS not progressive and that INCLUDES policing practice however much an 'improvement' on present... that is not to say that all policing innovations necessarily lead to this although precedent would suggest it does.

FTP is right to say that the dealing will go on whatever is done, the causes of 'crime' cannot be stopped by localised police practice. As i've said before police are like a fire brigade (at best) 'rushing to the scene of crime to extinguish it'. BUT it's a bit late isn't it??... If you think a nicer police force will improve community relations this is a bit like a self fulfilling prophecy, and its also liberal ethos... generally the harsh world of reality quickly gives more examples about what the police are really like though [December Police attack on the demo] 

As for the call for positive solutions, the questions basically revolves around how you see the police in the fabric of society. If you see them as an oppressive institutionally racist organisation, with conservative personalitys enforcing racist and class law then clearly they can't help much. If on the other hand you think we maybe able to have an influence on them if we're nice and positive enough then you think the opposite. So basically we have the police are negative so we must look for real solutions elsewhere, and the police could be positive although we know they've been bad... I don't think this can go much further...


----------



## editor (Mar 29, 2002)

Just in case there's any continuing confusion about my (on reflection, clumsy) 'cleaning up the streets of Brixton' phrase, I'll repeat myself once again: I was referring to Paddick's stated policy of getting rid of the violent crack and smack dealers and taking care of the addicts - and most definitely *not* advocating some kind of ghastly 'zero tolerance' bullshit.

I assumed that others would understand the context of this statement, bearing in mind the other threads on this board and my long political history, but I guess some have (strangely) decided to interpret it as some kind of blanket endorsement for zero tolerance. But it's not. OK? 

But I'm still 'all ears' when it comes to hearing about alternative, real-world, achievable, community-backed alternatives to Paddick's iniatitives.

Anyone got any?


----------



## ats (Mar 29, 2002)

> _Originally posted by The Black Hand _
> If you think a nicer police force will improve community relations ... If on the other hand you think we maybe able to have an influence on them if we're nice



Putting down what's being discussed as 'being nice' is to really misrepresent what's being talked about.

The issue is about making the police accountable to the community.  Lambeth has gone further in that direction than anywhere else in the country.  We were the first place to have a Community Police Consultative Group and a Lay Visitors scheme.  Both of these arose from the Scarman Report on the 1981 disturbances, but have been made to wortk by the members of this community.

Previous senior cops in Brixton have recognised that they have to work with this demand from the community for the police to be answerable, but reluctantly.  Paddick has approached the community with a genuine desire to listen, givng us the oportunity to demonstrate that such a relationship is workable and produces a better, safer community.

You may not think police accountability is a workable idea.  But you should argue your case, not just sneer.

As for 'the harsh world of reality', claiming that only you know about reality, with the implication that those who disagree with you are impractical fools, is a classic tactic much used by right wing politicians to discuss issues they couldn't actually defend.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 29, 2002)

great post ats.


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 29, 2002)

*The police have failed the community for far too long*

I'm afraid it wasn't a great post MRs Magpie... 
Overall it was 'nice', pointing out the great strides possible... BUT what has been acheived? Has your strategy worked in 20 years? On what level? Do policemen still get away with killing members of Brixtons community? Do they still attack demonstrations in Brixton? Anybody with serious knowledge of criminology knows that police statistics are so flawed that you can't take them seriously, far better to try the British crime survey but even there there are serious problems... I really haven't seen any serious analysis but rather what 'people think is happening'...

i never said that only i knew reality, i pointed out that history frequently throws police actions [the 'harsh world of reality' does exist and always throws up instances that doesn't fit the liberal model] up which clearly show they have no regard for what little accountability there is... that is not say that i don't think you are right to try police reform which i also said in that post...  i was pointing out that there is validity in trying to reform them and looking for solutions outside the 'bourgois' 'democratic' 'structure'... 
[for ultimately that is what it is]

ATS said "You may not think police accountability is a workable idea. But you should argue your case, not just sneer." i've argued around this issue on other threads and this one, and i wasn't sneering (that's in your mind) You can't seperate law from the police in some sort of neat manner... trying to get them accountable as they enforce unjust laws with prejudicial opinions is often seen as a non-starter by many... 

You may think that it's worth trying and as i said good luck but there are other ways and to pretend there are none or you don't know what they are suggests you should do the research... there are plenty of sources already out there, and as i've suggested to people thinking of joining the police  you should do a MA or PHD in Criminology first as they often have a great deal of scope for radical analysis of all descriptions and examples from historical practice around the world of alternatives to police and crime as 'we currently understand it'....  The abolitionist school of thought comes to mind very easily...


----------



## Brian (Mar 30, 2002)

OK enough already.  NO, the police in Brixton do NOT routinely attack protestors - for goodness sake (I have to say 'goodness' now I'm afraid) this is where I came in.  We may have held up protestors who wanted to go elsewhere on a march but we did not attack them.  Genuine protestors are welcome in Brixton.  Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves.  That is one of the things that makes Brixton such a wonderful place.

Yes, there have been some cases where people have died 'at the hands of the police'.  Those that have happened whilst I was in charge are still being investigated and I cannot comment on them for legal reasons (but you can, which makes it all a bit one-sided.)  Some that have happened in the past I am still very concerned about.  (No, I am not going to get drawn into what I mean by that at the moment.)

Not everyone in the police thinks like me, but I am not a 'lone voice in the wilderness'.  You would be surprised at the level of support for my stance.  

Let's get sensible around all of this.  There are good cops and bad cops, good people and bad people, political activists and criminals (those seeking to unjustifiably damage others).  Sheep on the left, goats on the right please.  Not sure which is which?  Neither am I.  Some really positive changes - definitely.  A long way to go - absolutely.  Going in the right direction or going backwards - no argument there, is there?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Mar 30, 2002)




----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*In my view....*

for those of you interested (not many I guess)  Paddick will be back in about 2 months time.  He has played the sexuality case well and just like the race card it means you can get away with doing whatever the fuck you want be it breaking the law, useless at your job whatever!!!!
It is plainly obvious that there are enough people who would wish there is no police whatsoever in Brixton, I second that.  I think they should just keep Paddick there to bring in new laws that would satisfy him and the other residents.  Why should a policeman who is only doing what he is being paid to do take abuse from scum, they are not paid half enough to take any abuse.  Now that Paddick has relaxed the drug laws in Brixton without going through the normal passage for laws, what next, i reckon next on his agenda will be paedophiles and letting them into the area to live amongst the druggies to share life experiences and re-introduce them into society from the bottom up.  What amazes me, is that the law abiding people on this board do not go out and patrol the streets and make citizen arrests in Coldharbour lane or go to the tube station and move on the illegals that should not be there.  Hope the protests go well today  Ban the bomb, stop the war etc etc Peace to all


----------



## hatboy (Mar 30, 2002)

You just don't get it do you Viperman.  People back Brian because he seems honest - that is the reason.  And if in concentrating skant resources on catching people who shoot others dead rather than criminalising people with a little bit of hash on them then that seems eninently sensible to me.

Pleased to see you acknowledge you and you sort have lost btw.  When are you leaving the country?


----------



## wildwildlifer (Mar 30, 2002)

> _Originally posted by hatboy _
> When are you leaving the country? [/B]


"She's" promised to leave for the U.S. in July, but the track record as a proven liar on these boards means that this promise should be taken with the largest pinch of salt possible.
BTW, Viperman's claim to have worked for the R.U.C should be of tremendous interest to the Law Enforcement community over there, as we know its a hotbed of 'Loyalist' sympathy(!).


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*Dear WILD one*

Stupidity is one thing, stupidity without the ability to learn is another.  As in my previous replies to you, the RUC proved over 30 years of terrorism that they were not bigoted towards one side or another, the figures prove themselves altho' contributing to these boards it is obvious that certain figures are not always listened to.  Over 85% of all loyalist terrorists were arrested.  Compare that to only 5% of republican crimes in certain areas like Tyrone where the terrorists had the support of the local catholic community.  They had the support of the lawabiding communities on both sides.  Patten wanted a cushy little job in europe and tried to do Blairs dirty work by getting rid of them.  They lost over 300 men and women in 30 years, they in turn were only involved in 53 justifiable shootings.  Not bad given that there was a war going on


----------



## DailyMailReader (Mar 30, 2002)

*In my view....*



> _Originally posted by viperman _
> *i reckon next on his agenda will be paedophiles and letting them into the area to live amongst the druggies to share life experiences and re-introduce them into society from the bottom up.  *



I'm sure I read somewhere that Lambeth already has the greatest concentration of paedophiles living within the borough that anywhere else in the whole country.
And Brixton police station has a dedicated group of officers whose only job is to keep track and visit these offenders.

Can you comment Brian ?


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2002)

> DMR: I'm sure I read somewhere...


 Where exactly? Source? Proof? Why should you expect anyone to answer your vague, unsubstantiated claims from (conveniently) unknown sources?

Viperman: I'm getting fed up with asking you this, but unless you can  substantiate your claim: "bit of an oxymoron. Hard working and honest people of Brixton" I'm afraid you're going to banned.

Such stereotypying comments are clearly both insulting and disruptive (with a suggestion of racism), and as such fall foul of this board's posting rules.

So it's time to show up or shut up...


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*Dear Derek ( senior member )*

ignorance is bliss, well you must be the most blissful person around or just thick or stupid.
Assuming you are not from Northern Ireland, here are a few of the facts to set you straight
Whilst the RUC is only 12% catholic, this is not the fault of the police, should a catholic try to join the following will happen
a.  He or she
b.  His or Her family

will be shot by the IRA on the orders of the Sinn Fein army council and we all know who is charge of that.  I worked with a number of catholics, some who were not able to go home ever, some who had to travel long distances away from thier home just to meet up with their families.  And remember !2% of 14,000 is over 1500.  Cannot be all bad.
Secondly, you mention the incident in portadown.  you have i presume never heard of a "come on" situation.  This is where the police are lured out of their vehicle by some incident and then murdered by gangsters without being given a chance to surrender or be arrested.  Hence the reluctance for police to get out of thier vehicles, so once again you can blame this murder on Sinn Fein/Ira.
If you wish to actually learn the truth on Northern Ireland avoid taking the side of murderers like you have done


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2002)

Viperman: it's very, very rude to use my boards, make disgraceful comments about my fellow Brixtonians and then persisitently ignore my polite requests for you to clarify those comments.

At the moment, your suggestion about Brixtonians not being hard working or honest strikes me as being deeply offensive.

Now substantiate them or fuck off.


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*Dear Editor*

I have been branded, racist, bigoted, stupid homophobic and lots of other things, without justification, frankly speaking I don't give a fuck.  The force I worked for with great pride have been ridiculed and slagged off on this site and  when I protested about other peoples comments you did NOTHING.


----------



## wildwildlifer (Mar 30, 2002)

aaaaahhhhhhh,diddums


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*for once*

I agree with your comments about Editor.  Sticks and stones etc


----------



## pooka (Mar 30, 2002)

*V*

Viperman,

I thought it regretable that people responded to your slurs on Brixtonians by questioning the size of your tackle or what sort of car you drive - but if you insult people to their face, some will be stung into an intemperate (though perhaps lighthearted) response. You started the slagging first. remember.

As regards NI and the RUC, I really don't think its relavent to these boards and certainly not these threads. I'm sure we would disagree about the real roots of the problems in NI, but it is a distraction here. Brixton is not a province of UK, was never part of a colony of Britain, has not descended into a guerilla, civil war and so on.

If you genuinely want to contribute to these boards, and gain something from free exchange then you should say whether you really think that people in Brixton, including the people you're addressing here, are layabouts. I for one certainly am not and to my knowledge neither are many of the other people here.  You really can't expect people to engage with you if you demonstrate repeatedly that you, for no good reason, hold them in contempt.

pooka


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*You're right pooka*

This is no place for the RUC/NI  I did not start it, I merely mentioned that i use to work for them, FULL STOP  Everyone else has brought it up and slagged them off, so what else can I do!!
I don't mind people slagging me off or criticising my remarks and hitting back, that's what debate is all about.

Keep it up.  Thanks Pooka  for posting something sensible here at last


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2002)

Viperman: seeing as you've made disgraceful comments about people living in Brixton, I'm not surprised that some of them have had a go back at you - sadly, it seems that you can't take what you dish out.

But as editor of this site, I have every right to bring you to task for your offensive comments about me and .my fellow Brixtonians

Now, quit your whinging and bleating, and substantiate your deeply offensive comments.


Or fuck off.

Edited to add: your comment, "I agree with your comments about Editor. Sticks and stones etc" appears to be agreeing with yourself. 

This couldn't be because you're posting here under two different identities, could it?


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*can't take it?????*

can you read??  did you not see my remark where i said I don't give a fuck what people say about me.  It does not bother me what people say about me no matter what and no matter how abusive.  They are only words so who cares, like water off a ducks back


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2002)

Answer my question or you're toast on these boards, wriggler.


----------



## viperman (Mar 30, 2002)

*Well...........*

Guess I'm toast then.  this is probably the reason there are so few dissenters on this board.  I guess I should consider myself lucky.  Stalin would have shot me so getting banned aint toooooo bad


----------



## editor (Mar 30, 2002)

Look: you barge into these boards and announce - like the pitiful bigot you are - that the notion of 'hard working and honest' Brixtonians is an 'oxymoron'.

Seeing as I live in Brixton that's deeply offensive.

I've given you endless opportunities to explain and substantiate your opinion, but each time you try to wriggle and bluff your way out of it.

Now, I couldn't give a flying fuck what your politics are - despite your feeble bleating about 'censorship' - the fact remains that *anyone*  who makes such clearly disruptive and bigoted statements on these boards will be kicked off.

It's got nothing to do with 'dissenting', but everything to do with providing a grown up argument and treating the people on these boards with a little respect - something you have clearly failed spectacularly to do.

Edited to add: after yet another refusal from viperman to back up his outrageous claims about Brixton people, he's been banned.

All his IP addresses have been logged for future reference.


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brian _
> *OK enough already.  NO, the police in Brixton do NOT routinely attack protestors - for goodness sake (I have to say 'goodness' now I'm afraid) this is where I came in.  We may have held up protestors who wanted to go elsewhere on a march but we did not attack them.  Genuine protestors are welcome in Brixton.  Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves.  That is one of the things that makes Brixton such a wonderful place.
> 
> *



Well excuse me Sir

Lets just think about it this way - if the behaviour of the police towards the protestors had been reversed, what charges would the protestors have faced?

My guess is Section 4 (POA), Assault occassioning ABH, false imprisonment and a few others besides, I'm pretty sure that affray would have been considered as well.



> Going in the right direction or going backwards - no argument there, is there?



Erm, I think there's quite a lot of argument about this actually!


----------



## newbie (Mar 31, 2002)

> Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves.



I'm not sure how to take this.  It's an interesting thought, certainly, but not one I'd really expect from someone who knows the place.

I'm not in the police, and I'm happy to accept that they shield me from much of the raw unpleasantness that characterises inner city life.  Maybe from that POV many peoples conduct can be viewed as protest, simply because they don't see normal day by day life.

But from the outside I have to ask, protest against what, exactly?  And how?  

ISTM most are just living their lives.  TBH this smacks of the cod sociology I might expect of newcomers (or journalists): in simplistic terms it goes something like "Black people are oppressed, therefore they will naturally support any revolutionary activity".  It doesn't take long to see through this, either as written or when you substitute women, gays, workers... .

Compared with other places I've spent time, one of the key things I appreciate about Brixton is how non-judgemental most people are, how possible it is to live whatever lifestyle I choose.  But I seldom see evidence that  people (metaphorically) bay at the moon in existential protest.  Am I missing something?


----------



## hatboy (Mar 31, 2002)

Brian's remark makes sense to me.   I protest about homophobia just by being me, going to the places I go, and being heard/seen.

I think that if you're in any sort of visible minority that there is an element of protest in your very existence.   Look at the hassle transexuals get just walking down the street for instance?


----------



## newbie (Mar 31, 2002)

haawooooo   

fair enough


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 31, 2002)

> Many people in Brixton protest by their very existence, the way they live, the way they conduct themselves. That is one of the things that makes Brixton such a wonderful place.


 originally posted by Brian 



> Brian's remark makes sense to me. I protest about homophobia just by being me, going to the places I go, and being heard/seen.


 originally posted by Hatboy 

Hatboy

Surely the same applies for any openly gay man anywhere - it is not specific to Lambeth. 

