SY are not influenced by money and status?

by Pershing36 22.12.13 20:08

A few days ago we had

TV cook Nigella Lawson will not face an investigation over claims she took cocaine, police have said

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then today we have

Police are to examine the evidence following TV cook Nigella Lawson's admission as a witness in a court case that she took cocaine.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

A clear case that SY are not impartial and will bow down to money and power. Watch any of their self promotional fly on the wall documentaries they regularly catch and confiscate drugs, including Cocaine and let the people off with a street caution.

Even when the taker is driving they are often let off, unlike people that are over the legal alcohol limit. Many on these programs are let free after it is determined at the police station they are under the limit. The ones that are stopped and their cars stink of cannabis go free to drive on.

by margaret 22.12.13 22:41

I don't think they had any option with the nigella case, if there are high profile allegations they have to question that person. The most that will happen is that she'll be spoken to and let off with a caution.

As for the confiscating of drugs l expect SY are no different to every other police force, they are snowed under and it's too much paperwork! If it was a lot of drugs or someone they keep apprehending it might be different.

by notlongnow 22.12.13 23:02

What she does in her own home shouldn't really be worth investigating.
Far more important things the police could do with there resources.

by Mirage 22.12.13 23:28

notlongnow wrote:What she does in her own home shouldn't really be worth investigating.
Far more important things the police could do with there resources.

Only problem with that is she informed the world and his wife from the witness box what she was doing in her own home. Now she's brought an illegal act into the open she should not expect preferential treatment. After all, the cocaine didn't materialise from thin air. A dealer is involved somewhere along the line.

One of the biggest gripes on this forum pivots on preferential treatment for certain echelons in society. If you deem legal consequences for some and not others an appropriate response we may as well all pack up and go home.

by plebgate 22.12.13 23:34

notlongnow wrote:What she does in her own home shouldn't really be worth investigating.
Far more important things the police could do with there resources.

What she does in her own home (or anybody else for that matter), is worth investigating imo as she has broken the law and there were children living in her home at the time.

by notlongnow 22.12.13 23:41

I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

by plebgate 22.12.13 23:48

notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

I agree, excessive drinking causes harm to family life also and harm to children. Nigella has amitted to taking Class A drugs, they have been given that classification for a reason, very addictive and dangerous and IMO should be investigated and make a court appearance for breaking the law.

by Mirage 22.12.13 23:58

notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

Drugs are in a totally different category. The Nigellas of this world create the business for murderous gangs.

People who are lower down the chain take hard drugs, get hooked then recruited by ruthless gangsters who make them repay debts by dealing in turn. They have their houses firebombed, their families terrorized if they default on payments. They are tricked into escalating debt then forced into becoming drug mules.

This is why it is essential drugs should not be glamourised.

by plebgate 23.12.13 0:01

again Mirage I agree and what about OAPs getting mugged and beaten senseless for a few pounds to buy the next fix?

by jeanmonroe 23.12.13 0:11

plebgate wrote:again Mirage I agree and what about OAPs getting mugged and beaten senseless for a few pounds to buy the next fix?

Again i agree plebgate and what about OAP's getting mugged and ~~brow~~ beaten senseless for a few pounds of their pensions to 'fund' the search for a child that her own parents, themselves, didn't search for?

by notlongnow 23.12.13 0:13

Mirage wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

Drugs are in a totally different category. The Nigellas of this world create the business for murderous gangs.

People who are lower down the chain take hard drugs, get hooked then recruited by ruthless gangsters who make them repay debts by dealing in turn. They have their houses firebombed, their families terrorized if they default on payments. They are tricked into escalating debt then forced into becoming drug mules.

This is why it is essential drugs should not be glamourised.

Have to say drink causes severe misery to millions.
Maybe making drugs non criminal could be a worthwhile solution.

by plebgate 23.12.13 0:28

If drink causes severe misery to millions and it is legal, how would legalising drug taking be a solution?

Answer - it wouldn't.

Night all. smilie

by cockerspaniel 23.12.13 14:09

notlongnow wrote:
Mirage wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

Drugs are in a totally different category. The Nigellas of this world create the business for murderous gangs.

People who are lower down the chain take hard drugs, get hooked then recruited by ruthless gangsters who make them repay debts by dealing in turn. They have their houses firebombed, their families terrorized if they default on payments. They are tricked into escalating debt then forced into becoming drug mules.

This is why it is essential drugs should not be glamourised.
Have to say drink causes severe misery to millions.
Maybe making drugs non criminal could be a worthwhile solution.

REPLY,

The people who want drugs legalising are no different to the people who want the age of consent lowering. BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM! Thank god these people are a small minority.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.12.13 15:25

cockerspaniel wrote:
The people who want drugs legalising are no different to the people who want the age of consent lowering. BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM! Thank god these people are a small minority.

