Brian Paddick, the controversial former top cop chosen by the Liberal Democrats as their candidate for London Mayor, is being backed by rock legend Sir Elton John.

Paddick, Britain's first openly gay senior policeman, operated a softly-softly policy on cannabis when he was Metropolitan Police commander in Brixton, south London, a strategy condemned by many MPs.

Now he is challenging London Mayor Ken Livingstone and Conservative rival Boris Johnson in a contest next May that has already been dubbed a race between three mavericks.

Revealing his celebrity backing from the superstar whose hits include "Rocket Man", Paddick told me: "Before I got the nomination, I got a text from David Furnish (Sir Elton's partner) saying 'We'll support you'."

He says there has been no pledge of financial support so far. But I'm sure big-spending Elton can afford to donate a few bob to a political campaign.

Paddick probably won't be singing "I Guess That's Why They Call It The Blues" in his campaign. He can leave that one to Boris Johnson.

Ken Livingstone's opponents will claim "Madman Across The Water" is an apt reference to the newt-loving incumbent at City Hall.

But as next May approaches, Brian Paddick will hope it's a case of "I'm Still Standing" and not "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road".

Comments

[Gary Elsby stoke 22 Nov 2007 11:12:17]

Carol Anne:
I think you are suggesting that it is by far better that an innocent man is convicted of a crime he has not committed, to justify and satisfy the needs of the criminal justice system that convicts guilty men of crimes that they have committed.

You also are suggesting that many men who have committed this heinous crime are found not guilty and that those wrongly convicted who serve out a sentence for someones guilty conscienc e is the pay off.

It is an immoral stance to take and that's why I condemn Harman and O'brien without a thought.

Gary

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 19 Nov 2007 13:59:30]

Posted by: Patricia 16 Nov 2007 15:05:58 “No one in their RIGHT MIND (emphasis added) would choose to be gay any more than they would opt to be born limbless or blind, but no decent person would joke about a physical flaw would they? As beauty is in the eye of the beholder I would suggest the definition of what constitutes a 'true lady' is also open to personal interpretation”.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said a few days ago that people blame homosexuals as if it was their fault. Frankly who is blaming the homosexuals as it is their fault? Of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Yes, it is certainly not the fault of gays to be innately so inclined. I do believe sexual orientation is genetically determined. I am not being judgmental about others’ sexual orientation! I would certainly not regard homosexuality as equivalent to be born limbless, blind, or as a physical FLAW. (No to say that a person born limbless, blind or other physical 'flaws' is any more to be blamed or a 'sin') By the way, I read some time ago that many homosexuals, when asked, prefer to remain gay. So be it, it is their choice, we are in the 21st century.

[carol-ann liverpool 19 Nov 2007 12:19:19]

Gary Elsby

Maybe we should do away with the law then, incase some poor man gets sent to jail?

Very few rapists actually get to court and when they do only a very small percentage get convicted.
In cases where it boils down to one person's word against another and the man claims that the woman consented, juries were very reluctant to convict because they didn't want to risk convict an innocent man.
So, overall, rapists are more likely to get away with their crime than any other criminal - assuming that they are really guilty and are lying (which on the balance of probabilities a fair number are)

In the past, even when they were convicted on the basis of the evidence, they often got very short sentences, leaving their victims feeling that they had been abused a second time - in court.

Some of the difficulties with this crime have been addressed: i.e. what constitutes rape and the issue of 'consent' where men claim that a woman consented based on their own 'feelings' now have to be able to prove that she 'actively' consented - in other words, he has to have evidence - like the woman verbally agreeing to have a sexual relationship with them.

Rather than innocent men going to jail, it was more likely that hundreds of innocent women were denied justice because the small number of men who actually got charged with rape, ever got convicted. So the chances of an innocent man getting convicted/jailed was remote.

[Craig 18 Nov 2007 03:20:02]

Patricia -

'but no decent person would joke about a physical flaw would they?.'

You are so correct. But it is alright for George Osborne (The Spectators Politician of the Year)to make jokes about autism. Oh they can overlook that can't they - He's a Tory after all!!