Brian's statement actually doesn't mean a lot. Many people outside of Lambeth "protest by their very existence"!!


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 31, 2002)

Newbie said "TBH this smacks of the cod sociology I might expect of newcomers (or journalists): in simplistic terms it goes something like "Black people are oppressed, therefore they will naturally support any revolutionary activity". It doesn't take long to see through this, either as written or when you substitute women, gays, workers...."   I DO NOT believe in such  simplistic analysis [you constructed a straw man to burn], although there are as you say some of these people WHO do protest and have that consciousness... I have a dynamic approach which says that there is no mechanical consciousness derived from peoples objective positions (that is a Marxism that died in 1956 when many including EP Thompson left the COmmunist Party) - I'm more with Sartre and making sides, giving history the meaning we see fit...


----------



## The Black Hand (Mar 31, 2002)

*REPLY TO the demi God Brian the Commander*

HI Bri... you said that "Genuine protestors" are welcome in Brixton... I thort i would just say that there is no such thing as a 'Un genuine protester' - whatever that is... were the people who fought the police in 1981, 1985 and 1990 in Brixton 'not genuine'? I know they were, and to pretend otherwise is right wing politics... I know this is one of the many examples of canteen culture amongst the police but it also raises other points...

Q. What do liberals (including liberal 'anarchists'), Trotskyists, and the police exemplified by Brian have in common? 

A. The way they see protest, 'debate' and 'reasoning' is fairly similar. These people all have a detached view of protest and think that everybody is in rational control of their emotions... 
SO when faced with problematic situations when people don't play the rules of the 'rigged' game they are shouted down and demonised, or ideologically 'explained away'.... 

Hypothetical Example: the sister of a man killed by police goes to a Police 'Community' 'Consultation' meeting and disrupts it, and attacks the head of the force responsible [or  local commander]    ... You can't negotiate with her, you can't mediate her political needs, what see feels about making her protest is imminent in what she does, and the bourgois democratic structure irrelevent in her calculations cos she doesn't care about what is subsequently done to her and the superficial reforms that might happen... All that matters IS HER protest...

George Orwell said that when he saw conflict between police and workers he didn't have to think about which side he was on... when i see conflict between protesters and the police i don't either
 

The Black HAnd 

(ps is there a smilie with a helmet on that turns into a pig?  )


----------



## newbie (Mar 31, 2002)

Black Hand I never for a moment thought you think that, I wasn't getting personal.... oops, I've just realised- in my original I typed TBH meaning 'to be honest', I'm slipping into acronyms without thinking.  Sorry.


----------



## pooka (Mar 31, 2002)

The black hand:

Do you mean the meeting last Tuesday and do you mean mother not sister? Were you there?

If that is the occasion  you're referring to, then she was listened to once everyone knew who she was. No-one would doubt that her protest was "genuine" and grief driven. I can't see that the police commander could have "negotiated" with her in those circumstance, in part for legal reasons but much more so cos a meeting of 300 people is not the place. Brian Paddick says he's spoken with her on other occasions and I take his word for it. 

But one could forgiven for thinking that the protest of those using her was other than "genuine".

In terms of street protest, I would assert that most people would define "genuine" as people who take to the streets to make their views/feelings felt about a particular issue. They would consider "not genuine" people who want to use any opportunity for a ruck with the police. I don't think that distinction is restricted to police canteen culture. 

Seems to me people using their rationality to mediate how the express their emotions especially where it impacts on other people, is a prerequisite of a civilised society, bourgois or not.

I think when people aren't able to, like the grief of a mather, then people understand that. But I don't think that's what's being talked about here.


----------



## freethepeeps (Mar 31, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pooka _
> *They would consider "not genuine" people who want to use any opportunity for a ruck with the police. I don't think that distinction is restricted to police canteen culture. *



Oh yeah, those "hardcore" of anarchists who have been invented to justify attacking dissent? Who the hell are these people? I have been on many demos, and I have yet to meet them or see them. But it is good enough for the police to spread lies, then believe them and then act on them.

And you are right, it isn't just restricted to police canteen culture, it is part of mainstream journalistic culture as well. They are instrumental in creating the climate against protests by demonising the protestors and uncritically reporting police lies, whilst glossing over the Human Rights abuses that are perpertrated daily by the footsoldiers of the state.

They produce no evidence of these "opportunistic ruckers", despite the millions of images that they record at these demos. They find no weapons despite the widespread usage of S60 and it's attendant searches.

And theres Brian denying once again that the march was attacked,  showing that he means the MFJ are not "genuine" protestors by his refusal to criticise heavy handed policing and abuse of authority.

"They thought it might be out of hand, they thought there might be a breach of the peace, so they assaulted people and held them without charge, against their will. And Brian "thought" that was okay.

So thats what they mean by the "thought" police!


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2002)

freethepeeps: are you *really* suggesting that you've never been to a demo and witnessed some 'protesters' who are clearly only interested in aimless violence and unrelated vandalism and have scant regard for the issues?

I certainly have. Several times, sadly. 

At J18, I was so enraged by some fuckwits throwing bottles (the fragments of which were bouncing back and showering over some young children and their Mums) that I had to physically threaten them to stop (I was also equally enraged by some intimidatory fuckwit officers too, who seemed more interested in stirring up trouble than policing).

On occasion, I've seen brew crew fuckwits smashing up cheap, old cars in the street, lobbing bricks into local shops and hassling working class people who don't fit their stereotypes at various protests and I've always found such mindless acts utterly depressing. 

Do you condemn such acts too? 

My opinion: I've seen brutal, violent police and I've seen brutal, violent protesters - and I condemn them both uniquivocally. 

Don't you?

Personally, I find it rather a shame that you can't direct your considerable energy and enthusiasm  into providing some useful, real-world, community-backed alternatives - but I guess solutions come a little harder than criticism, eh?

Btw: did you actually attend the march in question or the Paddick meeting last week?


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

Mike

I wasn't at J18 and I have never seen a window bricked, or a car done over, and yet I have been on many protests. I can honestly say that the violence I have witnessed has *always* been perpertrated by the police. 

That is not to say that I don't know that there have been times when "brew crew fuckwits" have damaged property, but it seems to me that the police are now using the fact that that has happened in the past, to treat all protestors like criminals. 

You say that you condemn violent protestors and violent police equally. That starts to open up the whole "violence/non violence" debate, which is the stuff of other threads. I am clear that I regard violence as the use of physical force to *hurt people* and that to date, it is only the police that I have seen use violence.

Are you saying that you back the widespread use of S60 and kettles at protests? That you are happy with the use of force prior to any illegal act being committed? Because that is my basic problem. 

In terms of the MFJ march, I was at the rally outside the Town Hall and a number of my friends were on the march. The marchers were outnumbered by the police, who (as usual) were tooled up to the hilt. Had any trouble started, they would have been able to deal with it without any problems. However, no trouble was planned and the police moved in, assaulted people and held them for some time, before there was any justifiable reason for doing so. 

And my issue with Brian is that he doesn't see it as an attack, that he mumbles about it being a "close call" and supports an attack by his officers on protestors, because a copper "thought" there might be trouble. As I pointed out, any protestor behaving in the same manner as the police on that march would be facing a number of charges including Public Order Act / ABH and false imprisonment. 

A march against police brutality was turned into a demonstration of police brutality!

The report in 
the Observer last week shows how the media and police collude to demonise protestors , in order to justify using outrageous levels of force against peaceful protestors. Do you know any of this "several hundred strong block" that is planning to inflict economic damage on Mayday? Cos I sure as hell don't!! Note that the journos just slip it in, give no indication of where they got the info from, but insinuate they picked it up at the Wombles "safe house".

Well, I'm sure that the report is sufficient to lead coppers like Brian to "think" that something naughty might happen - which would then lead him to give his officers a free hand in stopping the "naughtiness" before it happens, mainly by attacking protestors.

I was not at the pro-Paddick meeting last week, mainly because I am not pro-Paddick and do not believe that one man is the answer to Brixton's problems. If he is, god help Brixton if he should get run over by a car tomorrow!!

The action pages of U75 contain all sorts of info on protestors' rights and other legal stuff. Yet the police ignore rights, assault people and detain them without charge or rights on a regular basis now.

There is (to use a favourite term of the Apartheid South African State) a TOTAL ONSLAUGHT against protest in this country.

The aim appears to be that the state wants protests to be held on its terms only. It wants people to march from A - B with banners, have a little chant, listen to the speakers and go home.

That isn't enough for me - is it for you?


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2002)

FTP: I actually agree with the vast majority of what you said. 

The reason I got involved with campaigning in the first place was after seeing police harass, push around and generally inflame situations at football matches - hence my fears about the Criminal Justice Act compounding the problems for fans (it did) and things haven't got a great deal better for street protests.

The main difference is that you seem to view things in absolutes: all protesters good, all police bad.

I don't. I've witnessed appalling, violent, provocative policing and I've witnessed some utter contemptible characters at protests using it as an excuse to vandalise personal property, lob bottles at the police (when they're just standing around causing no hassle) and generally act like aggressive fuckwits (sad to say, I vaguely know one of these characters, and he was boasting about how smashed up all manner of things at Mayday this year and threw things at police).

If you're saying that you've never seen any such acts by protesters, I'd suggest you've been singularly fortunate.

But don't think my support of Paddick's policing style in Lambeth equates to some kind of all round endorsement of the police, because it certainly doesn't - I still expect them to act like unaccountable thugs from time to time and that's why I spent considserable time recently updating and redesigning the entire 'your rights' section on this site.

Let's hope people will have no need to refer to it.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

> The main difference is that you seem to view things in absolutes: all protesters good, all police bad.



I don't recall saying that at all. I say with all honesty that I have never witnessed violence or bricking of windows, or cars being attacked by demonstrators.

My objection is that the police use those absolutes, along with a campaign of disinformation to justify attcking protests on a regular basis. That they feel justified in treating all protestors as criminals, and in surrounding demos and holding everyone, before any crime has been committed.  And there has always been a strong enough police presence to allow them to deal with incidents should they arise.

Paddick complains that Brixton is 250 officers short, and yet every demo I go on is policed to the hilt. At the Argentinian Embassy there were more TSG vans than protestors. It was absurd - there were 8 protestors chained to a balcony and there were 12 TSG vans there.

I think this demonstrates where the politicians' priorities lie, soft on real crime that damages working class communities and tough on imaginary crime that might embarrass the ruling classes.

What steps do the police take to stop muggings before they happen? Or burglaries? Or car-jackings? None that I can see, and yet systematically they attack demos and "prevent breaches of the peace"!


----------



## pooka (Apr 1, 2002)

Thanks ftp and editor for stuff to think about.





> _Originally posted by freethepeeps _
> *
> 
> The aim appears to be that the state wants protests to be held on its terms only. It wants people to march from A - B with banners, have a little chant, listen to the speakers and go home.
> ...




Erm....well that seems like a reasonable enough view of a protest. If it isn't enough for you ttp, what would you want that doesn't involve restricting other peoples freedoms?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2002)

I don't go on demonstrations any more because of the real possibility of violence. I think there are some demonstrators and some police who are just after a good ruck. It's a bloke thing.


----------



## Brian (Apr 1, 2002)

FTP I think there is some sense in what you say.  I think your analysis of what you see the police doing at demonstrations is a reasonable one from your perspective.  I just think it is the wrong interpretation from a particular (rather than objective)  perspective and you over do it.  So here is my view from my own particular (subjective) perspective.

It is difficult for the police to estimate the number and the behaviour of protestors in advance.  We tend to over-estimate the number of police required but we estimate on the basis of how violent the protestors are likely to be towards the police and what damage they might do to other people and property.  We do not estimate on the basis of how effectively we want to suppress the protest.

I do not think it is worth repeating what I saw, from my perspective, on that march in December 2000.

Many people, by the way they live, the way they dress, in Lambeth and outside of Lambeth, make positive statements about how they are refusing to comply with what 'society' or 'the system' dictates.  I call it a protest, you may call it something else.  All I would say is, live how you want, dress how you want, march, hold meetings and 'protest' as you want, but do not hurt others and do not damage my community.  Sorry - beginning to sound like a worn-out record.

Hundreds of police for a big demonstration, not many police visible on the street normally - very fair point.  To say the police do nothing to stop robbery and burglary is just over-doing it.

I did not realise that it was Mrs Bishop who was shouting at me at the meeting.  I asked Alex on Saturday to apologise to her and he said he would speak to her.  At the end of the day everyone should be given, and Mrs Bishop and Alex were both given, an opportunity to speak.  During that particular 2 minutes in that meeting, it was my turn to speak.

FTP you say that 'the police service is moving in the right direction' is arguable.  Why do you think that?


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

*What is this freedom you talk of?*



> _Originally posted by pooka _
> *Erm....well that seems like a reasonable enough view of a protest. If it isn't enough for you ttp, what would you want that doesn't involve restricting other peoples freedoms? *



Well pooka, marching from A - B does restrict peoples freedom, no? If it involves closing off roads and stopping traffic, then surely that means freedom of movement is restricted.

What about the freedom of protestors though? I don't want the system to tell me how I am allowed to express my anger and dissent. I want to be free to make my point in the way that I see fit. I accept that if I break the law, I will be arrested. I do not accept that I can be detained before any crime has been committed.

The state wants someone to go and negotiate with the police before a demo takes place. - why should we, and for non-hierarchical, non authoritarian groups, who is expected to do this.

Placard waving, chanting and marching from A - B has happened at several anti-war demos now. Has the war stopped? No, I don't think so. Quite honestly I don't think the system gives a shit if people go on organised marches. The point of protest is to challenge the system. The system now seeks to contain and dictacte the terms under which an individual can protest. 

Reclaim the Streets street parties were effective demos, and I fear that they can not happen any more, because the state will sink resources into stopping them. Protestors rights are being eroded all the time, the police expect to be able to go into any protest and dictate the terms, even when no law is being broken. The first thing they do when they arrive at a protest is to order people to cross the road. Then they offer to get barricades for protestors to stand behind. That is not my idea of protest. It quickly becomes a symbolic ritual that achieves nothing. 

I want the freedom to stand where I like, to do what I like and to protest as I like, and as long as I break no laws, for the police to leave me alone! If I break laws then I must accept the consequences of that.

The police want me to stand where they say, the do what they allow and to protest as they see fit. They try and force me to do this even when no law has been broken.

So, what freedom do we really have? Freedom to do as we are told is not freedom at all!


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2002)

> Quite honestly I don't think the system gives a shit if people go on organised marches.


 Sad to say, but that seems to  be how most of the media treats them too, regardless of the number of protesters - unless of course, there's a bit of minor damage or 'sexy' violence. 

But that's a different issue all together...


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

> All I would say is, live how you want, dress how you want, march, hold meetings and 'protest' as you want, but do not hurt others and do not damage my community.



And that is the point Brian - *nobody hurt anyone or damaged your community before the police attacked the demo!!!* So your words mean nothing. It should read:

"All I would say is, live how you want, dress how you want, hold meetings and 'protest' as you want, and you will be fine until my officers *think* that there might be trouble, then I will back them to the hilt while they step in, assault people and detain them without charge."

And the move towards zero tolerance in Brixton is one of the reasons that I say policing is not moving in the right direction. Policing is about inequality of power, it is about vanloads of thugs riding around with carte-blanche to attack any group that they do not like the look of. It is about systematic harrassment of whole sections of the population.

And BTW the people on the march were part of "your community" as well!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2002)

I was not on that march, but there were definitely people using that protest for their own, completely non-political ends. Brixton Cycles (a workers co-operative) had their premises damaged and were robbed of a lot of bikes during the disturbances after that march. It could have completely ruined them, because they are not covered for riot in their insurance. Luckily it was successfully argued that it was an act of theft and although it must have financially damaged them (increased premiums if nothing else) they are still surviving.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

Are you talking about the MFJ march in December Mrs. Magpie? There was no riot and the detention of protestors took place at the other end of Brixton!


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2002)

I think it was the Derek Bennett march. MFJ turn out for and/or organise a number of protests here.  I don't think any genuine protesters were involved in robbing Brixton Cycles but it happened on the back of the protest, if you see what I mean.


----------



## pooka (Apr 1, 2002)

*ftp*

Thanks for your responses, Free the Peeps,

My take on street protests is as follows:

Our democracy is imperfect and it is right that people should be able to demonstrate a groundswell of opinion at any time - either because it is a very local issue that never gets on anybody's agenda at the time of elections or because circumstances change - no one anticipated Sept 11 at the last general election and the possibility of UK following on America's coat tails into Iraq. Street protest can also be a way of putting things on the agenda - eg third world debt, GM foods, nuclear weapons.

