***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
For continued discussion about this subject.
Link to Volume 1
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Jul 11 at 00:31
|
Forget the advert here, there's also a short history of the NoW.
I well remember the Carr family as employers from my youth, although it seems like half a century ago.
Hang on. It nearly was.
|
|
What advert? where? what short history?
|
Apparently police are now at the offices of The Daily Star, searching for evidence of phone-hacking...
"...following the arrest of its journalist Clive Goodman, the former News of the World Royal editor jailed for phone-hacking in 2007.
Goodman, who joined the Daily Star Sunday after serving a six-month sentence for phone-hacking, was arrested in connection with alleged illegal payments to police this morning."
tinyurl.com/67od9bb
One can't help wondering if Mr Goodman reflected sufficiently on his actions while in jail.
Last edited by: FocalPoint on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 16:31
|
|
It now appears that Mr Goodman was arrested in connection with investigations regarding improper payments to the police.
|
When Goodman walked out of the Scrubs with his travel warrant he might have thought for him the war was over.
Phone hacking and bribing coppers are separate offences, but it will be unfortunate if he goes back inside.
I foresee a duplicity argument from his legal team.
|
"Unfortunate"?
Even if he's found guilty? (That is, even if his legal team can't make the duplicity argument stick?)
|
..."Unfortunate"?...
The next poor sap to face a court over this will be in front of a judge under enormous pressure to hand out a stiff sentence.
I've seen it before several times.
One example: A teenager died of a drugs overdose somewhere down south - lots of coverage, national outcry, etc, etc.
A drugs dealer who appeared a few days later before a court I was in was hammered, or as most members of the public would say, was given a proper sentence.
|
Anybody who deals in hard drugs can as far i'm concerned rot in in gaol.
The misery it causes deserves a stiff sentence.
|
|
Do you think they'll let Andy Coulson have his one phone call?
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 18:22
|
>> Do you think they'll let Andy Coulson have his one phone call?
>>
I bet he doesn't use voice mail.
|
>> A drugs dealer who appeared a few days later before a court I was in
>> was hammered, or as most members of the public would say, was given a proper
>> sentence.
Maybe if more drug dealers got 'hammered' there wouldn't be such a huge problem with drug taking and associated crimes?
I seem to recall that the vast majority of burglaries and from-car-thefts are committed by addicts trying to score enough to buy their next fix.
Personally, I'd shoot dealers.
|
>> I seem to recall that the vast majority of burglaries and from-car-thefts are committed by
>> addicts trying to score enough to buy their next fix.
>> Personally, I'd shoot dealers.
Thirty years in the Civil Service means I'm probably a poor economist but.....
Won't the action proposed above increase the price of drugs as the dealers demand a 'risk premium'. The addicts, driven by the deamnd for a fix will have to steal even more in order to score so burglaries and car thefts increase.
OTOH if the drugs were legalised and supplied through licensed premises...........
|
>OTOH if the drugs were legalised and supplied through licensed premises...........<<
What with alcohol being trouble free an all...
|
Evidence - practical evidence - suggest decriminalising drugs does reduce consumption. The Daily Mail knows this BUT...
And decriminalising drugs means vast reductions in police numbers and in drug profits .. so that's two very good reasons why it ain't going to happen soon. It's worth dealers' while to fund anti-decriminalisation campaigns...
|
>> And decriminalising drugs means vast reductions in police numbers and in drug profits .. so
>> that's two very good reasons why it ain't going to happen soon. It's worth dealers'
>> while to fund anti-decriminalisation campaigns...
>>
Can't work out your logic. If you could crack (pardon the pun) the drugs problem..and thereby have less Police....then there'd be a cost saving, as the Police are expensive to resource and run. Why wouldn't any Govt want to do that?
Legalising drugs, would IMO be a disastrous thing to do. Whilst there are obvious benefits e.g. prescription provison for addicts rather than crime....there'd be a whole host of extra people partaking, to their cost...and having had to have a long journeyed dash to a psychiatric unit, to support someone who got themselves Sectioned, in all sorts of a mess with that supposedly harmless drug cannabis...I really don't think it is a good idea at all.
Last edited by: Westpig on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 19:57
|
>> >> And decriminalising drugs means vast reductions in police numbers and in drug profits ..
>> so
>> >> that's two very good reasons why it ain't going to happen soon. It's worth
>> dealers'
>> >> while to fund anti-decriminalisation campaigns...
>> >>
>>
>> Can't work out your logic. If you could crack (pardon the pun) the drugs problem..and
>> thereby have less Police....then there'd be a cost saving, as the Police are expensive to
>> resource and run. Why wouldn't any Govt want to do that?
