There was, I thought, a rich irony in the Traffic Cops programme last night.
The single mother was nicked for driving without insurance - and possibly road tax - and possibly driving licence in her clapped out Fiesta and was fined £200. She probably hasn't got tuppence to call her own.
The guy in the expensive Mercedes who was found to have - I think - nine sticks of cannabis under the drivers seat, got away scot free. The police - possibly CPS - couldn't show whether the drugs were his, or belonged to the car's owner.
Other than that, it was the usual mix of driving without lights, not having the seat belt fastened etc.
One cop didn't have any tickets to issue to offenders and one didn't have his breathalyser machine. Not a very good demonstration of police efficiency on TV!
|
Indeed. 30 minutes rather than the usual hour, if you want a regular fix there is always the slightly less intellectual 'Road Wars' to fall back upon screened on Sky 1,and later 3. I notice that 'Police Camera Action' is still refusing to wither away in the dusty obscurity of ITV4 with that ex-news presenter and early 90's footage of car chases. Makes good nostalgia tv being able to see old Metros and Mk2 Astra GTE etc.
Returning to last night - it did seem double standards coming down on the single mum with old Cavalier and no insurance when the big operator in the ML had a carrier bag full of drugs (and probably more elsewhere). Suppose it's the letter of the law but seems unbalanced.
One of the cops was a stickler for ticketing people for undertaking, bus lanes etc. The guy who was stopped for no lights on made the usual points about wasting tax payer's time but reason being if they stop people for minor offences then the big stuff is revealed- eg Merc man with drugs arising from a minor pull for no seat belt.
I must be careful to check no overdue library books left in the Panda...
|
Got the feeling the guy with no lights was too irate and didnt realise he wasn't going to get fined- as when the penny dropped he seemed much happier. Was laughing as the woman with him did seem to realise and appeared to be trying to shut him up before he annoyed the officer so much he did get a ticket.
As for the guy with the Merc, I don't think it's double standards at all. Seems the Police were already well aware of what was going on and trying to get evidence to prosecute as the car was flagged. Personally, much as I detest those who deal in drugs I still want to live in a country where innocence prevails where there is reasonable doubt to guilt.
|
|
|
>>...it did seem double standards comingdown on the single mum with old Cavalier and no insurance when the big operator in the ML had a carrier bag full of drugs (and probably more elsewhere)....
Why is this double standards?
The Merc man was a harmless cannabis dealer whereas the woman had no driving insurance.
Most of us have suffered losses from people driving round without insurance whereas none of us have suffered losses from people who are selling cannabis.
|
Who would you rather have as a neighbour?
--
pmh (was peter)
|
Who would you rather have as a neighbour?
Irrelevant.
Though I would rather have a neighbour who transported cannabis (and did no other crimes) than a neighbour who drove round without insurance (and did no other crimes).
You're rolling up a lot of prejudices there, pmh!
|
Obviously the same prejudices as you !
--
pmh (was peter)
|
|
|
|
so dealers in cannabis dont move onto harder drugs and the users do not go out burgling to pay the pushers who pay the dealers?
some people obviously live in utopia with big pink cushions
|
It was real Keystone Cops stuff. And isn't it amazing that the Police will go to great lengths to prove who was driving a car for a speed camera infraction, but yet they couldn't figure out who owned the drugs (was anyone else as surprised as me that the cop had no idea what the drugs were ? ?cannabis / heroin?? The vehicle owner shouting to his mate (who really got a move on when he realised what was happening ? wonder why that was?) was ridiculous.
The cop that the program mainly focused on was a real life David Brent. He stopped the Merc for using a phone and then picked his own hand held radio up while he was driving!
Hampshire Constabulary looked like idiots.
|
So you would have preferred to see them try to prosecute where they did not have sufficient evidence?
Was hoping there would be an update as this did seem to be an ongoing investigation. My own assumption was that as they were being watched it would only be a matter of time before there was sufficient evidence to bring a concrete charge against those involved, rather than wading in from a random stop and search.
