Former West Wilts councillor stands in Police Commissioner elections

This Is Wiltshire: Paul Batchelor Paul Batchelor

Warminster Police Neighbourhood Tasking group chair Paul Batchelor has been chosen by Swindon and Wiltshire Liberal Democrats to be their Police and Crime Commissioner candidate for the upcoming Police and Crime Commissioner election.
 

Paul Batchelor, a former West Wilts District Councillor, was selected for the election on Thursday, November 15 after an overwhelming ballot of Liberal Democrat members supported him to be Wiltshire first Police and Crime Commissioner.
 

As chair of the Warminster Police Neighbourhood Tasking Group, Paul has overseen real results including a 41 per cent reduction in case of anti-social behaviour.

With his 17 years of local authority experience and 24 years of managing a successful business in his home town Paul has the experience and the skills to deliver for Wiltshire.
 

Tackling drug related crime by taking on the dealers and anti-social behaviour by increasing Police presence in our market towns and rural areas will be Paul's key priorities alongside prioritising victim support.

Paul Batchelor is committed to being a Police and Crime Commissioner for all Wiltshire residents.
 

After his selection, Paul Batchelor said, "Wiltshire's first police commissioner should be out and meeting the public at every available opportunity and that's what I will do. As Wiltshire Police and Crime commissioner I will regularly visit every town and village across Swindon and Wiltshire.

"An effective Police and Crime Commissioner is one who engages with the public as I have done as the chair of the Warminster Police Neighbourhood Tasking Group".

Comments (77)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:07am Fri 19 Oct 12

adsinibiza says...

"increasing Police presence in our market towns and rural areas will be Paul's key priorities "

Hmmmmm - what about Swindon then Paul? Don't the poeple of Swindon deserve to have anti social behaviour and drug related crime tackled as well???

FAIL
"increasing Police presence in our market towns and rural areas will be Paul's key priorities " Hmmmmm - what about Swindon then Paul? Don't the poeple of Swindon deserve to have anti social behaviour and drug related crime tackled as well??? FAIL adsinibiza
  • Score: 0

10:59am Fri 19 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

adsinibiza

The easiest way to tackle drug related crime would be to decriminalise drugs.

Think about it for a minute.
This fake “War” on drugs costs billions a year. Money that comes out of the pocket of every taxpayer.
.
The illegal status of drugs keeps the price high, meaning that drug addicts often commit crime to afford their drugs. We all pay the price for that.
.
Being a drug dealer or buyer can give you a criminal record, and that makes it much more difficult to live an honest life, even if you want to.
.
Not forgetting that the proceeds of Drugs fund other crime and even terrorism.
.
Imagine what would happen if we made heroin and dope as legal as tobacco and alcohol.
.
We could stop spending billions on the HMRC, Police and Navy budgets “fighting drugs.”
.
Drugs could be supplied legally in kite marked packets with known strengths (no more accidental overdoses,) and even with taxes they would probably cost about 10% of the current price – much more affordable. Instead of costing money they would be making money and it would put every neighbourhood drug dealer out of business.
.
Drug addicts could seek treatment for other health issues without being put off by the stigma of being addicted to an illegal substance.
.
Last, but not least, the number of addicts would reduce.
.
So why are we continuing with the current situation which benefits no-one except the people who make billions a year supplying drugs. Why won’t the politicians make a simple change which would put those rich people out of business.
.
Oh – of course.
adsinibiza The easiest way to tackle drug related crime would be to decriminalise drugs. Think about it for a minute. This fake “War” on drugs costs billions a year. Money that comes out of the pocket of every taxpayer. . The illegal status of drugs keeps the price high, meaning that drug addicts often commit crime to afford their drugs. We all pay the price for that. . Being a drug dealer or buyer can give you a criminal record, and that makes it much more difficult to live an honest life, even if you want to. . Not forgetting that the proceeds of Drugs fund other crime and even terrorism. . Imagine what would happen if we made heroin and dope as legal as tobacco and alcohol. . We could stop spending billions on the HMRC, Police and Navy budgets “fighting drugs.” . Drugs could be supplied legally in kite marked packets with known strengths (no more accidental overdoses,) and even with taxes they would probably cost about 10% of the current price – much more affordable. Instead of costing money they would be making money and it would put every neighbourhood drug dealer out of business. . Drug addicts could seek treatment for other health issues without being put off by the stigma of being addicted to an illegal substance. . Last, but not least, the number of addicts would reduce. . So why are we continuing with the current situation which benefits no-one except the people who make billions a year supplying drugs. Why won’t the politicians make a simple change which would put those rich people out of business. . Oh – of course. The Real Librarian
  • Score: -1

11:45am Fri 19 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Librarian using your logic we might as well decriminalise all crime, because then we wouldn't need police.

Most property crime is de facto victimless because there is insurance, well perhaps the insurance companies but who cares about them, they are mostly owned by the banks anyway.

Those who can't afford insurance, well tough luck.

Drugs kill people and destroy whole families and communities, and create ghetto's and no go areas.

The addict becomes an addict because he/she voluntarily takes the substance, no difference than an alcoholic, but do said alcoholics get preferential NHS treatment like addicts do.

We have got to get past the, they are innocent victims and treat such crimes harshly as they are contaminating our gullible young. Addicts try to make others addicts to justify their own life style, or lack of it.
Librarian using your logic we might as well decriminalise all crime, because then we wouldn't need police. Most property crime is de facto victimless because there is insurance, well perhaps the insurance companies but who cares about them, they are mostly owned by the banks anyway. Those who can't afford insurance, well tough luck. Drugs kill people and destroy whole families and communities, and create ghetto's and no go areas. The addict becomes an addict because he/she voluntarily takes the substance, no difference than an alcoholic, but do said alcoholics get preferential NHS treatment like addicts do. We have got to get past the, they are innocent victims and treat such crimes harshly as they are contaminating our gullible young. Addicts try to make others addicts to justify their own life style, or lack of it. RichardR1
  • Score: 2

12:23pm Fri 19 Oct 12

adsinibiza says...

The point I w3as trying to make is that based upon the quote in the article this candidate is ignoring the people of Swindon who make up a substantial part of his electorate - which may not be the wisest decision in the run up to an election!

I would also point out that property crime is not victimless even if insurance claims are made. Increasing claims are paid for either by the increasing insurance premiums that we all pay or through increasing prices on the goods and services that we buy from businesses. We are therefore all victims of that type of crime.

Secondly RichardR1 you might like to ponder the following points - who owns the banks? those that are not currently owned directly by the tax payer are largely owned by pension funds - in other words the ordinary man and woman in the street. The financial services industry (of which banking is part) also makes up 15% of our economy and both the companies themeselves and the poeple that work for them pay a substantial amount of tax towards things like the NHS, the welfare state etc etc etc. Over time this amounts to considerably more that they have received in the form of bail outs in recent years........ Where would the NHS be without this money?????
The point I w3as trying to make is that based upon the quote in the article this candidate is ignoring the people of Swindon who make up a substantial part of his electorate - which may not be the wisest decision in the run up to an election! I would also point out that property crime is not victimless even if insurance claims are made. Increasing claims are paid for either by the increasing insurance premiums that we all pay or through increasing prices on the goods and services that we buy from businesses. We are therefore all victims of that type of crime. Secondly RichardR1 you might like to ponder the following points - who owns the banks? those that are not currently owned directly by the tax payer are largely owned by pension funds - in other words the ordinary man and woman in the street. The financial services industry (of which banking is part) also makes up 15% of our economy and both the companies themeselves and the poeple that work for them pay a substantial amount of tax towards things like the NHS, the welfare state etc etc etc. Over time this amounts to considerably more that they have received in the form of bail outs in recent years........ Where would the NHS be without this money????? adsinibiza
  • Score: 0

12:39pm Fri 19 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

RichardR1 says...
11:45am Fri 19 Oct 12
Oh dear, someone has bought into the ‘Prohibition logic. Lets take your nonsense apart shall we.

QUOTE
Librarian using your logic we might as well decriminalise all crime, because then we wouldn't need police.
UNQUOTE

Where did I say that? Of course I didn’t.
Consumption of Heroin is a crime.
Consumption of Alcohol is not.
Q. What is the difference?
A. One is legal for use without prescription and one is not. Lets be clear, consumption of Heroin in the form of diamorphine and diacetylmorphine is legal with medical involvement.
Heroin was invented in 1874 and not subject to legal control until 1917. So something that was not a crime, became one overnight. Calling drug use a ‘crime’ is a word game and comparing it to other crime, such as burglary or assault is nonsense.
The “war on drugs” has been going on for 95 years.

But, but, but, Heroin is baaaad.
No it isn’t.. In medical terms, it is simply an opiate, technically known as diamorphine, which metabolises into morphine once it enters its user's body. But, in terms of the war against drugs, it is the most frightening of all enemies. Remember all that those congressmen were told about "the great peril". Remember the Thatcher government's multimillion pound campaign under the slogan "Heroin screws you up". Think of Tony Blair at the 1999 Labour party conference fulminating about the "drug menace" or of William Hague last year calling for "a stronger, firmer, harder attack on drugs than we have ever seen before". And now look at the evidence.
Start with the allegation that heroin damages the minds and bodies of those who use it, and consider the biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant."
Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation.
Or go back to the history of "therapeutic addicts" who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call "a junkie", who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent 12 years injecting up to 350mg a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her "herd instinct", but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as "the soldiers' disease". They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage.
There is no medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users

QUOTE
Most property crime is de facto victimless because there is insurance, well perhaps the insurance companies but who cares about them, they are mostly owned by the banks anyway.
UNQUOTE

Actually if you have a Pension, you own the insurance companies.
We look back at the American prohibition of alcohol in the 20s and shudders at the stupidity of a policy which generated such a catastrophic crimewave. Yet in this country, now, the prohibition of drugs has generated a crime boom of staggering proportions. Research suggests that in England and Wales, a hard core of black-market users is responsible for some £1.5bn worth of burglary, theft and shoplifting each year - they are stealing £3.5m worth of property a day. As a single example, Brighton police told us they estimate that 75% of their property crime is committed by black-market drug users trying to fund their habit. And yet governments refuse to be tough on the cause of this crime: their own prohibition policy.

