Whoever came up with all this tosh about the world being a ‘global village’? Seems to me that different parts of the world have a very different way of going about things.
In Saudi Arabia, a BBC reporter gets gunned down and lies bleeding in the street:
Police said Mr Gardner tried to get bystanders to help him as he lay wounded in the street by crying out that he was a Muslim.
Now I like to think that here in dear old Blighty, we would rush to the aid of a badly wounded human being regardless of his religion.
Oh, unless the police are around to stop us:
A police force was accused yesterday of waiting too long to act after a shooting at a family barbecue left two sisters dead. One witness claimed that their lives could have been saved.
Roy Gibson, 70, said he spent an hour waiting for help to arrive as he tried to save one of the women. Paramedics were prevented from entering until Thames Valley Police had completed a one-hour assessment of any further risk to life.
By which time, there was definitely no risk to life because the victims were no longer alive.
Loon Boris Johnson actually talks sense in the Telegraph. A very worrying trend
An assessment of further risk? Sounds like the Columbine S.W.A.T. team.
Whoever came up with all this tosh about the world being a ‘global village’?
The one who wants to be chief.
Funny, that. Me and the missus were lifting a jar or two in the Botolph Arms in Orton Longueville (where the shooter was apprehended), just a couple short weeks ago. Seemed like a nice quiet boozer, not a hangout for gunmen and criminals.
But wait! Surely, this sort of crime is no longer possible, now that all those nasty guns have been taken away from the citizenry? As Boris Johnson vapours in the Telegraph today, this sort of thing is only supposed to happen in the US. Surely this cannot mean that, in spite of the laws passed ‘for your own good’, that there are still bad people in the UK who are more-than-willing to break the law and do violence with banned weapons? Say it ain’t so!
As I’ve said here before – the promise of greater safety, used to sell the Firearms Acts, was never fulfilled, but the liberty of the individual, which was given up to pay for them, is gone forever. Look for demands in Parliament for yet-even-more-draconian laws – ‘ for your own good’, naturally – which will oppress only law-abiding citizens but which will not prevent tragedies like this. Just like the last ones didn’t. T’was ever thus.
llater,
llamas
llamas, check it out. The anti-gun BBC believes that guns are fine as long as they are being used to protect BBC employees:
http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1234086,00.html
But. . .but.. .guns aren’t really a deterrence against criminals are they? They solve nothing.
Except of course, when its the BBC’s ass that’s on the line — then guns apparently solve a LOT of things.
Well, Susan – not to argue with you, but the BBC does not think that ‘guns are fine as long as they are being used to protect BBC employees:’. Most of the article linked describes a succession of pantywaist handwringers whining and puling about whether or not they should provide armed security for their people.
As if there should be even a moment’s hesitation.
‘They’re shooting at our people. Do you think we should protect them?’
‘F**king-A right, we should!’
But no, at the more-subtle, more-nuanced BBC, a question like this actually has two sides.
Particularly nauseating is the self-righteous John Simpson, who opposes the use of armed security by saying
‘I don’t want to kill someone for the sake of a story’ –
although apparently, it’s just fine if a BBC reporter gets killed getting the story he was encouraged to get by his editors.
Bunch of lily-livered moral relativists. As they have sowed, now shall they reap. When you lie down with dogs, you’re going to get up with fleas. Their consistent inability to discern right from wrong, in this as in other matters, has now turned around and bitten them right in the ass.
llater,
llamas
John Simpson actually said, “I don’t want to kill someone for the sake of a story”?
What a hoot! The assumption was otherwise?
I think the Firearms Act was a waste of good trees, it does nothing except point out that the majority can often be wrong about things which is a flaw in democracy.
However, what I am left wondering is; why bring up the act in the first place? A year or so ago there was a shooting in my old home town and Samaizdata was full of the shame rhetoric. That too was pretty much baseless ignoring what was, even at the time, a pretty obvious professional hit which would have happened Firearms Act or Not.
Finally, would the same thing have happened pre the Firearms Act? Again, in my opinion, almost certainly. The police would have not let paramedics in until they were happy. Would somebody involved have actually had a firearm to “protect” themselves with? Probably not.
Sorry – posted too early. I did not mean to suggest that this event was a “professional” hit, I was referring to the other shooting.
Part of the problem with such gun control is that even criminals caught with guns aren’t punished particularly severely.