[Gary Elsby stoke-on-trent 17 Nov 2007 13:53:04]

I'm left wondering what is the difference between a homosexual man who abuses boys, a heterosexual man who abuses boys, a paedophile who abuses children, a rapist who abuses women and a woman who claims she was raped and is lying?

Everyone of them a criminal.
All victims innocent.

Only one victim goes to jail.

Gary

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 16 Nov 2007 15:19:54]

Merv

I always appreciate your sense of humour and jokes which are not at all offensive. For example, your recent mother in law jokes and having to stand instead of being seated at the queen's banquet because of basic arithmetic errors (and others) are very good, sometimes too devious by far. Keep it up. Please do not apologise for your gift of good sense of humour, like your dear Mum, not as a grumpy person. Thanks!

[Patricia 16 Nov 2007 15:05:58]

Merv.
I did not perceive your remarks as humorous but rather as a crude and cruel disparagement of the homosexual community.No one in their right mind would choose to be gay any more than they would opt to be born limbless or blind, but no decent person would joke about a physical flaw would they?.
As beauty is in the eye of the beholder I would suggest the definition of what constitutes a 'true lady' is also open to personal interpretation.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 16 Nov 2007 13:32:55]

Carol Ann

Frankly, I do not know of any homophobic myths. I was not discussing (as you asserted) about what gay people do in the privacy of their own homes (nor am I interested in the least) or that politicians should not be gay.

From what has been reported in the media, I observe that most pedophiles have been homosexual ones. If you disagree, on what evidence that you claim that "gay pedophiles are rare. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual"? You can be accused of being heterphobic when you stated that, “even pedophiles who abuse boys are often heterosexual, married and behave normally within their families. Gay pedophiles are rare. The overwhelming majority of pedophiles are heterosexual". Speaking for myself (and others I know), real heterosexual men detest having any sex with ANY males (regardless of what age they are). As I said in my previous entries on this blog, homosexuality is not really a sexual issue to me.

I certainly have great concern and sympathy for victims of sexual offences and convicted sexual offenders certainlly deserve severe sentences. I am not at all trivialising pedophilia, rape, about suffering from aids, violence, drunkenness and child battering. The point I was making is that such serious crimes can be committed by both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 16 Nov 2007 13:02:21]

Patricia,
I can assure you that none of my postings are in any way meant to be offensive, and I cannot accept that being old fashioned is a reason for interpreting them in that way.
My mum, bless her, died four weeks ago at the age of 94,
and she used to laugh like mad at jokes similar to the ones to which you refer, and she was a true lady, so although I regret that you have been offended by my jokes, I can only suggest that we all have different levels of humour.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 16 Nov 2007 12:51:37]

Patricia,
Believe me, none of my comments are in any way meant to be offensive, and I would suggest that being old fashioned doesn't necessarily mean that they should be treated as such.
My mum, bless her, who passed away four weeks ago at the age of 94, had the most wonderful sense of humour, and she used to laugh like mad at jokes, such as the ones to which you refer, and she was a true lady, so although I regret that you have been offended by my type of humour, I do feel that you

[carol-ann liverpool 16 Nov 2007 12:20:13]

peter c

First of all, I agree that you have the right to feel whatever you feel. You have the right of free speech - except when what you say contravenes the human rights of others or the law

I also have the right to take you to task if I find what you say offensive or incorrect.

You are, it seems, ignorant of the facts of the matter.

paedophiles are NOT 'often gay'.

Even paedophiles who abuse boys are often heterosexual, married and behave normally within their families.

Gay paedophiles are rare. The overwhelming majority of paedophiles are heterosexual [although some argue that paedophilia is a distinct sexuality- but that is, I believe, just an attempt to legitimise what they do]

You are perpertrating a homophobic myth.

The facts siimply do not support your claim.

It is ineresting that you have no concern whatsoever for victims of sexual offences - which are, overwhelmingly the victims of hteresexual offenders, like many other people are disturbed by homosexuality

You are just concerned with how YOU feel.