>>
>> Legalising drugs, would IMO be a disastrous thing to do. Whilst there are obvious benefits
>> e.g. prescription provison for addicts rather than crime....there'd be a whole host of extra people
>> partaking, to their cost...and having had to have a long journeyed dash to a psychiatric
>> unit, to support someone who got themselves Sectioned, in all sorts of a mess with
>> that supposedly harmless drug cannabis...I really don't think it is a good idea at all.
>>
The police would object to a reduction in numbers..
The evidence - facts - show that decriminalisation results in a REDUCTION in the number of addicts...
I rest my case.
edit: and the current laws on drugs cannot keep up with the spread of newer drugs...
Last edited by: madf on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 20:07
|
There's plenty for the police to do without having to bother with drugs.
Criminalisation and prohibition, as driven really on a world scale by the US government, can be seen objectively, by anyone with the slightest knowledge of these things, to be moronic and evil.
Police officers and others, who have anecdotal evidence of the harm drugs sometimes cause to self-harming people, can perhaps be forgiven for espousing the tabloid-victim's view that drugs and everything to do with them are always and necessarily evil. On the contrary, they are an ancient human tradition and no amount of childish moralistic huffing and puffing can make that go away. And it's quite simply hypocritical for a nation of kamikaze boozers to come on all mimsy and caring about a bit of dope or a couple of mushrooms. It's prattish.
This isn't a corrupt immoral view, it's an informed, historical one. But I know I'm wasting my breath here, just like madf above.
|
I agree madf. If consenting adults want to dose themselves with stuff, including beer and fags, they should be allowed to do so until they are a nuisance or danger to others. Just like beer and fags in fact.
If I want to take heroin, why should I be forced to buy adulterated stuff of unknown strength from a criminal, and be criminalised myself?
Yes there would be some unwanted consequences of legalisation, but I can't believe we wouldn't be better off. And it could be taxed!
There's no shortage of people, and if a few want to waste themselves, well we don't seem to be able to stop them anyway...
|
|
Drugs is a grey area.I know cannabis is legal to smoke in the Netherlands.Iam not clever enough to know if this is good or bad.Alcohol in my opinion I mean the excessive use of it causes more harm to our wellbeing.
|
I have been once in a coffee shop.Like I said before tried pot once and didn't take to it.
No fights or problems peacefull atmosphere.
|
I long for the day that wishy washy liberals could get real about this drug lark, and stop pushing this legalise and all will be lovely utopian vision...of hades.
It's not harmless fun for liberated adults, it's mind and soul destroying muck any reasonable person would avoid like the plague.
I'd love the govt to grow a set and divert the £billions wasted bribing foreign countries to the war on drugs, i'd even vote for them if they did.
The same bunch could actually make prison quite intolerable for drug dealers and other scum, seeing as most criminals have a violent revulsion to a days work, twenty or thirty years of constructive hard labour should do the trick.
Breath not held, back to reality.
|
>>It's not harmless fun for liberated adults, it's mind and soul destroying muck any reasonable person would avoid like the plague.
I agree as it happens. But prohibition doesn't stop it.
Like many parents I was terrified that my children might have been sucked in, in some way, to the drug culture that existed even in their respectable and successful secondary school - as did the daughter of some good friends a few years earlier, with anguishing results to this day. Needlessly worried, as it turned out. They don't even smoke, and drink only moderately by the standards that prevail in our town centres.
I doubt it would have been any different without the prohibition - I'd have been just as worried about the drugs, but at least they wouldn't have had to cut themselves off from their parents to enter an illegal world controlled by nasty criminals, and we would have had far more chance to influence them, had they gone off in that direction.
Prohibition is just heads in the sand. The drugs can't be uninvented, but we could stop maintaining a lucrative reserved occupation for the unpleasant pedlars and poisoners that operate their supply now.
|
>> The police would object to a reduction in numbers..
>>
So what? They don't make the decisions, Govt does.
|
long for the day that wishy washy liberals could get real about this drug lark, and stop pushing this legalise and all will be lovely utopian vision...of hades.
I'm no expert on this drug lark Gordon,there is no utopia its the lesser of evils.
Better have something in the open and deal with it than shuf it under the carpit and pretend the muck isn't there.
|
|
A friends son started smoking pot as an early teenager, His (caring) parents only found out when his behaviour started changing after a couple of years. He continued his habit and has had mental health problems since his late teens, he is now in his 30's and lives in a flat under full time supervision. A waste of what was a bright young lad.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 22:09
|
I doubt there are many of my age group who have not indulged in some weed at some time or other during our lives. I would imagine that the laws on cannabis are probably the most widely broken in the land.