My country’s take? If you’re found with illegal possession of firearms, it’s the death penalty. No questions asked(well, not much anyway). The logic behind the government’s stance is that if you’ve a gun illegally, then you’re obviously a criminal and should be put down.
Ouch.
Obviously, gun crime rates are rather low here. Criminals value their lives like everybody else.
TWG
llamas writes:
“Their consistent inability to discern right from wrong, in this as in other matters, has now turned around and bitten them right in the ass.”
To focus even more closely, the problem is that the odious Simpson and his ilk don’t even believe in right and wrong.
In BBC-speak, the worst something can be is ‘inappropriate’ – a word you will hear on BBC R4 approximtely 10,000 times a day. This gives rise to the glorious logical balderdash where, by implication, you can have ‘appropriate’ paedophilia, murder, arson etc.
The refusal to accept the very concept of right and wrong is what lies at the root of BC bias over the IRA, Isalmic terrorism (notably the Palestinian version) and all the rest of their liberal hobbyhorses.
Mind you – even they have their limits. There’s damn little equivocation over gun owners, fox hunters and anti-EU campaigners…
This is such an outstanding failure that I wonder when the British are going to realise that law enforcement and emergency services are now within the gift of the state to bestow or withhold at will.
I cannot imagine the electorates of any other country in the world (save Zimbabwe, N Korea and Haiti) tolerating police and paramedics waiting outside an emergency for an hour while the police officiously withheld precious help with jobsworth excuses. And it’s far from the first instance we have read about over the previous few months. May they roast in hell.
And instead of outrage, there are shrugged shoulders. When are you going to wake up and do something about this overmighty government that has, in seven short years, made itself your lord and master?
Gcooper
“This gives rise to the glorious logical balderdash where, by implication, you can have ‘appropriate’ paedophilia, murder, arson etc.”
Hmm… “implication” being the important word here; your implication. I’ve heard nothing that would suggest anyone in the Beeb, biassed though their coverage of some things may be, would endorse paedophilia under any circumstances, or indeed have no sense of right or wrong; just one that clearly disagrees with yours in some fundamental ways.
Verity, as was alluded to above, columbine? I’m sure plenty other countries have similar experiences without too much outrage (& to be fair, there’s been quite a lot of outrage over this). We are neither supine nor servile, thank you very much. Maybe you should visit the country again, try chatting with some folk.
Having some little experience of law enforcement, although nothing like this, I make so bold as to suspect that the individual officers who responded to the incident in question were most likely ready, and willing, to enter the ‘unsecured’ scene-of-the-crime and render whatever aid they could, but were restrained from doing so by a command procedure, drafted by bureaucrats and passed by lawyers, which required them to follow a one-size-fits-all scenario, complete with checklists and chains-of-command and allocations of responsibility.
We had a case here about 20 years ago where an officer was shot and permanently disabled. The bad guy didn’t want to go and opened up on the van full of officers with a hunting rifle. One was left grievously shot in the front yard of the house. Other officers were setting up to retrieve him by means of a screen of patrol cars and an awful lot of covering fire. The orders came down – don’t do anything at all until the command has arrived on-scene and set up a command post a mile away (out of range) and ‘assessed the situation’. No officer was to even discharge his weapon without express permission from the command.
He lived, but only just. And, fortunately, a little more common sense has leaked into department procedures since then. But that bureaucratic mindset can infest law-enforcement work very quickly, and is awfully hard to evict.
llater,
llamas
A_t writes:
“Hmm… “implication” being the important word here; your implication.”
I suggest you listen a little more closely to (in particular) the World Service and R4’s coverage of Palestinian terrorism, where there is an almost complete refusal to consider suicide bombing an immoral act. Ineed, even the word ‘terrorist’ appears to have been banned from the BBC vocabulary, for fear of being seen to be ‘judgemental’.
If that isn’t having lost any meaningful sense of right and wrong, then I’m damned if I know what is.
Of course, you’re right in one sense – though I’m surprised to see it admitted. There are areas where the BBC and other members of the liberal elite are willing to be very judgemental indeed. Which was the point of the last paragraph in my original post.
I suppose we’ll now have to call it “selective moral relativism”.
llamas – Yes, but we are talking of people bleeding to death inside and begging for help.
