Only one in a hundred reported crimes in London actually gets solved, which means that those criminals who do get caught feel very hard done by. That was the gruesome message delivered by former senior Metropolitan police officer (and LibDem London Mayoral candidate) Brian Paddick at the Blackheath Supper Club this evening. He was very much on home territory, having been Chief Inspector in Lewisham for a while (though his name is usually more intimately associated with Lambeth). The solution to this lamentable record in getting more convictions, he said, was in building a new kind of trust between police and community, so that people in areas where the criminals are well known would actually feel confident enough in the police to share the necessary information. Interestingly, when he toured a problem estate with some black youths not so long ago and asked them what they thought the police should be doing, they replied, ‘More stop-and-search!’ But what they meant, of course, was stopping and searching armed thugs whose identity is well known within local communities, rather than the current practice of blanket stop-and-search based largely on ethnic profiling. Neither the Conservatives nor Labour seem to have found the answer to London’s policing dilemma. The question now is whether the LibDems, benefiting from Brian’s advice, can offer a viable alternative.

On BBC2’s Newsnight yesterday there was an interesting report by Richard Watson looking at the involvement of the Territorial Support Group (TSG) in the policing of the G20 protests in light of the high level of complaints against its officers and the HMIC’s report, which came out on Monday.

There then followed a studio discussion about the points raised, which was all the more interesting for the involvement of Keith Vaz MP, who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, which published its own report into the policing of the G20 protests a week earlier.

Neither the HMIC nor the HAC reports dwelt on the involvement of TSG officers in much of the most violent incidents, such as the fatal assault on Ian Tomlinson by a TSG constable (who had apparently resigned from the police previously over allegations of violence, before rejoining with no investigation), the ‘Fisher hitter’ TSG sergeant, or the violent clearance of the peaceful Climate Camp by massed ranks of the TSG.

Indeed, in the Newsnight discussion it quickly becomes apparent that Keith Vaz does not seem to have realised that the highly experienced, well-trained public order specialists of the TSG had been on the frontline throughout the policing of G20. Lest we forget, his Committee found that ‘inexperienced’ and ‘untrained’ officers on the frontline had been a major contributing factor of the many problems.

I find his lack of awareness regarding the involvement and presence on the frontline at G20 of the TSG rather astounding. On the day the HAC report came out, I wrote to Keith Vaz with my concerns that his Committee’s report appeared to overlook the integral involvement of specialist units such as the TSG, the Forward Intelligence Teams, and the City of London Police dog units at each of the most controversial contact points. I also pointed out that the commanding officers both on the ground and directing the operation from headquarters were experienced in public order matters, and named them.

The next day I received a reply from a representative of the HAC which expressed the view that the Committee had not been able to comment specifically on matters which may be subject to court proceedings. However, it was clearly stated that the Committee might further look into specialist police units such as these in the future.

So, can we expect Commander Bob Broadhurst and other senior Met officers to be dragged back before the Committee to explain just why they gave such a plainly inaccurate picture? Only time will tell.

In the meantime, in case you missed Newsnight, you can (if you are in the UK) still catch it on the iPlayer until late next Tuesday night (the segment begins at around 14mins into the programme).

The audio of the report on the TSG and subsequent studio discussion is also available here. A full transcript of the studio discussion (which begins at around 6mins45s into the audio clip) is below.

Transcript of Newsnight studio discussion on TSG, 7/7/9

• EM = Emily Maitlis, Newsnight presenter hosting the discussion
• BP = Brian Paddick, former Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Metropolitan Police, and onetime LibDem candidate for London Mayor
• JJ = Jenny Jones MLA, Green Party member of the Metropolitan Police Authority
• KV = Keith Vaz MP, chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee

EM: Now joining me in the studio Brian Paddick, a former deputy assistant commissioner in the Met; Jenny Jones, who’s a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority; the MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which also recently released a report into G20 policing, welcome to all, thanks for coming.

Brian Paddick, you were in charge of south east Territorial Support Group in your time, does what you’ve heard here this evening surprise you?

BP: Well, it’s a great concern of mine because it appears to be history repeating itself. The Special Patrol Group, the predecessor of the Territorial Support Group, which was disbanded when Blair Peach was killed in a demonstration in 1979, started out as a very professional outfit, they were the elite of the Metropolitan Police, and gradually the gang mentality took over, and in the end they had to be disbanded.

What I am very concerned about is the Territorial Support Group – again, the elite, um, took very great pride in their appearance, their fitness – could be showing signs of going the same way as the Special Patrol Group.