Not always so - I want drugs to be legalised, and I've been anti-drugs all my life.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.12.13 15:29

Regarding the OP, I don't think the Nigella thing demonstrates that SY are influenced by money and power. David Cameron himself said that he was a 'Nigella person'.

by notlongnow 23.12.13 15:34

cockerspaniel wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Mirage wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

Drugs are in a totally different category. The Nigellas of this world create the business for murderous gangs.

People who are lower down the chain take hard drugs, get hooked then recruited by ruthless gangsters who make them repay debts by dealing in turn. They have their houses firebombed, their families terrorized if they default on payments. They are tricked into escalating debt then forced into becoming drug mules.

This is why it is essential drugs should not be glamourised.
Have to say drink causes severe misery to millions.
Maybe making drugs non criminal could be a worthwhile solution.

REPLY,

The people who want drugs legalising are no different to the people who want the age of consent lowering. BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM! Thank god these people are a small minority.

Sorry but that is rubbish.
If you are repetedly burgarled or have prostitutes sitting on your wall each night you may disagree.
Can you give examples of keeping drugs illegal that benefits society?

I'm not talking a free for all,but giving addicts there drug of choice instead of resorting to crime.
I would rather bump into a crowd of people who have smoked dope than a crowd who have been drinking in a town center.

by Guest 23.12.13 15:54

I am all for legalising drugs and in certain cases even distributing for free *). It takes the criminal angle out in two ways: teenagers are offered drugs for free, until they're on the hook, then they have to pay. If they cannot pay but have become addicted, they'll turn to petty crime or worse. Now IF there's no big profits to be made anymore from drugs, why try to get the children hooked? And if they're not hooked, they don't need much more money than they have. Simple.

Legalising drugs or even free distribution is not going to create more addicts. E.g. my 2nd husband didn't like alcohol. Even if the best single malt Scotch would have been for free, it wouldn't have made him drink it ... Neither would I have been taking drugs and I grew up in Amsterdam in the roaring late 60's, early 70's... winkwink

*) Drugs cost peanuts at the source. It's the whole criminal distribution system, that makes it so expensive.

by notlongnow 23.12.13 15:58

Good post.
Some people will become addicts and some will become alcoholics.

Humans will find something to become addicted.

by cockerspaniel 23.12.13 16:16

Châtelaine wrote:I am all for legalising drugs and in certain cases even distributing for free *). It takes the criminal angle out in two ways: teenagers are offered drugs for free, until they're on the hook, then they have to pay. If they cannot pay but have become addicted, they'll turn to petty crime or worse. Now IF there's no big profits to be made anymore from drugs, why try to get the children hooked? And if they're not hooked, they don't need much more money than they have. Simple.

Legalising drugs or even free distribution is not going to create more addicts. E.g. my 2nd husband didn't like alcohol. Even if the best single malt Scotch would have been for free, it wouldn't have made him drink it ... Neither would I have been taking drugs and I grew up in Amsterdam in the roaring late 60's, early 70's...

*) Drugs cost peanuts at the source. It's the whole criminal distribution system, that makes it so expensive.

REPLY

FOR GOODNESS SAKE!

why dont we just convert all the ice cream vans in to drugs vans and put a sign on it that says stop me n try some eh kids. everything from grass to crack. remember you must not discriminate against someone elses choice of drug as that would be selfish. then lets see how nice the streets would be.

also,try to remember the effect drugs have on your body.no normal rational person person is going to think its a good idea for there kids to be able to pop out for some nice free drugs. If you do,well thats because IT SUITS YOU,and YOU could not give a stuff about the rest of us!

chatalaine, are you trying to tell me that if the alcohol in pubs was free there wouldnt be more people in pubs?

by cockerspaniel 23.12.13 16:25

notlongnow wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Mirage wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

Drugs are in a totally different category. The Nigellas of this world create the business for murderous gangs.

People who are lower down the chain take hard drugs, get hooked then recruited by ruthless gangsters who make them repay debts by dealing in turn. They have their houses firebombed, their families terrorized if they default on payments. They are tricked into escalating debt then forced into becoming drug mules.

This is why it is essential drugs should not be glamourised.
Have to say drink causes severe misery to millions.
Maybe making drugs non criminal could be a worthwhile solution.

REPLY,

The people who want drugs legalising are no different to the people who want the age of consent lowering. BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM! Thank god these people are a small minority.
Sorry but that is rubbish.
If you are repetedly burgarled or have prostitutes sitting on your wall each night you may disagree.
Can you give examples of keeping drugs illegal that benefits society?

I'm not talking a free for all,but giving addicts there drug of choice instead of resorting to crime.
I would rather bump into a crowd of people who have smoked dope than a crowd who have been drinking in a town center.

REPLY,

So you just want dope legalising,and coincidentally the arguments you use are the same as my dope smoking sister-in-law ? Because as i said before, it probably suits your needs,it certainly dosnt suit mine.

please explain to me how free coke,heroin and LSD is going to HELP society?

by Guest 23.12.13 16:27

Cockerspaniel, I am always all in for debate. But would you, please, not shout at me?