Only a tiny proportion go on to have problems with its (ab)use.
|
Banning drugs makes no more sense than prohibition did in the states, in fact it spawns a huge criminal empire for which we all pay the price. I mix in what could be termed respectable circles, yet should I so desire I am only one contact away from someone who could supply me with any substance I want. I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same for all of us.
Legalise it, tax it and control the quality of the stuff. And remember that criminal organisations work in exactly the same way that ligit businesses do, they don't let the vast profits they make from drugs sit under the matress gathering dust, they re-invest it in other profitable areas, such as child pornography, terrorism, and countless other illegal and socially damaging ways of increasing profits.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 22:11
|
>> Legalise it, tax it and control the quality of the stuff. And remember that criminal
>> organisations work in exactly the same way that ligit businesses do, they don't let the
>> vast profits they make from drugs sit under the matress gathering dust, they re-invest it
>> in other profitable areas, such as child pornography, terrorism, and countless other illegal and socially
>> damaging ways of increasing profits.
In other places I'd say +1 - here I'll just say top post Tom!!
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 8 Jul 11 at 22:17
|
I am only one
>> contact away from someone who could supply me with any substance I want. I'd be
>> surprised if it wasn't the same for all of us.
Not here, respectable means something else where i come from, i wouldn't want to know anyone remotely connected with the vile trade.
|
>> respectable means something else where i come from,
I couldn't wait to stop being respectable when I was small. It seemed so obvious. Have you no little devil on your shoulder gb? If not, hard luck.
For the record, I've known - intimately in many cases - at least a dozen or so people over the years who have self-harmed, even done themselves in young, using drink, tobacco or illegal drugs as vectors or in some cases, excuses. Indeed I have bronchitis again and have just bought some nicotine chewing gum, so far so good. Yet I hold the views I do. Doesn't that seem to have a meaning of some sort?
I think you probably know more than the highly conventional, somewhat tabloid if you don't mind my saying so, views you express seem to suggest, and I expect you to realise it sooner or later. But I really don't want to upset you, so I'll shut up.
|
You have made a good point AC.And I have to agree with you.Always be carefull when people adopt the holier than thou attitude.Circumstances,events its very easy to fall by the wayside.
Thats just my humble opinion.Hope your chewing gum will help you against the brochitis.
|
>> Hope your chewing gum will help you against the brochitis.
Waste of time, only a nice fat Romeo y Julieta and several balloons of Remy Martin Louis Xlll will fix that.
|
>> only a nice fat Romeo y Julieta and several balloons of Remy Martin Louis Xlll will fix that.
Brilliant suggestion Zeddo. If I'm still standing after that, I'll waddle round and leave a half-crown or three on your doorstep. Waste not want not innit...
|
I thought you'd comment AC, you and i hold wholly opposing views about the pleasures of self destruction and the fall out it causes, best we don't fall out over it maybe.
My views are not tabloid thankyou, i don't read any press, i don't need to as like our sea faring friend i've seen the depressing results first hand despite being incredibly rare, many years since i've laid eyes on the shadow of his former self.
|
>> best we don't fall out over it maybe.
No, we certainly shouldn't. The very opposite of what I would want. We must just agree to differ, fairly radically.
|
RR said:
>they don't let the vast profits they make from drugs sit under the matress
>gathering dust, they re-invest it in other profitable areas, such as child
>pornography, terrorism, and countless other illegal and socially damaging
>ways of increasing profits.
Hysterical carp.
Dealers making "vast profits" do not draw attention to themselves by "re-invest"ing in higher profile, higher risk illegal activities. They stuff the cash under the mattress until it can be successfully laundered.
AC said:
>I think you probably know more than the highly conventional, somewhat tabloid if
>you don't mind my saying so, views you express seem to suggest, and I expect you
>to realise it sooner or later.
I'm just adding that as an example to the Wikipedia "Patronising" entry.
|
>> Hysterical carp.
>>
>> Dealers making "vast profits" do not draw attention to themselves by "re-invest"ing in higher profile,
>> higher risk illegal activities. They stuff the cash under the mattress until it can be
>> successfully laundered.
>>
Not so, the underworld is as integrated as any legitimate business, that's how the Mafia (who grew as a direct result of prohibition in the US) operate for one. Profits from one illegal activity such as drug dealing is used to setup others like prostitution and gun running to name but two, vastly increasing the wealth of the organisation.
The loyalist paramilitaries in Ireland are not the only terrorist group to use illegal drug dealing to fund their organisation.