But, increasingly the dynamic of street protest is prone to violence and disruption on the one hand and to the restriction of civil liberties on the other because:

There ARE people who regard having a ruck with the police ("Footsoldiers of the state") as "genuine protest" in itself and they do turn out regardless of the cause;

If the object of the protest is to influence opinion beyond those on the march, then that has to be through the media, and they show much more interest if there's trouble;

There ARE policemen who have the contempt for those they serve demonstrated on these boards by Colin the Copper and, to a degree and in a different context, Viperman - and they are only too ready to smash skulls;

But even amongst police without those attitudes, the dynamic must always be to get their "repression" in first. This is because there are two mistakes they can make. One is to take a heavy hand even before any law is broken, in which case the flack they take is from liberal opinion in the media, politicos &TC which usually amounts to no more than a slap on the wrist. The alternative mistake is to take a light touch and events the subsequently get out of hand - as with the protests in the City - in which case they get it in the neck from all and sundry and doubtless for some, find their careers on the line, In those circumstances the balance will always fall towards repressive measures.

Effectively what we've seen is a progresive "collusion" over the years between the "have a go" nutters and the "smash some skulls" police, whipped on by the media, to make peaceful street protest less and less viable. Exceptions have been the Reclaim the Streets cycle protests and some of the environmentalists.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

> If the object of the protest is to influence opinion beyond those on the march, then that has to be through the media, and they show much more interest if there's trouble;



The media also create this myth of the "have a go nutters", as in the report in the Observer of a block of several hundred planning to attack property on Mayday! The media is owned by moguls and represents the interests of moguls innit?


My point is that there are enough officers at any given protest to respond to incidents (which is how they police the rest of civil society, no?). If a group of protestors start causing trouble, why don't they act then? Instead they act before anything has happened, saying that they "think" something "might" happen.

If they have enough force to encircle and detain a whole march, how can they not have the force to deal with incidents when they happen? More than that, the police feed lies to the media about violence, the media presents it uncritically and then officers read it and believe it, and act on it.

And the treatment of protestors has the blessing of not only Paddick, but Mayor Ken and Downing Street as well.

This is an attack on the right to protest, the right to dissent and it is happening everywhere. The nonsense about "violent" protestors is used to justify the attack, and yet it is the police who use violence time and time again, and no-one seems to give a damn.

The state is mustering resources to crush the anti-capitalist movement, it uses brute force, disinformation,  and lapdogs (such as Paddick) in order to do that! And I am sure that it is starting to work, people believe that there are tooled up protestors ready to riot, and in truth there aren't any. All those S60s with all their searches have never provided proof of any kind of arsenal for rioters.  People such as Mrs. Magpie avoid demos, making it easier for the police to attack smaller and smaller groups.





> Exceptions have been the Reclaim the Streets cycle protests and some of the environmentalists.



I assume you are referring to Critical Mass, and would remind you that a Critical mass was S60d and detained at Euston last Mayday.


----------



## newbie (Apr 1, 2002)

> Reclaim the Streets street parties were effective demos



Glad you think so: presumably effective means that the protest influenced public opinion and hastened change?  

I went down to the one in Brixton a couple of years ago: to me it seemed like a party for a particular section of the local community and their mates.  I enjoyed it until I met a lady in her 60's, looking worn out, carrying shopping bags and almost in tears outside Woolies wondering where her bus was to be found.

For what it's worth, I've seen violence on demos precipitated by police action, protestor action and what appeared to be agents provocateur.  I've also noticed with interest that  avowedly non-violent organisation generally leads to larger attendance from a wider cross-section.  Pooka mentioned that "If the object of the protest is to influence opinion beyond those on the march, then that has to be through the media" which is true, but I'm with E.P. Thompson, the main purpose of a demo is for likeminds to get together and *Feel Your Strength*.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by freethepeeps _
> *People such as Mrs. Magpie avoid demos, making it easier for the police to attack smaller and smaller groups.*


I did nearly always turn out for things that I felt strongly about. I used to take my kids, sarnies and a thermos and have a bit of a fun day too. It's the violence that keeps me away. The last 'march' as such, that I went on was a disability rights march where we sat down on the road around Elephant Roundabout in front of Fleming House, ages ago that was. The police had problems that day because they were worried about moving disabled people. Perhaps they thought bits of us would fall off! I do get involved in protest, just not Marches where there might be trouble. It is also a factor that I am partially sighted.


----------



## pooka (Apr 1, 2002)

*ftp*

Thanks for that ftp

I guess more succintly I'm saying that there are repressive elements amongst those in power and there are nutters who want to have a go - and over the years each finds justification in the other, and the whole thing escalates.

You on the other hand only acknowledge one side of the equation, although others contributing to this thread have cited both.

A gulf of perception I guess. But thanks, I shall think over what you say.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

Pooka

I am not saying that there are no people who use protests to kick things off. I am saying that in my experience, there have been no incidents on indications of them. That the police and the media have blown up the threat out of all proportion, and then used that to justify a massive clampdown.

Do you accept that if there are sufficient cops to encircle a whole demo and hold it for hours, then there are sufficient cops to let it go on, and to deal with problems *as and when they happen?* 

But that would not achieve the desired effect, which I believe is to discourage people from attending demos in the first place. (Remember Mayor Ken last Mayday?)

Instead we have this false debate about "violent protestors" and this confusion where protestors feel it is up to them to police the behaviour of fellow protestors, when there are hundreds of tooled up fuckers who are paid to police the event. 

Yes, there may be a few trouble makers at some demos - I don't see that that can possibly justify the criminalistion of dissent, or the tactics that are used by the police now, on a regular basis.

And BTW, the way I see it, is if a group really wanted to cause shit on a demo, they would wait until the cops were busy incarcerating the protest and then they would have carte blanche to run around the outside of the kettle and do what the hell they liked!


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 1, 2002)

Pooka said "The black hand: 

Do you mean the meeting last Tuesday and do you mean mother not sister? Were you there?"  No i was using an hypothetical example that i made up loosely based on events, but that wasn't important. What was more important was the view that protest doesn't have to made up in advance, it can be spontaneous, experimental, wild and free... unlike the very constrained forms that predominate in Britain today - it hasn't always been like that and EP Thompson has many good examples in his work... Recently there have been attempts to break out of the institutionalised sphere but the powers that be don't like people who aren't prepared to negotiate in the 'rigged game'... [parralels with 19th century ruling class activity against the people here]

Newbie - my misunderstanding too...

Pooka again "people would define "genuine" as people who take to the streets to make their views/feelings felt about a particular issue. They would consider "not genuine" people who want to use any opportunity for a ruck with the police. I don't think that distinction is restricted to police canteen culture." Yes and this was what i was saying partially about what is protest, and how orthodox viewpoints see it as (police, liberals, SWP) This is another illusion fostered by the press, police, liberals and certain dishonest 'socialist' groups... 

There ARE no demonstrators who are out to turn every demo into a ruck, they really don't exist for several reasons... namely because they would be caught with all the photography available to the police today... what you see are like has ALWAYS existed within our movement (meaning socialist, trade union, the MOb etc) is a section of different people who turn out irregularly, who like a bit of drink and action (they are really easy for the filth to pick off as well) but i would be wary about throwing condemnation at them as i indicated earlier on this thread (see Robert Reiner quote) 

Finally i would add that policing at demos has got to such a level of oppression that the police are the armed agents of state repression, and the nice happy police Brians on about are never there... it's really sad for 'liberal democracy' but the harsh fact is that police on demos are in your face thugs who delight in getting your photograph, name and address before nicking you on a spurious charge.... George Orwell was right about the state (police) and double speak...


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2002)

> There ARE no demonstrators who are out to turn every demo into a ruck, they really don't exist for several reasons


 Sorry - my experience at demos and at football games *directly* contradicts your claims. I sure as hell wish that these people didn't exist, but they do. 

And if some individuals can get away with it at football games regularly, what on earth makes you think they can't get away with it at occasional demos?


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by editor _
> * Sorry - my experience at demos and at football games *directly* contradicts your claims. I sure as hell wish that these people didn't exist, but they do.
> 
> And if some individuals can get away with it at football games regularly, what on earth makes you think they can't get away with it at occasional demos? *



So, we use the iron fist just in case eh?


----------



## editor (Apr 1, 2002)

FTP: I'm getting fed up with your digs and misrepresentations.

For your information, I have long spoken out against heavy-handed and provocative policing. I've been a victim of aggressive policing many times, and know only too well how they can act.

I ran an entire campaign (Footie/CJA) to inform fans about how the law could be used against law abiding fans, I've produced a website packed full of advice for people who find themselves unfairly arrested, I've repeatedly used whatever media I can blag to publicise abuses of police powers and was on the BBC last Mayday to rant about the outrageous policing tactics at Mayday.

So I find little snidey comments suggesting that I'm somehow endorsing an 'iron fist' policy just by acknowledging the undesirable actions of a minority of protesters  *deeply* insulting.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 1, 2002)

It wasn't a "personal dig" - the fact is that this is the myth that is being used to justify the oppressive policing that I see on demos on a regular basis. I would have made the same response whoever posted the remark. 

As I said above, if there are enough coppers to encircle the whole demo, then there must surely be enough coppers to deal with any trouble that does break out. I have not seen evidence of these "troublemakers" on any demos that I have attended recently. Perhaps the oppressive policing has scared them off, I don't know. What I do know is that police are continually attacking peaceful demonstrations, and it is quite frankly a pain in the arse.


----------



## ats (Apr 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mrs Magpie _
> *
> The last 'march' as such, that I went on was a disability rights march where we sat down on the road around Elephant Roundabout in front of Fleming House, ages ago that was.  *



Blimey Mrs M.  That was getting on for 20 years ago!


----------



## ats (Apr 1, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Mrs Magpie _
> *
> The police had problems that day because they were worried about moving disabled people. Perhaps they thought bits of us would fall off! *



They were right to worry.  I was once on a disability demo (0ne of the anti-Telethon demos) where two young coppers moved in to shift someone who'd got out of her wheelchair and sat down in the road.  They tried to pick her up, but didn't realise that she had artificial legs.  So when one of them lifted her legs - they came off.  I've never seen a policeman at such a loss for what to do next.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 1, 2002)

Nah! More recent than 20 years ago. It was the 90's, I don't remember you being there.....It was after my youngest was born anyway.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 2, 2002)

*Welcome back, Brian*

I see from the above posts that Brian appears to be able to  again engage fully in the debates (even if he does need to mind his language!).

As I said at the outset, my intention was to try and continue the debate in his enforced absence.

I am gratified that his return has been so swift and he is far more able, and entitled, than me to comment on policing in Brixton.

I'll still be lurking though, and if I think I have something useful to say about something that comes up, I'll post.

Thanks for putting up with me.  I hope I've helped a bit.

D-B


----------



## pooka (Apr 2, 2002)

*Speak up detective boy!*

Seems to me you talk sense and provide a useful perspective. I don't think there's a residency qualification to these boards. And many of the topics go beyond the parochial.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 2, 2002)

Stay detective-boy...you're my second favourite policeman!


----------



## hatboy (Apr 2, 2002)

Seconded. or er... thirded.


----------



## theoderic (Apr 3, 2002)

Fourthed. I'd be very sorry to lose your insights and contributions.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 3, 2002)

*It's so nice to be wanted!*

Thank you, Pooka (I thought Pookie was quite sweet as well!), Mrs.M, Mr.Hat and theoderic.   

I'll still be around but so far as Brixton issues are concerned, I am taking a back seat to Mr P now he's back.


----------



## Brian (Apr 4, 2002)

FTP

Despite feeling like I am flogging a dead horse here, let's try again!

You do not need as many police officers to encircle a crowd as you do to deal with a dozen smaller groups at various locations spread out over a wide area looting shops (as happened in the July 'protest').  Now it may have been the wrong judgement call but the December protest looked like a re-run of the July one.  The police officers in charge decided not to allow the December march to return to Brixton Town Centre where all the trouble happened last time.  If you consider holding people and not letting them go 'attacking' them, then it has a different sense to my understanding of the word.  The police thought that if they let the march go back to the Town Centre, places like the Brixton Cycle co-op would get looted again.

Yes, I can understand how distasteful it must be for a group who are opposed to the police and 'the system' to negotiate with the police over a protest.  Yes, I can understand that people want the fredom to protest when and where they like.  Yes, I can understand the police being perceived as stifling legitimate protest.  But the advantage I have is I have planned and organised many policing operations to handle marches, demonstrations and other large, what we call 'public order events'.  I have not, and I have never experienced any other senior police officer, who has sat down to plan to stop legitimate "don't damage others" protest.  We always plan to facilitate "dont' damage others" protests but we also need to plan for those criminals who want to operate under the cover of a legitimate protest, either to stock-up without going through the check-out or those who just want a ruck, either with the police or with an opposing group.  

EXAMPLE:  The July 'protest' in Brixton.  Yes, there was understandable concern about the tragic shooting of Derek Bennett.  Yes, there was a legitimate, "dont' damage others" protest.  Then some criminals used the demonstration as an excuse to go looting.  Some say the looting was an expression of anti-police feeling.  Now, if you think breaking into 'Morleys', going straight to the perfumery department, stealing only the Chanel and leaving everything else behind, is a spontaneous outburst of people's hatred of the police, I beg to differ!

The policing of demonstrations is about balancing rights and freedoms.  It is about balancing the right to protest with the rights of people to go about their ordinary day-to-day business without being disrupted e.g. woman with shopping and no bus.  These are very difficult things to balance and it is very easy, if not inevitable, that the balance achieved is not the right one.  Protestors will not be given entirely the freedom they deserve and the people affected by the protest will certainly have their freedom to go as they please disrupted.  All I can say is, from my personal experience, the police genuinely try to be even handed.

BTW, I do not agree with zero-tolerance policing as those who have been paying attention will testify.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 4, 2002)

And what charges would the protestors have faced, had they behaved in the same manner as the cops Brian?


----------



## Brian (Apr 4, 2002)

Not quite the rigorous, comprehensive and intellectual response I was looking for but I have always been too optimistic.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 4, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brian _
> *Despite feeling like I am flogging a dead horse here, let's try again!*



Careful Brian, I can see the Headlines in the Mail on Sunday already

TOP COP IN S&M NECROPHILIAC BESTIALITY FRENZY!


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brian _
> *Not quite the rigorous, comprehensive and intellectual response I was looking for but I have always been too optimistic. *



The question is a valid one, no?

You say that your officers did not attack the march. Friends of mine who were on the march are adament that they were attacked.

I think that if protestors had behaved in a similar manner to the officers that they would face charges of assault , false imprisonment and under the Public Order Act.

That is the only way I can think of, of testing your claim that the march was not attacked.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 5, 2002)

I think the problem here is a little "Alice in Wonderland " in it's nature. 

Brian is of the opinion that if he thinks no attack was made then there was no attack. This is a fairly common mindset amongst the "Golds" who control the demos.

As for pompously deriding FTP's views here, well it doesn't really cut the mustard given Brian's refusal to accept that his officers did in fact attack the demonstrators.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 5, 2002)

TC, Brians posting here, and there is dialogue. I don't think he's being patronising, there are just two different stances here. Keep the communication going I say. That in itself is a unique thing and should be valued and built upon.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 5, 2002)

Indeed I will Mrs M, I have strived to avoid any cheap jibes at the man and am enjoying this interesting exchange of views.

Whilst I do not expect Brian to admit that his officers attacked the demonstrators not least as many would then sue, I was making the valid point that often "Golds" delude themselves a little/lot...


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 5, 2002)

Um, I don't exactly understand what you mean by 'Golds'.


----------



## medicineman (Apr 5, 2002)

*demos v football matches?*

One thing that i am curious about, and something that has been touched in passing a couple of times but never really discussed properly (or have i joined too recently?) is the policing of football matches compared to demos.   I remember 15 or so years ago (less even) when football hooliganism was at it's height.  It seemed that the police strategy of the time was to box everyone into separate compounds around the football ground, then slowly let them out at the end of the match.  We had those huge fences in front of the pitch as well, then, so for many supporters it was similar to being held in a temporary prison for 30-60 minutes following each match. - Normally the 'away' supporters, if I remember properly.

But these tactics didn't seem to work.  Hillsborough happened, so pitch-side fences went out; and the incidence of football hooliganism remained the same (or may have even increased!).  