As A_t said, they would be following a loony left chain of command written by lefty lawyers (toeing the party line and hoping for preferment). A_t – yes, people in Britain always shake their heads and there are always column inches devoted to outrage, but the thing about Britain is, no one will be dismissed over this. You can’t call for the head of a police chief in Britain, because he’s not elected. There will not be enough vocal electorate outrage to force a change. The electorate will be cowed by people like Tone Balone and other crapmeisters going on TV and accusing the outraged of being “far right BNP members determined to destroy the public trust in our fine police force”. And rather than anyone on TV saying, “You’re full of it, Toneboy,” people will back down in embarrassment. The memory will fade. Then there will be another incident, and people will say, “Remember when this same thing happened a year ago?”
aaaah… GCooper ” though I’m surprised to see it admitted”, charming as ever… have you not worked out yet that I am not your identikit blair-loving socialist? never mind… Unlike yourself, I am not attached to a particular dogma, & don’t view any particular institution as the paragon of all virtue or sin.
Actually, further to my comment above, do you see me as some kind of Beeb representative? Or is it that I belong, in your mind, to the larger Gramascian conspiracy, & hence will automatically side with one of the organisations which is at the centre of our attempt to destroy traditional British values? Why should it be surprising that I “admit” the beeb can be biassed sometimes? I’m puzzled… perhaps you can enlighten me.
Verity, I agree it’s crap behaviour on the part of the police, but can you offer any evidence, other than your vitriolic certainty, which suggests that ‘leftists’ are responsible for this rather than the general British rubbishness which seems to infect most of the stuff we do, whether Left or Right?
A_t writes:
“perhaps you can enlighten me.”
I think you’re being a little paranoid, A_t. I simply find it surprising that anyone who is in the process of defending the BBC (which is what you were doing) would admit that.
As for your general opinions, I can’t say I’ve been kept awake at night worrying about them.
Didn’t one BBC reporter try to float the idea that suicide bombers should be called “honor killers”?
Susan writes:
“Didn’t one BBC reporter try to float the idea that suicide bombers should be called “honor killers”? ”
You know, when I initally read that, I thought you were making a nicely pointed joke…
After a few seconds it dawned on me that it might actually have happened.
Lise Doucette by any chance? It would be in character.
Is there a source for that? It seems implausible, given that (1) it really doesn’t describe the situation in any meaningful way, and (2) “honour killing”, thankfully usually in the same mocking inverted commas, is already a journalistic cliché for a different eastern cultural nastiness.
“Didn’t one BBC reporter…” has the ring of a rabid-right urban legend about it. A counter-shadow of the garbled Eric Schlosser gobbets that get swapped between anti-globos.
GCooper,
” I simply find it surprising that anyone who is in the process of defending the BBC (which is what you were doing) would admit that.”
The trouble is, I suspect I’m rather average, in that I don’t view the BBC as saintly; I know it has many faults, but equally overall I quite like it, & think it does many good things. I will certainly challenge anyone who claims that it’s fuelled by some (a/i)mmoral motives. I would equally challenge anyone who claimed it was perfect & that we should just believe everything it tells us because it’s staff are motivated only by the purest of thoughts & are divinely unbiassed.
As we’re not in a courtroom, & no-one has asked me to defend the BBC, I see no reason why i should only defend… I was merely contesting some of the ridiculous generalisations you & Verity were throwing around.
I’m glad you’ve lost no sleep though, but still puzzled as to why you’re surprised.
I think we should try to “understand” the people who shot Frank Gardner and his deceased colleage, after all
they would be regarded by many as “freedom fighters”.
When US soldiers or Israeli’s are killed or tortured, the BBC either gloats (nuanced gloating of course) or could not care less, but when one of their own is harmed, there is a very, very different reaction.
It’s obvious to anyone that the media regard their lives as worth more than us little people. The media are an elite who look down on non-media people (or “Kafirs” as they might term it).
Oh yes, of course you’re right Zevilyn… they’re a bunch of elitist bastards who rejoice at death. Wow, what a simple explanation, eh? Tell me, how many normal human beings have you ever met whose primary motivation has been evil?
A_t writes:
” I was merely contesting some of the ridiculous generalisations you & Verity were throwing around.”
For example?
Ola Guerin would be another candidate. So would the saintly Fergal Keene. Strange how they all sport faces one would love to slap really hard to see that self-regarding, sadly all-knowing (what a burden it is to be a saint!) little smirk wiped right off.