QUOTE
Drugs kill people
UNQUIOTE

Mostly they don’t.
The reason people die is not usually linked to the drug per se but the circumstances of its use. Many overdoses are because the drug is unexpectedly pure. In normal use it is astonishingly difficult to overdose on Heroin. Street buyers buy blind and so they will overdose accidentally: they have no way of telling how much heroin there is in their deal. Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer in addiction studies at John Moores University in Liverpool, has found the purity of street heroin varying from 20% to 90%. "Users can accidentally take three or four times as much as they are planning to," he says. That is not an argument for criminalising it so much as safer labeling. This is a food standards issue, not a criminal justice matter.
Quite often people get infections because of impurities in the drugs. Heroin becomes highly dangerous when it is cut by black-market dealers - with paracetamol, drain cleaner, sand, sugar, starch, powdered milk, talcum powder, coffee, brick dust, cement dust, gravy powder, face powder or curry powder. None of these adulterants was ever intended to be injected into human veins. Some of them, such as drain cleaner, are simply toxic and poison their users. Others - sand or brick dust - are carried into tiny capillaries and digital blood vessels where they form clots, cutting off the supply of blood to fingers or toes. Very rapidly, venous gangrene sets in, the tissue starts to die, the fingers or toes go black and then have only one destiny: amputation. Needless suffering - inflicted not by heroin, but by its black-market adulterants.
People who die in clubs after having used ecstasy mainly die of dehydration. The core point is that the death and sickness and moral collapse which are associated with class A drugs are, in truth, generally the result not of the drugs themselves but of the black market on which they are sold as a result of our strategy of prohibition. In comparison, the drugs themselves are safe, and we could turn around the epidemic of illness and death and crime if only we legalised them.

QUOTE (Drugs) destroy whole families and communities,
UNQUOTE
No they don’t.
Excessive drug use can be bad for families but so is excessive drinking and gambling, and they are legal.

QUOTE
(drugs) create ghetto's and no go areas.
UNQUOTE

(Sigh – facepalm)
Yes, because the drug industry is in the hands of criminals.
Take the criminal element out of it and guess what, no ghettos and no-go areas.
It is the criminalisation that causes the problem.
Prohibition has not merely failed to cut the supply of illicit drugs: it has actively spread drug use. The easiest way for new users to fund their habit is to sell drugs and consume the profit; so they go out and find new users to sell to; so it is that when one child in the classroom starts using, others soon join in; one user in the street and neighbours soon follow. Black-market drug use spreads geometrically. The Health Education Authority in 1995 found that 70% of people aged between 11 and 35 had been offered drugs at some time. Pushers push. When Britain began to impose prohibition of heroin, in 1968, there were fewer then 500 heroin addicts in Britain - a few jazz musicians, some poets, some Soho Chinese. Now, the Home Office says there may be as many as 500,000.


QUOTE
The addict becomes an addict because he/she voluntarily takes the substance, no difference than an alcoholic, but do said alcoholics get preferential NHS treatment like addicts do.
UNQUOTE

Red Herring, nothing to do with the topic.

QUOTE
We have got to get past the, they are innocent victims and treat such crimes harshly as they are contaminating our gullible young. Addicts try to make others addicts to justify their own life style, or lack of it.
UNQUOTE

Ohh, that might be a dig.
I am not an addict.
I have never been an addict.
I do not regard addicts as victims.

What I am is someone with a brain. I realise that labeling “recreational drug use,” a crime is just that, a label. The so called “war on drugs,” is 95 years old in this country. Does it look like we are winning?

In December 1999, the chief constable of Cleveland police, Barry Shaw, produced a progress report on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which marked the final arrival of US drugs prohibition in this country: "There is overwhelming evidence to show that the prohibition-based policy in this country since 1971 has not been effective in controlling the availability or use of proscribed drugs. If there is indeed a war against drugs, it is not being won ... Illegal drugs are freely available, their price is dropping and their use is growing. It seems fair to say that violation of the law is endemic, and the problem seems to be getting worse despite our best efforts." in 1970, only 15% of people had used an illegal drug, but by 1995, 45% had; in 1970, 9,000 people were convicted of a drugs offence but in 1995 94,000 were
Of course we are not winning, and why would we? Columbian experts estimate worldwide annual drug income as $500 billion. That is more than the entire US defence budget.

Ask youself this? If drugs were decriminalised across the world, who would lose out most.
If you get an answer other than, the drug barons making $500 billion a year, and the many, many people who make money fighting the war on drugs, I would love to know what it is.

But nothing will change . The Home Office responded to the chief constable's report with complete silence: they refused to even admit they received it.
RichardR1 says... 11:45am Fri 19 Oct 12 Oh dear, someone has bought into the ‘Prohibition logic. Lets take your nonsense apart shall we. QUOTE Librarian using your logic we might as well decriminalise all crime, because then we wouldn't need police. UNQUOTE Where did I say that? Of course I didn’t. Consumption of Heroin is a crime. Consumption of Alcohol is not. Q. What is the difference? A. One is legal for use without prescription and one is not. Lets be clear, consumption of Heroin in the form of diamorphine and diacetylmorphine is legal with medical involvement. Heroin was invented in 1874 and not subject to legal control until 1917. So something that was not a crime, became one overnight. Calling drug use a ‘crime’ is a word game and comparing it to other crime, such as burglary or assault is nonsense. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 95 years. But, but, but, Heroin is baaaad. No it isn’t.. In medical terms, it is simply an opiate, technically known as diamorphine, which metabolises into morphine once it enters its user's body. But, in terms of the war against drugs, it is the most frightening of all enemies. Remember all that those congressmen were told about "the great peril". Remember the Thatcher government's multimillion pound campaign under the slogan "Heroin screws you up". Think of Tony Blair at the 1999 Labour party conference fulminating about the "drug menace" or of William Hague last year calling for "a stronger, firmer, harder attack on drugs than we have ever seen before". And now look at the evidence. Start with the allegation that heroin damages the minds and bodies of those who use it, and consider the biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant." Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation. Or go back to the history of "therapeutic addicts" who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call "a junkie", who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent 12 years injecting up to 350mg a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her "herd instinct", but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as "the soldiers' disease". They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage. There is no medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users QUOTE Most property crime is de facto victimless because there is insurance, well perhaps the insurance companies but who cares about them, they are mostly owned by the banks anyway. UNQUOTE Actually if you have a Pension, you own the insurance companies. We look back at the American prohibition of alcohol in the 20s and shudders at the stupidity of a policy which generated such a catastrophic crimewave. Yet in this country, now, the prohibition of drugs has generated a crime boom of staggering proportions. Research suggests that in England and Wales, a hard core of black-market users is responsible for some £1.5bn worth of burglary, theft and shoplifting each year - they are stealing £3.5m worth of property a day. As a single example, Brighton police told us they estimate that 75% of their property crime is committed by black-market drug users trying to fund their habit. And yet governments refuse to be tough on the cause of this crime: their own prohibition policy. QUOTE Drugs kill people UNQUIOTE Mostly they don’t. The reason people die is not usually linked to the drug per se but the circumstances of its use. Many overdoses are because the drug is unexpectedly pure. In normal use it is astonishingly difficult to overdose on Heroin. Street buyers buy blind and so they will overdose accidentally: they have no way of telling how much heroin there is in their deal. Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer in addiction studies at John Moores University in Liverpool, has found the purity of street heroin varying from 20% to 90%. "Users can accidentally take three or four times as much as they are planning to," he says. That is not an argument for criminalising it so much as safer labeling. This is a food standards issue, not a criminal justice matter. Quite often people get infections because of impurities in the drugs. Heroin becomes highly dangerous when it is cut by black-market dealers - with paracetamol, drain cleaner, sand, sugar, starch, powdered milk, talcum powder, coffee, brick dust, cement dust, gravy powder, face powder or curry powder. None of these adulterants was ever intended to be injected into human veins. Some of them, such as drain cleaner, are simply toxic and poison their users. Others - sand or brick dust - are carried into tiny capillaries and digital blood vessels where they form clots, cutting off the supply of blood to fingers or toes. Very rapidly, venous gangrene sets in, the tissue starts to die, the fingers or toes go black and then have only one destiny: amputation. Needless suffering - inflicted not by heroin, but by its black-market adulterants. People who die in clubs after having used ecstasy mainly die of dehydration. The core point is that the death and sickness and moral collapse which are associated with class A drugs are, in truth, generally the result not of the drugs themselves but of the black market on which they are sold as a result of our strategy of prohibition. In comparison, the drugs themselves are safe, and we could turn around the epidemic of illness and death and crime if only we legalised them. QUOTE (Drugs) destroy whole families and communities, UNQUOTE No they don’t. Excessive drug use can be bad for families but so is excessive drinking and gambling, and they are legal. QUOTE (drugs) create ghetto's and no go areas. UNQUOTE (Sigh – facepalm) Yes, because the drug industry is in the hands of criminals. Take the criminal element out of it and guess what, no ghettos and no-go areas. It is the criminalisation that causes the problem. Prohibition has not merely failed to cut the supply of illicit drugs: it has actively spread drug use. The easiest way for new users to fund their habit is to sell drugs and consume the profit; so they go out and find new users to sell to; so it is that when one child in the classroom starts using, others soon join in; one user in the street and neighbours soon follow. Black-market drug use spreads geometrically. The Health Education Authority in 1995 found that 70% of people aged between 11 and 35 had been offered drugs at some time. Pushers push. When Britain began to impose prohibition of heroin, in 1968, there were fewer then 500 heroin addicts in Britain - a few jazz musicians, some poets, some Soho Chinese. Now, the Home Office says there may be as many as 500,000. QUOTE The addict becomes an addict because he/she voluntarily takes the substance, no difference than an alcoholic, but do said alcoholics get preferential NHS treatment like addicts do. UNQUOTE Red Herring, nothing to do with the topic. QUOTE We have got to get past the, they are innocent victims and treat such crimes harshly as they are contaminating our gullible young. Addicts try to make others addicts to justify their own life style, or lack of it. UNQUOTE Ohh, that might be a dig. I am not an addict. I have never been an addict. I do not regard addicts as victims. What I am is someone with a brain. I realise that labeling “recreational drug use,” a crime is just that, a label. The so called “war on drugs,” is 95 years old in this country. Does it look like we are winning? In December 1999, the chief constable of Cleveland police, Barry Shaw, produced a progress report on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which marked the final arrival of US drugs prohibition in this country: "There is overwhelming evidence to show that the prohibition-based policy in this country since 1971 has not been effective in controlling the availability or use of proscribed drugs. If there is indeed a war against drugs, it is not being won ... Illegal drugs are freely available, their price is dropping and their use is growing. It seems fair to say that violation of the law is endemic, and the problem seems to be getting worse despite our best efforts." in 1970, only 15% of people had used an illegal drug, but by 1995, 45% had; in 1970, 9,000 people were convicted of a drugs offence but in 1995 94,000 were Of course we are not winning, and why would we? Columbian experts estimate worldwide annual drug income as $500 billion. That is more than the entire US defence budget. Ask youself this? If drugs were decriminalised across the world, who would lose out most. If you get an answer other than, the drug barons making $500 billion a year, and the many, many people who make money fighting the war on drugs, I would love to know what it is. But nothing will change . The Home Office responded to the chief constable's report with complete silence: they refused to even admit they received it. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 1