The point I was making is, that many people seem NOT to be bothered about all the offensive things I listed, but
ARE bothered about homosexuality. Why? Prejudice nand ignorance, I feel.

I have not seen anyone complaining about the heterosexual behaviours of any of the other candidates in the campaign for London Mayor.

Why is it that what gay people do in the privacy of their homes a subject for discussion when no-one is concerend about what other candidates do?

I am pointing out how illogical that seems.

Even Christians who think of homosexuality as a 'sin' are taught to hate the 'sin' but love the 'sinner' and don't treat them any different to anyone else.

IIt is such illogical thinking that leads to gay people being targets of violence.

[Patricia 16 Nov 2007 12:14:58]

I freely admit to being slightly old fashioned but I do find the 'bottoms up' type of 'jokes' offensive and I am particularly disappointed that some of them were made by persons for whom I once had some respect.

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 16 Nov 2007 09:38:18]

Carol Ann

I believe that you are wheelchair bound yourself. Did you meant 2023 or 1923? The point I was making in my entries on this blog it is not illegal to discriminate against gays but it is illegal to discriminate on grounds of disabilities (under the Disability Discrimination Act) and against ethnic origins.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 16 Nov 2007 09:35:48]

Peter C.
I wish I could have thought of that! Well done.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 16 Nov 2007 09:34:00]

Carol-Ann,
I'm certainly not obsessed with homosexuality, as you put it, and my comments were intended to be humorous in line with Jon's write up!
You have every right not to read my postings, but if you don't you won't know what I've written!
Cheer up Carol-Ann, and don't read too much into my comments, and I'll still continue to read your postings!

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 16 Nov 2007 09:28:24]

Carol Ann

Homosexuality is not really a sexual issue to me. I find homosexuality abhorrent, like some women finding sex between women abhorrent. Heterosexually should not be confused with issues like rapist (who can be gay), personal hygiene (including about aids), violence (includes females), pedophiles (who are often gay), drunkenness (includes females) and child battering (includes females). Sorry, confusing generalised, blinked, slurs and innuendos about heterosexuality have to be corrected.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 16 Nov 2007 08:20:45]

Gary,
Your original posting was very clever, and would definitely have given you an 11+ pass! Cheers, and 'Bottoms Up'!

[carol-ann liverpool 16 Nov 2007 01:03:09]

Peter C

I think you will find that disabled people do not have full equality: that does not happen until 2023!

The 'get out clause' in the Disability Discrimination Act is:

Disabled people should have 'reasonable'access to goods and services.

Thus if a disabled person complains that they do not have access to a shop or business, the shop or business can argue that it isn't 'reasonable' to provide such access because it would cost too much money - if they are a small or medium sized business.

'reasonable access' is not the same as 'equal access'

What people often forget is that up to 75% of disabled people are also elderly people who are disabled with severe arthritis, heart disease and Parkinson's, just to name a few conditions.

A building society in my local high street did some work a few years ago, supposedly to increase access to the disabled.
They put in automatic doors - however, after you take two steps inside the doors there are two deep steps up.

Then in this new modern environment, financial advisers were seated behind desks on separate 'islands' on three different levels, accessible only after again negotiating two or three deep steps!

If they had consulted some of the senior citizens who use their services they would have avoided making such a dreadful faux pas!

Luckily, a few businesses are beginning to recognise that it makes good business sense to make things easier for disabled people.

[carol-ann liverpool 15 Nov 2007 20:25:18]

Why are men so obsessed with the sex when there is a discussion of homosexuality?

Do they protest too much, I wonder?

Men can't cope with that, but can be sympathetic to rapists!

I am more bothered by the number of men who have gross personal hygiene habits which leads to women suffering and dying from cancer of the womb.

A 'romance' between gay men is preferable to the domestic violence that many heterosexual men indulge in.

a gay romance is better than the heterosexual paedophile who thinks it is OK to violate babies and children and murder them.

A romance between gay men is preferable to the drunken louts shouting obscenities and sexually harassing women who walk past pubs and clubs in city centres.

gay parents are better than the thousands of heterosexual relationships where children are battered to death or suffer permanent psychological damage.