But Lyse Doucette is my all time favourite for a good punch out. She always speaks as though she’s eating plums and is holding in the drool. I’m fashioning a tiny toy noose even as I type.
But Susan, I hadn’t seen that suggestion although I’m willing to credit it without proof, knowing the BBC as we do. (My bet’s on the universal great soul Fergal Keene for this beautiful, inclusive thought.)
OTOH, as they refer to the murder of girls who fall in love with a man outside Islam as “honour killings”, why not “honour killers” for suicide murderers of other people’s families? Why restrict yourself?
A_t – “… but can you offer any evidence, other than your vitriolic certainty, which suggests that ‘leftists’ are responsible for this rather than the general British rubbishness which seems to infect most of the stuff we do, whether Left or Right?”
Of course not. But it is the left which has iron-fistedly deflected all blame from malfeasants and berated the electorate for not, instead, offering them tea and sympathy (and socially inclusive programmes). It is lefty judges who have destroyed traditional British confidence in the courts. It is lefty police chiefs who have promoted the use of marijuana, albeit against the law they are sworn to uphold. It is self-serving lefties hoping for preferment who have drafted laws that are against the unwritten tradition of English Common Law. It is the socialists who think no one is to blame for anything, except for people who earn a fortune. That is definitely their fault and they should be punished for it by taxed to provide “safety nets” for people who feel entitled to live off society because they somehow “deserve” it. It’s the socialist who have destroyed the British school exams system which was so dependable it was copied throughout the Commonwealth and is now degraded. It was the left who took away personal responsibility for health by providing “universal” crap care for everyone – long since left behind by the likes of Singapore.
The left is a destroyer. It destroys everything it stalks and touches in any part of the world.
A_t – There’s been a devious, destructive worm eating at the intestines of the British body politic for 50 or 60 years and it’s socialist/communism.
What on earth would the Bow St runners and Sir Robert Peel make of police who not only wouldn’t go into a building themselves, but wouldn’t permit medical help to enter either, until it had been declared safe? My guess: absolute contempt.
I am unmoved in my vitriolic certainty that the left has caused untold damage to the fabric of Britain, and is intent on ripping it apart further.
A_t : “Oh yes, of course you’re right Zevilyn… they’re a bunch of elitist bastards who rejoice at death. Wow, what a simple explanation, eh? Tell me, how many normal human beings have you ever met whose primary motivation has been evil?”
I’m not Zevilyn, but personally, none. Normal human being do not so pursue.
We are talking about an aberrant strain. An aggressive virus. An HIV of the soul and of Western civilisation.
I couldn’t remember where I had seen it, did a Google on it and found several references on blogs that I read regularly such as Melanie Phillips. I couldn’t find the original reference but I did find an article on it at FrontPage magazine. Melanie Phillips links to the same FrontPage article here:
http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000070.html
Verity, you were right the first time, it was the sour-plum-sucking Lyse Doucette who apparently acts as a part-time PR consultant to the Palestinians in her spare time. Conflict of interest, you say? HA!!!! Doucette could be picking up an AK-47 and firing it at IDF soliders and the BBC still wouldn’t think there was any “conflict of interest” or compromising of her journalistic standards.
God I hate the BBC!
OK. Following the link we find that Front Page is itself not reporting directly, but talking about Doucette quoted in discussions with Palestinian media experts in a USAID-funded Palestinian pamphlet. The burden of the article is a complaint about tax-dollars going indirectly to fund propaganda. There are several levels of bias at work.
I don’t have the pamphlet, so we are working from a hostile report to begin with. The piece doesn’t say what language the pamphlet is in, though if it is for Palestinian consumption, Arabic seems likely, so there are potential translation issues. Further, the pamphlet is apparently a work of propaganda, and in any case, it is Arab media, so a disapproving phrase would have been unlikely to be allowed to stand.
Even if the Chinese whispers are entirely accurate, using a phrase in the context of discussion with people who may be violently in favour of the bombings and upon whose cooperation one relies to do one’s job, is scarcely the same thing as suggesting or recommending it for use by the BBC.
I don’t know about you, but the way I express my opinions (indeed, whether I express them at all) is modified by the circumstances in which I find myself.