1:04pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Marrytime says...

adsinibiza wrote:
"increasing Police presence in our market towns and rural areas will be Paul's key priorities "

Hmmmmm - what about Swindon then Paul? Don't the poeple of Swindon deserve to have anti social behaviour and drug related crime tackled as well???

FAIL
Perhaps Swindon is a market town. I don't know.
[quote][p][bold]adsinibiza[/bold] wrote: "increasing Police presence in our market towns and rural areas will be Paul's key priorities " Hmmmmm - what about Swindon then Paul? Don't the poeple of Swindon deserve to have anti social behaviour and drug related crime tackled as well??? FAIL[/p][/quote]Perhaps Swindon is a market town. I don't know. Marrytime
  • Score: 0

1:25pm Fri 19 Oct 12

c skelton says...

He will still have to push through the governments 20% cuts agenda, just like the Conservative candidate.

There should be no politics in Policing.

www.skelton4wiltspcc
.co.uk

Colin Skelton
Independent PCC candidate
He will still have to push through the governments 20% cuts agenda, just like the Conservative candidate. There should be no politics in Policing. www.skelton4wiltspcc .co.uk Colin Skelton Independent PCC candidate c skelton
  • Score: 1

1:43pm Fri 19 Oct 12

smokingbeagle says...

c skelton wrote:
He will still have to push through the governments 20% cuts agenda, just like the Conservative candidate.

There should be no politics in Policing.

www.skelton4wiltspcc

.co.uk

Colin Skelton
Independent PCC candidate
No politics in policing? What absolute twaddle.
[quote][p][bold]c skelton[/bold] wrote: He will still have to push through the governments 20% cuts agenda, just like the Conservative candidate. There should be no politics in Policing. www.skelton4wiltspcc .co.uk Colin Skelton Independent PCC candidate[/p][/quote]No politics in policing? What absolute twaddle. smokingbeagle
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Fri 19 Oct 12

notscot says...

Sorry - what is it about alignment to ANY particular political party that shouts "INDEPENDENT"!
Sorry - what is it about alignment to ANY particular political party that shouts "INDEPENDENT"! notscot
  • Score: 0

3:35pm Fri 19 Oct 12

I 2 Could B says...

It makes no difference who tells the police which criminals to arrest... because once those criminals are brought before a court (if they even reach that stage) the judiciary will do everything they possibly can to ensure that nothing of any negative consequence befalls the convicted criminal.

In short, there's not much point the police arresting anyone when the judges continually let convicted criminals walk free from court, or hand down sentences so unduly lenient they are barely worth issuing at all.
It makes no difference who tells the police which criminals to arrest... because once those criminals are brought before a court (if they even reach that stage) the judiciary will do everything they possibly can to ensure that nothing of any negative consequence befalls the convicted criminal. [p] In short, there's not much point the police arresting anyone when the judges continually let convicted criminals walk free from court, or hand down sentences so unduly lenient they are barely worth issuing at all. I 2 Could B
  • Score: 1

4:38pm Fri 19 Oct 12

Oliver Dummassie says...

I think I would agree that politics should not be mixed up with policing
I think I would agree that politics should not be mixed up with policing Oliver Dummassie
  • Score: 1

5:52pm Fri 19 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Addicts never admit to being addicts Librarian except when seeking the free handouts they get, I note you didn't claim not to be a user.

c skelton I totally agree any person affiliated to a political party by definition cannot act impartially and for the good of all the people, especially when their parties are spending huge sums to get them elected.
Addicts never admit to being addicts Librarian except when seeking the free handouts they get, I note you didn't claim not to be a user. c skelton I totally agree any person affiliated to a political party by definition cannot act impartially and for the good of all the people, especially when their parties are spending huge sums to get them elected. RichardR1
  • Score: 1

8:01pm Fri 19 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

Richard R1
I do use drugs.
Coffee, tea, alcohol.
All drugs.
Legal ones.

Now, What about addressing any of the points I made.
Richard R1 I do use drugs. Coffee, tea, alcohol. All drugs. Legal ones. Now, What about addressing any of the points I made. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

8:52am Sat 20 Oct 12

notscot says...

Heroin isn't bad - it's an opiate?
So it's good to be a dirty, theiving, useless "not really an addict" is it?
If heroin were legalised there would be no more addicts?
Once you legalise a drug it's
non-addictive?
Good grief - legalise the stuff and there would be no more dirty, useless theiving ratbags skinning up all over the shop, leaving their filth in their wake and spending their most productive time drooling. Or how to set up the next theft for the next fix.
Why on earth have we not thought of that before?!
I honestly don't understand how anyone would believe that legalising heroin or any other class A would magicly prevent addiction - and allow "non-addicts" to become USEFUL members of society.
Heroin isn't bad - it's an opiate? So it's good to be a dirty, theiving, useless "not really an addict" is it? If heroin were legalised there would be no more addicts? Once you legalise a drug it's non-addictive? Good grief - legalise the stuff and there would be no more dirty, useless theiving ratbags skinning up all over the shop, leaving their filth in their wake and spending their most productive time drooling. Or how to set up the next theft for the next fix. Why on earth have we not thought of that before?! I honestly don't understand how anyone would believe that legalising heroin or any other class A would magicly prevent addiction - and allow "non-addicts" to become USEFUL members of society. notscot
  • Score: 0

9:15am Sat 20 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

Now--i understand the function of the Police Commissioner is to oversee all aspects of policing and budgetting.
Thus-someone with clear accountancy skills--legal knowledge and knowledge of police practice and function.
None of the candidates meet that criteria.
Thus the back up needed will be eating into the budget and could reduce funds that would reduce the number of officers.
Now--i understand the function of the Police Commissioner is to oversee all aspects of policing and budgetting. Thus-someone with clear accountancy skills--legal knowledge and knowledge of police practice and function. None of the candidates meet that criteria. Thus the back up needed will be eating into the budget and could reduce funds that would reduce the number of officers. itsamess3
  • Score: 1

9:48am Sat 20 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Agreed Itsamess that is why it should have been an elected Chief Officer, not a Commissioner, as defined.
Agreed Itsamess that is why it should have been an elected Chief Officer, not a Commissioner, as defined. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

10:09am Sat 20 Oct 12

Localboy86 says...

The real librarian has got this absolutely spot on, unfotunetly it will take this country another 100 years to get to the same conclusion
The real librarian has got this absolutely spot on, unfotunetly it will take this country another 100 years to get to the same conclusion Localboy86
  • Score: 0

10:14am Sat 20 Oct 12

notscot says...

Localboy86 wrote:
The real librarian has got this absolutely spot on, unfotunetly it will take this country another 100 years to get to the same conclusion
Shame, that. I'd like to see non-addicts using class A and being of some use.
[quote][p][bold]Localboy86[/bold] wrote: The real librarian has got this absolutely spot on, unfotunetly it will take this country another 100 years to get to the same conclusion[/p][/quote]Shame, that. I'd like to see non-addicts using class A and being of some use. notscot
  • Score: 0

10:20am Sat 20 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

It would be great wouldn't it, smashed out of your face flying a plane or operating a Lathe, soon lose fingers or life I aspect.
It would be great wouldn't it, smashed out of your face flying a plane or operating a Lathe, soon lose fingers or life I aspect. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sat 20 Oct 12

Pompey-Bound says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Richard R1
I do use drugs.
Coffee, tea, alcohol.
All drugs.
Legal ones.