EM: But you think you know it wasn’t like this under your command? How well did you know it?

BP: It certainly wasn’t like that under my command, and I went out with the officers, on patrol, and it was a very different situation in those days. But the alarming thing is, one of the things that young man said, about being hit with the hat, one of the traditional TSG punishments amongst officers is a ‘hatting’, which is to hit a fellow officer with hats. So that story has a very sinister ring of truth about it.

EM: Jenny Jones, this didn’t just happen overnight, this doesn’t even reflect what happened in the G20…

JJ: I think that probably there is a much wider problem, I think the TSG has deep problems about the sort of robust policing they are trained for. But I think also, I’ve heard senior officers for example, say things like, they ‘differentiate between things like innocent people and protesters’, as if a protester cannot be an innocent person; now to me that suggests there is a deep thought process, and they can’t understand the real function of protest, and that it can be utterly peaceful.

EM: Keith Vaz, isn’t it extraordinary that we’ve had a whole report on the G20 and the policing of it, and barely a mention of this controversial group?

KV: Well, I’m very disappointed with what I’ve just seen on your programme. The fact is I think this is a very strong report, it’s very critical of certain aspects of what the police did during G20, and it very much echoes what we said in our select committee report a week ago.

But what we were told in evidence, that the people on the frontline were inexperienced and untrained officers, we were not told in our evidence, something that Brian has just told me, as we were going on this programme, that actually the Territorial Support Group are usually in the frontline as far as these protests are concerned…

EM: …But that was pretty obvious, that was pretty obvious from the footage we’ve seen in the last few months, why would you put inexperienced officers on the frontline?

KV: Well… It may be pretty obvious, but we can only produce reports on the basis of the evidence that we have received, and certainly the evidence that came to us, the evidence that was given to us in this inquiry, was that the people on the frontline were untrained and inexperienced, and basically that’s why we concluded that the police were pretty lucky in this instance…

BP: …The worrying point, Emily, is that the most senior, the most serious complaints that have been made, for example the ones regarding Ian Tomlinson, all involve Territorial Support Group officers, not the young inexperienced, untrained officers that the senior officers who gave evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee say were to blame for losing control during that situation.

In my experience it is the experienced Territorial Support Group officers who are more likely to overstep the mark rather than beat officers who are drafted into that situation.

EM: I mean, you talk about overstepping the mark, look at that case study: A young man, picked up off the street, called a ‘fucking Paki’, slapped around… The police have recognised that this is a legitimate complaint…

KV: They have, and they should, it is totally unacceptable behaviour, even though in certain circumstances what the police do in terms of tactics they say is within their rulebook, it’s totally unacceptable behaviour for any individual to be beaten, or…

EM: …But why then, 137 outstanding complaints, we’re talking about one in three officers.

KV: …Well there shouldn’t be, and one of the problems that I think we’ve had is what G20 has spawned, quite rightly, is a number of complaints that cannot be dealt with in the timeframe, that’s why one of the recommendations we put forward, is that additional resources have to be given to the IPCC in order to be able to deal with these complaints. At the moment a third of the entire caseload of the IPCC is actually complaints against officers who were participating in the G20 protest.

EM: Jenny Jones, it does seem extraordinary that at this point we’re just talking about the process to handle complaints. Do we actually need the Territorial Support Group?

JJ: Well, as a Green I’d like to say ‘no, we don’t need them’, but in fact of course I think there will be times when you need that sort of very strong policing, because there are extreme incidents, but I think they are used too frequently, I think that the officers themselves are not rotated enough so they get out of what Brian calls this ‘gang culture’, and I think there could be better training about civil liberties. They’re clearly not doing their job properly.

BP: Let’s put some balance in here though, because these are allegations, they’re being investigated, these officers have not been convicted of any wrongdoing, and we have the word of one person, at the moment, who has made this complaint about their treatment at the hands of the Territorial Support Group, that investigation has not concluded yet.

The second thing to say is what Chris Allison said, which is Territorial Support Group officers quite often are put in the frontline, and so you would expect to some extent them to have more complaints, perhaps, than other officers who are not put into those very stressful situations.

EM: Alright, but let me put you back as, in charge, if you like… These are allegations and you have to deal, let’s imagine, with those allegations. What would you do now, from inside the Met? I mean a complete reshuffle, a complete retrain? Would you disperse them so there isn’t an elite force as such?

