So the latest non-Tory to be touted for the London mayoralty is Brian Paddick, the deputy assistant commissioner of the Met who is retiring in July. Like Greg Dyke, he is said to have Liberal Democrat sympathies. Unlike Greg Dyke, though, he has hinted in the past that he might be rather keen on a political career. He's certainly got some of the right attributes, although staying loyal to a party line might be a test for him.
Maverick and slightly bonkers.
ReplyDeleteI remember Brian Paddick - the gay police superintendent who smokes cannabis. He will be a suitable opponent for Ken Livingstone as is confirmed by this 4-year old paragraph on him from the Guardian:
ReplyDeleteIn rebuilding his career he had allies, including fellow officers and Ken Livingstone, the mayor of London. Lee Jasper, the mayor's leading adviser on policing and equality, said Mr Paddick was one of the finest officers he has ever met: "He understands the necessity to have a listening ear, and to be genuinely transparent and honest, including at times of crisis."
I think he has been touted in Lib Dem circles for a while and on Lib Dem blogs for at least a week.
ReplyDeleteOh, God, every time I hear the word Paddick I think of "Hello. My name's Julian 'n' this is my friend Sandy."
ReplyDeleteThis Paddick isn't as funny, though. Smokes cannabis and says he is strangely attracted to anarchy. What a self-serving, self-promoting, egotistical prat.
Anyone wondering why there has been such a growth in violent crimes by gangs fighting over the drug trade in South London need look no further than Brian Paddick's policy of "100% tolerance".
ReplyDeleteOnly last night I got off the bus at Brixton, walked past a police office and within ten yards was being offered "skunk, skunk, weed, dope, coke? skunk skunk...?" Paddick sent the message that breaking the law with dope was okay. Is it any wonder gangs have become more audacious in their law-breaking?
If he does stand I hope we Tories have nothing to do with him, and tear him to pieces on his record.
PS it seems his political ambitions have been touted for a while: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1664724,00.html
You don't have to be loyal to a "party line" if you are mayor. That's the point. You are the party line.
ReplyDeleteIn a sense this is what Blair understood about Livingstone back in 1999/2000 - he knew there was nothing to constrain him. That's why he was so desperate to stop him.
He's quite a progressive copper, introduced a radical plan to tackle cannabis selling in Brixton, got shit for daring to engage the local community via Urban75 (read about it here: http://www.urban75.org/paddick/) and was given a rough ride by the usual reactionary rightwing press...
ReplyDeleteI doubt he'd have much chance against Ken tbh, he just hasn't got the same level of profile.
It would certainly make for an interesting election if he did (there was talk he was being courted by both the LibDems and Tories a few years back too) though.
Well said Verity. Anyone who would vote for this self serving disloyal unproductive (policing-wise) indivividual should reconsider. 'Progressive' is the last word, anyone who knows him or has served in the same organisation as him, would use to describe him. Proved himself unable to represent the police service after the London Tube Bombs, introduced a disastrous policy in respect of cannabis in Lambeth which incidentally increased the bureacracy as well as the criminal and anti-social consequences of drug use and dealing, and for the last couple of years hasn't been taken seriously, which was a shame as I believe he had something important to say about the 'De Menezes' - alas no credibility left. We'll have to endure the book as well as everything else before he sinks into well deserved obscurity.
ReplyDeleteDitto verity. We are over represented by non law abiding oddities.
ReplyDeleteThis finding a candidate business is turning into a farce. At least this time round no-one is suggesting Jeffrey Archer - or perhaps that is still to come.
ReplyDeleteLambether:
ReplyDeletePaddick sent the message that breaking the law with dope was okay. Is it any wonder gangs have become more audacious in their law-breaking?
If he does stand I hope we Tories have nothing to do with him, and tear him to pieces on his record.
Ha ha ha. Nice one.
Meanwhile Dave-id Cameron sends a message that not only is taking drugs - before a political career, but limits unspecified - but that smashing up restaurants, getting bladdered and bottling foxes is also fine. A long as you have the money to pay the poor hoi polloi some damages on the spot.