Now, What about addressing any of the points I made.
Robert feal martinez will not address the points you made as he knows when he has been beaten. The man has been run out of town, I don't understand why he still posts on these pages.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Richard R1 I do use drugs. Coffee, tea, alcohol. All drugs. Legal ones. Now, What about addressing any of the points I made.[/p][/quote]Robert feal martinez will not address the points you made as he knows when he has been beaten. The man has been run out of town, I don't understand why he still posts on these pages. Pompey-Bound
  • Score: 0

1:40pm Sat 20 Oct 12

notscot says...

RichardR1 wrote:
It would be great wouldn't it, smashed out of your face flying a plane or operating a Lathe, soon lose fingers or life I aspect.
Exactly. How long, you think - before employers are forced to support addicts as disabled workers? Doesn't bear thinking about.
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: It would be great wouldn't it, smashed out of your face flying a plane or operating a Lathe, soon lose fingers or life I aspect.[/p][/quote]Exactly. How long, you think - before employers are forced to support addicts as disabled workers? Doesn't bear thinking about. notscot
  • Score: 0

2:01pm Sat 20 Oct 12

1 2 Could B says...

RichardR1 wrote:
It would be great wouldn't it, smashed out of your face flying a plane or operating a Lathe, soon lose fingers or life I aspect.
You aspect ?
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: It would be great wouldn't it, smashed out of your face flying a plane or operating a Lathe, soon lose fingers or life I aspect.[/p][/quote]You aspect ? 1 2 Could B
  • Score: 0

2:50pm Sat 20 Oct 12

house on the hill says...

Typical comments from the "know it alls" in todays society. the law has failed on drugs so lets admit defeat and decriminalise them! this is the same people who go on time and time agian about how soft the law is and not the suggest this.... the real problem is so many morons in society who take drugs and are so lacking in intelligence and imagination they need them to "have a good time". if they were decriminilised then i think we all know more would take them, just how will that help society more people on drugs in their cars, at work in the street and everywhere! Parents on drugs looking after the kids, i dont beleive this rubbish that most take them because they are breaking the law, look at how many drink and cause so many problems (death, illness, violent crime, domestic violence, all sorts of crime and antisocial behaviour.
If it was legal dealers would find a way of making it cheaper so that problem wouldnt go away, but yes lets just put our hands up and say we lost the war and surrender, that wasnt the british way i was brought up to beleive.
Typical comments from the "know it alls" in todays society. the law has failed on drugs so lets admit defeat and decriminalise them! this is the same people who go on time and time agian about how soft the law is and not the suggest this.... the real problem is so many morons in society who take drugs and are so lacking in intelligence and imagination they need them to "have a good time". if they were decriminilised then i think we all know more would take them, just how will that help society more people on drugs in their cars, at work in the street and everywhere! Parents on drugs looking after the kids, i dont beleive this rubbish that most take them because they are breaking the law, look at how many drink and cause so many problems (death, illness, violent crime, domestic violence, all sorts of crime and antisocial behaviour. If it was legal dealers would find a way of making it cheaper so that problem wouldnt go away, but yes lets just put our hands up and say we lost the war and surrender, that wasnt the british way i was brought up to beleive. house on the hill
  • Score: 0

4:00pm Sat 20 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

RichardR1 and Itsamess.
Try answering the arguments I presented.
RichardR1 and Itsamess. Try answering the arguments I presented. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

5:03pm Sat 20 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

I beg your pardon I meant house on the hill not it's a mess.
The central point remains.
I have outlined a number of reasons why the current drugs policy is nonsense Argue against that Instead of just getting emotional
I beg your pardon I meant house on the hill not it's a mess. The central point remains. I have outlined a number of reasons why the current drugs policy is nonsense Argue against that Instead of just getting emotional The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

5:27pm Sat 20 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
I beg your pardon I meant house on the hill not it's a mess.
The central point remains.
I have outlined a number of reasons why the current drugs policy is nonsense Argue against that Instead of just getting emotional
Thanks librarian
However the article is not about drugs etc--its about finding a suitable candidate to become the new Police Commissioner who will deal with complaints and the budget for wilts police and your views would be welcomed.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: I beg your pardon I meant house on the hill not it's a mess. The central point remains. I have outlined a number of reasons why the current drugs policy is nonsense Argue against that Instead of just getting emotional[/p][/quote]Thanks librarian However the article is not about drugs etc--its about finding a suitable candidate to become the new Police Commissioner who will deal with complaints and the budget for wilts police and your views would be welcomed. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

9:52am Sun 21 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous.

Pompey-Bound trolling again I see.
Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous. Pompey-Bound trolling again I see. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

12:14pm Sun 21 Oct 12

ace reporter says...

How can CSkelton, a candidate himself, promise 300 additional Community Support Officers, when he will be faced with a 20% budget cut?
How can CSkelton, a candidate himself, promise 300 additional Community Support Officers, when he will be faced with a 20% budget cut? ace reporter
  • Score: 0

1:02pm Sun 21 Oct 12

MrAngry says...

@ ace reporter.

This is the problem with putting a politician in charge. Unrealistic election pledges or perhaps he is going to replace PCs with CSOs.
@ ace reporter. This is the problem with putting a politician in charge. Unrealistic election pledges or perhaps he is going to replace PCs with CSOs. MrAngry
  • Score: 0

1:07pm Sun 21 Oct 12

MrAngry says...

The government have decided that throughout the country we will have elected Police Crime Commissioners.

The public will get to choose the PCC, but weren't consulted whether they want them in the first place.

I suspect that a low turnout (perhaps 15%) will indicate that the public either don't want PCCs or just aren't interested either way.
The government have decided that throughout the country we will have elected Police Crime Commissioners. The public will get to choose the PCC, but weren't consulted whether they want them in the first place. I suspect that a low turnout (perhaps 15%) will indicate that the public either don't want PCCs or just aren't interested either way. MrAngry
  • Score: 0

1:30pm Sun 21 Oct 12

MrAngry says...

@Real Librarian,

I don't see how legalising heroin would end crime.

Taking heroin has effectively been de-criminalised already as courts see addicts as victims rather than criminals.

The drug is highly addictive, so users will still steal to pay for their habit regardless of whether they are paying a drug dealer or Tesco for their fix.

Addicts will struggle to hold down a full time job, so will still be a burden on the state.
@Real Librarian, I don't see how legalising heroin would end crime. Taking heroin has effectively been de-criminalised already as courts see addicts as victims rather than criminals. The drug is highly addictive, so users will still steal to pay for their habit regardless of whether they are paying a drug dealer or Tesco for their fix. Addicts will struggle to hold down a full time job, so will still be a burden on the state. MrAngry
  • Score: 0

1:44pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Pompey-Bound says...

RichardR1 wrote:
Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous.

Pompey-Bound trolling again I see.
When do you leave? I know some folks want to see you off and remind you not to come back!
[quote][p][bold]RichardR1[/bold] wrote: Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous. Pompey-Bound trolling again I see.[/p][/quote]When do you leave? I know some folks want to see you off and remind you not to come back! Pompey-Bound
  • Score: 0

2:19pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively
@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

3:18pm Sun 21 Oct 12

c skelton says...

The issue of funding 300 new officers in the face of Conservative cuts is a fair one. I'm publishing a budget next week to show it can be done. The issue is that all political parties have said the same i.e. cuts are inevitable, its 20% for Government, 12% Labour. I disagree, ther is another way.

And don't forget that the government allowed Vodafone off a £6billion tax liability last year. It could have collected that tax and have no Police cuts. It chose Vodafone shareholders over you!
The issue of funding 300 new officers in the face of Conservative cuts is a fair one. I'm publishing a budget next week to show it can be done. The issue is that all political parties have said the same i.e. cuts are inevitable, its 20% for Government, 12% Labour. I disagree, ther is another way. And don't forget that the government allowed Vodafone off a £6billion tax liability last year. It could have collected that tax and have no Police cuts. It chose Vodafone shareholders over you! c skelton
  • Score: 0

3:42pm Sun 21 Oct 12

notscot says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively
The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively[/p][/quote]The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed. notscot
  • Score: 0

3:47pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

notscot wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively
The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.
They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.
[quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively[/p][/quote]The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.[/p][/quote]They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

5:55pm Sun 21 Oct 12

notscot says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
notscot wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively
The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.
They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.
No they wouldn't - they'll never drop - there's always a reason to increase prices.
And with the legalisation of such highly addictive drugs - it gives the green light to all and sundry to use them, and do nothing but live on benefits. HUGE increases in taxes will be required.
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively[/p][/quote]The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.[/p][/quote]They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.[/p][/quote]No they wouldn't - they'll never drop - there's always a reason to increase prices. And with the legalisation of such highly addictive drugs - it gives the green light to all and sundry to use them, and do nothing but live on benefits. HUGE increases in taxes will be required. notscot
  • Score: 0

6:22pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

notscot wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
notscot wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively
The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.
They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.
No they wouldn't - they'll never drop - there's always a reason to increase prices.
And with the legalisation of such highly addictive drugs - it gives the green light to all and sundry to use them, and do nothing but live on benefits. HUGE increases in taxes will be required.
Prescibing heroin wouldn't see users increase, it would just allow those who are addicted to get their fix without robbing from people.
[quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively[/p][/quote]The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.[/p][/quote]They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.[/p][/quote]No they wouldn't - they'll never drop - there's always a reason to increase prices. And with the legalisation of such highly addictive drugs - it gives the green light to all and sundry to use them, and do nothing but live on benefits. HUGE increases in taxes will be required.[/p][/quote]Prescibing heroin wouldn't see users increase, it would just allow those who are addicted to get their fix without robbing from people. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

6:44pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Localboy86 says...