All these things I find abbhorent.

The only thing that bothers me about a gay man wanting to be Mayor of London is what are his POLICIES.

(And, no, Merv, I don't want to hear any more of your homophobic quips)

[The Morning Mail 15 Nov 2007 18:17:31]

Can't be any worse than Boris the Buffoon!

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 15 Nov 2007 17:15:54]

Peter C.
I didn't either until I met the Mother in Law!

[John (Northumberland) 15 Nov 2007 17:04:43]

Gary

There was no political jibe nor innuendo intended in my post. Just sometimes we write things on these blogs and they can read differently to the way we intended (sort of written Coleman Balls). I've done it myself.

No offence intended, just a lighthearted moment, which made me laugh!

Regards

John

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 15 Nov 2007 16:48:28]

David Mills

I am not old fashioned and I do not think homosexuality is a 'sin'. By the way, I do not believe in the concept of 'God' or 'sin', as I do not believe that 'God' exist.

[Rai. London, UK 15 Nov 2007 16:28:37]

I do too Merv. It's my experience that Biblical literalists can perform the most death-defying feats of mental gymnastics and aerial semantics when faced with a passage of the bible that doesn't fit into their world view. It's quite a sight.

And yes David did quite well

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 15 Nov 2007 16:03:44]

Rai,
I look forward to Charles's response, but it does appear as though David had the best of both worlds!

[Rai 15 Nov 2007 15:20:44]

Charles - try reading your bible again. Homosexuality is not a sin, because there is a homosexual relationship between David and Jonathan and David says that "Jonathan's love surpassed that of women". If God thought homosexuality was a sin, then why did he put a gay love story in His book concerning one of His most favoured people.

Brian Paddick is a decent man, unlike Ken Livingstone who will do anything for power, or Boris Johnson who thinks the London Mayoralty is a joke. I can't imagine why anyone would want to vote for either one to be honest.

Go on Brian.

[Gary Elsby 15 Nov 2007 15:18:08]

John: I've no idea what you're on about.
I just thought it a funny quip from Jon Craig suggesting that Elton was backing Paddick. rather him than me, I thought.
I 'm just suggesting that Elton will be right behind him all the way to the finish.
Rather him than me I think.

There is no innuendo intended as I'm sure Elton thought long and hard before deciding which candidate to back.

If I'd taken my 11+ I am confident I would have failed it.

Gary

[Wayne Knight Portsmouth 15 Nov 2007 15:06:46]

All these posts about a potential scary mayor candidate. Gosh, what do you is going to happen? He’s going to hack into a computer system and then there will be dinosaurs running about. Get a grip people, it’s London, not Jurrasic Park!!

[Victor, NW Kent 15 Nov 2007 14:28:40]

Fortunately for London Mr Paddick will not be elected so it hardly matters.

[David Mills 15 Nov 2007 14:28:11]

Chuah & Charles

In terms of the CDS Extracts, I can't believe we still live in a old fashioned society where people think homosexuality is a horrible sin. I'm in a great relationship with my partner Oswald and if Paddick wants to run for mayor then good on him. You should wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.

[Josephine, Eastbourne 15 Nov 2007 14:25:15]

His sexual preferences really do not bother me. And they should not be a factor in the decision of his being chosen as a Candidate for Mayor of London.
What does bother me and should all Londoners, is his support of Ian Blair a couple of weeks back on Question Time. (Some what at odds to the LibDem position...)
He struck me as someone who did not have an independant view, but was happy to pander for his ex boss....

[Paul, Leeds 15 Nov 2007 14:15:27]

Whislt I have no problem with Homosexuals so long as they leave me alone I cannot see how being homosexual equips you in any way to be Mayor of London. Ken Livingstone proves that an imbecile can do the job so why don't we just select candidates with an I Q of 50 or less? I have no confidence in Paddick though having watched Question Time a couple of weeks ago when he was giving his support to Ian Blair. I do have a problem with that.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 15 Nov 2007 14:09:16]

Peter,
I'm sure the prediction in your final paragraph is correct, and if Elton gives a free concert on election day, it will certainly boost Mr. Paddick's chances! I suppose it could be described as getting in through the back door, but of course we'll have to wait and see!

