Michael Hess

The so called "softly, softly" policy of not arresting people for possession of small amounts of cannabis for personal use has not been pushed aside. It is now official UK government policy that, apart from exceptional circumstances, such people should be warned and not arrested. The law will change next summer. The new law will allow arrest in limited circumstances but this is a major shift in policy. When the law comes into effect it will apply equally across the country. In my opinion the increase in the penalty for dealing cannabis confuses the clear distinction that needs to be made between cannabis and "hard drugs" but the decision was a political one. "Softly, softly" appears to be the approach of the UK government to drug reform.

The rise in the numbers of black and Asian people being stopped by the police is a worrying one but one that has received little, if any, Press attention here. The media headlines have been about the number of street robberies and how they have fallen dramatically, particularly in London. Many see the disproportionality in 'stop and search' as an unfortunate but necessary side effect of the crackdown on street robbery. Others see this as 'short term gain, long term loss'. The British Police need to re-evaluate their tactics. Current tactics produce short-term results but long-term damage. A far more intelligence-led approach is needed, where known offenders are targeted rather than people from certain ethnic groups. In a climate where street robbery is the priority and most of those adversely affected by the change in police tactics are in the minority, the short-cut route to serious future problems is going to be taken. We need to take a longer-term view.

"To do otherwise is to admit that tabloid journalism rules the Metropolitan police force." The British newspaper that did me most damage and which is notorious for its right-wing views continues to have privileged access to Scotland Yard and its most senior officers. No other newspaper has a crime reporter who is on first name terms with the Commissioner and his top team. I have told the Commissioner I do not feel safe in an organisation that has such a close relationship with the newspaper that tried to destroy me. He had no answer. Even more worryingly the paper is popular amongst patrol officers. "...tabloid journalism rules the Metropolitan police force". You may think that, I couldn't possibly comment. I am a serving police officer in the Metropolitan Police after all.

The Commissioner said to me "You remember Brian, we said that we would put you into Lambeth to do a particular job. That has been done. It is time for you to move on." The conversation I remember is "I think we need to adopt the idea of 'big ships, little ships' (i.e. the rank of the commanding officer reflects the size of the command). If this is a success, we could have Commanders in charge of other Boroughs." The former Chair of the Lambeth Community Police Consultative Group, who was involved in my selection as Borough Commander for Lambeth, also fails to remember any conversation about the appointment being a temporary one. "Sir John is not a liar" but his recall of events is different from ours.

Why would they not want to put me back now that I have been "cleared"? The Crown Prosecution Service said that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute me for allowing our flat to be used for smoking cannabis but it was not in the public interest to prosecute. The facts were that I tried everything I could think of to stop it happening. He was as much the owner of the flat as I was so I could not dictate to him what he did or did not do. I could not simply throw him out. Or are they suggesting that the man I was in a three year relationship with, who I was in love with, should be arrested by me? Or should I have called the cops to arrest him? There is no guidance to officers as to what they should do in these circumstances. The neat thing is, they can say what their conclusions are, I cannot challenge them and it will never be tested in a court of law. The Metropolitan Police Authority similarly said that, on allowing premises to be used, not taking action to deal with my partner's criminality and meeting him when he was on bail, even if proved in a disciplinary hearing, they would not justify the imposition of any sanction. One of the sanctions is a 'reprimand'. Again, they imply that they think I am guilty but the facts never get tested in a judicial hearing. I did nothing wrong, nothing has ever been proved against me, but they can imply guilt and get away with it. Was I cleared? Was I found guilty without a trial? Was this about facts or about politics? Were the Police Authority also afraid of the right-wing tabloid's reaction? Who knows.

The Commissioner made the decision not to put me back in Lambeth. He re-stated it time and again. If for some reason he was forced to climb down, how much discretionary support do you think he would be inclined to give to someone who he personally thinks should not be in that position? Would he want to be proved wrong and for Lambeth to continue to be a success story under my leadership if his publicly stated position was that I should be removed? And what would the right-wing tabloid say if they saw their £100,000 investment (paid to my former partner) in removing me from any position of influence go up in smoke? What would they say about the Commissioner's judgement? Who cares what they think anyway? Well...

The facts are these. I am a sworn officer of the Metropolitan Police Service. My contract says I will serve wherever the Commissioner decides to put me. He has put me in charge of intelligence-led policing. You do not "accept" jobs in the police. You get offered the job, you give them good reasons why you should not do it. You give them an alternative job you think you could do better. They ignore you. They post you to the job you do not want. Tough.

My contract does not say that I cannot speak out (as you will have noticed from the above)! My contract does not say that I cannot associate with or speak for the people in Lambeth or other parts of the country. Should I resign? What will carry more weight? 'Brian Paddick who used to be a cop?' Or 'Brian Paddick, a Commander in the Metropolitan Police Service in charge of intelligence with over a quarter century of policing experience?'

You can lead a horse to water but you try to push his head under the water and you are going to get a good kicking!

Editors note: Brian Paddick was promoted to senior Police Commander November 9th, 2000. At the time Sir John Stevens said, "Being a Commander in the Metropolitan Police Service is a tough and demanding job, and I'm confident that the right people have been picked for these challenging positions." Brian Paddick was born in Balham and educated at Bec Grammar School, Tooting Bec, London, Sutton Manor High School, Sutton, Surrey and Queen's College, Oxford. He also has an MBA from Warwick Business School, where his dissertation on vehicle clamping and removals resulted in the Met reorganising their Central Ticket Office. He joined the Metropolitan Police as a PC in Holloway, North London, and worked in Brixton as a Sergeant and later as Deputy Divisional Commander, when he devised a co-ordinated policing strategy. He also worked as Crime Manager in charge of the CID in Notting Hill and as Borough Commander in Merton. Excerpted from "Commander Paddick Support 'unprecedented' Online and Off" BBSNews March 23rd, 2002 and from the UK Government News Network (GNN). To see complete BBSNews coverage of Brian Paddick please click here to visit the Brian Paddick page at BBSNews.