Davey Gravey wrote:
notscot wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
notscot wrote:
Davey Gravey wrote:
@ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively
The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.
They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.
No they wouldn't - they'll never drop - there's always a reason to increase prices.
And with the legalisation of such highly addictive drugs - it gives the green light to all and sundry to use them, and do nothing but live on benefits. HUGE increases in taxes will be required.
Prescibing heroin wouldn't see users increase, it would just allow those who are addicted to get their fix without robbing from people.
I have known functioning addicts in the past and they lost their jobs when they were unable to get heroin and therefore couldn't go to work until they could get their fix. It is a horrible drug which normally affects the users family much more than the user especially amongst teenagers and young adults. If the government controlled it's distribution, they could offer help at the same time. And in response to some earlier stupid comments (yes u bob) just because u decriminalise something doesn't mean u would rush out and do it, not everyone in holland smokes a joint just because they can
[quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Davey Gravey[/bold] wrote: @ Mr Angry....If addicts were given heroin for free by prescription they wouldn't need to steal to fund it. Burglary's etc would decrease massively[/p][/quote]The NHS budget would soar and taxes would be increased to support the huge numbers of addicts - that couldn't hold down jobs - and would just lie around in their own filth holding out their grubby paws for whatever they felt they needed.[/p][/quote]They already get methadone which doesn't work for alot of addicts so the costs wouldn't rise. Insurance rates would drop though as crime levels would plummet.[/p][/quote]No they wouldn't - they'll never drop - there's always a reason to increase prices. And with the legalisation of such highly addictive drugs - it gives the green light to all and sundry to use them, and do nothing but live on benefits. HUGE increases in taxes will be required.[/p][/quote]Prescibing heroin wouldn't see users increase, it would just allow those who are addicted to get their fix without robbing from people.[/p][/quote]I have known functioning addicts in the past and they lost their jobs when they were unable to get heroin and therefore couldn't go to work until they could get their fix. It is a horrible drug which normally affects the users family much more than the user especially amongst teenagers and young adults. If the government controlled it's distribution, they could offer help at the same time. And in response to some earlier stupid comments (yes u bob) just because u decriminalise something doesn't mean u would rush out and do it, not everyone in holland smokes a joint just because they can Localboy86
  • Score: 0

7:45pm Sun 21 Oct 12

notscot says...

Once you're hooked on heroin - you're not much use to anyone, even yourself.
No-one said EVERYONE would rush out and try it. But with the stigma of criminality gone - a lot more would try it and end up throwing away their lives. Sad.
Decriminalising heroin won'tmake it any less addictive & damaging.
Once you're hooked on heroin - you're not much use to anyone, even yourself. No-one said EVERYONE would rush out and try it. But with the stigma of criminality gone - a lot more would try it and end up throwing away their lives. Sad. Decriminalising heroin won'tmake it any less addictive & damaging. notscot
  • Score: 0

11:18am Mon 22 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTEnotscot says...
7:45pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Once you're hooked on heroin - you're not much use to anyone, even yourself.
UNQUOTE

As the examples I quoted prove, this is not true.

QUOTE
No-one said EVERYONE would rush out and try it. But with the stigma of criminality gone - a lot more would try it and end up throwing away their lives. Sad.
UNQUOTE

Also untrue. When it was criminalised there were faw fewer addicts in the UK, now there are hundreds of thousands. The "stigma of criminality," is what actually encourages addiction - that and the price. See above.
QUOTEnotscot says... 7:45pm Sun 21 Oct 12 Once you're hooked on heroin - you're not much use to anyone, even yourself. UNQUOTE As the examples I quoted prove, this is not true. QUOTE No-one said EVERYONE would rush out and try it. But with the stigma of criminality gone - a lot more would try it and end up throwing away their lives. Sad. UNQUOTE Also untrue. When it was criminalised there were faw fewer addicts in the UK, now there are hundreds of thousands. The "stigma of criminality," is what actually encourages addiction - that and the price. See above. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

11:21am Mon 22 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
RichardR1 wrote:
Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous.
UNQUOTE

As above, the so called "War On Drugs," is a lie and almost every piece of government propeganda about drugs is a lie, which far from controling and preventing drug use actually encourages it and causes the criminality that follows and ensures the massive profits for criminals.

This candidate for PCC and all the others, are sucked into and support this lie, as do all politicians.

You may find it ridiculous but the facts are against you
QUOTE RichardR1 wrote: Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous. UNQUOTE As above, the so called "War On Drugs," is a lie and almost every piece of government propeganda about drugs is a lie, which far from controling and preventing drug use actually encourages it and causes the criminality that follows and ensures the massive profits for criminals. This candidate for PCC and all the others, are sucked into and support this lie, as do all politicians. You may find it ridiculous but the facts are against you The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

11:21am Mon 22 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
RichardR1 wrote:
Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous.
UNQUOTE

As above, the so called "War On Drugs," is a lie and almost every piece of government propeganda about drugs is a lie, which far from controling and preventing drug use actually encourages it and causes the criminality that follows and ensures the massive profits for criminals.

This candidate for PCC and all the others, are sucked into and support this lie, as do all politicians.

You may find it ridiculous but the facts are against you
QUOTE RichardR1 wrote: Librarian there is nothing to answer as I find the whole proposition ludicrous. UNQUOTE As above, the so called "War On Drugs," is a lie and almost every piece of government propeganda about drugs is a lie, which far from controling and preventing drug use actually encourages it and causes the criminality that follows and ensures the massive profits for criminals. This candidate for PCC and all the others, are sucked into and support this lie, as do all politicians. You may find it ridiculous but the facts are against you The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

12:18pm Mon 22 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Facts as perceived or conceived by whom.

I guess you would support the ravings of Professor Nutt who was sacked by the Government for his fanciful notions.

He was accused of down grading the harm of certain drugs to fit in with his research into a patented pill that would be effective on Alcoholics, hence alcohol rising above certain drugs according to him, and being classified as the number 1 in overall harm.

There is a lot of conjecture on both sides but one thing is certain they will not be decriminalised or legalised. No Government would day do that.
Facts as perceived or conceived by whom. I guess you would support the ravings of Professor Nutt who was sacked by the Government for his fanciful notions. He was accused of down grading the harm of certain drugs to fit in with his research into a patented pill that would be effective on Alcoholics, hence alcohol rising above certain drugs according to him, and being classified as the number 1 in overall harm. There is a lot of conjecture on both sides but one thing is certain they will not be decriminalised or legalised. No Government would day do that. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

2:04pm Mon 22 Oct 12

house on the hill says...

I think by facts they mean statisitcs which as we all know can be and manipulated to say anything you want. Common sense would say that decriminalising would lead to more use and dealers would always find a way of making it cheaper anyway and making money out of it so it would just make it all worse. Also it would be an admission of failure of the justice system, which we all know has failed but it would then be official and i dont think any party would want that on their record. If it is to remain illegal then be tougher not softer on it or otherwise what is the point of making it illegal!!!!!!!
I think by facts they mean statisitcs which as we all know can be and manipulated to say anything you want. Common sense would say that decriminalising would lead to more use and dealers would always find a way of making it cheaper anyway and making money out of it so it would just make it all worse. Also it would be an admission of failure of the justice system, which we all know has failed but it would then be official and i dont think any party would want that on their record. If it is to remain illegal then be tougher not softer on it or otherwise what is the point of making it illegal!!!!!!! house on the hill
  • Score: 0

2:23pm Mon 22 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE RichardR1 says...
12:18pm Mon 22 Oct 12
Facts as perceived or conceived by whom.
UNQUOTE

Doctors, where we are talking about the effect of drugs on the body, for example, who say that Heroin is not bad for you, compared to idiot politicians who insist it is, without a shred of evidence.

QUOTE
I guess you would support the ravings of Professor Nutt who was sacked by the Government for his fanciful notions.
UNQUOTE

"Ravings" LOL

"He was accused of down grading the harm of certain drugs to fit in with his research into a patented pill that would be effective on Alcoholics, hence alcohol rising above certain drugs according to him, and being classified as the number 1 in overall harm."

Alcohol is more dangerous than Heroin. It causes organ damage and can cause death if consumed at non-toxic levels. Heroin can't.

QUOTE
There is a lot of conjecture on both sides but one thing is certain they will not be decriminalised or legalised. No Government would day do that.
UNQUOTE

Of course they wouldn't.
Politicians are stupid.
QUOTE RichardR1 says... 12:18pm Mon 22 Oct 12 Facts as perceived or conceived by whom. UNQUOTE Doctors, where we are talking about the effect of drugs on the body, for example, who say that Heroin is not bad for you, compared to idiot politicians who insist it is, without a shred of evidence. QUOTE I guess you would support the ravings of Professor Nutt who was sacked by the Government for his fanciful notions. UNQUOTE "Ravings" LOL "He was accused of down grading the harm of certain drugs to fit in with his research into a patented pill that would be effective on Alcoholics, hence alcohol rising above certain drugs according to him, and being classified as the number 1 in overall harm." Alcohol is more dangerous than Heroin. It causes organ damage and can cause death if consumed at non-toxic levels. Heroin can't. QUOTE There is a lot of conjecture on both sides but one thing is certain they will not be decriminalised or legalised. No Government would day do that. UNQUOTE Of course they wouldn't. Politicians are stupid. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

2:29pm Mon 22 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
house on the hill says...
2:04pm Mon 22 Oct 12

I think by facts they mean statisitcs which as we all know can be and manipulated to say anything you want.
UNQUOTE

I think by facts I mean medical studies and other scrupulously obtained evidence, (the word comes from the French and means "the Truth that is seen.")
Said evidence points to the fact that the "War On Drugs," is a lie, created and reinforced by successive governments for their own purposes.