BP: Well, you need to have a highly mobile force ready to deal with either a spontaneous outbreak of disorder or to deal with, we’re on the anniversary of the seventh of July bombings, the Territorial Support Group was an extremely useful resource in that sort of situation.

But what you’ve got to make sure is that there’s rotation of those officers on a regular basis so that these cliques do not develop, that they don’t become a law unto themselves, which is the problem we had with the Special Patrol Group before.

EM: Keith Vaz, I come back to my previous point, neither in the report today nor in your report from the Home Affairs Select Committee did we hear any mention of the problems or the scale of the complaints against this force. Don’t you think that’s a pretty bad mess?

KV: It is a pretty bad mess, but you can only produce reports on the basis of evidence that has been given to you, and if a Select Committee is given evidence about the type of officers who were on duty during protests of this kind, we can only conclude on the evidence that we’ve got.

But don’t forget, Denis O’ Connor’s report is an interim report in any event, this was brought out relatively quickly, in order to ensure that some of the main points were dealt with.

But we will certainly return to this subject as a result of the consultations that we will have following the publication of this report. This isn’t the end of it, I think the debate about policing with consent of major events of this kind, which, frankly, this report very helpfully talks about, is something that we have to return to…

EM: Okay…

KV: What the G20 gives us is the opportunity to have that debate with the public.

EM: Jenny Jones, you’ve had that pledge here from Keith Vaz tonight, from the MPA’s perspective, what would you actually like to see in concrete terms?

JJ: Well, I think we have seen the start of a public debate which has not happened before, over many years I have complained about police tactics and mostly I’ve been ignored on the Police Authority, because people just haven’t believed them, we are now in a different era, when we’ve seen some very bad behaviour, the police, I think have got to change.

EM: Thank you very much indeed, thanks for joining me.

Taken at a recent Liberal Democrat Conference. We wonder how Brian Paddick, centre, who was the most senior openly gay police officer in the UK, would feel about Mr Richards’ comment.

The voices are getting louder in condemnation of the Metropolitan Police. The tabloids are uniting in their attacks and smears on Ian Tomlinson, but their readers have had their eyes opened along with the rest of us. The G20 protests at the start of the month showed the organisation up as the barely accountable militia which it has become, but I’m not saying for a moment that all Met cops are like this. As a commentator has noticed on another entry, I acknowledge there is good policing in the force, and there are good cops, no doubt many of them. But an incompetent Home Secretary and a Home Office which is still not fit for purpose have allowed the institution free rein to do as it pleases in a number of areas, notably in policing protest and dissent, and have shown a lamentable disinterest in cleaning up its misdeeds. It’s not been a year and they still haven’t learned the lessons of the Kingsnorth Climate Camp fiasco, where violence and abusive police tactics were wantonly applied to protesters and journalists alike under the spurious (and later proven to be mendacious) grounds of ‘anti-police violence’ and ‘terrorism’. Whoever thought attacking the Bishopsgate Climate Camp even more severely than the Kent protest was clearly out of their minds and shouldn’t be in their job; the TSG officers covered their numbers and masked their appearance and ironically were caught on camera, even though their masters had previously done everything in their power (through making it illegal) to prevent it. Hoist by their own petard – very ironic, but of course being caught dead to rights hasn’t brought in accountability – far from it. If the Guardian weren’t relentlessly embarrassing the IPCC, they wouldn’t have bothered investigating Ian Tomlinson’s death even now.

As it is a familiar problem has arisen there:

The initial post mortem examination of the man who died at the G20 protests after being attacked by a police officer, which found he had died of a heart attack, was conducted by a forensic pathologist once reprimanded about his professional conduct by the General Medical Council.

Ian Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper seller, died on April 1 after being assaulted at least once by officers policing the G20 demonstrations. He had been trying to walk home from work when he was confronted by police, hit with a baton and thrown to the ground.

Two days later Home Office pathologist Dr Freddy Patel concluded Tomlinson had died of a heart attack. He has previously been reprimanded by the GMC, after he released medical details about a man who died controversially in police custody.

In a second case, which raised questions about Dr Patel’s findings, police dropped a criminal investigation after the pathologist gave it as his opinion that the victim, a woman, had died of natural causes. A man who lived in the flat where the body was found went on to murder two other women and mutilate their bodies.