It wasn't until there was a change of tact that English clubs were readmitted to European competitions.  The mass policing operations were cut back, the focus was switched to individuals and all-seater stadiums were provided so people didn't get crushed on the stands. I think this all made for a more enjoyable afternoon for the majority (though i know many miss the old stands).  And the minority find it harder to cause trouble, whilst the people in the middle - those who would cause trouble if wound up but ordinarily are pretty reasonable people - do not need to get upset.

Why can't demos be like this (imagine T-square with a million chairs in it, all provided by the police!! - no, only kidding). Why can't the violent minority be targetted instead of trapping everyone inside a Section 60 cordon??  Cos i do agree there are some people who are bent on making trouble at these events - normally the ones wearing the namebrand clothing and eating MaccieD's for lunch.




> *You do not need as many police officers to encircle a crowd as you do to deal with a dozen smaller groups at various locations spread out over a wide area looting shops (as happened in the July 'protest').*


_posted by Brian_

It would appear that the budget is not limited for many of the protests that participants here go on (I am talking mainly of London wide protests, such as Mayday or, currently, actions against Israel which are happening at multiple locations).  Not only are there millions of cops (slight exxageration, I know) surrounding demonstrators, but there are loads more 'round the corner on the backstreets, hiding; and some people are even priviliged enough to receive their own personal police escort along the route of the demonstration!!!  I have been to a number of ("legitimate") demos where the FIT (Forward Intelligence Teams) officers are attemting to convese with demonstrators on first AND second name basis.   It isn't like the Met don't already waste a huge amount of money on peaceful protestors!




> *If you consider holding people and not letting them go 'attacking' them, then it has a different sense to my understanding of the word.*


_posted by Brian_

I think we all know what "attacking" means.  Although I wasn't there, like FTP I also know people who have described the Brixton demo in such a manner, and I _do_ believe them!  However, from behind police lines, I can imagine that a line of cops encircling a crowd would not seem like an attack, merely "holding people."  I gotta question, though, HOW DID THEY GET INTO THAT POSITION??  Like Mayday last year, I don't think a load of people walked into the middle of the road and then waited patiently for the cops to come and surround them - I think it much more likely there were 'directed' that way by individual police officers.  This can definitely be perceived by some people as an attack.



> *Yes, I can understand how distasteful it must be for a group who are opposed to the police and 'the system' to negotiate with the police over a protest. Yes, I can understand that people want the fredom to protest when and where they like. Yes, I can understand the police being perceived as stifling legitimate protest. But the advantage I have is I have planned and organised many policing operations to handle marches, demonstrations and other large, what we call 'public order events'. I have not, and I have never experienced any other senior police officer, who has sat down to plan to stop legitimate "don't damage others" protest. We always plan to facilitate "dont' damage others" protests but we also need to plan for those criminals who want to operate under the cover of a legitimate protest, either to stock-up without going through the check-out or those who just want a ruck, either with the police or with an opposing group.*


_posted by Brian_

And what happens when it is an 'illegitimate' protest???   For many who are involved in alternative politics, it is not (morally?) right to ensure the police are informed about demonstrations at least 7 days beforehand, as - I believe - the law requires.  For some events, such as Mayday, there is wide publicity: leaflets and websites from groups involved, press stories and, of course, police scare stories themselves.  I do not think police intelligence is actually quite stupid enough to not figure out where demonstrations will be this year, for example.  For other events, such as a highly successful No War But The Class War demonstration on the day the US alliance started bombing Afganhistan, it is simply just not possible to predict when they are going to happen (Yes George Dubya did forget to include the anti-war protest machinery on his 'to contact' list prior to declaring war).




> *The policing of demonstrations is about balancing rights and freedoms. It is about balancing the right to protest with the rights of people to go about their ordinary day-to-day business without being disrupted e.g. woman with shopping and no bus. These are very difficult things to balance and it is very easy, if not inevitable, that the balance achieved is not the right one. Protestors will not be given entirely the freedom they deserve and the people affected by the protest will certainly have their freedom to go as they please disrupted. All I can say is, from my personal experience, the police genuinely try to be even handed.*


_posted by Brian_

Well, I think from my/our perspective, the police still got a hell of a lot more "try"-ing to do.  Perhaps it is useful to remember that protestors ARE trying to disrupt peoples' freedoms, whether it be by holding a march (blocking the traffic), a picket outside a work place (stop managements freedoms to exploit workers) or direct action against a factory, a transport sytem, 10 Downing Street or the Argentinian Embassy.  However, this disrupting IS on a temporary basis, to raise awareness.

Think I have waffled on enough now.  Bye!

MedicineMan


----------



## Brian (Apr 5, 2002)

FTP - the question is a valid one.  I was only present at the end of the march and you were not there at all.  People you and others know who were there say they were attacked.  Police officers I know say they did not attack the demonstrators.  The people you know would say "well the police would say that wouldn't they" and the police officers I know would say "well they would say that wouldn't they".  So there we are!  All I would add is, on the night, no-one complained to me that they had been attacked and no complaint was received after the event.  My record in Lambeth shows that if there are complaints of excessive force or assault by police, I make sure they are properly investigated.  It is extremely rare and the vast majority of officers behave impeccably, in the face of severe provocation sometimes, but we do have officers suspended, some facing criminal allegations as a result of what they are alleged to have done in Lambeth.  (Sorry for the cheap jibe, FTP.)

TC it is not a mindset amonst 'Gold's.  (Mrs M - 'Gold' is the senior officer in charge of a demonstration).  I was not 'Gold' for the march in question in any event.  As I have said, any such allegations are properly investigated.  Other than on these boards, no complaints have been made to my knowledge.


----------



## Brian (Apr 5, 2002)

medicineman - we do try to isolate the trouble-makers but it can be very difficult to do.  If we find innocent people trapped in the cordon we make every effort to get them out as quickly as reasonably practicable.

Our new Police Authority, quite rightly, is trying to discipline us into living within our budget.  We have to be more realisitic about the numbers of officers required to police demonstrations but that does not mean that we will not put out a large number of officers if we believe that is necessary.  On the night in question we did not have many officers.

My understanding is that police officers lined the march (both sides/front/back) in the time honoured fashion.  Officers then walk alongside the march wherever it wants to go.  This time, when the officer in charge decided the march should not go back to Brixton, the marchers were 'held' to prevent them from going back to the Town Centre.

The law requires demonstrators to give advance notice to the police.  We also have the ability to find out about demonstrations where we are not given any notice.  We also have the capability to respond to spontaneous demonstrations.  The Metropolitan Police is the best in the world at dealing with this type of issue.

It is about perceptions and we do genuinely try to be fair and even handed.  We too try to disrupt demonstrators freedoms only temporarily, unless they break the law.


----------



## TinyCrendon (Apr 5, 2002)

Last year at the end of Mayday in the blimmin cordon an SWP woman came down the front and shouted really loudly in my ear with a megaphone. I turned round wearily and said "oh can you fuck off please" with a tired slightly incredulous smile on my face (it was right in my ear). Quite Victor Meldrew really.

at this point one officer grabbed me, hoisetd my jacket up my back (with my right arm) and bent me over whilst another kicked me once in the chest and a third `stabbed` me in the genitals three times with his truncheon. (mind me crown jewels!!) all the time they were shouting "threatening behaviour".

plenty of witnesses including one press photographer.

then they let me go and one of them said "fuck off this is big boys games."

Not nice but not the end of the world.

but i'll be honest, i am too scared of the police to make a complaint.


----------



## Richard Lewis (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Brian _
> [we do genuinely try to be fair and even handed.  We too try to disrupt demonstrators freedoms only temporarily, unless they break the law. [/B]



I am posting for the first time, but have been reading the threads for a while.  I live in Munich and left the UK partly because I just did not want to live in fear anymore, because of the violence, the homophobic intolerance and prejudice.  Sure it exists in Munich but you can walk around and be pretty sure that you are not gonna get your head kicked in by robbers, gay-bashing skins or the police.  I nearly fell off my chair when I started reading the posts from Brian.  He has single handedly restored my faith in the fact there there is a human face in the police somewhere.  Power to you Brian and respect that you are still posting.  I guess one of the reasons you get so much stick is because who the hell else from the police can anyone debate these things with?  No-one else from the police seems interested in a dialogue like this.  

Having said that I understand what Adam means and Brian’s statement that “we do genuinely try to be fair and even handed” does have to be challenged, because even if these are your values it is not fair to say they are the values in all parts of the police force.  I respect the fact that you are trying to change it from within…


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 5, 2002)

> we do try to isolate the trouble-makers but it can be very difficult to do. If we find innocent people trapped in the cordon we make every effort to get them out as quickly as reasonably practicable.



Bollocks! What about the tourists in the cordon at Oxford Circus who showed the officers their tickets? What about the parents with prams who were not allowed to leave Parliament Square? Brian, it sounds good but I don't even believe that you believe that crap.

And THEY ARE ALL INNOCENT!!!!!!! You would not have grounds for holding them in police cells. That is the point!! Some officer decides that there "might" be a breach of the peace, and then the kettle is formed and people are held, against their will without committing any crime. 

And you are happy for it to happen, in fact you say:




> The Metropolitan Police is the best in the world at dealing with this type of issue.



And more bollocks!!! What are you promoting now Brian? The behaviour of the Met at demonstrations is despicable!! The practioce of incarcerating protests is probably in violation of the human Rights Act, and the coppers who come in are rude, aggressive and violent fuckers.

No respect for this kind of indefensible drivel at all!

Bottom line, deep down you know it's out of order and that it is not possible to justify a lot of what goes down.



Edited to add bit about "They are all innocent" and response to Topcats post below!
T/C

I actually think most senior coppers know it's well out of order, but they have instrauctions from their puppet masters to crack down on dissent, and by gum they do!!

Brian is no different.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 5, 2002)

FTP's said:





> Bottom line, deep down you know it's out of order and that it is not possible to justify a lot of what goes down.



I am less sure about this. I think that the police especially the higher ranks are quite isolated from normal people and tend to reinforce each others beliefs however ridiculous these may be. I think this is also human nature to some extent and makes for more "sincere" press statements anyway!

Brian might like to say that he is more in touch than the average commander but he is unlikely to have got to his position without a certain amount of self delusion.


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2002)

freethepeeps: perhaps you should be directing your rightful anger at the appalling, human-rights-bustin' policing of the last two Maydays at those *directly* responsible, not the Commander of a completely different borough?

What action did you take at the time? Did you lodge an official complaint/lobby your MP etc?


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 5, 2002)

Well ( embarrassing confession here) I did actually write to Simon Hughes MP about Mayday 2001. I then had to remind him that if he wanted votes he should reply to corresponsdence. He then wrote back and said that he didn't give a damn! Needless to say he never got my vote (wasn't going to anyway mind!!!)

I see no point in asking the police to investigate themselves. Do you?

Brian made a claim that the Met is the best in the world at dealing with protests. I think it was fair enough to raise issues from Maydays which bring his statement into question.

Primarily this is about the MFJ march which did happen in HIS Borough!


----------



## TopCat (Apr 5, 2002)

Mike: It's hardly surprising that this has occoured. If I logged on to Officer.com as "The Anarchist" I would no doubt get blamed for every brick thrown in the last twenty years...


----------



## agricola (Apr 5, 2002)

ftp,

who then do you think are the best Police in the world for dealing with protest?


----------



## TopCat (Apr 5, 2002)

Agricola, the most _efficient_ may be the RUC but I doubt very much that they have many fans over the water.


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 5, 2002)

agricola

As you are already aware, I have made myself pretty unpopular with lots of posters on these boards because I have made my feelings about the police quite plain.

I don't like policemen or police forces, and am not about to start stating that one is better than another now.

What I do say, is that Brian's statment that the Met is the best in the world at handling demos is laughable.

Yesterday I saw two peaceful protestors arrested outside the gates of Downing Street. A number of members of the public were shocked at the behaviour of the cops. It was certainly nothing for Brian to be proud of.

Then in recent history, there was the demo outside the Italian Embassy, which I wrote about on  

this thread. 

I can say that I have now seen the police statements from that demo, as well as the video footage taken by the indymedia people there.

The discrepancy between what I saw (and the video reflects), and what the police say was happening is incredible. And my experience is that the police have learnt how to write statements to justify their behaviour. The truth hardly comes into it!!

Do you think the Met are the best in the world at dealing with protests agricola?


----------



## ats (Apr 5, 2002)

*demos v football matches?*



> _Originally posted by medicineman _
> *
> 
> the people in the middle - those who would cause trouble if wound up but ordinarily are pretty reasonable people
> ...


----------



## agricola (Apr 5, 2002)

ftp,

you have the useful skill of saying an awful lot without answering a simple question; have you ever thought about a career in politics? 

personally when viewed against gothenburg, seattle and genoa the mayday and J18 protests seem to have been calmer affairs?  although i guess we will have to wait until London holds a G8 summit before we find the real answer.

At the moment, i think we are.

edited as i forgot ftps name....doh


----------



## medicineman (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by editor _
> *freethepeeps: perhaps you should be directing your rightful anger at the appalling, human-rights-bustin' policing of the last two Maydays at those *directly* responsible, not the Commander of a completely different borough? *



I think there are references to both Mayday and the Brixton demo in this whole conversation.  Brian writes as if this is a common thought amongst higher ranking police officers. Therefore, I have to agree with FTPs anger, although there may be better ways to direct it.  I am sure FTP is using these as well, though 



> _Originally posted by editor_
> *What action did you take at the time? Did you lodge an official complaint/lobby your MP etc? *



As Adam Porter said, most people are way too scared of further victimisation to make a complaint...I would be too: 'they' could make your life hell if 'they' wanted to....


(edit: i just changed the italics around)


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2002)

> FTP:I don't like policemen or police forces


 Isn't there a word for someone with such deep-rooted prejudices?


----------



## Brian (Apr 5, 2002)

I am in touch with what goes on on the streets.  I am not saying that police officers have never behaved inappropriately.  Some of your anecdotes have a certain ring of truth about them (I winced Adam!)   What I am saying is the overwhelming majority of police officers almost all of the time behave extremely well under the circumstances and I have nothing but admiration for them.  There are always the few who spoil it for the majority (as I seem to remember the headmaster saying as we faced another class detention!)  

All the senior police officers I have worked with do try to police demonstrations fairly and would be as appalled as I am, but not totally shocked as I am not, by the type of incident you describe.  Overall, I stand by what I said, despite the isolated incident, the Met is the best in the world at this game.  'On a scale of what?' you may ask but the best nonetheless.  I am not the lone voice in the wilderness that you think I am in the police.  Many feel as I do and many of us share your concerns.  But Rome wasn't built in a day and I'm laid-off at the moment so it might take a bit longer!


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 5, 2002)

> _Originally posted by editor _
> * Isn't there a word for someone with such deep-rooted prejudices? *



Erm, try "Anarchist" !

I'm sure you understand ed, that being beaten up by them and then having my life turned over for the last 6 months was never going to endear them to me.

Being continually followed and harrassed, was never going to endear them to me.

Watching them attack my friends was never going to endear them to me.

Having them follow me home because I had the audacity to watch them doing a stop-and-search was never going to endear them to me.

Having CO906 tell me which toilet I can use is hardly going to endear them to me.

Reading the lies that they tell in their statements was never going to endear them to me.

Having a custody seargeant deny me liberty to "teach me a lesson" was never going to endear them to me.


Having my photograph taken 20 times during the course of a conversation with a friend at the anti-war demo was never going to endear them to me.

etc etc etc etc

We will just have to accept ed, that I have the views I have. They have been formed through bitter experience. Whilst it is possible that some cops (out of uniform) may be reasonable human beings, the uniform and culture make them part of a system that I do not like, and will never like.

Brian sounds like the manager of my Neighbourhood Housing Office when he starts bigging up the Met. Lots of lovely words, concepts and consultation processes mask the fact that at the end of the day people get an abysmal service.

You will note that I have continued the discussion with Brian without resorting to calling him a twat, or a cunt. Even if I describe his claim that "the Met is the best" as bollocks.

I am sorry that you do not like the way I feel about the police. I don't think that it is a case of thoughtless prejudice. It is something that I have thought about a great deal, and something that I have have had to justify on several occassions.

If I said all crack dealers are scum, would you ask the same question?


----------



## editor (Apr 5, 2002)

FTP: I've been stitched up and attacked by the police on several occasions. I tried to take a policeman to court when I was 18 after being treated to verbal and physical assault in the street. 