Well I would be very happy to see the LibDems select Paddick as their Mayoral candidate since he is unelectable in that role in London and would seem unlikely to be able to switch Tory voters to him.He will also not be able to call upon the LibDem's support within the Muslim communities of London, which is based upon their opposition to the Iraq war, since they are by and large extremely homphobic. Equally he should in theory take the bulk of the floating gay voters,who voted Labour last time, especially after Livingtone's widely publicised support for a rabidly homophobic Islamic preacher
ReplyDeleteSo just so long as no twit at CCHQ starts to "think outside the box" again it can't be a bad thing for us.
Good thinking, Matt Davis! Agree.
ReplyDeleteI think the idea of a celebrity opponent for Livingstone is a poor one. What I believe should be done instead is get the person best qualified for the job and the strategy should then be to tear apart Livingstone precisely because he is obsessed with his own ego and celebrity. For example you could have a campaign saying something like "whilst Ken was off creating his own foreign policy Gun Crime rose by xx%" or whilst ken was off buying oil from his South American Friends your tax bill increased by £xxx". I really think a celebrity Mayor is exactly the opposite of what is needed.
ReplyDeleteI'd be very happy to see the system of a directly elected mayor scrapped altogether, and if only some party would offer the electors in London a referendum on whether they'd prefer to do that. I was struck by what Ray Mallon said in the Guardian yesterday:
ReplyDeletehttp://politics.guardian.co.uk:80/localgovernment/story/0,,2067231,00.html
"RoboCop ready to fight again for job he does not believe in"
"Ray Mallon tells Hélène Mulholland why he disagrees with the concept of elected mayors"
"Mallon claims that the mayoral model is open to abuse by the power-crazy. He realised that after meeting another mayor early in his tenure - whom he refuses to name."
"... If you get a mayor who was power-mad, he could bring a town down or a city, so you can see I am not completely sold on the elected mayor idea."
I can say with certainty that there is no chance.
ReplyDeleteThe people at the top don't want him to run.
Wasn't he the guy who used to be in Benny Hill? I thought he died?
ReplyDeleteThe Commander is one of the few people who, I think, could get to grips with the serious law and order problem which desperately needs to be addressed in London.
ReplyDeleteWhat I am not certain of is whether a maverick like him, who likes to think the unthinkable on addressing crime, will get the broad consensus support he needs to win office.
His natural supporters are probably fairly happy with Ken Livingstone, but let's wait and see what policy prospectus he will be running on.
Well, if verity doesn't like him he has already gone up in my estimation..
ReplyDeleteSmokes cannabis and says he is strangely attracted to anarchy. What a self-serving, self-promoting, egotistical prat.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying the idea of not having a state to tell you what you can and cannot do isn't attractive? I must have misinterpreted your presence on the Samizdata blog.
I admire that there are people in public service who realise that government should not have immense power.
For his time, Paddick was, as has been said, incredibly progressive. That he actually went out of his way to engage with the Urban75 forum is a credit to him. This was long before chief constables decided to buy themselves vanity soothers such as their own blog (which, being the clueless fuckwits that some of them are, they still don't know how to use properly).
He also realises the limitations of fighting an unceasing battle against market forces, where the illicit drugs trade is concerned, but managed to understand how the criminal and social harm aspect of it could be reduced.
As someone who respects the rights of the individual, defends order and places great importance on the strength of the community, I'd certainly be pleased to see him run under a Conservative banner. It might finally shake some of you Daily Mail Tories from the tree, which would be an achievement in itself...
Machiavelli's Understudy - I don't think engaging in activities that can endanger the lives of others who have not given their permission to be so jeopardised is a libertarian standpoint. I find it grotesque.
ReplyDeleteMarijuana is increasingly found to be paranoid-inducing over a long period and has been responsible for many recent murders based on paranoid behaviour. It's not harmless.