The Met has reverted to type in every aspect of the affair since Tomlinson’s death, indeed we know they were behaving to type on the day. The TSG officer’s identity was completely concealed with a balaclava, his ID number was not visible, the Met released disinformation about their contact with him that day, and despite his having seemingly been pressurised into coming forward, the officer who attacked Tomlinson still hasn’t been interviewed by the IPCC. Then appointing a pathologist with a questionable reputation is just crazy, even though there’s no evidence that Dr Patel in any way colluded with the Met to give them the post-mortem result they needed. Yet we’re now at the stage where even the hint of impropriety is now bad news for them. Shoot an innocent Brazilian (whom they knew was innocent), bash an innocent newspaper vendor in full view of the public, get found out for your institutional disinterest in rape and surely then it’s time to play by the book, to retain the ability to police by consent. Yet ranks have already been closed and questionable decisions are again being made. David Randall suggests that it’s not just the Met who’s to blame for this – we are too:

Some of this is the fault of those with warrant cards, especially the Met. Here, seen at its worst in the de Menezes saga, a sort of old lags’ culture obtains: you admit nothing until your dabs are proved in court to have been all over the offence in question (and then fail to act on the findings). Here, too, is a management that seems to spend much of its time suing each other, or threatening to do so, and then collecting large sums; where senior officers have pension arrangements that would not disgrace a banker; and where there is a look-after-your own attitude that is positively Masonic at times.

Nor are we free of blame, with our ever more publicly aggressive citizenry proclaiming their rights, and our expectation that a force, by definition, of conservative, tradition-respecting officers should constantly adapt to an ever-changing multicultural, multi-faith, multi-sexualised society.

And some of the greatest fault is that of the political class: forces obliged to use speed cameras as revenue-raisers rather than for road safety; and police stations battered by a permanent hailstorm of targets and new laws, both set centrally to placate the latest orthodoxy or catch a headline.

All that, plus continuously shifting priorities that never seem to include sending officers to deal with the crimes that most damage the quality of life in Middle England, such as household burglary, vandalism and noise. The result? A police force less trusted, more resented than at any time since the 19th century.

Is the breakdown in trust between the force really down to us? The Met, although much improved from the days of the Brixton riots, has reverted to dismissing institutional racism. They have an endemic problem with homophobia even against one another. We have a Commission for Equality and Human Rights, yet the Met still has to be shamed into changing its reporting and detecting practices on rape. Is my homosexuality really to blame when they hate me for being gay, are my love of photography and political philosophy to blame when they hate me for photographing them abusing lawful protesters? The Met’s propensity towards conservatism and traditions which have been out of step with wider society for decades is a core part of its institutional mania, and I’m guilty of expecting it to apply its resources where they’re genuinely needed, and to treat people according to 21st century social norms. That it still doesn’t as an institution accounts for the murder of Jean Charles DeMenezes, the attack on Ian Tomlinson and many other people that day.

Good cops will hardly get noticed in an environment quite as schizoid as this, and New Labour, ever eager to placate the tabloids they’ve feared since taking power, is hardly interested in helping them. Did Jacqui Smith stand up and reprimand Bob Broadhurst for preemptive threats of police violence before the G20 protests? Not at all, it suited her to be in a position to threaten those who might cause a PR problem for her boss, more eager to lick Barack Obama’s ass than to solve intractable social problems at home. Brian Paddick suggests:

Recent events could justifiably give rise to concerns that we have a police service whose leaders do not appear to have a grip of their own responsibilities, let alone control over the actions of their subordinates. At the same time, the Tomlinson case and those of Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Saunders, raise the spectre that the bad old days of British policing may be returning, of “canteen culture”, the use of excessive force and of a police service that appears to be unaccountable – the officer concerned in the case of Mr Tomlinson apparently being allowed to cover his face and numerals.

Sir Ian Blair tried to continue the liberalising work started by Sir Peter, now Lord Imbert, when he was Commissioner. These police reformers were swimming against the tide of the prevailing culture, trying to produce a more inclusive police service that is more responsive to the needs of the public, and more representative both in terms of gender balance and minority ethnic representation. Sir Ian Blair failed to reform the Met and the temptation for Sir Paul Stephenson is to go with the flow of the dominant male macho culture, but at the cost of failing to tame the minority of canteen cowboys who do so much damage to the reputation of the police service.

Changing organisational culture requires difficult decisions. My concern is not that the current Commissioner is not capable of such bravery, but that he does not have the strength in depth in his team, or the will, to carry through what are very necessary police reforms.

