Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Brian Paddick would ‘definitely consider’ becoming a Lord

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. thetoblerone 7 Jun 2010, 12:57pm

    Mr Paddick says he doesn’t know anything about becoming a Lord and with ignorance like that then he is clearly ideally qualified! Becoming a lord involves parasitically living off the taxpayer while everyone else is told they have to tighten their belts thanks to the financial crisis created by other parasites.

  2. Newspaniard 7 Jun 2010, 1:55pm

    Surely you, Pink News, have blown Nick’s chances of becoming a peer with this premature (pointless) disclosure.

  3. I know very little about British peerages but I thought it was an honor conferred by the Queen and not an invitation to, say, a country club.

  4. Paddick: “It’s important that the House of Lords represents the diversity of who we have in our society.”

    It would be nice, for a change, to see Lib Dem peers working in favour of diversity instead of against it.

  5. I thought the idea was to eventually abolish this archaic system with an elected upper parliament. No of them represent us , gay or straight, lab,con or lib dem. They’re not elected .. I thought the idea was to move to an elected senate or was this just wishful thinking… How much do all these hundreds of guys who can never be removed get paid for just sitting there and falling asleep? Also when are they going to get rid of the bishop part of the house of lords, they don’t represent a multi relgious society…

  6. The House of Lords needs to be abolished in its entirety and replaced with a democratically elected upper house.

    I’ve lost respect for Brian Paddick for his support of an undemocratic institution like the House of Lords.

  7. How ridiculous. The man is a prat anyway and becoming part of this elitist sytem just makes him more so. I can’t understand why he has become this great gay hero – he has done nothing to deserve it – he lied about taking drugs – great, lets make him a lord!

  8. Chameleon 7 Jun 2010, 5:48pm

    From p.27 of the Coalition programme for government:

    “We will establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motion by December 2010. It is likely that this will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely that there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber that is reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.”

    The scrutiny role of a second chamber is fundamental to our parliamentary system, and many others. That it needs reform is evident, and it’s a shame Labout didn’t get round ot finish the job. But there has to be a proper process for achieving that reform, and so the creation of new tory and lib dem (and independent) peers is part of that.

    Brian Paddick has done good service to the police, politics and the LGBT community, so I’ve certainly got no objections to him taking a role in the transitional arrangements. I’d probably even vote for him.

    Shame some of the whingers in here couldn’t even be bothered to inform themselves about what’s happening before sticking their knives in.

  9. I used to have respect for Brian in the past particularly when he was working for the Metropolitan police.

    It now seems to me he is just another big head looking to get his ego massaged on the public stage and is in politics because he feels it is glamorous and gets him attention.
    The guy is a total media whore.
    People like him and David Laws set the cause of LGBT back years with their behaviour.

  10. Well, if Sir Ian “A brown person! Quick, fire!” Blair can get a peerage in the last peer pack, there’s no reason why Paddick can’t. I don’t know how I feel about the HOL, them not being properly elected and all but (a)being “properly” (discussions on PR or AV go here) elected doesn’t stop the lower chamber from being a bunch of corrupt, scrounging bastards and (b) at least peers are occasionally seen to contribute to democracy, unlike, say, knights, who just get a shiny thing and no pressure to do anything for anyone.

  11. Newspaniard 8 Jun 2010, 9:43am

    Many times in the past, the HOL have scrutinized very dodgy legislation passed by all colours of party in the Commons and either moderated or killed it off. This is the prime reason that the Commons wants to stuff the Lords with its own poodles and not accept the (moderating) service that the HOL has done for this country for centuries. The same reason that the current administration have just neutered the Back Bench Committee. On the other hand I totally agree that the looneys that believe in supernatural beings (currently called bishops but next week may be called imams) have no place in any legislative body and should have been thrown out on their collective ears years ago.

  12. The HOL has no mandate from ANYONE. No-one gets to vote them in or out.

    It is at its heart a deeply undemocratic institution.

    Britain’s laughably primitive electoral system for the House of Commons is bad enough but the Lords is just a joke.