QUOTE
Common sense would say that
UNQUOTE

I think by "common sense," you mean, your opinion, unsupported by any evidence or research whatsoever.

QUOTE
decriminalising would lead to more use
UNQUOTE

The levels of use of heavy drugs increased once they were criminalised, increasing over 1,000 % today.


QUOTE
Also it would be an admission of failure of the justice system, which we all know has failed but it would then be official and i dont think any party would want that on their record.
UNQUOTE

True

QUOTE
If it is to remain illegal then be tougher not softer on it or otherwise what is the point of making it illegal!!!!!!!
UNQUOTE

The point of making it illegal was to make more money out of it.
QUOTE house on the hill says... 2:04pm Mon 22 Oct 12 I think by facts they mean statisitcs which as we all know can be and manipulated to say anything you want. UNQUOTE I think by facts I mean medical studies and other scrupulously obtained evidence, (the word comes from the French and means "the Truth that is seen.") Said evidence points to the fact that the "War On Drugs," is a lie, created and reinforced by successive governments for their own purposes. QUOTE Common sense would say that UNQUOTE I think by "common sense," you mean, your opinion, unsupported by any evidence or research whatsoever. QUOTE decriminalising would lead to more use UNQUOTE The levels of use of heavy drugs increased once they were criminalised, increasing over 1,000 % today. QUOTE Also it would be an admission of failure of the justice system, which we all know has failed but it would then be official and i dont think any party would want that on their record. UNQUOTE True QUOTE If it is to remain illegal then be tougher not softer on it or otherwise what is the point of making it illegal!!!!!!! UNQUOTE The point of making it illegal was to make more money out of it. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

5:15pm Mon 22 Oct 12

merulius says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
RichardR1 says...
11:45am Fri 19 Oct 12
Oh dear, someone has bought into the ‘Prohibition logic. Lets take your nonsense apart shall we.

QUOTE
Librarian using your logic we might as well decriminalise all crime, because then we wouldn't need police.
UNQUOTE

Where did I say that? Of course I didn’t.
Consumption of Heroin is a crime.
Consumption of Alcohol is not.
Q. What is the difference?
A. One is legal for use without prescription and one is not. Lets be clear, consumption of Heroin in the form of diamorphine and diacetylmorphine is legal with medical involvement.
Heroin was invented in 1874 and not subject to legal control until 1917. So something that was not a crime, became one overnight. Calling drug use a ‘crime’ is a word game and comparing it to other crime, such as burglary or assault is nonsense.
The “war on drugs” has been going on for 95 years.

But, but, but, Heroin is baaaad.
No it isn’t.. In medical terms, it is simply an opiate, technically known as diamorphine, which metabolises into morphine once it enters its user's body. But, in terms of the war against drugs, it is the most frightening of all enemies. Remember all that those congressmen were told about "the great peril". Remember the Thatcher government's multimillion pound campaign under the slogan "Heroin screws you up". Think of Tony Blair at the 1999 Labour party conference fulminating about the "drug menace" or of William Hague last year calling for "a stronger, firmer, harder attack on drugs than we have ever seen before". And now look at the evidence.
Start with the allegation that heroin damages the minds and bodies of those who use it, and consider the biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant."
Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation.
Or go back to the history of "therapeutic addicts" who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call "a junkie", who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent 12 years injecting up to 350mg a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her "herd instinct", but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as "the soldiers' disease". They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage.
There is no medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users

QUOTE
Most property crime is de facto victimless because there is insurance, well perhaps the insurance companies but who cares about them, they are mostly owned by the banks anyway.
UNQUOTE

Actually if you have a Pension, you own the insurance companies.
We look back at the American prohibition of alcohol in the 20s and shudders at the stupidity of a policy which generated such a catastrophic crimewave. Yet in this country, now, the prohibition of drugs has generated a crime boom of staggering proportions. Research suggests that in England and Wales, a hard core of black-market users is responsible for some £1.5bn worth of burglary, theft and shoplifting each year - they are stealing £3.5m worth of property a day. As a single example, Brighton police told us they estimate that 75% of their property crime is committed by black-market drug users trying to fund their habit. And yet governments refuse to be tough on the cause of this crime: their own prohibition policy.

QUOTE
Drugs kill people
UNQUIOTE

Mostly they don’t.
The reason people die is not usually linked to the drug per se but the circumstances of its use. Many overdoses are because the drug is unexpectedly pure. In normal use it is astonishingly difficult to overdose on Heroin. Street buyers buy blind and so they will overdose accidentally: they have no way of telling how much heroin there is in their deal. Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer in addiction studies at John Moores University in Liverpool, has found the purity of street heroin varying from 20% to 90%. "Users can accidentally take three or four times as much as they are planning to," he says. That is not an argument for criminalising it so much as safer labeling. This is a food standards issue, not a criminal justice matter.
Quite often people get infections because of impurities in the drugs. Heroin becomes highly dangerous when it is cut by black-market dealers - with paracetamol, drain cleaner, sand, sugar, starch, powdered milk, talcum powder, coffee, brick dust, cement dust, gravy powder, face powder or curry powder. None of these adulterants was ever intended to be injected into human veins. Some of them, such as drain cleaner, are simply toxic and poison their users. Others - sand or brick dust - are carried into tiny capillaries and digital blood vessels where they form clots, cutting off the supply of blood to fingers or toes. Very rapidly, venous gangrene sets in, the tissue starts to die, the fingers or toes go black and then have only one destiny: amputation. Needless suffering - inflicted not by heroin, but by its black-market adulterants.
People who die in clubs after having used ecstasy mainly die of dehydration. The core point is that the death and sickness and moral collapse which are associated with class A drugs are, in truth, generally the result not of the drugs themselves but of the black market on which they are sold as a result of our strategy of prohibition. In comparison, the drugs themselves are safe, and we could turn around the epidemic of illness and death and crime if only we legalised them.

QUOTE (Drugs) destroy whole families and communities,
UNQUOTE
No they don’t.
Excessive drug use can be bad for families but so is excessive drinking and gambling, and they are legal.

QUOTE
(drugs) create ghetto's and no go areas.
UNQUOTE

(Sigh – facepalm)
Yes, because the drug industry is in the hands of criminals.
Take the criminal element out of it and guess what, no ghettos and no-go areas.
It is the criminalisation that causes the problem.
Prohibition has not merely failed to cut the supply of illicit drugs: it has actively spread drug use. The easiest way for new users to fund their habit is to sell drugs and consume the profit; so they go out and find new users to sell to; so it is that when one child in the classroom starts using, others soon join in; one user in the street and neighbours soon follow. Black-market drug use spreads geometrically. The Health Education Authority in 1995 found that 70% of people aged between 11 and 35 had been offered drugs at some time. Pushers push. When Britain began to impose prohibition of heroin, in 1968, there were fewer then 500 heroin addicts in Britain - a few jazz musicians, some poets, some Soho Chinese. Now, the Home Office says there may be as many as 500,000.


QUOTE
The addict becomes an addict because he/she voluntarily takes the substance, no difference than an alcoholic, but do said alcoholics get preferential NHS treatment like addicts do.
UNQUOTE

Red Herring, nothing to do with the topic.

QUOTE
We have got to get past the, they are innocent victims and treat such crimes harshly as they are contaminating our gullible young. Addicts try to make others addicts to justify their own life style, or lack of it.
UNQUOTE

Ohh, that might be a dig.
I am not an addict.
I have never been an addict.
I do not regard addicts as victims.

What I am is someone with a brain. I realise that labeling “recreational drug use,” a crime is just that, a label. The so called “war on drugs,” is 95 years old in this country. Does it look like we are winning?

In December 1999, the chief constable of Cleveland police, Barry Shaw, produced a progress report on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which marked the final arrival of US drugs prohibition in this country: "There is overwhelming evidence to show that the prohibition-based policy in this country since 1971 has not been effective in controlling the availability or use of proscribed drugs. If there is indeed a war against drugs, it is not being won ... Illegal drugs are freely available, their price is dropping and their use is growing. It seems fair to say that violation of the law is endemic, and the problem seems to be getting worse despite our best efforts." in 1970, only 15% of people had used an illegal drug, but by 1995, 45% had; in 1970, 9,000 people were convicted of a drugs offence but in 1995 94,000 were
Of course we are not winning, and why would we? Columbian experts estimate worldwide annual drug income as $500 billion. That is more than the entire US defence budget.

Ask youself this? If drugs were decriminalised across the world, who would lose out most.
If you get an answer other than, the drug barons making $500 billion a year, and the many, many people who make money fighting the war on drugs, I would love to know what it is.

But nothing will change . The Home Office responded to the chief constable's report with complete silence: they refused to even admit they received it.
Librarian says (I think - I got a bit confused with all the quoting going on) that "taking heroin is a crime".

Point of information: it's not.

Possession of heroin is a crime. For your own use, less of a crime; with intent to supply, more of a crime.