A pity Paddick doesn’t acknowledge that when, after the murder of DeMenezes, push came to shove, Blair himself went with the ‘dominant male macho culture’. He colluded in the cover-up, tried to exonerate marksmen from blame and blatantly retreated into the ‘prevailing culture’. Political cowardice has given the Met the leaders it wanted rather than those it needed, but this is a symptom of the political system as a whole – we aren’t getting intelligent politics, let alone Roger Graef’s wish of ‘intelligent policing’:

This heavy-handedness is especially counterproductive. Not only does it contradict the recent new key performance indicator of increasing public confidence, it also makes it less likely that people will provide useful intelligence against potential terrorism. Intelligence-led policing is the new mantra. But intelligence involves more than taking pictures of everyone at a demo and collecting our emails, texts and travel movements on an insecure database. It requires understanding, sensitivity and discretion, all of which go out the window when the red mist descends.

And Dominic Lawson reminds us how little of an incentive there is for them to change from within:

In recent years we have become wearily familiar with what the “closing of ranks” can involve, not stopping short of tampering with evidence. This was seen most dramatically in the inquest into the killing of Jean Charles de Menezes, when a Special Branch officer, giving evidence behind a screen, admitted that he had deleted a line in his original notes, which had recorded that Cressida Dick, the officer in charge of the operation, said at the time that Menezes “can run onto Tube as not carrying anything”.

This, I’m afraid, is the sort of thing that happens when the Association of Chief Police Officers’ Manual of Guidance on Police Use of Firearms sanctions so-called “conferring over notes” after a fatality. The IPCC has on three occasions called for this practice to end – in the first instance after the death in 1999 of 46-year-old Harry Stanley, shot by officers who believed he was holding a gun; the late Mr Stanley, a part-time painter and decorator, was in fact walking home from a pub with a table leg tucked under his arm. Mr Stanley had a spent conviction for robbery, while the unfortunate Mr Tomlinson was an alcoholic drifter who seems to have been drunk on the day of his death; but it is not the job of the police, any more than it is of ordinary members of the public, to carry out extrajudicial punishments against sundry shambling scamps.

Why bother to change when their procedures call for the exact opposite? The IPCC had to be put under pressure by the press rather than any government agency, to investigate the police’s behaviour – why should they be mindful of them? It’ll have been nearly a fortnight since the event – a fortnight for the Met to ‘confer over notes’ and continue their spin against Tomlinson in the same fashion in which they continue to smear Jean Charles DeMenezes. The tabloids are still sniping at ‘rioters’ and against ‘alcoholic drifter’ Tomlinson. And the Tomlinson family have been told it’ll be at least three years before an inquest can be held into his death – the echoes of the DeMenezes case continue. With Justice Secretary Jack Straw similarly disinterested in cleaning up his end of a criminal justice system which didn’t even prosecute DeMenezes’ murders for blatant perjury, it looks like any chance at widespread intelligent policing has been ditched for another generation. Who’ll have to die next?

And this is where the systemic problems which plague them on every count come once again to light. We’ve seen in the last few weeks how the institution has remained unable to tackle the racism and violence in its ranks. Don’t forget mysoginy:

Officers are told all allegations of rape should be investigated, unless there is strong evidence the claim is false. But this policy was ignored in six of the Met’s boroughs. One source said: “The object could have been a massaging of the figures or a misinterpretation of policy. There is some evidence of trying to keep the figures down.”

The most common type of case the practice occurred in was one where a woman went to the police fearing she may have been raped, but was unable to remember what had happened. This can be a common feature where an attacker has used drugs to overpower a victim or when alcohol is involved.

Officers failed to record the allegations as an offence that needed to be investigated, but instead listed them as a CRI, which does not appear on the official crime statistics.

A source said: “When you are uncertain of what has happened you are supposed to record that as an allegation of crime. You believe the victim, it should be recorded as a rape, unless there is substantial grounds to believe otherwise.”

Some of the cases have now been properly recorded and investigated and detectives believe the women were attacked.

The source said failing to record the allegations as crimes was so serious because the training given to officers was that they should be highly suspicious when someone cannot remember what happened, as it might be drug related.

And this is where the problem comes immediately into focus. The training they get is sound. The policies they have are sound. Yet the outcomes are discriminatory. I imagine if there were an easy answer to this it would already have been implemented, but let’s look at some of the issues which get in the way:

Former senior Met officer Brian Paddick, who once headed a Scotland Yard project to improve the number of convictions for rape, said: “It is shocking this has happened for such a serious offence. It could be a reflection of the pressure the police are under from the Home Office to improve the clear-up rate and reduce reported crime.