I couldn’t remember where I had heard this story, and was basically just asking others here if they knew anything about it. No need to get anally retentive about it, Guy.
Sheesh!
You say anally retentive; I say concerned about fairness and accuracy. Which is appropriate, since you were busy condemning the BBC for its lack of either.
A damning fact can indeed adumbrate a bigger cultural or organisational product. If there were a BBC memo from the reporter discussing the nomenclature of suicide bombers in evidence, then you’d have a good point. Your vague recollection sounded too neat, too damning to be true–so it would be worth querying if it supports a case against either an individual or an organisation.
As I said, I was asking if anyone knew anything about it. Sorry my phraseology didn’t meet your “precise” standards but it is clear that I framed it as a question and was clearly asking others for confirmation or denial as the case may be.
Norwas I “busy condeming the BBC for its lack of either”. Here’s my single-sentence contribution on the subject:
It’s clearly framed as a question, not a statement of fact. What part of that “?” at the end did you not understand? Do Brits have other uses for that particular punctuation mark that us Yanks do not know about?
Perhaps you should be concerned about accuracy and fairness when commenting on other peopels’ comments!!!!!
As I said, I was asking if anyone knew anything about it. Sorry my phraseology didn’t meet your “precise” standards but it is clear that I framed it as a question and was clearly asking others for confirmation or denial as the case may be.
Norwas I “busy condeming the BBC for its lack of either”. Here’s my single-sentence contribution on the subject:
It’s clearly framed as a question, not a statement of fact. What part of that “?” at the end did you not understand? Do Brits have other uses for that particular punctuation mark that us Yanks do not know about?
Perhaps you should be concerned about accuracy and fairness when commenting on other peoples’ comments!!!!!
You want people to consider your remarks out of context?
Surely, the more relevant point is that, never having heard this story before, it was immediately possible for me to guess its (alleged) subject?
La Doucette’s sympathies are probably the most transparent of all the BBC’s hacks. Which is saying something.
Incidentally, does anyone happen to know the origin of her peculiarly irritating accent?
A probing CV on Doucette and some of her fellow travellers might prove very revealing.
The notorious Gavin Esler, for example. Where is he from? What is his political background? And just where did he pick up his hatred of the USA – before or after he was sent to Washington as the corporation’s hatchet man in 1989?
Verity,
“It is lefty police chiefs who have promoted the use of marijuana, albeit against the law they are sworn to uphold.”
Hmm…never heard any of them actively *promote* marijuana use… Have heard several denounce the ridiculous, unworkable state of the current laws though. Condemning these individuals for wanting to “destroy society” is like looking back to US prohibition & condemning all those who were willing to turn a blind eye to illicit drinking as wishing to bring down American socieyt. The strange thing is, they won… & the US hasn’t fallen apart yet. Both laws were ridiculous puritanical restrictions on personal behaviour, & if you think marijuana smoking is going to ‘destroy british society’, then bring it on. British society is clearly uptight, puritanical & not particularly interested in personal freedoms, & could probably use some reshaping.
note: personally, i think legal weed smoking won’t change any of those things & is vastly overestimated as an engine of social change by those who condemn it.
A_t – I have no interest in marijuana either way. Personally, I don’t like it, but I don’t like bourbon either. Don’t jump to the conclusion that I’m opposed to marijuana being legalised. I’m commenting on a Libertarian blog, after all.
My quarrel is with police chiefs who don’t take the law seriously. There’s more than one of them been promoting mary jane on the quiet, and that gay one who is so taken with himself he thinks he’s above the law. Can’t remember his name.
My point, with which I think even you would be loathe to argue is, police chiefs are not even elected to be police chiefs, never mind legislators. They are hired to keep the law as it exists, not as they personally would have it, were they heading up a little fiefdom.
G Cooper, I recall asking BBC correspondent for the World Service to guess which World Service correspondent I loathed the most, and he unhesitatingly guessed Bridget Kendal, which was completely wrong. Sometimes she’s quite funny. So I said, no, it’s that godawful Lyse Doucette and her godawful accent and her godawful smug way of speaking she makes me want to scream, do you hear me? – scream! Also, what the hell is that accent?
Next time he talked to London, he asked them. Well, apparently I was the first person on the planet to complain about Lyse Doucette (a badge I wear with pride). And, if memory serves, she is French Canadian and enunciating very carefully. I had thought she was Irish, maybe.