[John Delaney 15 Nov 2007 13:42:56]

Peter Chuah

I believe whether one is heterosexual or homosexual is genetically determined. I personally find romance between a man with another man totally abhorrent. I am entitled to my opinions.

Ok yes you are and just remember when people have views from now on that they are entitled to express them
and they don t have you chastising them like you do on these blogs,what I would say is if they are happy then so be it

[The Morning Post 15 Nov 2007 13:31:08]

JT Mullet

No its does'nt but it does'mt make you a London mayoral candidate either!

[Peter, Fife 15 Nov 2007 13:26:44]

What a fiasco, this only goes to show the value of the post of London Mayor.

I'm waiting for those in the homosexual communities promoting their man on the strength of his sexuality alone, with anybody else who complains at such campaign being labelled homophobic.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 15 Nov 2007 12:52:34]

Mike,
The subject is about who is backing him, not whether he'll be any good or not, but if he fails, and falls on his backside, he will definely be out of business!

[JT Mullet 15 Nov 2007 12:37:33]

Well, get Mr Chuah and Charles. Not exactly tolerant are we? I think Mr Paddick would be great. I am an overweight, disabled lesbian, does that make me genetically determined Mr Chuah? Good on Sky News for displaying this about Mr Paddick.

[mike,spain 15 Nov 2007 12:05:42]

Terrible comments so far. What's this gay bashing week. I would be more interested to see what he has to offer as a candidate, which is much more informed reading.

[John (Northumberland) 15 Nov 2007 11:40:33]

Gary Elsby

Can I just check - were you still referring to the campaign for Mayor or something to do with homosexuality?

I quote, "I'm sure that Elton doesn't need reminding though, that as the campaign draws to a climax, even more effort will be needed".

[Khalid 15 Nov 2007 11:03:01]

How fascinating that Sir Elton is to provide solid backing as the three musketeers do the "Thong Song-Sisqo".

[The Morning Post 15 Nov 2007 10:00:33]

Merv

You missed your vocation you should have been a script writer! I guess there are certain qualities Mr Paddick might well bring to the table. Problem is i cannot think of any right now!

[charles in nigeria 15 Nov 2007 09:55:31]

Homosexuality is a sin against God and man.But what ever Paddock chooses to do is his own buisness.I lived in Brixton when he was a commander of the Met.He was generally liked by the ethnic minorities.He seemed to understand them and they understood him.He will surely get their votes.Whether he will win is another matter.

[Gary Elsby 15 Nov 2007 09:31:58]

It's great to see a music legend take an interest in politics.

I'm guessing that Sir Elton spent hours, days, weeks' even and probably Many Months trawling over policy after policy before deciding to support Mr. Paddick.

This is community involvement at its finest.

I'm sure that Elton will get behind Mr. Paddick and put a lot of effort into his campaign. I'm sure that Elton doesn't need reminding though, that as the campaign draws to a climax, even more effort will be needed.

Gary

[Peter Chuah, Birmingham 15 Nov 2007 09:20:16]

I believe whether one is heterosexual or homosexual is genetically determined. I personally find romance between a man with another man totally abhorrent. I am entitled to my opinions. In this regard, I wish to point out that there is no such thing as unlawful discrimination against males or females (or against gays for that matter), as present legislations only provide against discrimination amongst people of different races or those who are disabled. Of course ‘equal pay must be paid for work of equal value’, but this can be applied to all workers, regardless of their sex or sexual orientation.

Under the evolutional law of the 'selection of the fittest', homosexuals will not normally pass their genes to the next generation. In this regard, I would like to submit that adoption is a good option for a 'gay' couple, rather than the option of IVF treatment & surrogate pregnancy, whereby one member of a gay partnership contribute his sperm or her egg.

[Merv. Beszant, Dubai 15 Nov 2007 08:41:35]

I suppose it's a case of starting at the 'bottom' and working your way up!