He added: “There is not the political will in government and the Home Office to put resources into place, which the offence requires, to bring people to justice.”

Joan Smith reminds us:

In the [John] Worboys case, 14 women complained that they’d been assaulted or had an unsettling experience in a black cab since 2002, but police failed to spot a pattern even though the cabbie used very similar methods on his victims. They actually arrested him in the summer of 2007, but he was released after detectives believed his story rather than that of his victim. Worboys went on to attack another 29 women before he was finally arrested and charged in February last year, and the Independent Police Complaints Commission has begun an inquiry into why the Metropolitan Police let him go in 2007.

And another high profile case shows:

The report on the [Kirk Reid] case contained testimony from senior members of the specialised sex crime investigative Sapphire unit in Southwark which described a department in crisis because management – who were concerned with hitting national targets – considered car crime a higher priority than rape and sex offences.

So we have the largest police force in the country staffed in significant numbers by men whose attitudes lead them to believe the offender rather than the victim. We have targets set by local managers for crimes of much lesser severity, and political demands from the Home Office to get reported crime figures down, whatever the cost. The damning indictment though comes from Brian Paddick, who at the end of the day says the Home Office simply doesn’t care enough to do what’s necessary to reform the Met in a way which brings rapists to justice. So it doesn’t matter how well trained they are, it doesn’t matter that they have some progressive policies – if the attitudes and practices within the institution aren’t radically changed then the force will keep failing women (and for that matter gay people and ethnic minorities, even in their own ranks).

Martin Kettle has a point – not only is the current Home Secretary Jacqui Smith incredibly weak, thus making her unable to focus on the important institutional reforms (if she were even interested, which I personally doubt) the Met needs, but the continuing feuding between London Mayor Boris Johnson and the Home Office for political control over the force is becoming a liability to its effectiveness in any regard. At the very least that has to stop, because the fallout is making the Met more of a basket case than it ever was. Somehow the police must be depoliticised, and start focusing solely on helping people rather than dismissing, controlling or (last week) hitting them.

   Having survived the Australian jungle (and Robert Kilroy-Silk) on ‘I’m a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here!’, former top London policeman and last year’s LibDem Mayoral candidate Brian Paddick had it easy-peasy at St Mary’s Church Hall in Neasden last night, when I compered a Question and Answer session with him for Brent Liberal Democrats. The local party had tastefully arranged the set with a variety of stuffed animals, from lions to snakes, and Brian himself got into the mood of things by sportiung a lurid tie encrusted with sparkly bugs. I launched things by asking him to roam pretty freely through the three jungles of policing, politics and reality TV and elicited the confession that his worst moment was being dropped out of an aeroplane in freefall for a minute, before being allowed to open his parachute. Interestingly, most of the questions from the audience related to stop-and-search and other aspects of policing. But of course, he was asked what political role he envisages for himself in the future, including a possible second stab at the London Mayoralty, to which his answers can best be summarised as ‘We’ll see!’.

Link: www.brentlibdems.org.uk

Brian Paddick has reportedly been refusing to do any press since leaving the jungle unless he is paid £10,000 for the privilege.  This is the most absurd think I’ve heard, these celebrities arefame whores who are trying to squeeze every penny out of their 15 minutes… And to think this man ran for Mayor of London.

A greedy greedy wimpish man

You may be thinking Brian is right to ask for more money to do press, but please bare in mind that despite the credit crunch these celebrities are paid thousands of pounds to be on the show and this fee does include related press.  The celebrities also get unrelated endorsement deals/press offers (Kerry Katona – Iceland) where they can get fees into the millions.

I doubt this will happen to Briam as he has been a complete wuss the whole show and has a very unlikable trait in his character.

Brian Paddick has become the sixth celebrity to exit the jungle and I am so glad.  Although I didn’t watch last nights episode as it clashed with Britney, in the last few shows I have been finding Brian so irritating.

Wet Blanket

I think now I have to focus all my energy into getting David Van Day out.

Esther Rantzen has become the fifth celebrity out of the Jungle.  I didn’t really see that coming but it may have had something to do with her whacking out yesterday with the fire, which was hilarious. 

Timmy Mallett has lost the head to head bush tucker trial against Brian Paddick and become the fourth celebrity to leave the jungle.  Brian won the challenge 3-1 and headed back to camp a smug winner but did show his wimpish side complaining to Ant and Dec that Timmy pinched him during the final challenge. 

The challenge was awkward to watch and you could feel the tension that neither celebrity liked each other, luckily we had Ant and Dec to keep the calm.