And remember, every time you here of some fifteen year old kid gunned down on a city street or a girl gang raped in a punishment attack it is invariably as a result of a turf war between drug gangs. Despite the risks of a long jail sentence they continue to do it because dealing in illegal drugs is more lucrative than working in Primark or McDonalds.
|
...I'm just adding that as an example to the Wikipedia "Patronising" entry...
Kevin,
If I knew how to, I would add your post to Wiki as an example of 'naive'.
|
>If I knew how to, I would add your post to Wiki as an example of 'naive'.
You believe that telling someone that their views are "tabloid" and that they are expected to "realise it sooner or later" is not patronising?
|
>> You believe that telling someone that their views are "tabloid" and that they are expected to "realise it sooner or later" is not patronising?
Quote: I think you probably know more than the highly conventional, somewhat tabloid if you don't mind my saying so, views you express seem to suggest, and I expect you to realise it sooner or later. But I really don't want to upset you, so I'll shut up.
Look, Kevin: I was trying to engage with gordonbennet under difficult circumstances. It may look patronising to an outsider but it wasn't meant to be, and I hope gb didn't think it was. There's a back story. And yipping from the sidelines by whassernames doesn't help.
Does that seem patronising? I do hope so.
|
>Look, Kevin: I was trying to engage with gordonbennet under difficult
>circumstances. It may look patronising to an outsider but it wasn't meant to be,
>and I hope gb didn't think it was.
Look, AC: It's a public forum and yes, as you acknowledge, it certainly appeared to be patronising to "an outsider".
>There's a back story. And yipping from the sidelines by whassernames doesn't help.
>Does that seem patronising? I do hope so.
Your reply to GB was a far superior example but that last statement tells us everything we need to know. You should know better at your age AC.
|
>> You should know better at your age AC.
Oh God. You're right of course, I should. And I do.
I learned years ago, before you were born perhaps Kevin, to avoid rolling in the gutter with blackguard boys. A choleric temperament is a great burden to a man of substance.
Still, amuses the hoi polloi what?
(breaks into theatrical Kray brothers mode)
It's an ill wind Kev
An ill wind my son
|
>Oh God. You're right of course, I should. And I do.
I should. And I do? Which is it?
>I learned years ago, before you were born perhaps Kevin, to avoid rolling in the
>gutter with blackguard boys. A choleric temperament is a great burden to a man of
>substance.
To a man of substance maybe. In your case I'll reserve judgement.
>Still, amuses the hoi polloi what?
AC, despite what anyone says, you are not hoi polloi ;-)
>It's an ill wind Kev
>An ill wind my son
Depends how your sheets are set my son.
|
I must have led a sheltered life!
Not only have I NEVER been offered any type of drug, nor do I know, or have knowingly known, any drug user. I could not tell if a cigarette being smoked in my vicinity was cannabis loaded!
I loathe the idea or feeling of not being fully in control of myself and for that reason I NEVER drink to the point where that could happen. I once, at the age of 18, did get drunk (on gin) at a mess do. I felt so awful that the experience has never been repeated in the subsequent 57 years.
I do not understand the mentality of people who intentionally go out to get "bladdered".
I think they are very stupid and must be lacking the intelligence to see how vile a drunk person is.
Last edited by: Roger on Sat 9 Jul 11 at 12:22
|
>> Legalise it, tax it and control the quality of the stuff.
Chance would be a fine thing RR. A population terrorized into the sort of furious, hysterical rejection and denial we see here would need to be re-educated and coaxed out of its current mindset, ruled by vertigo and anxiety. So would the political class. It's too late. This is a real pity because the young need, and deserve, proper information on any mind- or mood-altering substance they may be tempted to try: ignorance can be deadly with opiates and alcohol both of which are potentially habit-forming and can kill surprisingly easily, but ignorance is deliberately maintained by the powers that be and their many dupes in the population at large.
Advocating a rational informed approach is unrewarding here though. Not many seem to understand properly, and all too many see such advocacy as urging everyone to go for it. One is accused of claiming that drug legalization would produce a lovely utopia. I've never claimed that or anything like it. I've reminded people that smoking anything is a health hazard, that opiates and alcohol can kill quickly and tobacco slowly. Stimulants put a strain on the heart and other organs (notably the liver); strong psychedelics like LSD can change people for life in one dose, and even weak ones like cannabis can accentuate depression in depressive individuals. But having information and setting it down gets one accused of being a wishy-washy liberal with irresponsible attitudes, by those whose main arguments are displaced anger and vehemence. One doesn't necessarily blame such accusers who have their own reasons, but they do make discussion difficult.