I was stitched up by two lying bastard cops 7 years ago and ended up enduring an *Old Bailey trial* because of their lies - thankfully I was completely acquited and guess what - the cops walked free to stitch some other hapless sod up.

I've been attacked at football matches, attacked at demos, pulled out of the Albert by a rude uniformed twat 4 years ago without good reason (my subsequent complaint was fobbed off with a bullshit 'we have no record of any officers in that area at that time' claim).

I've been needlessly stopped and searched more times than I care mention, and I've seen more than enough people getting 'what for' from our uniformed chums for no good reason. 

So, I've got every reason to build up a nice set of easy-to-shout, easy-to-spread, fashionably anti-establishment prejudices, but then wouldn't I'd be as guilty as ill-informed right wing bigots who declare all protesters 'workshy layabouts' and anarchists 'thugs'?

I judge as I find and I've encountered good cops and bad ones, some of whom do a very shitty job in crap circumstances (like stopping me getting my head kicked in by violent footie fans). 

I'm no fan of the police by any means (see above), but I find any kind of 'hate them all' mantra deeply worrying - particularly when there seems absolutely no roon for manouevre. Don't you ever wonder that your built-in absolute hatred might be a self fulfilling prophesy?

And where does all that hatred get you? 

I've tried to put my experiences to positive effect, doing my best to provide legal info and resources so that people know their rights when police step out of line, and (hopefully coming soon on this site!) offering advice on how to lodge complaints against the police.

I find Paddick's involvement a very positive step for my community and trying to nail him down for every single police misdemenour anywhere, ever, seems a rather pointless exercise. Why not seize the opportunity for this unique dialogue and see where it might lead instead of constantly pouring scorn, contempt and hatred?

But let's get one thing straight: I remain deeply sceptical of the police and believe it to be riddled with racism and a 'closed ranks' mentality that lets them get away with a multitude of sins. But do I believe it can get better with people like Brian trying radical approaches and engaging tightly with the community? Yes.

You clearly disagree, but it seems that your version of anarchism provides you with a handy mechanism to support your negative prejudices without offering any positive solutions. Which isn't a great deal of help for people trying to improve things for the community....


----------



## ats (Apr 5, 2002)

It's obvious that where there's power, there's likely to be abuse of power.  But the more secretive an institution is, the more easily that abuse takes place.  From the Scarman report onwards, Lambeth has been the site of a unique experiment in opening up the police to the outside world, letting the community know what goes on inside the polcie station walls and making the police increasingly answerable to the community they serve.  Large numbers of people in this community have worked for that on all sorts of levels.

Senior police in Lambeth have worked with that process, but have on the whole tended to be defensive and mistrustful.  What's unusual about Paddick is that he's much more open to this process, much more accepting of the importance of openness and transparency.  Which has major imprrtance for what the community has been working at for the last 20 years.

But it's a slow, difficult, tedious process for everyone concerned.

So I'm with editor.  It's dead easy to say 'They're all bastards, so it's not worth bothering'.  Working to make our community a fit place to live in is harder.


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 6, 2002)

I wanted to add to the debate about the police and being stopped. I have only ever been stopped by the police twice in my life, both times were when I was just doing ordinary everyday things, I was not in a crowd, not in a demonstration, not doing anything provocative. The incident that most freaked me out was a few years ago about the time of the bombimgs at the Baltic Exchange in the city. At that time I was working in Holborn and myself and two colleagues left work in my car to go and play in a badminton match. I pulled into the traffic in Holborn and about 50 metres behind me was a police van full of officers. They stayed behind me for about 5 - 8 minutes and followed me into Kingsway where they sped past me, pulled across in front of me forcing me to stop and suddenly I and my colleages were surrounded by 5 armed policemen. We were told to get out of the car, leave the doors open, and made to stand out in the road but kept away from each other whilst we were searched and my car was searched. Whilst this was happening other police had stopped the traffic and cordened off the pavement and were shouting at pedestrians to get away from the area. As this was happening I was aware of a couple of things, firstly that the way in which the police were holding their weapons in was obvious that they were ready to use them if necessary, secondly looking at the officers it was clear how stressed they were. The relief when they realised that we were not armed terrorists to me was very clear. We were allowed to go and the police sergeant who had directed the stop told me where I could complain about what had occured. Imediately afterwards I felt very shocked, scared, embarassed and angry about what had happend. I was polite and not agressive and asked if they would tell me why I had been stopped. They said it was because they had had reports that there were terrorists in the area using a car like mine. But at no time did any of the officers ask me or my colleagues to indentify ourselves, we were not even asked our names. It seemed to me that in the time they had been following us they could have checked the registration number, and at least checked to see if any of our names matched the details. I did not sleep very well that night thinking about what could have happened, but I also began to think, well those officers were probably someones husband, brother, father, lover, whatever, and I remembered the look in the eyes of some of them, they were as sacred as I was. I also came to think that, sacred as they were, the training that they had been given protected us both on this occasion.

I am a supporter of Brian Paddick and what he is trying to acheive and I also have great repect and admiration for police officers. I just do not beleive that any one who wants to become a police officer, and gets through the training, wants to be other than the best police oficer they can be. I think that the realities of what they have to face change the attitudes of some of them as they progress. Never forget the stress that they are under, today there are guns and other weapons being used in much larger numbers than ever before. Every time an officer goes on duty the thought must be somewhere in the back of the mind, am I going to finish this shift traumatised, injured or dead. What ever we think of the police they do this on our behalf. every day, and I think we should never forget that. No matter how good the training people under stress can, and do, sometimes behave badly. When I read of the incident about the officer with the bull horn I wanted to ask why did the guy who wrote it thought it was appropriate to tell the officer to 'fuck off'. I would have been as annoyed as he was, but why could he have not said, just as forcefully, something like 'excuse me, do you have to shout right in my ear'. In my view if you treat people with respect then you generaly get respect back, and his attitude and what he said may just have been the last straw for a very stressed officer. 

I do have issues with the police, the main one being the lack of transparency in the way they deal with complaints made aginst them, and the militaristic nature of the police force. It seems to me that if a complaint is made about police behaviour, then the ranks are closed and yes, sometimes the truth is abandoned in order to protect the view that the police are always right, even when they are wrong. If nothing else it makes me feel that the police do not trust us, the general public, to understand why these things happen. They don't trust us not to use the complaints system as a personal vendetta by certain groups against the police. But I also beleive that we, the general public, have to realise that choices have consequences, and that rights carry with them responsibilities. If you choose to indulge in activities that are unlawful, even if the laws are bad, daft, etc. then you you have to be prepared to face the consequences. And if you demand rights then you must accept the responsibilities that go with them. Why should the excercising of your rights infringe or remove the rights of others. Police officers have rights just like any one of us, and they make choices, just like any one of us.

One of the reasons I support Brian Paddick so strongly is that, as had been said, he seems to be prepared to listen and he is the first high ranking police officer that I can remember who has said 'Hey, sometimes we screw up. It shouldn't happen, but it does, we're only human.' That is why I think it is very important that we do not let officers like him be destroyed by some of the very dangerous views held by others in the force. And even more importantly show by our continued and continuing support for him, that other police officers have nothing to fear from being open and communicative. 

It is not just the police who need to change, we have to examine our own behaviour as well, and put aside attitudes formed by past experience. however hard that may be.


----------



## pooka (Apr 6, 2002)

*Wait for me!*

Bout a week ago, I had an exchange with The Black Hand and Free the Peeps. In the interim, I've taken some time to read back through this and some of the other boards here, and to read coverage of the May Day protest. But it's a bit like stopping on a hike to read the map or guide book - you look up and everyone else is disappearing over the hill.

So for the moment, and somewhat breathless from catching up, just to say:  There appear to be three issues getting conflated here (and back and forth across other threads).

1. The policing of Lambeth/Brixton, dealing with street crime, the cannabis trial, police accesibilty.
2. The policing of the march protesting the shooting of Dereck Bennet.
3. The policing of major protest such as May Day.

Some contributors appear to take the view that one can only hold a single view of the police as an homogenous monolith, and unless they can tick every box, they'll tick none. Its an untenable, and faintly theological (and thereby dangerous) position. Does it mean that if you had clocked the registration plate of a hit and run driver you wouldn't report it?

The issues should be uncoupled. 
The current canabbis trial is common sense and deserves our support; 
the guy responsible for it has shown courage and got crucified by the gutter press and deserves our support, 
I wasn't at the Dereck Bennet protest (nor does it seem many here were) and can't make a judgement over the conflicting (and I'm sure genuinely held) accounts; 
The policing of major protests is an issue of concern not only because of steady erosion of liberties which is going on, but also the danger that stifling protest only leads to worse - I would cite the RUC/B Specials response to the civil rights marches in the north of Ireland in the late sixties/early seventies.

I would suggest though that more progress might be made by posters setting out how they think such events should be policed rather than going over what has happened in the past.

Now I must re-tie me boot laces and pull me socks up


----------



## ats (Apr 6, 2002)

That's such a good analysis of this thread that I'm scared to respond, Pooka.  But I want to go back to what Peter Matisse has said.

I'm sure the points about people under stress are good ones.  If Brian or Detective Boy are reading this, I'd like to hear their experience of such issues.

I was arrested on a demonstration on Portobello Road many years ago.  Because it was a demonstration directly against the local police, who were accused of having arrested and beaten up a clown who was busking there, things were pretty tense.  In the van going back to the station I felt that if I said a word out of place, I'd have the shit kicked out of me.  When the case came to the magistrates' court , and was remanded again and again and again, we got to know the arresting officer quite well.  He was a charming guy - pleasant, friendly, joking with us.  Whether that means I was wrong in my first assumption, I don't know.  (It probably is relevant that I didn't look as weird at the court cases - because of the reason for the demo, everyone there was dressed in clown gear in solidarity.)

Training is obviously an important issue for determining how jumior officers behave, but I do think that messages passed down from above in other ways are also important.  Mrs Magpie and I, in our role as lay visitors, once viewed CCTV tapes at Brixton.  We saw an incident where a guy was brought in who had, in the course of I forget what, run out in front of a police van and nearly been knocked down.  While he was being held in cuffs, the van driver  came in and started shouting at the guy, using very aggressive body language, 'Don't you ever fucking do that to me again etc'.

Our point to the senior officer who was viewing the tapes with us was that we could understand the van driver being worked up- he'd nearly run someone over and was still full of adrenaline as a result - but the custody sergeant needed reprimanding because he should have stopped the incident.  The fact that that sergeant - and I'm not suggesting he's at all typical - let the driver behave like that towards a handcuffed detainee gave its own message.  This sergeant basically gave the message that behaving in that kind of bullying way was an acceptable thing to do.


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 6, 2002)

Pooka - I take your point about focus, it was not my intention to dilute the debate by taking it into other areas seemingly unrelated. I agree with you whole heartedly about the gradual errosion of civil liberties by stealth. It seems that every time a protest march has a troublesome element it is used as an excuse to further chip away at the right to protest, regardless of who sparked the trouble in the first place. I think the police should adopt the view that all protesters are peaceful and law abiding until their actions prove otherwise, and not deliberately goad them into a violent reponse. And I think that protesters should likewise behave in a non provocative way towards the police. Swearing at the police and calling them pigs is not, in my view, acceptable. Mutual respect can work wonders. I also think that once a route is agreed it should be kept to, and if the police have to move people in another direction during the course of the march they should make sure that people understand why, and are not just told you will go into this area and stay there because we say so. There is also the fact that the police have to protect the property, and well being, of people who live and work in the areas that the march passes through. I think the right to peaceful protest is one of the fundamental civil liberties and should be defended at all cost, but for me peaceful is a very important word. I think the police should also take account of what the protest is about and modify their actions accordingly. We are approaching May Day once agin and there will be protests. I very much share the views about globalisation and it's effects on developing countries but I do not beleive that protesters have the right to damage property and create havoc. Having said that I think I understand why some protesters may beleive that that is the only way the message will be listened to. It was not too long ago that the views of environmental activists were scorned and derided, and that organisations like Greenpeace were seen as the refuge of left-wing loonies and the like. The debate has moved on since then, and although much remains to be acheived, at least the issue appears to be treated more seriously now. But some of the early protests were violent and maybe that is what must happen at the start of great social change. Perhaps the best that can be done is that the police and protesters try to make sure that, if it has to violent, then it is not people who are damaged.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 6, 2002)

> _Originally posted by ats _
> *Mrs Magpie and I, in our role as lay visitors, once viewed CCTV tapes at Brixton.  We saw an incident where a guy was brought in who had, in the course of I forget what, run out in front of a police van and been knocked down.  *



ats, long time ago, I know, but it wasn't a van, it was a patrol car, the car didn't hit the guy, but it was really close. The driver slammed on the brakes and avoided hitting the guy (who was freely admitting that he had jumped out in front of the car quite deliberately) by only a couple of inches. The incident was something to do with (surprise, surprise) dodgy street deals. I remember that I had a certain sympathy for the patrol car driver, I remember how shaken he was, but the Custody Sgt was responsible for the welfare of the detainee, and failed by not intervening.  Also I remember that I was concerned that the detainee had been in quick cuffs the whole time, which probably should have been removed on arrival in the Custody area.


----------



## ats (Apr 6, 2002)

Sorry Mrs M, hasty typing, missed out a 'nearly'.  I do see that changes the meaning rather drastically...  (I've edited it in to save confusion to future readers)


----------



## ats (Apr 6, 2002)

We'd stayed watching the tape because we wanted to see how long the cuffs were kept on for.  The car driver coming in was completely unexpected.  But I think one might well say that the sergeant's willingness to keep the detainee cuffed once he was in the station did indicate a lack of considertion for his welfare that subsequently was displayed in an even more serious form.

An interesting aspect of this incident was that we had looked at a number of tapes (all selected at random) which showed custody suites operating in a way that was entirely proper and uneventful.  As soon as the officer who was with us saw who was on duty he said something along the lines of 'This might be more interesting', indicating that he knew the particular sergeant to be less reliable than the others we'd seen.


----------



## medicineman (Apr 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pooka _
> *3. The policing of major protest such as May Day.
> 
> Some contributors appear to take the view that one can only hold a single view of the police as an homogenous monolith, and unless they can tick every box, they'll tick none. Its an untenable, and faintly theological (and thereby dangerous) position. Does it mean that if you had clocked the registration plate of a hit and run driver you wouldn't report it?
> ...




This is a great summary by Pooka and, drawing on this last comment, I have started a new thread in the Protest/Politics forum called 
How to police Mayday  It would be really good to hear all your views

MedicineMan


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 7, 2002)

editor

Respect to your post and the time that you took over it.



> So, I've got every reason to build up a nice set of easy-to-shout, easy-to-spread, fashionably anti-establishment prejudices, but then wouldn't I'd be as guilty as ill-informed right wing bigots who declare all protesters 'workshy layabouts' and anarchists 'thugs'?



I don't see that "all" protestors are the same as "all" police. Protestors are members of the public who choose to get involved in protests for different reasons and in different ways, with different groups who operate in different ways. Most protestors never resort to violence in the course of their activities. Most protestors take action because they strongly believe in an issue. Most protestors do so voluntarily, and with no prospect of personal gain.

All cops join one police force which has one culture.That culture does not encourage officers to express their individuality. Many cops resort to violence in the course of their duties, often uneccesary and often unreasonable. Most cops take action because it is the policy, or the norm, or because they feel insulted by an individual. Most cops do what they do for money.



> I judge as I find and I've encountered good cops and bad ones, some of whom do a very shitty job in crap circumstances (like stopping me getting my head kicked in by violent footie fans).



The situations where I come across cops are almost always at protests. The agenda there seems clear to me. However, I have seen a number of stop and searches in my neighbourhood recently, and I have yet to see it done with tact or sensitivity.

I have asked this question before, "How do you know if a copper is good or bad?". The uniforms all look (well) uniform to me!

I too judge as I find however, I do not go looking for trouble with cops - that would be silly no? But when officers start treating demos like civil obedience classes, and expect protestors to jump to patently unreasonable orders (with no legal backing), then I am sorry, but I am not prepared to do that!



> I'm no fan of the police by any means (see above), but I find any kind of 'hate them all' mantra deeply worrying - particularly when there seems absolutely no roon for manouevre. Don't you ever wonder that your built-in absolute hatred might be a self fulfilling prophesy?



Not liking them is not the same as hating them, is it? Having said that, after Halloween, for some months the sight of a copper filled me with fear, anger and loathing! I would say that I suffered some form of post-traumatic stress disorder. When I see them now, I would say that I view them with uneasiness and distrust.