Let's get the legal facts right, please.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: RichardR1 says... 11:45am Fri 19 Oct 12 Oh dear, someone has bought into the ‘Prohibition logic. Lets take your nonsense apart shall we. QUOTE Librarian using your logic we might as well decriminalise all crime, because then we wouldn't need police. UNQUOTE Where did I say that? Of course I didn’t. Consumption of Heroin is a crime. Consumption of Alcohol is not. Q. What is the difference? A. One is legal for use without prescription and one is not. Lets be clear, consumption of Heroin in the form of diamorphine and diacetylmorphine is legal with medical involvement. Heroin was invented in 1874 and not subject to legal control until 1917. So something that was not a crime, became one overnight. Calling drug use a ‘crime’ is a word game and comparing it to other crime, such as burglary or assault is nonsense. The “war on drugs” has been going on for 95 years. But, but, but, Heroin is baaaad. No it isn’t.. In medical terms, it is simply an opiate, technically known as diamorphine, which metabolises into morphine once it enters its user's body. But, in terms of the war against drugs, it is the most frightening of all enemies. Remember all that those congressmen were told about "the great peril". Remember the Thatcher government's multimillion pound campaign under the slogan "Heroin screws you up". Think of Tony Blair at the 1999 Labour party conference fulminating about the "drug menace" or of William Hague last year calling for "a stronger, firmer, harder attack on drugs than we have ever seen before". And now look at the evidence. Start with the allegation that heroin damages the minds and bodies of those who use it, and consider the biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant." Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation. Or go back to the history of "therapeutic addicts" who became addicted to morphine after operations and who were given a clean supply for as long as their addiction lasted. Enid Bagnold, for example, who wrote the delightful children's novel, National Velvet, was what our politicians now would call "a junkie", who was prescribed morphine after a hip operation and then spent 12 years injecting up to 350mg a day. Enid never - as far as history records - mugged a single person or lost her "herd instinct", but died quietly in bed at the age of 91. Opiate addiction was once so common among soldiers in Europe and the United States who had undergone battlefield surgery that it was known as "the soldiers' disease". They spent years on a legal supply of the drug - and it did them no damage. There is no medical research from any source which will support the international governmental contention that heroin harms the body or mind of its users QUOTE Most property crime is de facto victimless because there is insurance, well perhaps the insurance companies but who cares about them, they are mostly owned by the banks anyway. UNQUOTE Actually if you have a Pension, you own the insurance companies. We look back at the American prohibition of alcohol in the 20s and shudders at the stupidity of a policy which generated such a catastrophic crimewave. Yet in this country, now, the prohibition of drugs has generated a crime boom of staggering proportions. Research suggests that in England and Wales, a hard core of black-market users is responsible for some £1.5bn worth of burglary, theft and shoplifting each year - they are stealing £3.5m worth of property a day. As a single example, Brighton police told us they estimate that 75% of their property crime is committed by black-market drug users trying to fund their habit. And yet governments refuse to be tough on the cause of this crime: their own prohibition policy. QUOTE Drugs kill people UNQUIOTE Mostly they don’t. The reason people die is not usually linked to the drug per se but the circumstances of its use. Many overdoses are because the drug is unexpectedly pure. In normal use it is astonishingly difficult to overdose on Heroin. Street buyers buy blind and so they will overdose accidentally: they have no way of telling how much heroin there is in their deal. Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer in addiction studies at John Moores University in Liverpool, has found the purity of street heroin varying from 20% to 90%. "Users can accidentally take three or four times as much as they are planning to," he says. That is not an argument for criminalising it so much as safer labeling. This is a food standards issue, not a criminal justice matter. Quite often people get infections because of impurities in the drugs. Heroin becomes highly dangerous when it is cut by black-market dealers - with paracetamol, drain cleaner, sand, sugar, starch, powdered milk, talcum powder, coffee, brick dust, cement dust, gravy powder, face powder or curry powder. None of these adulterants was ever intended to be injected into human veins. Some of them, such as drain cleaner, are simply toxic and poison their users. Others - sand or brick dust - are carried into tiny capillaries and digital blood vessels where they form clots, cutting off the supply of blood to fingers or toes. Very rapidly, venous gangrene sets in, the tissue starts to die, the fingers or toes go black and then have only one destiny: amputation. Needless suffering - inflicted not by heroin, but by its black-market adulterants. People who die in clubs after having used ecstasy mainly die of dehydration. The core point is that the death and sickness and moral collapse which are associated with class A drugs are, in truth, generally the result not of the drugs themselves but of the black market on which they are sold as a result of our strategy of prohibition. In comparison, the drugs themselves are safe, and we could turn around the epidemic of illness and death and crime if only we legalised them. QUOTE (Drugs) destroy whole families and communities, UNQUOTE No they don’t. Excessive drug use can be bad for families but so is excessive drinking and gambling, and they are legal. QUOTE (drugs) create ghetto's and no go areas. UNQUOTE (Sigh – facepalm) Yes, because the drug industry is in the hands of criminals. Take the criminal element out of it and guess what, no ghettos and no-go areas. It is the criminalisation that causes the problem. Prohibition has not merely failed to cut the supply of illicit drugs: it has actively spread drug use. The easiest way for new users to fund their habit is to sell drugs and consume the profit; so they go out and find new users to sell to; so it is that when one child in the classroom starts using, others soon join in; one user in the street and neighbours soon follow. Black-market drug use spreads geometrically. The Health Education Authority in 1995 found that 70% of people aged between 11 and 35 had been offered drugs at some time. Pushers push. When Britain began to impose prohibition of heroin, in 1968, there were fewer then 500 heroin addicts in Britain - a few jazz musicians, some poets, some Soho Chinese. Now, the Home Office says there may be as many as 500,000. QUOTE The addict becomes an addict because he/she voluntarily takes the substance, no difference than an alcoholic, but do said alcoholics get preferential NHS treatment like addicts do. UNQUOTE Red Herring, nothing to do with the topic. QUOTE We have got to get past the, they are innocent victims and treat such crimes harshly as they are contaminating our gullible young. Addicts try to make others addicts to justify their own life style, or lack of it. UNQUOTE Ohh, that might be a dig. I am not an addict. I have never been an addict. I do not regard addicts as victims. What I am is someone with a brain. I realise that labeling “recreational drug use,” a crime is just that, a label. The so called “war on drugs,” is 95 years old in this country. Does it look like we are winning? In December 1999, the chief constable of Cleveland police, Barry Shaw, produced a progress report on the 1971 Misuse of Drugs Act, which marked the final arrival of US drugs prohibition in this country: "There is overwhelming evidence to show that the prohibition-based policy in this country since 1971 has not been effective in controlling the availability or use of proscribed drugs. If there is indeed a war against drugs, it is not being won ... Illegal drugs are freely available, their price is dropping and their use is growing. It seems fair to say that violation of the law is endemic, and the problem seems to be getting worse despite our best efforts." in 1970, only 15% of people had used an illegal drug, but by 1995, 45% had; in 1970, 9,000 people were convicted of a drugs offence but in 1995 94,000 were Of course we are not winning, and why would we? Columbian experts estimate worldwide annual drug income as $500 billion. That is more than the entire US defence budget. Ask youself this? If drugs were decriminalised across the world, who would lose out most. If you get an answer other than, the drug barons making $500 billion a year, and the many, many people who make money fighting the war on drugs, I would love to know what it is. But nothing will change . The Home Office responded to the chief constable's report with complete silence: they refused to even admit they received it.[/p][/quote]Librarian says (I think - I got a bit confused with all the quoting going on) that "taking heroin is a crime". Point of information: it's not. Possession of heroin is a crime. For your own use, less of a crime; with intent to supply, more of a crime. Let's get the legal facts right, please. merulius
  • Score: 0

7:00pm Mon 22 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

As you should have all had the leaflet as to the election which clearly explains what the remit is of the Commissioner.
As i said earlier--i see no candidate who has the qualifications needed to have a realistic chance to handle the 4 specific roles set out in that leaflet.
As you should have all had the leaflet as to the election which clearly explains what the remit is of the Commissioner. As i said earlier--i see no candidate who has the qualifications needed to have a realistic chance to handle the 4 specific roles set out in that leaflet. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

7:11pm Mon 22 Oct 12

notscot says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
QUOTEnotscot says...
7:45pm Sun 21 Oct 12

Once you're hooked on heroin - you're not much use to anyone, even yourself.
UNQUOTE

As the examples I quoted prove, this is not true.

QUOTE
No-one said EVERYONE would rush out and try it. But with the stigma of criminality gone - a lot more would try it and end up throwing away their lives. Sad.
UNQUOTE

Also untrue. When it was criminalised there were faw fewer addicts in the UK, now there are hundreds of thousands. The "stigma of criminality," is what actually encourages addiction - that and the price. See above.
You're writing tripe, again, trl.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: QUOTEnotscot says... 7:45pm Sun 21 Oct 12 Once you're hooked on heroin - you're not much use to anyone, even yourself. UNQUOTE As the examples I quoted prove, this is not true. QUOTE No-one said EVERYONE would rush out and try it. But with the stigma of criminality gone - a lot more would try it and end up throwing away their lives. Sad. UNQUOTE Also untrue. When it was criminalised there were faw fewer addicts in the UK, now there are hundreds of thousands. The "stigma of criminality," is what actually encourages addiction - that and the price. See above.[/p][/quote]You're writing tripe, again, trl. notscot
  • Score: 0

8:06am Tue 23 Oct 12

semitonic says...

FFS! QUOTE/UNQUOTE doesn't work unless you use SQUARE BRACKETS!