Think Hampshire would have looked a lot more idiotic pursuing a case then having it thrown out of court.
|
|
|
>>but yet they couldn't figure out who owned the drugs
Let's hope this is because the cops are wasting less time in the futile, hopeless and counterproductive harassment of drug users & dealers.
|
|
|
It was real Keystone Cops stuff. And isn't it amazing that the Police will go to great lengths to prove who was driving a car for a speed camera infraction, but yet they couldn't figure out who owned the drugs
Interesting paradox there. You get a speeding ticket through the post, you don't say who was driving and the registered keeper gets the points/fine. I bet they didn't apply that logic to the Merc driver/owner. So if they can keep quiet and get away with it, why can't a speeding motorist?
I'm not for one moment saying speeders should get away, but the law is an ass sometimes.
|
|
|
|
the users do not go out burgling to pay the pushers who pay the dealers?
No, they don't.
|
Nothing like waccy baccy for encouraging the sophisticated approach to debate.
You're no lounge lizard in my book
|
|
|
|
Oh yes they do............
|
Cannabis is not addictive in the same way as crack or heroin. You will not find people stealing car stereos and mugging old ladies to fund a cannabis habit, unless they are of a criminal persuasion and in which case they'd be doing it anyway. The reason you don't hear the term cannabis addict in conversation is because by and large they do not exist.
The issue of cannabis users/dealers progressing to harder (and thefore more harmful) stuff is another debate of course, but when you consider the role a legal substance like alcohol plays in anti-social behaviour, teenage delinquency, assaults, street fights, stabbings, domestic violence, road deaths, teenage pregnancy and STD's and other blights on our society, cannabis's "problems" seem trivial.
Cheers
DP
|
>>You will not find people stealing car stereos and mugging old ladies to fund a cannabis habit, >>unless they are of a criminal persuasion and in which case they'd be doing it anyway.
Quite, DP.
Same applies to ecstacy (pills) and amphetamine (speed).
|
Have you guys been paying attention to the debate on the role of cannabis in mental illness and associated crime?
It's illegal - QED - you cannot fund large scale dealing in illegal substances with 'legal' pukka funding - you can't get a business development loan for it
where does the funding of drug dealing come from?
Have you thought prostitution, have you thought people smuggling?
Have you actually thought at all? Or are you all snug in your "I only have the occasional spliff" comfort zone - I only buy a little of my mate - where the hell do you think it comes from down the line?
Wake up and smell the dope!
|
role of cannabis in mental illness
speculative at best. The mental illness link is a repeat of the hysteria surrounding the explosion of LSD use in the 60's. A generation of mental illness was predicted (with supposed "strong" scientific links) that never happened. Nobody has come up with anything that I would call convincing.
and associated crime?
Directly, cannabis has no significant role in crime.
It's illegal - QED - you cannot fund large scale dealing in illegal substances with 'legal' pukka funding - you can't get a business development loan for it
Why do you need a business development loan for it? It can be grown in your house with a couple of hundred quid's worth of kit (unlike any other illegal drug which ALWAYS comes through international criminal syndicates involved in people trafficking, terrorism etc). A lot (though not all) of cannabis is produced locally at a very low cost which is recouped very quickly when sold on.
where does the funding of drug dealing come from?
What funding (for cannabis)?
Have you thought prostitution, have you thought people smuggling?
See above
Have you actually thought at all? Or are you all snug in your "I only have the occasional spliff" comfort zone - I only buy a little of my mate - where the hell do you think it comes from down the line? Wake up and smell the dope!
I think it's safe to assume I have a lot more experience and knowledge in this area than you for personal reasons which I will not go into on an internet forum.