>> And remember that criminal organisations work in exactly the same way that ligit businesses do, they don't let the vast profits they make from drugs sit under the matress gathering dust, they re-invest it in other profitable areas, such as child pornography, terrorism, and countless other illegal and socially damaging ways of increasing profits.
First time I've ever seen terrorism suggested as a lucrative investment RR. I have always thought of it as a rather specialized form of philanthropy... But it's true that organized crime invests in other profitable businesses. There's a shopping mall near you part-owned by the Camorra.
|
>>
>>
>> First time I've ever seen terrorism suggested as a lucrative investment RR. I have always
>> thought of it as a rather specialized form of philanthropy... But it's true that organized
>> crime invests in other profitable businesses. There's a shopping mall near you part-owned by the
>> Camorra.
>>
>>
Rather badly put by me, AC.
What I meant was that profits from the illegal drugs trade are used to fund terrorist groups in many parts of the world. Sadly, I think you're right in your assertion that getting a reasonable public debate as to whether anti drug legislation is counter productive is virtually impossible. It would get the same tabloid reaction as claiming that paedophiles were the salt of the earth.
|
>> It would get the same tabloid reaction as claiming that paedophiles were the salt of the earth.
I say, steady on RR! Even I might be tempted by that particular tabloid reaction...
But now you come to mention it, in the heyday of early modern feminism and gay pride and so on, there was indeed a group of smelly nonces that started campaigning for 'children's right to their sexuality' or something of the sort, no kidding.
They were a nine days' wonder though, and got pretty short shrift from all the respectable feminists, gays and lesbians. But it really happened. Can't remember what they called themselves.
|
>>
>> But now you come to mention it, in the heyday of early modern feminism and
>> gay pride and so on, there was indeed a group of smelly nonces that started
>> campaigning for 'children's right to their sexuality' or something of the sort, no kidding.
>>
>> They were a nine days' wonder though, and got pretty short shrift from all the
>> respectable feminists, gays and lesbians. But it really happened. Can't remember what they called themselves.
>>
>>
Paedophile Information Exchange, or PIE for short. There leader was a guy called Tom Carrol and they were blown when one of the tabloids (NoTW?) infiltrated one of their meetings and found they were indeed a bunch of perverts trying to change the law for their own ends.
|
>> Can't remember what they called themselves.
Oh dear. I think I can: PIE, Paedophile Information Exchange.
As a title it did have the virtue of calling a spade a spade. But it also shows how utterly barmy some people were at that time. There was an actual attempt being made to get equal consideration for practising paedophiles!
Anyone who has ever been a child, or who is a parent, can see the flaw in the equal rights malarkey immediately: it lies in the gross and essential inequality of the paedophile/victim 'relationship'. But there were people crazed and dumb enough to put it forward as a suggestion.
|
>> First time I've ever seen terrorism suggested as a lucrative investment RR. I have always
>> thought of it as a rather specialized form of philanthropy
That depends, in the case of the Irish paramilitaries, terrorism was used as a tool for the primary business of crime.
|
>> terrorism was used as a tool for the primary business of crime.
Not so strictly speaking Zero, or I don't think so. The terrorism or 'armed political activism' came first. Then when there were all these tooled-up villains with not much to do, some of them suddenly realised they were well placed for a bit of more lucrative villainy.
The provisional IRA was rumoured at one time in the seventies to be dealing in LSD as a fund-generating operation.
|
>>
>> >> terrorism was used as a tool for the primary business of crime.
>>
>> Not so strictly speaking Zero, or I don't think so. The terrorism or 'armed political
>> activism' came first
Depends on your cause. Take the IRA - from the 60s and 70s anyway. Its "aim" was a united Ireland. Now this was impossible because it would need the approval of and involvement of Éire. So having an aim that is impossible to achieve means that you are doing it for other reasons.
In this case financial. There were turf wars over lucrative trades, smuggling, prostitution, protection, etc etc. The sheeer scale and diversity of the IRAs business was staggering.
|
>> So having an aim that is impossible to achieve means that you are doing it for other reasons.
You may be right, but I wonder how early it dawned, anyway on the Provo rank and file, that it was never going to happen? You forget the sort of revolutionary optimism that was widespread in those days among the naive. I think the hope was to make the British so sick of the cost and bad odour incurred in the province that they would strike a deal with an Irish government swayed by popular nationalist sentiment. Southern Irish politics does have that strain of right-wing nationalist populism you know. One thing not in the Provisional IRA's favour was that it came on very left-wing, was friends with Gaddafi and so on.