Brian Paddick and Timmy Mallet received the lowest number of votes in today’s show.  The twist, however, is that both celebrity’s will take part in a head to head bush tucker trial called ‘Last Chance Saloon’.  The winner of this trial will win immunity from the next eviction, the loser will leave the jungle and become the forth celebrity to do so.

Which one goes we’ll find out tomorrow.

I love it, Martina has finally told Brian ‘Wet Blanket’ Paddick to stop being a wuss.  This man was the highest ranking gay police officer in Britain yet he has absolutely no balls at all.  I truly can’t stand the man.  Yes David Van Day annoys me and Timmy needs to grow up, but what I hate most is people who have no opinion and who are wishy washy.  Brian Paddick needs to go.

Said what

Former boy-band member Simon Webbe was injured on Friday taking part in a jungle challenge for immunity.

Injured

Simon was taking part in the challenge with Brian Paddick and Carly Zucker which was thought to be testing their endurance but after seeing the challenge it seemed pretty easy and nothing much to it.  The challenge involved all three contestants laying strapped into a bed and being rotated on a spit above fake flames. 

After 1hr 50 wet blanket Brian gave up stated that immunity wasn’t worth the damage the straps were doing to his body, what a wimp is all I can say.  Brain also made a comment during the challenge that he should be used to being roasted as he used to be a pig, this comment couldn’t have gone down well with his former colleagues.

Carly and Simon were left rotating in what could have been one of the dullest challenges in the show until Simon’s straps broke across his shoulders forcing the top half of his body to fall to the floor while the bed was still rotating wedging his head literally between a rock and a hard place.  Sorry to sound insensitive but I thought this was hilarious.

strong willed Nicola

In other jungle news, Nicola has confessed to hating David van Day and finding everything he does annoying.  For me Nicola, along with George, is the break-out star so far which has really surprised me, she’s likable, strong-minded and seems to have a good head on her shoulders.  I hope she does well.

The Liberal Democrat Friends of Poland had an enjoyable launch tonight at London’s City Hall, at which the star attraction was party leader, Nick Clegg, who got things off with a swing. The whole event was recorded by Polish TV and radio, as well as various representatives of Polish community organisations. LibDem Euro-candidates were out in force. Nick brushed aside an opening question from a London-based Polish language radio station about how long he thought Brian Paddick might survive on ‘I’m a Celebrity — Get Me out of Here!’ He had far more important things to talk about, including the tragedy that is the downgrading of foreign language-teaching in this country. Nick operates well before intimate audiences, where he can enter into a robust dialogue with questioners, agreeing eloquently when he does, but standing by his principles and beliefs when he doesn’t. As he said, he was himself ’concocted’ from Dutch, Russian and other variegated stock (not to mention his Spanish wife), which probably only a welcoming environment such as Britain could have permitted. A little of an Obama touch there?

The event was chaired by the Mayor of Islington, Stefan Kasprzyk, an Islingtonian of Polish stock. Inevitably questions were asked about how other Poles (of whom there might be up to one million in this country) can be encouraged to enter into the political process. This is all the more relevant given the high level of immigration since Poland joined the EU in 2004, even though tens of thousands of them have since returned home. It took the ubiquitous Simon Hughes, now cruising gracefully through the last few weeks of his party presidency, to remind everyone that the first British politician with Polish connections was Constance Markievicz (née Gore-Booth) – ’The People’s Countess’ – who was elected on a Sinn Fein ticket in Dublin in 1918, while being held in prison for her nationalist activities, though she never took her seat as she refused to take the oath of alleigance to the King.

Former party leader Menzies Campbell was in fine fettle at the Sutton Liberal Democrats’ annual garden party at Jayanta Chaterjee’s home this afternoon. Ming spilled few beans about the Henley away-day Nick Clegg convened yesterday, but instead urged us all to give loving support for the wives, partners and families of MPs — a point doubtless appreciated by his two local colleagues, Tom Brake and Paul Burstow, who were standing at his side. It is true that politics is a demanding business that puts terrible strains on relationships. Few voters have any idea how much domestic tranquility politicians often sacrifice for their benefit.

Former mayoral candidate Brian Paddick, also in the full flush of health, told a story whose point I didn’t quite grasp, about Puff the Magic Dragon. Something to do with Ken Livingstone, I think. Anyway, as Brian pulled my ticket out from the raffle, netting me a fine bottle of Rioja, who am I to complain?