I therefore dispute your claim of "built-in absolute hatred", that is your spin - not mine!

And as for the self-fulfilling prophesy, this is what I prophesy:

Most peaceful protests which become violent, will see that violence perpertrated soley by the cops!! I have yet to witness a physical attack by a protestor on a cop, but I have seen many attacks by cops on protestors.



> I find Paddick's involvement a very positive step for my community and trying to nail him down for every single police misdemenour anywhere, ever, seems a rather pointless exercise. Why not seize the opportunity for this unique dialogue and see where it might lead instead of constantly pouring scorn, contempt and hatred?



It was Brian who came onto this thread and claimed that the MFJ march was not attacked. It was Brian who made the claim that the Met are the best in the world at dealing with protest. Personally I believe that he should be staying off the boards and out of the media if he wants any chance of being re-instated into his post. But, I am not responsible for Brian! I have not held him accountable for every thing that the Met has ever done, but once again, this thread is about the MFJ march that happened in Brixton, in December, when Brian was Commander. He was at the march at the end. It seems entirely reasonable to discuss that march on this thread, no?

I presume that if Brian thinks I am "constantly pouring scorn, contempt and hatred" on him, that he will decide not to answer my posts. 

I don't see how, when I have first hand knowledge of the treatment of my friends at the hands of Brian's officers, that you can expect me to sweep that under the carpet and focus on the positives! Policing protests is part an parcel of the job, no?



> You clearly disagree, but it seems that your version of anarchism provides you with a handy mechanism to support your negative prejudices without offering any positive solutions. Which isn't a great deal of help for people trying to improve things for the community....



If the only hope of improving things for the community is a suspended copper on £93k, then I am guilty as charged! If it is about building links with local people and groups, about encouraging the empowerment of individuals, about seeking "bottom up" solutions, then that is what I seek to do.


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2002)

> If it is about building links with local people and groups, about encouraging the empowerment of individuals, about seeking "bottom up" solutions, then that is what I seek to do


 Hmmm. Nice words. A slippery politician would be proud of that piece of spin! But what does it actually *mean* in achievable terms? 

How would you put this delightful rhetoric into action? (and do you not acknowledge that Paddick has been doing just that? At the meeting there was a host of local groups standing up and praising him for his link-building with local groups and communities. Like this one, uniquely.).

And no matter how many times you say you've never seen it happen, I can categorically tell you I *have* seen some 'protesters' insitigating trouble at protests. Either you've been remarkably fortunate to miss it ever happening, or you're being a little selective with your memory.

Do you *really*  believe that there's never, *ever* been some individuals at protests who are there purely for the ruck? 

I *know* it can happen because I've seen it, first hand.

At J18 I was unfortunate enough to find myself next to some of the cowardly fuckwits, indiscriminately throwing bottles from the safety of the crowd in their little toytown balaclava 'anarchist uniforms'. As the glass bounced back everywhichway, a young Mum next to me burst into tears in fear.

Unprovoked police violence is unforgivable. But so is throwing bottles at the police without provocation, endangering those trying to protest peacefully about issues they feel passionately about.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

ftp; hello again.

You say you've most cops you've encountered have been at demonstrations. I would say the opposite.

 I have seen the Met behave dispicably - I stood with a vicar and a retired miner and watched them run rampage through a mining village in 1984. I also sat and listened to the local community policeman bewail the damage done to local policing as the Met sped back down the motorway at the end of the strike.

But I've also encountered police after having my vehicle nicked and  after being mugged. They behaved impeccably. I was followed by an unmarked police vehicle late at night (a banger with only one headlight working!) when I first moved to London and subsequently stopped by that vehicle and a van full of police. They were brusque and pretty intimidating initially (they'd stopped me cos my car was still registered out of London and they were looking for someone) but after I explained who I was and why I was where I was (I was checking out somewhere to live) the behaved impeccably - indeed offered some free advic on local real estate and crime levels. Like you friends of mine have encountered the police, when their kids have gone missing or their house has been burgled. Even where they have had a pretty begrudging attitutude to the police (it has been fashionable since the 60's!), they had nothing but praise.

So on what should I base generalisations? There is clearly a problem with policing major demonstrations. The unease about the creeping erosion of liberty that is happening is not restricted to people who gon on them. I have set out in earlier post the ratchet that is in place to make that happen. But it is an issue in it's own right and should not be allowed to poison community policing.

So, how would you police demonstrations?


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 7, 2002)

Editor - I agree with you 100%.


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 7, 2002)

Pooka - I see your point also, police officers do not always behave well, like everyone else they are human. One of the reasons I think it is important to support Brian is not only does he seem to be willing to talk, but listen and act. More than that though I think it is very important that we show that other officers have nothing to fear from us if they engage in debate. I think this is especially important for people just coming into the police force. If you demonise your 'enemy' it is much easier to treat them with contempt and distain. If officers are able to talk to people who feel passionate enough to demonstrate they will find they are human just like everyone else.  The same applies to people who hate the police. It seems to me that there is within the police force a considerable pressure on officers to fall in behind the police 'line', which seems to be that protesters are just out to have a 'ruck' and you have to stamp on them before it kicks off.  In dangerous situations police officers rely on each other for support, it must be difficult to stand up and argue against the hardline attitudes of people who you may have to rely on for your own safety. How much easier if they can say 'Well the protesters I have talked to don't fit the image you are trying to get me to subscibe to.' One of the things that I would like to see is for as many protesters, and police that will be on duty, as possible, getting together before the protest and talking to one another in a relaxed and informal situation. I don't think we will get a chance to build bridges if we keep using past incedents as an excuse 'demonise' the police. These things should not happen, but they do. In the present climate the police are not going to admit fault or apologise, I don't think they trust us enough yet. Hard as it is I think we must learn from the past yes, but not make the past the future. It's a new day, if people are brave enough to protest surely they are brave enough to talk to the police about policing issues.


----------



## ats (Apr 7, 2002)

> _Originally posted by pooka _
> *I have seen the Met behave dispicably - I stood with a vicar and a retired miner and watched them run rampage through a mining village in 1984. I also sat and listened to the local community policeman bewail the damage done to local policing as the Met sped back down the motorway at the end of the strike.
> *



My brother was carrying out a photographic project in Grimethorpe whem the miners' strike started.  He said there was an immediately noticeable difference when the Met arrived.  Where local police had had a quite good natured relationship with the strikers, the Met force brought a much more violent, confrontational aproach.

It's not difficult to see the reason for that.  They were being used as an occupying force.  And I imagine that guys who volunteered to go up to Yorkshire and other strike areas weren't a random cross section of the police force.  They were young, probably mostly single, and I imagine a lot of them went up there looking for aggro.

I se parallels with this in the behaviour I remember of some of the police brought in to Brixton in the immediate aftermath of the 1981 riots, when police had been brought in from all over the Met.  And I also wonder about the effect on our community of people who look for a posting to Brixton because it'll look good on their cv, showing how hard they are.


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

You're right ats - the village I was taling about was Goldthorpe, not far from Grimethorpe. I did on more than one occasion spend the early hours talking with police from the Met. It was clear that they felt they were under siege in a foreign country!


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 7, 2002)

Right, radical website? where? looks more like tis from the 'Police Review' to me...
Why spend so much time on 'helping to reform the Brixton police'?  The mind boggles... how much 'reform' will the police allow us and on what level?
Shall we have a look at politics? 
The law is homophobic, racist and anti working class, pro capitalist class (and was made by conservatives - small c) its enforced by people with similar prejudices... the law and the police cannot 'give' us what 'we want'... [this is NOT a claim for priviledged or elitist rule by a minority group of anarchists as some politically clueless would claim unless i disallowed it in the first place]


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2002)

Heeeeey - nice rhetoric (with an impressive dismissal of the site too - Police Review, indeed!), but for all the tub-thumping, have you actually got any real-world, achievable ideas for making things better for the residents of Brixton?

I'm all for hearing about radical ideologies, but right now I'd like to see some *action* towards sorting out the rising violence and social misery caused to the community by the rise of crack and smack. 

Any ideas? Or is it just words?


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

Clear and to the point, The Black Hand, though dismissing anyone who might disagree with you as "politically clueless" before they open their mouths is a familiar tactic - used to be favoured by (whisper it) Trots.

I sought out these boards to find out what a someone in charge of the police in the place I lived had been saying. In the event, I found a useful dialogue going on between other people who live in Brixton, about policing. (The forum is called "Brixton" after all)And I've learned much in the process.

But, if that engagement doesn't score high enough on some radicalometer and disqualifies me, then I'll piss off somewhere else!


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 7, 2002)

Editor

Does it take a £93k cop to bring the community together. Is he capable of bringing the whole community together, including those affected by the deaths of 3 people at the hands of his officers? Including those who experienced the MFJ march and are clear that it was an attack and that it was totally out of order?

And when the police harrass people "brought together", will they still be part of it?

You tell me that you have seen people cause problems on demos. I tell you I haven't. I haven't seen you on the demos either though! And I repeat - *I WAS NOT AT J18!!!!* 

I spoke to someone else who was on the MFJ march today - the story is consistent - all those who were there, tell the same tale. Paddicks officers behaved atrociously. And he says otherwise. 

He says people are free to protest in Brixton as long as they harm no-one , but  no-one was harmed and yet they were still attacked and threatened  by his officers.




edited to say:

Pooka - I guess all I can say is that I wouldn't attack people who had broken no laws!


----------



## pooka (Apr 7, 2002)

Sorry bout my rhetorical flounce above - felt a bit stung 



> _Originally posted by freethepeeps _
> *
> Pooka - I guess all I can say is that I wouldn't attack people who had broken no laws!  *



I don't think anyone here would disagree with that ftp. Thing is there are invariably conflicting accounts, as in this case. How should that be resolved?


----------



## agricola (Apr 7, 2002)

ftp,

in your long reply to the editor you said:



> _Originally posted by freethepeeps _
> *The situations where I come across cops are almost always at protests. The agenda there seems clear to me.
> 
> I don't see how, when I have first hand knowledge of the treatment of my friends at the hands of Brian's officers, that you can expect me to sweep that under the carpet and focus on the positives! Policing protests is part an parcel of the job, no?
> ...



Such protests are very rare in the year of the average policeman on the beat, and even rarer for the one that isnt trained in public order situations (levels I and II); its not therefore part and parcel of the job.  The ones that the average PC deals with are the ones that are on Richmond Terrace most weekends, which are of a different nature than mayday / j18.  Football is more common.
How, therefore, can you base your opinions of the police on such a narrow frame of reference?

With regard to the second one, do you mean here the Halloween thing?

Going back to the march, my station was the charge centre for the aftermath of the MFJ march, and my relief were kept on from late turn to man it.  If memory serves the overwhelming majority of the prisoners were people that had been looting.


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 7, 2002)

*It's not just what you see ...*



> _Originally posted by freethepeeps _
> *editor
> 
> However, I have seen a number of stop and searches in my neighbourhood recently, and I have yet to see it done with tact or sensitivity.
> ...



Maybe you didn't notice, or hear about, the ones done well.  Exactly the same as you don't notice the quietly effective and efficient football referee (only muppets like Durkin!).

And like police officers may fall in the trap of only noticing the anarchists throwing bottles at them, the black youths they're arresting for robbery ....

Generalisation on either side is not good and leads only into dead ends as far as dialogue is concerned.

As for reactions under stress (I think ats asked a couple of pages ago) - yeah, they're very different.  What officers know before the encounter begins (e.g. contents of briefing, short reports made against car numbers, vague descriptions from recent victims, etc.) all play a part (see the enquiry into the fatal shooting in Hastings).  

If you think you are / may be dealing with a dangerous situation you make sure you can react quickly enough to protect yourself / others (e.g armed officers having gun in hand - you could run at one from about 10m before they could draw and aim a holstered weapon).  You make sure you are able to deal with the worst scenario you can reasonably expect. 

... but unfortunately, as we are not blessed with 100% foresight, the people we are dealing with are not always the actual suspects we thought they may be.  That is where the care / explantion afterwards / apology comes in.  Sadly our lawyers (just like everyone elses - check out your car insurance policy) seem to equate an apology with an acceptance of guilt and thus an open invitation to sue - so they tell police officers not to do so until all the facts are in (i.e a complaint, an investigation and many months later).

This is the point where the supervisor, coming from a removed position, can (and should) make a huge difference (as illustrated by the custody officer story told by ats and Mrs.M).  It is very difficult, however, to explain to an officer that you are going to apologise for something they have done without being perceived as failing to support that officer.  But just because it's difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

(edited to insert important word omitted due to tiredness!)


----------



## editor (Apr 7, 2002)

FTP: you may not "have seen me at demos" but I've sure been on more than a few of them! 

But a lot of my experiences of the police - both very good and very, very bad - have come from attending Cardiff City football matches, where the differences between good policing and bad policing are very pronounced - that was one of the reasons I started the Football Fans vs the CJA campaign 

At footie games I've seen officers protecting me and my girlfriend from violent nutters and/or being reasonable, friendly and professional and I've seen stroppy, provocative, bullet-head psychos hell bent on creating trouble. 

But I've seen both sides, and that's why I won't join in with your blanket condemnation.

Do you go to high profile football matches? Do you think all policing is bad at footie games?


----------



## freethepeeps (Apr 8, 2002)

Editor

Yes, we have been on some of the same demos. However, my comments are based on recent demos, where I see the OTT policing of Mayday 2001 being used even where there is a small group of 6. Demos such as the Italian Demo (post Genoa and Indymedia), Swedish Embassy (post Gothenburg), Argentinian Embassy (Those Pesky Kids), Brixton MFJ March, Sodexho Occupation, Campsfield, DSEi and Benneton.

And, no, I don't go to football matches. Neither do I accept that football matches are the same as protests, if you are saying that people go to football matches intending to be violent, I am saying that all those demos had no indications that protestors intended to be violent, although the police had no compunction about using violence on a number of those actions. They were OTT on all of them.

Agricola

I am referring to the MFJ march in december - Brian denies that even a window was broken! The Halloween thing, that was not a protest.

The other places I frequently see cops are outside advertised public meetings, where they hang around photographing everybody and clearly setting out to harrass and intimidate people!

Detective Boy

If the problem is that PCs are stressed because of the briefings, then surely it is their supervisors who are doing that briefing. It was certainly senior cops who told reporters from the Observer that there was going to be a large group (possibly several hundred) intent on damaging banks, building societies and other symbols of capitalism. No doubt similar briefings, from senior cops will stress the coppers out on the day and they will then overreact. The Evening Standard reported on Friday that the police intend to use Mayday to "crush" the anti-capitalist movement!

Now, that seems to me to be an institutional problem that goes far beyond individual coppers. And if senior officers are behaving in that manner, I am not sure how effective dialogue is going to be!

Again, the stop and searches I see are random and badly handled. If there are "good" stop and searches, that does not make the bad ones ok, does it.

It seems to me that the Met sees anti-capitalist protestors as "bad" and "violent" all the time. That way they can justify their OTT behaviour, no? But you are saying to me:

"Ignore what you have experienced and take my word for it, some coppers are ok!" and I say to you: "I have yet to meet them!"


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 8, 2002)

*Beware the forces of recouperation....*

The title emphasizes that a previous generation of radicals were bought off [if you don't know what happened you should research it], and it looks like its easily happening here on Urban 75 without too much work on the part of the filth...

Pooka said  "Clear and to the point, The Black Hand, though dismissing anyone who might disagree
 with you as "politically clueless" before they open their mouths is a familiar tactic - used
to be favoured by (whisper it) Trots." poor little pooka, can't see the wood for the trees... actually i was having a go at all the cops on the board who would have said that sort of thing... if you're not radical enough that's your problem and not mine btw... 

Editor: there is a school of criminology called left realism (Jock Young, John Lea, Roger matthews et al)"radical in it's analysis and realistic in its policy proposals" and they say we should make the police more accountable (they've existed since the early 1980s) Now, currently what you're saying is Not radical in your analysis (about policing and society in Brixton) and yes you're engaging in  debate with the police (the policy proposals part)... Left realism was formed for precisely the same reasons you're going on about, 'now and today' etc and perhaps you should read their stuff? 