No doubt the rackets started to take shape while all that was still going on though.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 9 Jul 11 at 16:55
|
|
Wonder if Mystic Meg was the first to get the bullet??
|
|
she was, it came as a shock to her.
|
I hope the authorities slam in an injunction to stop documents and emails being destroyed / moved as when the business is closed down, things will disappear.
Some may cynically say, closing the NOTW down is a ploy to make it harder to gather evidence of wrong doing and to specifically protect the business' reputation so that it can buy BSB.
Did other News International publications use the same methods?
|
There is nothing illegal about planned email housekeeping.
As long as your company has planned email retention policy, then all the stuff can go into the bin as required.
IE 3months on the email replication server then its deleted, user can keep local copies as long as they like/have space for. What you cant do is start to destroy stuff when you know its going to be needed in criminal proceedings. Thats a fine line to balance.
stuff like that is all detailed if you are SOX compliant.
|
...There is nothing illegal about planned email housekeeping...
I was thinking the same.
The fact that a few years ago loads of emails were deleted from years earlier again is neither here nor there.
If someone spent all of Friday deleting everything up until midnight on Thursday, that may be different.
But they are closing the business.
Even if there was no police investigation, they are going to do a bit more than just turn out the lights.
|
>> Did other News International publications use the same methods?
Undoubtedly!
|
>> Wonder if Mystic Meg was the first to get the bullet??
>>
There is a story about Kelvin McKenzie when he was editor of the Sun that may not be true but I'd rather hope is. In a letter to the paper's astrologer telling him he was sacked McKenzie began -
"Dear xxxxx,
As you are no doubt already aware..."
|
Re drugs and drug policy.
It is relatively simple to see whether a policy works or not.. Just look at the FACTS - not opinions..
I quote:
"The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs says the five-fold increase in the proportion of users since 1996 is "deeply concerning".
Its head, Prof Les Iversen, told Home Secretary Alan Johnson the drug should remain Class A and was "very harmful".
He took over as chairman after Mr Johnson sacked Professor David Nutt.
The cocaine review is one of the council's first new undertakings since Prof Iversen took over as chairman.
His letter quotes the latest British Crime Survey statistics which suggest 6.6% of 16 to 24-year-olds use cocaine, in comparison with 1.3% in 1996.
Use among those aged 16 to 59 increased from 0.6% to 3% during the same period. "
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8544648.stm
"National surveys of the UK drug situation in 2000 found that cocaine was the most frequently seized Class A drug, with 25–40 tonnes of cocaine being smuggled into the UK each year. In the light of these findings, an audit of the analytical monitoring for cocaine abuse has been performed covering the period from 1996 to 2002. It was found that there has been a consistent upward trend in the percentage of requests found to be positive for cocaine over this 7-year study period, rising from 9.7% in 1996 to 22% in 2002. This data would suggest that the use of cocaine has increased dramatically over the past few years, indicating that the arrival of the “cocaine epidemic” has now started to become a reality in the UK"
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0379073804002166
So over a 10 year period, usage is rising.
Will someone explain to me how anyone in their right minds can postualte or even think that the current "war on drugs" is working.
See also the USA where it funds and promotes large scale drug violence.
I would venture to suggest some very wealthy drug dealers would find it good business sense to support politically and financially those opposing legalisation.
Anyone who has read about the impact of Prohibition knows it MADE the fortunes of lots of very nasty people. Without it, they would have no doubt remained petty criminals.
The US is doing its best to subsidise the bandits in Mexico who only exist by running illegal drugs into the USA.
If we were really serious about the ills of drugs, any celebrity caught with any illegal substance would be jailed for setting abad example. In the UK we don't do that...
Total and utter hypocrisy. The "war on drugs" is not really serious. If it was, there would be at least one well known model whose career would no longer exist. Instead she has become rich and famous despite clearly taking illegal drugs - and a wellknown singer's boyfriend.
|
Professor David Knutt was removed for not towing the party line, according to these links:
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334948.stm
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8334948.stm
|
And back to drugs.
This country has a ripe history of abusing mind altering substances, at every social level, going back 3 or 4 hundred years. At various stages the powers that be have banned/allowed, criminalised/decriminalise and or taxed every one of them. It hasn't changed the position one jot in all that time,.
|
>> At various stages the powers that be have banned/allowed, criminalised/decriminalise and or taxed every one of them.
Yes. James I (I think it was him) was very down on tobacco. Later cocoa and coffee were deemed dangerous. Some strongly disapproved of tea.