The reason humans tend to congregate is, they don't want chaos and anarchy. They want the rule of order and the protection of the law - in other words a framework in which to live their lives without hindrance.
Paddick, in the manner of a rebellious adolescent, thinks anarchy is strangely attractive.
He should get out of the law enforcement business.
Where is Steve Norris when we need him?
ReplyDeleteVerity,
ReplyDeletei really do not see the logic in saying that the possibility that heavy cannabis consumption can lead to paranoia is a suitable one on which to ban it.
heavy consumption of alcohol can lead husbands to beat wives, excessive playing of computer games can cause teenagers to think violence is a way to solve all their problems. we do not ban either of these things.
the dangerous thing is not the substance itself, but the excessive use of it by irresponsible human beings.
to ban a substance is to acknowledge that most human beings can never be trusted to use it responsibly.
to legalise a substance is to acknowledge that most human beings cannot learn to act responsibly if not entrusted with responsibilities in the first place.
i really do not see how you can call yourself libertarian when you subscribe to a view which effectively amounts to the exact opposite.
ditto what ranter said.
ReplyDeletePolice careerist rather than leader.
The better idea is Sir John Stephens.
I'm not a total libertarian and I don't know how anyone can be, although I do realise that Perry de Havilland comes very close.
ReplyDeleteThere is evidence coming out now that steady use of cannabis - it doesn't have to be in excess, although I would say that any use of this drug is excessive - produces permanent brain damage and dangerous levels of agression and delusion. In other words, not just the desire to have a drunken punch-up, but a level of anxiety that produces a determination to kill. There have been several instances over the last couple few years that seem to indicate it is the most dangerous drug of all. And, unlike alcohol, which eventually leaves the system, some of cannabis toxins remain in the brain which, unlike the liver, does not repair itself. In other words, it's cumulative and degenerative.
I have been interested in this because, like everyone else, I thought this was the mildest of all drugs and I was under the impression that it was pacific. So pacific that I could never bear to be around the silent, smiling nitwits who use it.
Don't ask me for links because I don't care enough to save them. Frankly, I don't give a stuff about cannabis, the stupid, vacant people who use it, or the people who associate with them. But I've read the evidence over the last eight months or so.
Machiavelli's Understudy - I don't think engaging in activities that can endanger the lives of others who have not given their permission to be so jeopardised is a libertarian standpoint. I find it grotesque.
ReplyDeleteThat's very true, to a realistic extent.
How does this relate to Brian Paddick?
I assume you're making the implication that Cddr. Paddick has used cannabis. If that's the case, could you provide some irrefutable evidence of that allegation, beyond rumour and gossip provided by the Express or Mail?
Even so, you could easily sit there and conjure up one of a handful of (US Federal Government-funded) reports that go in to how cannabis is the Devil's work etc. On the other hand, I could easily sit here and cite Science Select Committee and RSA reports finding the opposite... The point is, few thinking people believe what any of these reports say these days, unless they find the opposite to the agenda of those who fund them (as is the case with the Science Select Committee). It's rather like reading a Dossier otherwise...
Funnily enough, Paddick mentions the same reasons you do for not advocating a state of anarchy... but then you'd know that, wouldn't you?
machiavelli's understudy - I thought Paddick had made a point of saying he uses cannabis. In fact, I am sure he did. I am sure links are easily available to keen followers of Brian Paddick Extraordinaire.
ReplyDeleteI am not at the mercy of the London or the UK "governments". I will be voting, just hoping to help clear up the Labour vomit in our country, for a national government. I don't care about London.
Why can't we find a Tory to run? If I was a Liberal Democrat I'd join the Liberal Democrats. The Tories do not need an alliance like this. This is just as bad as that horrendous Dyke idea.
ReplyDeleteWarwick Lightfoot is your man !
ReplyDeleteMedia skills savvy extraordinaire!
Sorry to bang on about this, but the only credible opposition to Ken is Steve Norris. C'mon Steve get out there and run!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=4290828794 is the Facebook group for his supporters.
ReplyDelete