Cheers
DP
|
Unfortunately - assumptions are never safe
If I was to make assumptions about you from what you've revealed here
I would ASSUME - undoubtedly making an ASS out of U and ME
You grow your own - - former hippy or a young lad who thinks he's being 'a rebel' and thinks he knows it all
If you actually look at 'real' research not sixties 'hippy wisdom' you will find evidence of a link to schizophrenia with cannabis use
Because 'YOU' grow your own You ASSUME evry other user does
If they did it wouldn't be sitting in large packages under car seats - think about it - I may brew my own beer - but it's not going to put Guinness out of business
YOU are NOT alone - there is money to be made dealing drugs - because you choose not to do it does not mean everyone is the same as you
Grow up - start to SEE the connections that exist in the real world between money, drugs, people and PAIN
Don't smugly imply that you know more about drugs than anyone else - it doesn;t make you clever or big or hard
BUT I can't speak about it because I'm a druggie outlaw/anarchist - grow up and get over yourself -If you've got something to say - say it
|
I am in my 30's and haven't touched cannabis for over 7 years. I have never dealt, grown or supplied it either. I have A-levels, a degree, a career and a family. Not that any of this is your business.
There is no more a link to cannabis and schizophrenia as there is to coffee and colon cancer, mobile phones and brain tumours, and all manner of other things that we all do daily being alleged to give us some horrible disease. The fact is the significant majority of people who use mobile phones do not develop brain tumours, the significant majority of people who drink coffee do not develop colon cancer, and if even a small percentage of the 250 million global cannabis users developed schizophrenia, the whole world would know about it as a proven fact.
Most light to moderate cannabis users go on to live healthy, productive lives as valuable contributors to society, and do so without a criminal record. That does not apply to the other substances that you try to lump it together with under the "drugs" label. Sorry if that's inconvenient and doesn't fit neatly into your "all drugs are evil" generalisation.
{And now back to motoring discussion - Final warning DD}
|
I didn't ask - you volunteered it - I'm being pedantic but you said it and I still don't see how it is
safe for anyone else to assume that you know more about drugs thany anyone else here - no doubt your psychic powers are strong
Rule by the majority is rule by the herd
Laws are only ever made to protect/ control a minority so there's little interest in saying what the majority would/wouldn't do
Rant over
Cut if you must
|
|
Returning to my original post, I accept the phrase 'double standards' was not appropriate, instead I meant 'perceived injustice' - eg drug dealing issues versus minor traffic violations but I agree with others that on the issue of non-insured drivers they are a serious menace and should be prosecuted despite how 'unfair' it seems on the poverty stricken motorist. I pay my insurance and tax like everyone else and would be outraged if an uninsured motorist killed a relative or caused injury (probably higher statistical risk of them being involved in an accident?)
Re the drugs issue, as with many cases there is often a bigger picture and the gang were already under surveillance. A lack of evidence is often a cause of not prosecuting people - the Police obviously have to satisfy the CPS and have exactly the right evidence or the case must be dropped even though it looks 'obvious' there was something illegal going on. Must be frustrating.
Goes back to the letter of the law, similarly the celebrities who escape speeding convictions due to employing thorough legal professionals who identify incorrect procedure are working to the same principals.
|
One rule for us.....
When the cop went after the guy on a mobile and just happened to be using a handheld at the same time himself.
|
Bill Payer:- ''Hampshire Constabulary looked like idiots''
I thought that too, after seeing two of them having a laugh at the motorist who got stuck in the 'catch pit' at the bottom of a hill, and another two (?) thinking it'd be comical to disturb a canoodling couple in their car. I know police officers are human beings like the rest of us, but surely they should have some decorum whilst on duty?
S6 1SW
|
>>another two (?) thinkingit'd be comical to disturb a canoodling couple in their car. I know police officers are human beings like the rest of us, but surely they should have some decorum whilst on duty?
SWMBO and I came across a copper like this once. Highly embarrassing and he fed us some story about a murderer being on the loose, and had we seen anyone hanging around? (we were about 4 miles as the crow flies from Broadmoor).
Of course it was a wind-up. The git!
|
|
Returning to my original post,
Horray! This thread has reverted back to motoring discussion. Perhaps now it can remain that way before I have to get my scissors out and start removing stuff.
DD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