In the 18th/19th centuries, when British-produced opium from India was being exported to China in quantity and causing widespread addiction there, the resulting decline in productivity of the average Chinese worker caused the weak Chinese emperor of the time to threaten to suspend shipments of rhubarb to England. One can imagine how effective that was as an argument.
|
I was always fascinated as a pupil by the Hogarth prints.
One, Beer Street was portrayed as good and wholesome and jolly, and one Gin Lane was portrayed as evil with drunken mothers accidently dropping babies into sewers.
That was in 1750. Was followed by the gin act.
|
Heh heh... The Rake's Progress (ends up diseased, with poor innocent wife staring aghast at the bills, nippers starving, coarse bailiffs walking off with all the remaining good furniture and ornaments, etc...). Things really were like that in the 18thC... and of course still are. Makes your blood run cold if there's a bit of over-the-top fun in your soul.
Checks and balances Zeddo. Some of us need them thank God.
|
|
Sounds like Glasgow on a Saturday night... (Life expectancy in parts worse than Iraq).
|
Well the great man is arriving in London soon.It was a joint desicion to shut down NOW according to the Murdochs.
I feel sorry for the people who lost their jobs and hope that they be back in work soon.
More sorry for the 1500 workers in Derby.They never stood a change against the mighty
Siemens.I hope the trade off the UK government allowed with Siemens will work out in the long run.
|
|
This might be a simplistic view, but isn't this paper just going to relaunch as the "Sunday Sun", or something. Which is really what it always was anyway....
|
DP, what about the staff that just lost their jobs from the NoTW? They won't be working for the Sun will they unless they recruit.
When there is a Sunday Sun, yes it's News International, but it's not the same staff that made the NoTW is it. You're probably looking at it from a News Int viewpoint though.
I hope some of those that lost their job get one with say the Sun on Sunday. But some need removing, e.g. that Brooks woman who cannot spell Rebecca.
|
|
I work part time in my local Post office/Newsagents on Sunday mornings. NI doubled it's print run this week and the NoTW was nearly sold out when I left at 10:00, despite only half the papers having a magazine. Many people bought two or more copies, one guy bought seven! Watch out for ebay in a months time, "rare" last editions will be on offer for silly money. My bet is they won't even make the cover price.
|
The story unwinding at NI - latest is they had all the evidence of paying police 4 years ago - and said nowt - and denied it (to the HOC amongst others) - shows that NI had become so arrogant as to have lost the plot.
Poltitically it is now IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to support them. They have made LOTS of enemies. They have lied and lied. And threatened people.
I would be suprised if no UK directors of NI stand trial in a criminal court for amongst other charges perverting the course of justice and if they go to the US may be arrested on corruption charges..
Popcorn for the next 12 months.
Last edited by: madf on Sun 10 Jul 11 at 20:30
|
>> Watch out for ebay in a months time, "rare" last
>> editions will be on offer for silly money.
Well if you did get one, don't bin it - just watched one go for £7.50 (started at 99p). Not a bad return!
EDIT: BTW wasn't bidding, just curious
Last edited by: Focus on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 13:03
|
>> This might be a simplistic view, but isn't this paper just going to relaunch as
>> the "Sunday Sun", or something. Which is really what it always was anyway....
>>
We already have a "Sunday Sun" up here in the North
www.sundaysun.co.uk/
It might have to be called "the sun on Sunday" or something along them lines
|
My favourite comment so far on this affair came in last Friday's Now Show from normally mild-mannered comedy writer John Finnemore. In his distinctively mild-mannered voice he discharged both barrels at Rebekah Brooks and her employers. Magnificent stuff, and well worth iPlaying. (You also get Mitch Benn's song about the possible consequences of bacteria-proof fabrics.)
Alternatively, Finnemore himself has posted a transcript on his blog site: johnfinnemore.blogspot.com
I repeat: magnificent.
|
Second Mr DeBeest's recommendation. Daughter and I were killing ourselves laughing on the way home on Friday night.
The stuff should carrry a safety warning for those driving and listening!!
|
|
Private Eye have been unlucky, publication was the Friday before this all went critical. Have to wait until week Friday until a more objective view (than Peston's) is published. They used to call Rebekahack "The Slapper" as she used to punch some soap actor that was married to her for a while.
|
The sad thing is that it didn't close down because people had realised how toxic and dreary the outlook it projected was and stopped buying it, but because the proprietor was embarrassed in his ongoing global business operations - disastrously one can only hope - when his minions were rumbled in the course of their shady information-gathering activities.
Damn good riddance to 160 years of prurience, inaccuracy and false indignation. The News of the World was a yellow rag before the Dirty Digger was even born, let alone the fragrant Ms Wade or Brooks. I didn't read it so I won't miss it. Those who do, poor idiots, can find other rags of the same sort, whose sales will enjoy a temporary fillip.
|
The big question is...................