    Unless it becomes a House of Lords where EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM is elected using Proportional Representation, then the House of Lords is an obscene joke, and makes a huge mockery of Britain’s claim to being a democratic country.

    It always amuses me when the Tories harp on about the undemocratic EU when, compared to the British system (House of Lords and the ridiculous 1st Past the Post system for the House of Commons) it is a model of accountability and representation.

    I think Britain needs to start preparing to become a republic. ‘Queen’ Elizabeth seems like a pleasant enough, harmless old dear. There is no way on earth that her jug-eared, moronic disgrace of a son should be allowed to become head of state simply because of an accident of birth.

  13. No 11: Newspaniard: you say: “Many times in the past, the HOL have scrutinized very dodgy legislation passed by all colours of party in the Commons and either moderated or killed it off. ”

    But the House of Lords has no democratic mandate to behave like so.

    They are unelected.

    So for them to pervert democracy in this way is a disgrace.

  14. Newspaniard 8 Jun 2010, 1:39pm

    @MartinM. Lot of bluster and shouting there. Socialist Worker are you? The majority of English people are very happy with the system as it is. The only people who want a Republic are those who throw bombs or wuold like the same kind of corruption that walks hand in hand with Presidential (Dictatorial) countries, with leaders like Bush or Mugabe. Instead of condemming the way we do things as a ‘perversion of democracy’, sit back and think about the alternatives. After analysing it, you will find that Stalin’s system didn’t work, although Putin seems to want to have another go and there are few systems available which protect individual rights as ours does, flawed as it may appear. We, at least can sod off to any MP, including the PM, if he gets too ‘uppitty’, something they can’t do in the’Good Old USA’

  15. Stuart Neyton 8 Jun 2010, 4:25pm

    @Newspaniard “The only people who want a Republic are those who throw bombs or wuold like the same kind of corruption that walks hand in hand with Presidential (Dictatorial) countries”

    This is one of the most ridiculous comments i’ve ever heard. What makes presidential systems dictatorial?? Sure some presidents are dictators, but the monarchy is completely undemocratic and is far closer to the meaning of the word “dictatorship” than any democratically elected president is.

    “sit back and think about the alternatives”

    Please do. You only seem to care about the presidential systems where the president exercises power. As a republican i’d like to say i’m completely against this system, favouring a parliamentary republic, much like the system we have now but with a democratically elected ceremonial head of state, like they have in almost every other country in the western world.

    There’s a heck of a lot more resentment for the royal family than you think. I don’t have anything against the people themselves, just the principle. The monarchy should have been abolished centuries ago.

  16. Stuart Neyton 8 Jun 2010, 4:29pm

    As for Paddick, anyone who wants to sit in that house of crooks, answerable to no one, should go to hell.

  17. Newspaniard 8 Jun 2010, 11:35pm

    @Stuart Neyton. So much hate can’t be healthy in one so immature. Hurry up and join the real world. Luckily for us corruption in both houses is negligible. Most members of both houses are trying to do what they consider to be a good public service except the bishops of course who want all non Xtians burnt at the stake. If a few minor irreglarities with expense claims is the worst they can do then I don’t think this country is too badly off with its legislators. So, when you’ve done your homework tomorrow and before you start playing with your Xbox try and think more kindly of people who are keeping their heads down and just trying to get on with their lives the best they can. Brian Piddick is NOT a bad man. The Met gave him a raw deal. He would have made a great Chief Constable. If he can give further service to this country from his seat in the HOL, he should be encouraged after all, if the HOL was an elected body, wouldn’t he be one of those who should stand for election?

  18. Stuart Neyton 11 Jun 2010, 12:39am

    I’ll ignore the personal insults because they have no place here.

    “if the HOL was an elected body, wouldn’t he be one of those who should stand for election?”

    Absolutely, and i’d be glad to see him serve publicly, however without being elected he has no democratic mandate and as far as i’m concerned no right to sit in a legislative body.

    “If a few minor irreglarities with expense claims is the worst they can do then I don’t think this country is too badly off with its legislators”

    I didn’t mention this but while you’re at it… anyone with such financial irregularities working in a real job would have been fired and probably sent to prison for theft. MPs shouldn’t be any different.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all