I think there are far more engaging and progressive things we could be doing rather than wasting our time on trying to reform a conservative institution... Strategically what does it do for us? and i take the points about trying to make Brixton a safer place (with reservations) Also you should consider for reasons the FTP and i have said earlier that THERE are NO policing solutions to the crime generated by capitalism (international and localised drug dealing) The causes of crime DO lie elsewhere, police are rather like teachers scolding us all and trying to keep us in line (while they bend the rules themselves...) Some of us grow up and go onto better things...  

BTW i haven't got a radical ideology, just a critical approach to institutions of capitalist domination and ideas for progressive positive action...


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2002)

TBH: so you freely admit you have absolutely *no* real-world, achievable solutions to the current problems in Brixton that are likely to win the support of the people who live there?

As a resident of Brixton who has to live with the very real problems caused by crack and smack, are you surprised that I get fed up with hearing the endless, interesting-but-ultimately-useless ideological 'solutions' that won't make a fucking tot of difference on the streets?

Paddick has earned my respect not because I've suddenly gone 'soft' on the police but because here is one *individual* who is managing to make real improvements to this community. The system may well be fucked up etc, but I'm not going to shout down someone who is making a difference just because it doesn't fit in with my political portfolio.

By directly addressing community groups, encouraging police openness and listening to a broad cross section of Lambeth society, he has earned the respect of many and come up with some effective ideas - which is more than I can say for many of his critics.

And please don't ever patronise me - and those who disagree with you - with bullshit about being 'bought off'. 

That really is rather insulting,


----------



## TinyCrendon (Apr 8, 2002)

Police have used terrible `tactics` against football fans and/or gangs since time. No one ever cared becasue they were `ruffians` running about trying to punch each other...



There is only one concrete proposal that will effect crack and heroin consumption and that is to decriminalise it. Without that there seems little point bothering.

If crack and heroin are to carry on being criminlalised it would appear better for the police's point of view to maintain a small number of very powerful criminal groups who control the trade. This would allow them to hit smaller dealers and give the impression or maybe even actually the creation of safer streets. However this tactic hasn't worked so far.

But in the present day the more dealers you sweep up the more there will be to fill the gap, then the others come out of jail and carry on.

Under present conditions I can only see a large upsurge in violence. I think we are at the stage the USA was some fifteen years ago with the availability of cocaine in the UK. And the basic political choice that has already been made by the political class is to use drugs to criminalise large amounts of the population. I can't see that changing. Nor can I see the police withdrawing support from that decision.


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2002)

Adam: I totally agree with you that the decriminalisation of drugs - accompanied with a parallel huge investment in education, support, health care and harm reduction - is the only realistic way forward (although I have reservations about crack).

I would disagree with your claim that no one cared about police/football violence though - there have been a host of football supporter's associations set up to publicise this issue.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 8, 2002)

*Its the police WHO FAIL and HAVE FAILED...*

Editor: "And please don't ever patronise me - and those who disagree with you - with bullshit about being 'bought off'.That really is rather insulting," Diddums... There was a REAl process of de-radicalising of the '68 generation and i called it 'bought off', perhaps there's been no payment this time (with jobs) but the fact remains there's a great deal of [ideological and more] recouperation going on here....

Also Editor said "TBH: so you freely admit you have absolutely *no* real-world, achievable solutions to the current problems in Brixton that are likely to win the support of the people who live there?" See my title to this post - the Police don't know... why is it MY personal responsibility to come up with a solution as well?  {its clearly not} 

All this 'police' are 'wonderful' if 'flawed' is also deeply patronising to those of us hassled, fitted up and beaten up by the police too... and the previous generations of ordinary people who have suffered similar experiences...


----------



## TinyCrendon (Apr 8, 2002)

Legalisation/decrim - each drug has to be considered separately. We were talking about this on another thread no ? I think crack must be removed from the criminal/illegal market like smack.

Footy- There were the anti-CJA groups like yours for sure but TBH they werent really representitive of the majority of the chaps who were going to footy at the time - ish ish. Not that im decrying the groups of anything. Late eighties no ? Lots of people who were mere hooligans (as opposed to the truly violent thug) got all sorts of treatment from OB, lots of bad sentences.

Its like the two chaps from Donal MacIntyre BBC `investigative`show, Frain and Marriner, they got big prison sentences for fuck all, but no one will support them being as they are the `undeserving poor` with right wing politics, like a fight etc etc. General footy hooligan point...


----------



## editor (Apr 8, 2002)

> All this 'police' are 'wonderful' if 'flawed' is also deeply patronising to those of us hassled, fitted up and beaten up by the police too... and the previous generations of ordinary people who have suffered similar experiences...


 Perhaps you might be so kind as to point me in the direction of a single, solitary post I've ever made that has anything even remotely approaching that opinion?

Throughout this dialogue - on this thread and others - I've gone to some considerable lengths to point out that I have been supporting *one* rather unique officer on *one* set of issues.

If you weren't so interested in point-scoring and dishing out the patronising lectures, you'd have learnt that I've been "hassled and fitted up" by the police on many, many occasions too, both at football matches and protests - and on one occasion, a 'fitting up' led to me enduring an Old Bailey trial. 

Trying to suggest that I'm of the opinion that the police are 'wonderful, if flawed' is just about as insulting as suggesting that I'm somehow being 'bought'.

(Edited to add: I see you've now changed your message around, but I can't be arsed to alter my reply to your original comments)


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 8, 2002)

Editor - i wasn't aiming at you....
i  saw this before too "If you weren't so interested in point-scoring and dishing out the patronising lectures, you'd have learnt that I've been "hassled and fitted up" by the police on many, many occasions too, both at football matches and protests - and on one occasion, a 'fitting up' led to me enduring an Old Bailey trial."

I was on about the general feeling that comes across from other posters.... i really didn't mean to get into an exchange with you and still don't....


----------



## pooka (Apr 8, 2002)

*Beware the forces of recouperation....*



> _poor little pooka, can't see the wood for the trees... if you're not radical enough that's your problem and not mine btw...
> 
> BTW i haven't got a radical ideology, just a critical approach to institutions of capitalist domination and ideas for progressive positive action... [/B]_


_

Thanks for your concern The Black Hand, your wood and your trees I suspect. But I don't fret about not being "radical enough",, whatever that means.

But we have yet to hear your ideas for progressive positive action. Some indication of just what fraction of the population you would expect to carry with you would be helpful too_


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 8, 2002)

Pooka, i'm not carrying anybody behind me, alongside perhaps... see you on mayday


----------



## pooka (Apr 8, 2002)

Thanks The Black Hand,
That the extent of your answer or just a little something pro tem?


----------



## detective-boy (Apr 8, 2002)

> _Originally posted by freethepeeps _
> *
> Detective Boy
> 
> ...



The point I was trying to make was not that the briefings themselves stressed the officers - just that when operating in a stressed environment and with little time to make a decision,  what officers have been told in briefings takes on great importance.

It is not done deliberately by senior officers, and the importance of the content / wording of briefings has been recognised for some years.

As for "bad" stop and searches - no it doesn't make it OK.  That's why I have always tried to challenge poor / bad behaviour and why many of my collegaues do so also.

It's just that "you're crap all the time" is not a very helpful way of engaging people in dialogue about most subjects.  People tend to turn off ... and police officers are people (a fact that is often forgotten!).

And as for never meeting any OK coppers ... how many have you actually met (out of the 27,000 the Met has) other than in confrontational, on-duty situations?  (and I'm not saying this is your problem - how many coppers live and socialise in Central London? (for reasons discussed elsewhere on these boards).

My experience accords with Brians:  most officers, most of the time are trying to do a very difficult (and sometimes impossible) job to the best of their (varying) ability.  If you don't know any, chances are you'll never believe it from Brian, me or anyone else.


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 8, 2002)

I'm getting a tad confused. I agree with editor about decriminalisation but I don't think that we are in a position to do that yet. I also don't think that decriminalisation will have much effect on crime rates without addressing poverty and education. I also think that it would also increase the strain on the provision of health care. Smoking, drinking and drug taking all have detrimental effects on health, even if indulged in moderately. 

I have read so many negative things about the police here, could someone please tell me what sort of police force they want.  Are you really saying that you want the police to allow people to behave exactly as they like, without regard for the rights of people who don't happen to share your views. I sometimes think that to be a radical is a form of cowardice, to propose solutions that are clearly unworkable and unacceptable, just because you fear to get to grips with the reality that has to be dealth with.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 8, 2002)

I am going to firmly nail my colours to the mast here. I am not working towards a better police service because I am hugely enamoured of our boys in blue. I am however hugely enamoured of those few that are working towards what I want from a police service. I have been arrested for burglary and held illegally for eight hours, without food or water, and threatened with violence by the West Midlands police when I had every right and permission to be in the residential premises they entered illegally. I was in fact a guest of the owner.  I have been roughed up by an officer under the command of James Anderton (who was present) and seen a 9 year old child assaulted by the same officer during an illegal eviction. This is all really minor compared to what some have suffered.

I know what can happen with  rotten and racist police officers. I am one of the directors of an organisation that was set up by a close friend of mine, Johnny Kamara, who did nearly 20 years for a murder that he didn't commit. Nearly 16 years of that sentence was spent in solitary. We are in negotiation with various agencies, including the Home Office, involved in setting up an after-care service for victims of miscarriages of Justice, the vast majority of whom are suffering from PTSD. 

I know other miscarriages of justice too, Raph Rowe and Michael Davis of the M25 Three, Paddy Hill of the Birmingham 6, Mick O'Brien of the Cardiff Three, Peter Fell and many others. Knowing them, and the anguish they all still suffer makes me work all the harder for an accountable and transparent police service. No fringe political movement is going to help me with that, mainly because of their antagonistic attitude and unbendingly blinkered vision and complete lack of ability to negotiate and compromise. They also don't seem to have grasped the fact that there is not going to be a revolution, not even after Closing Time.

Oh, and I stopped going on marches, not because of the police, but because of trouble from within the protesters ranks. I have kids and I am not prepared to have sticks from placards hurled over their heads at the police, as happened on the last march I went on in the 90s, apart from disabilty rights ones. I just thought, "Right, that's it. I am not going to put up with this, and neither are my kids." The vast majority of people that I know that support non-violent protest that have children or are in any way vulnerable themselves just don't do public protest any more because they don't like the violence. Wherever that violence comes from, whichever side starts it, it's always loud mouth blokes that want a ruck.


----------



## pooka (Apr 9, 2002)

Fair play to ya Mrs M!


----------



## ats (Apr 9, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Peter Matisse _
> *I have read so many negative things about the police here, could someone please tell me what sort of police force they want.  Are you really saying that you want the police to allow people to behave exactly as they like, without regard for the rights of people who don't happen to share your views.*



I think quite a lot of people on these boards are arguing for the same thing, Peter.  They want a police force that is answerable to the community it polices.  Even here, I think the majority of people are willing to admit that, when violent men with guns threaten us, we need to give the police power to deal with them.

But we do not want to live in tyranny.  The more powers the police are given, the greater the danger that those powers will be abused, and the greater the need for checks and balances.  Lambeth - and Brixton in particular - has been in the forefront of that debate for twenty years.  Perhaps that is why Brian Paddick wanted to work here.

It's not about people behaving exactly as they like - there are too many bastards who want to behave in ways that would make life unbearable for the rest of us to have that as a general principle.   I'd say it's about having a democratic society that makes laws that we all accept, even if we disagree with them and are fighting to change them, and a police force that implements those laws without behaving brutally to the population.

And we want to see a police force that is free of institutional racism/sexism/homophobia/disablism etc.

The issue being discussed here and now in Brixton is about community and police.  If policing is something that is imposed on us by force, it will not be very successful.  But if the police are willing, as Paddick has shown himself willing, to listen to us, to explain themselves to us and negotiate with what we want, we may arrive at something that maximises the freedom of the whole community and justifies the powers that the police are given.


----------



## Peter Matisse (Apr 9, 2002)

Mrs Magpie; Ats - Thanks for your views. I think very much in the same way as you do. I have not suffered at the hands of the police at all and I have respect and admiration for them. I also  think that there are some officers who are either racist, sexist, homophobic or thugs. There are just as many, hopefully more, who are not. Like you I have issues about the transparency of the process that the police adopt when dealing with complaints made against them, and that other police officers conduct the investigations. I also am very uneasy about the militaristic nature of the police force and it's culture. Some of the police statements that I have read regarding the cases of wrongful covictions that you mentioned have also angered me. It seems to me that the police, on some occasions, always see themselves as right even when they are clearly wrong. My reason in asking the question is because I have read a lot on this site about what has happened to people at the hands of the police, but not many suggestions about what should be done in order to prevent such things in the future, and what sort of police force we should have in the 21st Century. I do think that it is easy to sit in the trench of ideology, behind the walls of dogma, lobbing grenades of rhetoric over the top. Sometimes you have to be brave enough to walk out into nomansland with an olive branch to sit down and talk. I joined the debate on this site because I have lived here since the late 70's. I love living here. I hate the fact that people who live in Brixton have to put up with such negativity. Even today all some people seem to know about Brixton are the race riots in the eighties. I came to this site out of my support for Brian Paddick in the hope of linking up with other supporters of his and offering my help. I think that Brian Paddick is not only an extraordinary police officer but an extraordinary human being as well. In some ways he may be the most radical of all, because he has managed to retain his open views through a long career in the police force. I also think that his example will be very important to new recruits in the police force, as it clearly demonstrates what a positive response members of the public have to his inclusive way of thinking. My question was not meant to be interpreted as a slur on anyone on this site, or as any sort of put down. It was just a plain question beacause I do not have the wit to work out which direction some people on this thread want to go in terms of the future of policing in Brixton. You have both answered my question and I hope you will perceive that I am very much in line with your views.


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

Peter - I think what you've perceived, as I have (also a newcomer) is two strains in these threads. One sees, and possibly experienced, real faults with policing but believes that something can be achieved to improve it, to all our benefits. And some of those contributing have got off their arses to do something about it over a long slog, on the evidence Mrs M, ats and Brian Paddick at least.

Others either repudiate the notion the law and its policing - but don't say so directly - or point to faults but offer no remedies.

Not hard to choose sides on that one


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 10, 2002)

Looking at my last post, I see that there is a whole chunk missing........God knows how I managed that! There was a whole load of stuff about protecting the most vulnerable in society, how crime affects us all and Restorative Justice! Heigh ho, perhaps I'll add it tomorrow.........Also Peter, it wasn't in answer to your post, more as a riposte to some of what had been posted previously.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 10, 2002)

*If 'Realism' means more unaccountable deaths you can stuff it...*

Pooka said some time ago "But, if that engagement doesn't score high enough on some radicalometer and  disqualifies me, then I'll piss off somewhere else!" thats why i commented " if you're not radical enough that's your problem and not mine btw..." and thats still the case... 

There are many approaches to the police [YOUR woods/trees], from fascist ones (ie they are NOT racist enough!) to anarchist and abolitionist ones that are well thought out and very coherent and practical. just cos you don't know about them don't assume they don't exist - it is a school of thought that is quite influential in certain countries where even judges know something of it and agree unlike here.

To be honest Pooka i have the answer BUT i refuse to put it here    
Go ahead, try to reform the police all you want... how long will you give it before you acknowledge there might be a flaw in the strategy? People have been trying already for decades....

The Black Hand
Critical and proud and engaging. 

PS. On the contrary Peter it is too easy to try to reform using the existing institutions, it is your cowardice that is not letting you look elsewhere...


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

*If 'Realism' means more unaccountable deaths you can stuff it...*



> _Originally posted by The Black Hand _
> *.........anarchist and abolitionist ones that are well thought out and very coherent and practical.
> To be honest Pooka i have the answer BUT i refuse to put it here
> *



Says everything and nothing, The Black Hand.
Perhaps you could give us a clue, like in which countries these well thought out, coherent and practical solutions had been put to work and with what results?


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 10, 2002)

*If 'Realism' means more unaccountable deaths you can stuff it...*



> _Originally posted by The Black Hand _
> *On the contrary Peter it is too easy to try to reform using the existing institutions, it is your cowardice that is not letting you look elsewhere... *



That statement is a pile of shite with a cherry on the top frankly. It reminds me of a quote on a thread started by pk
The Black Hand...I am well known in Anarchist circles...
John Wisehammer...Yeah, well known as that fuckwit in the corner....


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

Aw, let me down lightly Mrs M. I thought I was engaging with a "professional revolutionary" who's going to set some bangers off outside Downing Street while Betty and crew are having dinner. Now, that will change the world


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 10, 2002)

*Many liberals have eyes but refuse to see...*

Magpie - it get's irritating when there's an argument aimed at us by Peter calling 'radicals cowards' and i'm not allowed to reply using the same language... I could go on and say Magpie is known as the fucking liberal reformist bastard from Brixton but i won't cos i'm not like that...
When you want a grown up debate i'll be there...