Will anyone admit to buying the last issue yesterday (without a 'but I only did it because....)
Pat
|
|
I didn't - never bought it, although I was sorely tempted when a colleague of mine was featured as a love rat......that was almost worth going down-market, a scream of an article....!
|
We rarely buy a Sunday ( or any other day ) paper now. Don't seem to have the time to read one. Too much naffing about on the web instead I suppose and anyway we read them online mostly now. Occasionally I'll buy a Times on a wet winter's Sunday if we're not going anywhere.
However, back in the dark ages I used to get the Times and the News of the World. The latter for a giggle and the former for something to read.
|
I was going to buy one as a gesture of support, but after it emerged they were closing, there didn't seem much point.
I've been in newsrooms in which editors have made redundancy announcements - nothing on this scale - but I identified too closely with what was going on to want a souvenir of it.
|
|
Its a crap paper. It always was, Why would I ever buy one?
|
|
The BBC reported they would be publishing a copy of the first ever issue, and I thought that would be interesting. So I picked up a copy,(well, I got Mrs C to) but it appeared that in fact it was just front pages from various issues over the years, which didn't interest me, so I put it down again.
|
|
Phew, nearly spent money there CC!
|
>> I didn't - never bought it, although I was sorely tempted when a colleague of
>> mine was featured as a love rat......that was almost worth going down-market, a scream of
>> an article....!
Presumably he was known for something other than his work as a lawyer? If the doings of pickled partners (or members of chambers) are woth money on their own I might have some leads.......
|
|
It was a cracking story, involved a Postman and Vicar - even a tabloid couldn't have made it up, the jolly thing was that it was true....absolutely priceless.
Last edited by: R.P. on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 20:30
|
A former colleague of mine got a two page spread in NoTW in the late nineties. His stepson won 13 million on the lottery two weeks after he acrimoniously split from the boys mother. The story was about how he had been left pennyless and was being pursued for maintenance by his soon to be ex who was living it up (and who had kicked him out after finding someone else).
He apparently couldn't even offer the reporter a cup of tea as all he had in his bedsit was one cup.
Last edited by: Robin Regal on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 20:49
|
>> It was a cracking story, involved a Postman and Vicar - even a tabloid couldn't have made it up, the jolly thing was that it was true....absolutely priceless.
Was yr colleague sporting (or depraved) enough to enjoy the story as much as you did Rob?
He might have deserved it, but those papers do give kickings to a lot of people who don't. This is fairly obvious from a brisk scan of the yellow press.
Those papers are full of stories brought to them by people who want to be famous or be bunged a few quid. Then they become notorious after spending the few quid. Suckers, baby fish, and those tabloid hacks are barracuda. It's not an inspiring spectacle.
|
Despite being married, he was sexually incontinent, he er...had relations with one too many. The story was well known locally before it was published....
It was a well deserved come comeuppance. Didn't stop him though !
Last edited by: R.P. on Mon 11 Jul 11 at 21:15
|
Someone senior should go to prison over this. I cannot believe that this sort of action was not condoned by someone at the top.
The police should investigate, oh but then some of them are being accused of accepting bungs from the same, so there ought to serious sackings and prosecutions for bribery as well.
I know there are only a few rotten apples, but its best to get rid now, before they "ruin the whole barrel".
|
>> Someone senior should go to prison over this. I cannot believe that this sort of
>> action was not condoned by someone at the top.
>>
Murdoch go to prison?
They are probably owned by 20th Century Fox - in which case he will have a whale of a time - all them free movies he can show
|
|
Much as I despise Gordon Brown. I felt for him today.
|
Don't know why, everyone knew his kid has CF. He was actively promoting the CF trust when the sun broke the "news"
Crocodile tears.
|
|
Pay attention Zeddo. Everone knows now. The story is about how the news was broken in first place. Somehow the press got info that shouldn't have gone beyond hospital and family. Same when his daughter died.
|
|
I watched a bit of the lunchtime news when they were interviewing the assistant commissioner. Until his previous job title flashed on screen I thought he was a bit of a twit - then wondered how he got the position at all!
|
....then wondered how he got the position at all!...
Because he's a better politician than most of our politicians.
|
|
I was brompo. Everyone knew BEFORE the Sun broke the story. He made no secret of the diagnosis. He was building it up into Political Capital at the right time. The Sun ruined that, nothing more. Ask the CF trust.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 12 Jul 11 at 20:40
|
News of the World hacking scandal - Volume 2 - Mike Hannon