Don’t know anything about Gary Esler, although the name’s familiar.
Verity, “that gay one” is Brian Paddick, & he was in charge of a borough which has many problems, & not enough police to deal with them. Therefore he prioritized, ruling (correctly imho) that prosecuting marijuana smokers should not be number one priority, as they do not significantly impact upon the lives of other members of the community. As far as I’m aware, he never once promoted smoking, nor declared himself above the law (though obviously if you followed the daily mail’s campaign against him, you’d believe otherwise). If you had walked around Brixton recently, or read the local papers, you’d realise that there are many far more pressing problems to deal with. You clearly haven’t, & don’t really know what you’re talking about in this instance, other than having identified him as a ‘lefty’ & hence an enemy.
Also, I see plenty support for speed camera vandalisation etc. on this blog, and outrage that people are getting done for travelling at higher-than-legal speeds, but in places where it is “safe” to do so… where is the big difference? What people are asking police chiefs to do is turn a blind eye to minor offenses against the law as it stands, no? If a speed camera catches you, you were breaking the law, so surely you should be equally outraged at any police chief who does not prosecute, or fails to use speed cameras to catch those breaking the law.
I think in the real world, there will always be some leeway available to police chiefs/officers, & your idealised “they enforce the law exactly as it is written” situation is all very well on paper, but does not actually happen in any country in the world at present, and is unlikely to at any time in the future. Therefore, I see little to get worked up about in this.
In the larger context, the reason I jumped on your marijuana statement was that you’d couched it within a larger “how britain is going down the tubes thanks to the socialists” rant, & it was by no means clear that you were only outraged at police chiefs selectively enforcing the law; it could have been better stated.
This Paddick allowed marijuana to be smoked in his flat. While he was there. That certainly is selectively enforcing the law! But then, I guess he’d have felt silly cautioning himself and taking down his details.
No country in the world where law is strictly enforced per the laws of the nation? Ever heard of a modern, dynamic, immensely rich little country called Singapore? Ever considered that there are several practical reasons so many multinationals have chosen it for their Asian HQ? Respect the law is one reason. (This includes in the courts, where the judges don’t feel motivated to second guess the legislators.)
Quite the little editor, aren’t you. Susan and I are both articulate people and pretty lucid thinkers. I think you have little to teach either of us about writing.
Hmm… Singapore, land of the free… yeah, I’d love to have lived there a short while ago when men with hair below their collar line were arrestable. I’ll keep my shoddy British law enforcement any day, thanks!
& relating to that alleged incident, although he was forced to resign over it, it was proved to be utterly unsubstantiated, & the Mail have paid him substantial compensation.
Furthermore, even if it had been true, it’s very much like the speeding thing; would you expect policemen/women to report their wives or husbands if they were with them in a car, & caught them exceeding the speed limit? A simple yes/no answer will suffice.
A_t writes:
” If you had walked around Brixton recently, or read the local papers, you’d realise that there are many far more pressing problems to deal with. ”
I can’t let you get away with that whopper – which I imagine you thought you could because you know Verity lives in France.
Apart from being a swamp of all-purpose iniquity, Brixton is South London’s drug capital. Now, whatever your opinion of the legalisation of cannabis (and I’m currently uncertain – having been pro-legalisation all my life) it is an undeniable fact that the vast majority of Brixton’s problems are drug-related.
Why Cmdr. Paddick’s initiative was judged a failure was because it increased the drug problem in the area – not least because it attracted anyone from outside the area, who felt cool walking down Electric Ave wielding a joint and, while they were at it, scoring a little crack, just to help them through the night.
Don’t try and pretend that the two were unrelated. Anyone who knows the area (which, sadly, I do) knows damn well that ‘turning a blind eye’ exacerbated Brixton’s drug culture.
Actually GCooper, it didn’t exacerbate the problem, or if it did, not much. I was living within the borough of Lambeth when it happened. I passed dealers on my way back from work every day. I regularly went out drinking in Brixton at that point, & Coldharbour lane was certainly shady, but then it had always been.
If you’d care to look at the figures, before he was witch-hunted out of office & his policy closed down, Paddick was remarkably successful in increasing the number of busts of crack/heroin dealers (i remember this being quietly reported at the time; not sure where the figures are now available). If we’re going to go after anyone in the drugs trade, these dealers should surely be the primary target, as their wares cause obvious social harm beyond the violent criminality associated with prohibition, & I think he was doing a good job.