It shouldn't look like this -
magpie "i'm really nice you know trying so much"
The ghost of Harry Stanley "....**&%$£*&**...."

You replied to my post by saying " That statement is a pile of shite with a cherry on the top frankly." and didn't say why.... 

Pooka - well you've acheived fuck all change yourself .... Thanks for looking at my profile btw it shows 'you care'.... 

The Black Hand - still refusing to play the liberal rigged game that changes nothing that matters....


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

"To be honest Pooka i have the answer BUT i refuse to put it here"

"When you want a grown up debate i'll be there..."

Dissonance or what?


"Pooka - well you've acheived fuck all change yourself "

How'd you know what I've achieved or not?

Btw "professional" means getting paid for what you do. Is someone paying you to be a revolutionary? We should be told!

But, I'm mostly here to learn - hopefully I might contribute something, others can judge. But I've given up on learning much from yourself The Black Hand. Forgive me if I seem to politely ignore you from here on.

{Edited to add} "Magpie is well know as................", wow Mrs M., you score on every count, puts you right up there on my estimation


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 10, 2002)

*Many liberals have eyes but refuse to see...*



> _Originally posted by The Black Hand _
> *I could go on and say Magpie is known as the fucking liberal reformist bastard from Brixton but i won't cos i'm not like that...*


 Actually, apart from the fucking bastard bit that's all true and I'm happy with that.........just remember, without us liberal reformists, homosexuality would still be a crime.
Also "it is too easy to try to reform using the existing institutions". No it bloody well isn't. It's fucking hard, stressful work. That part of your statement made me really angry.
As for the cowardice bit, I must confess that I hadn't noticed that Peter had said something similar to you, so I won't get drawn further into that one.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 10, 2002)

I would say also that trying to reform institutions is the easy option. This does not mean that trying to achieve reform is not hard work.

I can think of loads of people who have dedicated a life of service to achieving meaningful reform. 

Take examples from the Labour Party for example. Tony Benn is a selfstated radical socialist who has fought tooth and nail for a better Labour party. He after a lifetime has got...Nowhere. 

It is a reasonable (IMHO) view that this lack of progress was pre ordained. That is was never possible for the Labour party to be anything other than a capitalist party and that all his efforts were wasted from the start.

It could also be argued that if he was less blinkered he may of realised this and took a different path, perhaps the rocky path of radical/revolutionary change.

He may well of still got nowhere but his efforts may have inspired others rather than acting as an example of going up the garden path.


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

Nope - Benn was always too much of a parliamentarian to go that way. Re-inented himself recently as a cuddly, elder statesman. He is certainly very erudite, likeable and mostly sincere.

It's not fair to say he achieved nothing - Benn and the bennites did more than their fair share to make the Labour Party so out off step with voters that they put the Tories in for 18 years.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 10, 2002)

Don't forget Mrs Magpie's example of homosexuality not being illegal any more (so there's still discrimination, too much, but don't forget it used to be *totally* criminalised). And that was partly down to that fat complacent liberal Roy Jenkins (under pressure from both activists *and* liberals). Likewise abolition of capital punishment.

TC you are selective in picking Tony Benn as your example. There are others. Without Aneurin Bevan there wouldn't be a Health Service for instance.

Just because the Labour Party is shite now doesn't mean it didn't achieve worthwhile liberal reforms in the past. Some of which have not been totally undone.


----------



## TopCat (Apr 10, 2002)

WoW said:





> TC you are selective in picking Tony Benn as your example. There are others. Without Aneurin Bevan there wouldn't be a Health Service for instance.



Well of course I am. I would disagree that reformism was the main factor behind the setting up of the NHS.

My grandfather (RIP) was very much of the view that so many servicemen came home from the war determined to achieve change AND brought all sorts of weaponary with them and that THIS was the factor that caused the government to throw us the tasty bone known as the NHS, he felt that this, and the subsequent house building programme were set up to stop the ruling class's bering killed in their beds.

Anyway, what I was trying to point out is that to want to achieve across the board change but to settle for a long and arduous path of attempting reformism can be a waste of time. Just as to agitate for a revolution that is nowhere near can/is also a waste of time.

The ruling class have stitched it all up. Whichever way you choose to act they will attempt to stop you.

I would say live and let live whatever your approach, I have a problem though when reformist or "fluffy" types try to dictate to others how they shold protest. The example of CND officials in the 80's bringing the police over to arrest people who were cutting the fence at Molesworth instead of forming a ring a roses with bells comes to mind but there are loads more possibly relevent examples.


----------



## John Wisehammer (Apr 10, 2002)

*eh?*

Mrs Magpie:

"John Wisehammer...Yeah, well known as that fuckwit in the corner...."

What is this about? 

I haven't even been reading this thread in over a month, let alone posting, and I don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you think that The Black Hand and I have much in common, then you're just showing the extent of your false assumptions. Would you care to explain or are you just content to throw abuse about?


----------



## editor (Apr 10, 2002)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick, John...


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

More a case of "Is that a gobstopper or just a tongue in you're cheek", I thought


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 10, 2002)

*JWH*

As not Mrs M quoting some jokey jibe you may?? have had in the past against TBH?? Can't remember it myself, but I suppose its possible ...


----------



## TopCat (Apr 10, 2002)

Was it not connected to a spat you had with TBH over the shoplifting thread? I seem to remember a lot of insults and a couple of treasured comments by TBH about being very good at karate...

Anyway....


----------



## John Wisehammer (Apr 10, 2002)

*the sound of one handing clapping (against my forehead)*

Oh, I _seeeeeee_ - aww right, yes. Ahh, William's bringing back vague memories. Well, TBH and I have had a bit of a "knockabout" discourse in the past but I think we both recognise it's hyperbolic bollocks not to be taken seriously between two people who know the other is just posturing a bit (at least, I bloody hope so!). Which is funny, because if he'd called me a fuckwit, I wouldn't have batted an eyelid but when you think it comes out of nowhere from someone, it can be quite upsetting >sniff< which is doubly odd because if it's someone that doesn't know you, why should you care?

Ahem - anyway, apologies, Mrs Magpie, if I've got it backwards there. Back to the topic (whatever it is)!

(TC: not to worry. I may not know karate but I could outrun that fat bastard any day of the week!   )

****

TC - when you're talking about the above point, do you mean there's pressure on the government because (working class) ex-soldiers are in a morally/socially strong position to negotiate (as they've just been acclaimed as heroes defenders etc etc), or do you mean that the fact that each serviceman tried to bring home a Luger from the war meant that there was a serious risk of armed insurrection?

I find the latter quite hard to believe (though I'm willing to be convinced) but the former's got something going for it. Soldiers returning from war have been quite important in getting social housing built and the vote (ww1 - am I right about the vote there? not sure), welfare state (ww2), disabled rights (vietnam) and general political dissent, esp through disabled vets' organisations (arguably, soviet afghanistan), but I dunno if it's all/anything to do with the weapons. After all, how many more weapons could the US take?

There's probably loads of books about this. Has anyone read any of them?


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 10, 2002)

Pooka i really couldn't give a flying fuk (wow) what you do, and i'm not here to be your teacher. bad Pooka, 6 of the best... quite clearly you've changed nothing, if you have shout it out and be proud about it - mine was what you call an educated guess...
as for being a professional that is a joke... and somebody with experience would have known that....

As usual TC is talking sense and if you read my posts you would see that i encourage people to go ahead and try to reform... BUT you must reassess your tactics after a suitable period (as i and many others do) There is ALWAYS more than one way, and i see what reform has acheived and WHAT IT HAS NOT ACHIEVED... 

IMHO the abolitionist school of criminology and associated political strategies are better... {i know and i'm not telling   } 

call me a kid if you like but i get my kicks like this 
The Black Hand


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

The Beveridge plan was actually drawn up during the War by a Liberal. Soldiers coming back had endured hell and demanded a "land fit for heroes".  They demonstrated what they wanted by booting out Churchill and giving Labour a landslide. That didn't stop the Tories fighting the creation of the NHS every inch of the way.

Clearly the "ruling class" did not stifle their opposition to the welfare state either before or immediately after that election. They were simply outvoted. The consensual post war settlement, and then Butskillism came later. Of course it's possible to argue that there the "ruling class" could have stopped the welfare state if they had wanted to, and it was only the thought of all that armory hidden on folks allotments that made their attempts half-hearted. Possible to argue, because it can't be disproved, like all good conspiracy theories. But if there was so much amory about, how come it's been so slow to surface? I don't recall reports of grenades in the gardenias or bayonets in the begonias at any time over the last 40 years.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 10, 2002)

BTW JOhn (JWH) i never said anything of the sort to you... that is a lie.


----------



## pooka (Apr 10, 2002)

Bugger - can't resist 
The Black Hand:

"as for being a professional that is a joke" - erm, my question was less than serious, ---- "someone with experience...."

"that i encourage people to go ahead and try to reform... " Blimey! Throughout this whole thread you've castigated reformers and scorned the whole idea of reform in respect of the police, the criminal justice system and pretty much everything else.

"I see what reform has acheived and WHAT IT HAS NOT ACHIEVED..." Yup, and I see what revolution has and has not achieved - usually ends in a Gulag someplace.

"abolitionist school of criminology" - The penny's finally dropped - you're gonna abolish crime! Brilliant! Do you do that walking on water thing too? 

Note though, that whilst I may disagree with you I make no assumptions about who you are or what you have or haven't done. A little less patronage from your side is in order


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 10, 2002)

*I should really try to stop being POOkas teacher...*

Pooka - who's talking about revolution? Not me, it's not on the agenda at all... our movement will have to get substantially bigger [200 times at least] before we are anywhere near...
Your lack of sophistication in the varieties and historical experience of revolution also betrayed inexperience...

Pooka said "abolitionist school of criminology" - The penny's finally dropped - you're gonna abolish crime! Brilliant! Do you do that walking on water thing too?" 
surely you should know something about the subject before you pronounce on it in such a crass way like you did here? 


Pooka i've got what is known as an open approach, i encourage people to get on with nearly anything but there has to strategic reassessment at some point doesn't there? That doesn't stop me being in your face when i perceive there to be weaknesses in arguments...

Finally in the current climate with open and hidden coppers all over these boards i think you were a bit stupid to say we're going to let 'bangers' off at the Choke on it action on April 29th... that is a sure way to get the heavy handed cops all over our backs that nite... thankyou very much... 

to stress again for all the cops watching we're intending a peaceful demo if a bit noisy against the Queen and nothing more....

The Black Hand


----------



## ats (Apr 11, 2002)

(edited to remove duplicate posting)


----------



## ats (Apr 11, 2002)

*eh?*



> _Originally posted by John Wisehammer _
> *I haven't even been reading this thread in over a month, let alone posting, and I don't have a clue what you're talking about. If you think that The Black Hand and I have much in common, then you're just showing the extent of your false assumptions.  *



John has got the wrong end of the stick, but I don't blame him.  The posting does read at first glance as though Mrs M is dissing him.  Actually, she's quoting with approval something he said about the Black Hand.  I know this, because she's quoted it to me on more than on occasion.

So don't worry John, you are still admired.


----------



## Mrs Magpie (Apr 11, 2002)

Yes it really wasn't clear what I meant, apologetic pms sent to JWH. I mainly remembered it, not because of the two people mentioned. I remembered it because it made me laugh and I was hoping to rework it into a different context and format at a later date! You'd know all about that ats....outing ats as ex-stand up comic....much missed on the circuit very funny comedian.........lobbing neat polemic in a very funny routine......


----------



## pooka (Apr 11, 2002)

The Black Hand:

I don't really want tuition from you The Black Hand (Somehow you're style is not one I associate with a natural teacher and I wouldn't want you to exert yourself against the grain )

But if you dismiss other people's efforts to effect positive change, then intellectual honesty demands that you say what you would do instead.  Reciting formulae is not enough; they are open to all sorts of interpretation as I gently pointed out (I thought you'd appreciate the humour, you indicated such in an earlier post   )

But you steadfastly refuse to offer any cogent policy. Given your terminally damming analysis of the police and the law, your distain for any evolutionary policy of reform, then it is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that your approach, wreathed in enigma as it is, may well be revolutionary. And yes, I am mindful that that might take many forms, but frequently ending in adverse consequences.

You are certainly right to point to the need to undertake strategic assessments of achievment; if we had some notion of just what your approach might be then we could take tally - reformist achievements vs whateveritis.

But I must apologise. You did not suggest setting off bangers outside Downing Street. Whistles, banners and cameras it said. I was speaking loosely and I'm sorry for any embarrasment I've caused you 

You preface your current post on the Choke on it "action" with mention the behavior of the police to homeless people, based on what friends have told you. I have helped provide services to homeless people and have never seen this, though I've heard the stories. I have seen police acting like social workers however and the only times I've seen force used were in protecting homeless people, people working with homeless people or the police themselves from people getting out of hand, usually through drink though occasionally mental illness. I wouldn't presume to lecture an anarchist on the importance of relying first and foremast on your own observation.


----------



## The Black Hand (Apr 11, 2002)

*Everyday 'Normalised repression' needs to be politicised*

Pooka - as for POlice behaviour to homeless people i've known people and worked in the  field myself for over 10 years... the information i have is from very trusted sources who have many more instances of police insensitivity, ignorance, brutality and slackness between them... 

Pooka said "But you steadfastly refuse to offer any cogent policy. Given your terminally damming
 analysis of the police and the law, your distain for any evolutionary policy of reform, then it
  is not unreasonable to draw the conclusion that your approach, wreathed in enigma as it
 is, may well be revolutionary. And yes, I am mindful that that might take many forms, but
frequently ending in adverse consequences." 

If i am an engima then so is everybody else! This opposition of what is meant to 'revolutionary' from 'evolutionary' is nonsense... Everyday life is not framed in ways of seeing like this.... oh, i must be evolutionary at the supermarket today instead of revolutionary shoplifting etc... Basically its a false argument to begin with, lets look at the concrete proposals and then we might be able to have a REAL debate at the way forward... 

As for 'adverse consequences' you have to be clear about the particular societies that the actions happened in and have an objective assesment of what was politically possible at the time. As well as analysis of the ideological nature of the various groups and classes involved... Also you seem to be forgetting that the biggest genocides in history have been capitalist and that 34000 (so Free the Peeps said) children are dying everyday because of capitalist social relations like we find in Britain... 

Pooka perhaps you should ask yourself what crime is? Why over 90% of people in prison (prison pop 70000 and rising) are in for property related offences that cannot be divorced from capitalist social relationships even if their consciousness is not 'revolutionary' 'anarchist' 'communist'...
What are the causes of crime?  I know that the criminal justice system as it stands is extremely harmful and dangerous to people who it sees as its property - prisons are not known as universities of crime for no reason.... We need to go back to basics and repoliticise everyday relationships that go under the guise of depoliticised normalised repression today... 
That is my political priority, dissect it as you like...

the Black Hand


----------



## pooka (Apr 11, 2002)

The Black Hand: Thanks for taking the time to set out your response so extensively - though still no concrete proposals. I shall mull over and get back to you when I have more time


----------



## pooka (Apr 19, 2002)

The Black Hand:

I've taken the time to read through some of the other threads, your contributions to them and indeed some of the references you've posted. I think our views of how the world works are so divergent that the chances of us having any common ground over practical policies, in relation to policing and protest for example, are infinitesimal. And cycling round the arguements is likely to drive everyone else here crazy!

However, I'm sure our paths will cross from time to time


----------



## DaveCinzano (Apr 29, 2015)

Brian said:


> Well, well, well (or should it be hello, hello, hello, what's all this 'ere then?)
> 
> *We really thought* that the MFJ march was going to be hijacked like the last one and end up with loads of shops trashed.  We did not attack anyone - we just kept them from going back to the town centre because we did not want any trouble.  No windows went in either - well none that were reported to us anyway.
> 
> On the reason for the march, I deeply, deeply regret that anyone should lose their life.  No matter what the circumstances, no one deserves that.  OK stun guns might be OK (like if the other guy has a knife) but not when the other guy has a gun. * I do not know why Alex lost his job.  I know nothing about that*.



I suspect that these (and other) comments may come back to haunt Good Ol' Bri, Lambeth Filth, the Met as a whole, and certain serving and former officers.


----------