Link: http://sutton-libdems.org.uk

With only days to go until London votes for its new Mayor, 24 Gold reporter Ann Scantlebury asks students whether they’ll be voting:

Today is the last day to send off postal votes in the race to elect London’s new mayor. All the candidates are campaigning hard as the competition goes into its final stages. While there are 11 contenders for the Mayoral title, those looking at it objectively see this as a two horse race. Conservative Boris Johnson is attempting to topple ‘Red Ken’ Livingstone, the current mayor. Bookmakers across the country have drawn up odds to reflect who they think will come out victorious.

Johnson favourite to win

Lawrence Foley, the Political Odds Compiler for online betting company IG Index, says the betting industry is currently backing Boris to win.

“When Boris originally announced he was going to run most bookmakers priced him up at about 2-1 and he’s now odds on, which is a big move. Ken’s been as short as 2-5, which is very short, as short as anybody’s been.”

As for other contenders, Liberal Democrat Brian Paddick is the only one that has ever been a serious threat, but he has always been an outsider with the bookies, even going as low as 25-1.

‘Ignored’ students not heading to polls

In an election that may go down to second votes, every cross of the box is important. With a large student community in London those votes may be all important. Speaking to young people studying at Goldsmiths University, New Cross, there was no feeling that the candidates had done anything to make them want to vote. One student commented that he didn’t “know if they really reach out to students that much,” an opinion apparently shared with the politically diverse students in London.

Whatever your political persuasion, your vote is important. If you don’t vote, the next time you complain about London Transport you’ll only have yourself to blame.

Like everyone else in politics Brian Paddick has sold his diary to The Mail on Sunday. The difference is that his are funny:

Find myself broadcasting on Deptford Pensioners Radio station in East London. Wonder, not for first time, who exactly my Press officer is working for.

Now the London elections are safely out of the way, I’ve at last had time to read Brian Paddick’s autobiography, Line of Fire. This was published during the late stages of the London Mayoral campaign, I suspect more with an eye to boosting sales than to boosting his electoral chances. Disappointingly for politicos, there is almost no political content to the book (although Brian did a PPE degree at Queen’s College, Oxford, on sabbatical from the Met). Apart from a passing reference to the late Harriet Smith, the Liberal Democrats don’t get a look-in until right at the end of he book — and then only cursorily, with no real explanation as to why he decided to run in a race which nobody seriously thought he could win.

His account of life inside the Metropolitan Police does contain revealing material, though the gist of his falling out with Sir Ian Blair over the Jean Charles de Menezes affair was already widely known. ‘Britain’s most controversial policeman’ has also outed himself sexually repeatedly, so there are few surprises about his private life, other than the rather touching portrait of his (now divorced wife) Mary as a real brick. Given his lifestyle, however, it did come as something of a revelation to learn of Brian’s Masonic and Baptist affiliations.

In his book, he gets as excited as any teenager when finding himself surrounded (thanks to David Funish) by Elton John, George Michael, Lulu, Sharon Osbourne et al. In fact, there is something Peter-Panish about him, despite his intelligence and the important policing roles he had over 20 years. I can’t think of many other men who have just turned 50 who list their hobbies as ‘the gym’ and ‘clubbing’. There’s a well-known saying that ‘Life Begins at Forty’, but maybe in Brian’s case, it will be ‘Life Begins at Fifty’: a political campaign under his belt, a civil partnership on the way, and maybe even a media career. Having successfully sued the Mail newspapers in the past, he’s now getting money out of them by writing for them instead — with a piece in yesterday’s Mail on Sunday that was infinitely more revealing and amusing than his (partly ghost-written) book, I have to say.

One could almost feel sorry for Brian Paddick, who has published his London Mayoral campaign diary in (believe it or not) the Mail on Sunday. He was a candidate with little media experience, running for a party which has only ever had to drop a few leaflets, with some dodgy bar charts and attacking the incumbent, to get votes.

Now, though, the LibDems are becoming increasingly irrelevant, with their single trump card of Iraq now spent and their only hope left being to fiddle the electoral system and scrape a cabinet post in a coalition.

Yet where else can Paddick go? Brian, of course, has come out of the closet … as a socialist dinosaur, voting for the Left List. So now, complaining about being squeezed between the two main parties, lack of media attention, his true sympathies being with the far left … Paddick is a rare thing: a Lib Dem through and through. Next he’ll be calling for proprtional representation … oh yes, that’s right, they had it in London, and look what good it did them!

Hat tip: Iain Dale