Apart from that, you do seem to miss the points I was making. As I phrased them as clear as I could, I have nothing else to add to the discussion.

by Guest 23.12.13 16:33

Yes, please calm down, it's only a discussion with different opinions................chill!

by notlongnow 23.12.13 16:33

cockerspaniel wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote:
notlongnow wrote:
Mirage wrote:
notlongnow wrote:I understand the child angle but having some adults drinking around kids is potentially as bad or worse yet is not a crime.

If we want police to investigate everyone who admits to have taking drugs at one point in there life don't expect any currant crimes to be solved.

Drugs are in a totally different category. The Nigellas of this world create the business for murderous gangs.

People who are lower down the chain take hard drugs, get hooked then recruited by ruthless gangsters who make them repay debts by dealing in turn. They have their houses firebombed, their families terrorized if they default on payments. They are tricked into escalating debt then forced into becoming drug mules.

This is why it is essential drugs should not be glamourised.
Have to say drink causes severe misery to millions.
Maybe making drugs non criminal could be a worthwhile solution.

REPLY,

The people who want drugs legalising are no different to the people who want the age of consent lowering. BECAUSE IT SUITS THEM! Thank god these people are a small minority.
Sorry but that is rubbish.
If you are repetedly burgarled or have prostitutes sitting on your wall each night you may disagree.
Can you give examples of keeping drugs illegal that benefits society?

I'm not talking a free for all,but giving addicts there drug of choice instead of resorting to crime.
I would rather bump into a crowd of people who have smoked dope than a crowd who have been drinking in a town center.

REPLY,

So you just want dope legalising,and coincidentally the arguments you use are the same as my dope smoking sister-in-law ? Because as i said before, it probably suits your needs,it certainly dosnt suit mine.

please explain to me how free coke,heroin and LSD is going to HELP society?

By giving ADDICTS free drugs it cuts down crime overnight by a massive amount.
Addiction burns itself out.Of course sadly a lot of people die before they stop.
I don't care if dope is legal or not but to me it wastes far to much police time even bothering with it.

The biggest losers would be probation,prison officers,police and solicitors.

Waging a war on drugs is a complete waste of money.

by cockerspaniel 23.12.13 17:39

Apologies for shouting,no offence meant,just got a bit hot under the collar there! Have now had the appropriate cold shower and cooled down.Will move of this topic. flag

by Cristobell 23.12.13 18:11

Châtelaine wrote:I am all for legalising drugs and in certain cases even distributing for free *). It takes the criminal angle out in two ways: teenagers are offered drugs for free, until they're on the hook, then they have to pay. If they cannot pay but have become addicted, they'll turn to petty crime or worse. Now IF there's no big profits to be made anymore from drugs, why try to get the children hooked? And if they're not hooked, they don't need much more money than they have. Simple.

Legalising drugs or even free distribution is not going to create more addicts. E.g. my 2nd husband didn't like alcohol. Even if the best single malt Scotch would have been for free, it wouldn't have made him drink it ... Neither would I have been taking drugs and I grew up in Amsterdam in the roaring late 60's, early 70's...

*) Drugs cost peanuts at the source. It's the whole criminal distribution system, that makes it so expensive.

Bravo Chatelaine clapping

And Notiongfree now - Agree absolutely, would much prefer to bump into stoner than those who have been drinking. The reality is, the NHS, ambulance service, heck all emergency services are bogged down with those drinking alcohol. When did you last see a stoner in A&E - answer never, they don't even enter the statistics.

The war on drugs is a war the authorities can never win. Think of America's Prohibition - where there's a will there's a way. If drugs were legalised they would at least have to pass stringent medical tests before becoming available to the young and the reckless (who will always be with us).

There are no valid reasons for drugs to remain illegal, and in fact, some may remember the famous report by Professor Knutt (sp) who was rewarded for his finding by being given the sack by Tony Blair. The government (all governments) know the facts about drugs, but because of public opinion they are not able to speak about them in public.

I once had a mature student (Access to Nursing), who was vehemently opposed to any variation in the drug laws that existed at that time. I gave her an assignment to research and present the legalisation of cannabis from the opposite perspective. She was a lovely feisty lady (I suspect she is now a terrific nurse) - who presented an assignment of A* standard, both in the talk that she gave to the class but in the way she responded to those asking the same question she was 2 weeks previously. We all learned something that day.

Almost everyone over 60 (and some much younger) in this country, pick up carrier bags full of prescription drugs every month, that are doing far more harm to their bodies than cannabis ever could - yet cannabis would relieve at least of their symptoms! Unfortunately most governments deal with this subject by burying their heads in the sand rather than face unpopularity by speaking the truth.

And the truth is, humanity will always seek ways in which to get high. From the moment Fred Flintstone and Barny Rubble stumbled on rotting grapes, since the beginning of time man has utilised the flora and fauna that surrounds him in order to find pleasure, and no man made law can stop that. The only way it could be achieved would be by removing everything we are that makes us human.