The thing you’re ignoring, which he made clear from the very start, was that the ‘blind eye’ was not turned towards all drugs; only cannabis, & even then only cannabis for personal use (although unless they’ve got huge quantities on them, it’s admittedly hard to prove someone was dealing unless caught in the act).
What *was* very noticeable was the number of clueless journos who suddenly took a trip down Coldharbour Lane, gasped incredulously at the fact people were “openly smoking joints”, & worded their reports to suggest this was all down to the relaxation of the laws. The fact is, the clueless fools could have witnessed precisely the same thing if they’d cared to walk down that street at any time in the preceding 5 years, but this was never mentioned by *anyone* in the press. Whether this was out of ignorance or because the story seemed more dramatic presented in this fashion, I am not certain, but I thought the press coverage of the whole affair was shoddy & irresponsible.
Commander Paddick’s policy was certainly *perceived* to have increased the drug problem in the area, but many people had a strong vested interest in ensuring that this was the perception. It’s interesting that the current national policy on cannabis has since changed to become pretty much what he was doing in Lambeth, and Paddick himself has been promoted to a more senior position. Strange moves if the policy was a complete failure, no?
& yes, you’re right, I was assuming an advantage over Verity; considering I was living in the area at the time, I’m justified in assuming I have better knowledge of the situation.
Oh, & GCooper, if you can be bothered to explain, why are you now uncertain about legalization? (not a dig at all, genuinely curious to know why your opinion is changing)
Well, I guess I would like to be able to posit a question on a talkboard without a pedant making a federal case out of the reasons for asking.
A_t writes:
“& yes, you’re right, I was assuming an advantage over Verity; considering I was living in the area at the time, I’m justified in assuming I have better knowledge of the situation.”
But not than I have, nor of my friends who live in Brixton – one of whom (possibly the most archly liberal person I know, ironically) recently moved out, through sheer despair at the drug-related crime situation there.
I don’t know what your thing for Cmdr. Paddick is, but the opinion I hear (and I have more Left/liberal Brixtonian friends than others – who else would live there?) is that his experiment was a failure. It attracted migrant drug-users, seems to be their consensus.
Sorry, your demonisation of “journos” for passing-off opinions as facts seems to be exactly what you, too, were doing. It was by no means cut and dried that his experiment suceeded, as you were claiming.
As for the wider cannabis issue, my opinion is changing because the drug is changing. The impression I get is that the hybridised stuff sold today can more easily lead to psychotic breakdown and, again, I have (anecdotal, I admit) evidence from medical friends who maintain this is the case.
Not for the first time, my libertarian instincts are at war with reality.
A_t – “… and Paddick himself has been promoted to a more senior position. Strange moves if the policy was a complete failure, no?”
No. The socialists consistently promote failed social programmes. In fact, it’s how they advance they advance.
A_t – “Commander” (so butch!) Paddick had no business having “policies” that are against the law. In case he missed it during his classes and training, he is hired by the British taxpayer to uphold the law. End of story, babe.
Susan – Go figure.
Verity, OT, but thought you’d be interested:
Brigitte Bardot fined for the fourth time for expressing thought crimes:
Bardot Conviction
Scary!
BTW, why is this article entry categoried under “Islamic and Middle Eastern affairs”
Sorry to barge-in, but I can’t let that link to the Bardot story pass without comment. I heard the news on the radio, earlier. Just the bare bones, as it were.
Since when have Moslems constituted a race? And this from the oh-so-logical and intellectual French?
This piece of intellectual sleight of hand is yet another example (if one were needed) why we should attach an outboard motor to this island and tow it as far away from the EU as possible.
No doubt this law will soon be applied in the UK under EU fiat.
The polls are still open, I believe…
Brigette Bardot is shocked by gays? An actress? Shocked by gays? In the film industry? Hello?
Were she not famous, this woman would have been imprisoned and never heard from again around 15 years ago – for heresy against inclusiveness. The Union of European of Socialist Republics doesn’t approve of Brigitte Bardot, so she has to be silenced.
Interesting that the people speaking out for national identify, for which our forebears (of all nations) fought and died, are considered loons, and the ones who want to cede their countries to officials whose names they don’t even know are considered moderates.
Outta here.