Stupid berk!
FFS! QUOTE/UNQUOTE doesn't work unless you use SQUARE BRACKETS! [quote]Stupid berk![/quote] semitonic
  • Score: 0

8:34am Tue 23 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

Notscot

Prove me wrong
Notscot Prove me wrong The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

8:57am Tue 23 Oct 12

notscot says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Notscot Prove me wrong
When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you.
When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you.
'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Notscot Prove me wrong[/p][/quote]When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you. When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you. 'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please. notscot
  • Score: 0

9:17am Tue 23 Oct 12

Don Jones says...

itsamess3 wrote:
As you should have all had the leaflet as to the election which clearly explains what the remit is of the Commissioner. As i said earlier--i see no candidate who has the qualifications needed to have a realistic chance to handle the 4 specific roles set out in that leaflet.
What leaflet? All I remember geting is a polling card. Let's have a sweepstake on the likely turnout. I say 17%, unless it's raining.
[quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: As you should have all had the leaflet as to the election which clearly explains what the remit is of the Commissioner. As i said earlier--i see no candidate who has the qualifications needed to have a realistic chance to handle the 4 specific roles set out in that leaflet.[/p][/quote]What leaflet? All I remember geting is a polling card. Let's have a sweepstake on the likely turnout. I say 17%, unless it's raining. Don Jones
  • Score: 0

9:49am Tue 23 Oct 12

Davey Gravey says...

notscot wrote:
The Real Librarian wrote:
Notscot Prove me wrong
When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you.
When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you.
'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.
All about matter of opinion. I think your view is the tripe one personally.
[quote][p][bold]notscot[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Notscot Prove me wrong[/p][/quote]When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you. When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you. 'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.[/p][/quote]All about matter of opinion. I think your view is the tripe one personally. Davey Gravey
  • Score: 0

11:44am Tue 23 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
notscot says...
8:57am Tue 23 Oct 12

The Real Librarian wrote:
Notscot Prove me wrong
When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you.
When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you.
'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.”
UNQUOTE

You are a bit thick, aren't you.

I never said heroin isn't addictive. It is.
I said it wasn't dangerous because it doesn't do damage to the mind or body of the users. It doesn't.


I said that making it legal wouldn't increase its use.

I said that making it illegal did increase its use.

Its no wonder you can't make a sensible contribution if you don't understand plain English.
QUOTE notscot says... 8:57am Tue 23 Oct 12 The Real Librarian wrote: Notscot Prove me wrong When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you. When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you. 'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.” UNQUOTE You are a bit thick, aren't you. I never said heroin isn't addictive. It is. I said it wasn't dangerous because it doesn't do damage to the mind or body of the users. It doesn't. I said that making it legal wouldn't increase its use. I said that making it illegal did increase its use. Its no wonder you can't make a sensible contribution if you don't understand plain English. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

12:21pm Tue 23 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

Now forgive me if I'm wrong but OD'ing which results in death tends to be extremely dangerous to mind and brain.
Now forgive me if I'm wrong but OD'ing which results in death tends to be extremely dangerous to mind and brain. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

1:04pm Tue 23 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

Don Jones wrote:
itsamess3 wrote:
As you should have all had the leaflet as to the election which clearly explains what the remit is of the Commissioner. As i said earlier--i see no candidate who has the qualifications needed to have a realistic chance to handle the 4 specific roles set out in that leaflet.
What leaflet? All I remember geting is a polling card. Let's have a sweepstake on the likely turnout. I say 17%, unless it's raining.
It's the Electoral Commissions leaflet and should have been delivered to all homes.
[quote][p][bold]Don Jones[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]itsamess3[/bold] wrote: As you should have all had the leaflet as to the election which clearly explains what the remit is of the Commissioner. As i said earlier--i see no candidate who has the qualifications needed to have a realistic chance to handle the 4 specific roles set out in that leaflet.[/p][/quote]What leaflet? All I remember geting is a polling card. Let's have a sweepstake on the likely turnout. I say 17%, unless it's raining.[/p][/quote]It's the Electoral Commissions leaflet and should have been delivered to all homes. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

1:10pm Tue 23 Oct 12

notscot says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
QUOTE notscot says... 8:57am Tue 23 Oct 12 The Real Librarian wrote: Notscot Prove me wrong When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you. When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you. 'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.” UNQUOTE You are a bit thick, aren't you. I never said heroin isn't addictive. It is. I said it wasn't dangerous because it doesn't do damage to the mind or body of the users. It doesn't. I said that making it legal wouldn't increase its use. I said that making it illegal did increase its use. Its no wonder you can't make a sensible contribution if you don't understand plain English.
Your whole argument pivots on your claim to lessening the number of addicts blighting our society through decriminalisation.
What a load of tosh. You can throw any statistics you like at that daft argument.
The cost of regulating the supply - supporting the wretched addicts through addiction and those who decide they'll add to those numbers because they've got nothing better to do with their benefits will simply spiral.
You belive it will ultimately cost less through deciminalisation. I don't.
You've provided nothing to show otherwise.
And then you simply start to name call.
And, quite frankly - the claim that it does no damage to the mind or body of the user...!!!! (Who's a bit thick?!!!)
You're an idiot.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: QUOTE notscot says... 8:57am Tue 23 Oct 12 The Real Librarian wrote: Notscot Prove me wrong When you prove beyond a shadow of doubt that heroin isn't addictive - I'll believe you. When you prove that decriminalising heroin makes it non-addictive - I'll believe you. 'til then - keep your tripe to a minimum, please.” UNQUOTE You are a bit thick, aren't you. I never said heroin isn't addictive. It is. I said it wasn't dangerous because it doesn't do damage to the mind or body of the users. It doesn't. I said that making it legal wouldn't increase its use. I said that making it illegal did increase its use. Its no wonder you can't make a sensible contribution if you don't understand plain English.[/p][/quote]Your whole argument pivots on your claim to lessening the number of addicts blighting our society through decriminalisation. What a load of tosh. You can throw any statistics you like at that daft argument. The cost of regulating the supply - supporting the wretched addicts through addiction and those who decide they'll add to those numbers because they've got nothing better to do with their benefits will simply spiral. You belive it will ultimately cost less through deciminalisation. I don't. You've provided nothing to show otherwise. And then you simply start to name call. And, quite frankly - the claim that it does no damage to the mind or body of the user...!!!! (Who's a bit thick?!!!) You're an idiot. notscot
  • Score: 0

3:01pm Tue 23 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
notscot says...
1:10pm Tue 23 Oct 12

, quite frankly - the claim that it does no damage to the mind or body of the user...!!!! (Who's a bit thick?!!!)
You're an idiot.”
UNQUOTE

Still you, I'm afraid. Enjoy

http://www.druglibra
ry.org/schaffer/libr
ary/studies/cu/cu4.h
tml

The biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant."
Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation.



Confirmed in 1967 by a specialist in human metabolism, Dr. Vincent P. Dole of the Rockefeller University, and his wife, Dr. Marie Nyswander, a psychiatrist with broad experience among addicts examining and addicts who had long been additesting addicts long addicted to heroin, * Dr. Dole made a significant comparison: "Cigarette smoking is unquestionably more damaging to the human body than heroin."


In 1938, Dr. Lawrence Kolb, Assistant Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, and first superintendent of the service's hospital for addicts in Lexington, Kentucky, and Dr. W. F. Ossenfort reported that of more than 3,000 addicts admitted to the hospital at Lexington, not one suffered from a psychosis caused by opiates.

In 1946, Drs. A. Z. Pfeffer and D. C. Ruble compared 600 male addict prisoners at the Lexington hospital with male nonaddict prisoners serving sentences of the same length. Psychoses were no more common among the addicts than among the nonaddicts.

In 1956, Dr. George H. Stevenson found that
Our psychological studies do not support the common assertion that long continued heroin use produces appreciable psychological deterioration.


You might like this one too. The World Health Organisation (WHO) conducted what is probably the largest ever study of global use of cocaine. In March 1995 they released a briefing kit which summarised their conclusions, with some tantalising bullet points.

"Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use," they said. "Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users."

The full report – which has never been published – was extremely critical of most US policies.
QUOTE notscot says... 1:10pm Tue 23 Oct 12 , quite frankly - the claim that it does no damage to the mind or body of the user...!!!! (Who's a bit thick?!!!) You're an idiot.” UNQUOTE Still you, I'm afraid. Enjoy http://www.druglibra ry.org/schaffer/libr ary/studies/cu/cu4.h tml The biggest study of opiate use ever conducted, on 861 patients at Philadelphia General hospital in the 20s. It concluded that they suffered no physical harm of any kind. Their weight, skin condition and dental health were all unaffected. "There is no evidence of change in the circulatory, hepatic, renal or endocrine functions. When it is considered that some of these subjects had been addicted for at least five years, some of them for as long as 20 years, these negative observations are highly significant." Check with Martindale, the standard medical reference book, which records that heroin is used for the control of severe pain in children and adults, including the frail, the elderly and women in labour. It is even injected into premature babies who are recovering from operations. Martindale records no sign of these patients being damaged or morally degraded or becoming criminally deviant or simply insane. It records instead that, so far as harm is concerned, there can be problems with nausea and constipation. Confirmed in 1967 by a specialist in human metabolism, Dr. Vincent P. Dole of the Rockefeller University, and his wife, Dr. Marie Nyswander, a psychiatrist with broad experience among addicts examining and addicts who had long been additesting addicts long addicted to heroin, * Dr. Dole made a significant comparison: "Cigarette smoking is unquestionably more damaging to the human body than heroin." In 1938, Dr. Lawrence Kolb, Assistant Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service, and first superintendent of the service's hospital for addicts in Lexington, Kentucky, and Dr. W. F. Ossenfort reported that of more than 3,000 addicts admitted to the hospital at Lexington, not one suffered from a psychosis caused by opiates. In 1946, Drs. A. Z. Pfeffer and D. C. Ruble compared 600 male addict prisoners at the Lexington hospital with male nonaddict prisoners serving sentences of the same length. Psychoses were no more common among the addicts than among the nonaddicts. In 1956, Dr. George H. Stevenson found that Our psychological studies do not support the common assertion that long continued heroin use produces appreciable psychological deterioration. You might like this one too. The World Health Organisation (WHO) conducted what is probably the largest ever study of global use of cocaine. In March 1995 they released a briefing kit which summarised their conclusions, with some tantalising bullet points. "Health problems from the use of legal substances, particularly alcohol and tobacco, are greater than health problems from cocaine use," they said. "Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users." The full report – which has never been published – was extremely critical of most US policies. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

3:04pm Tue 23 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

QUOTE
RichardR1 says...
12:21pm Tue 23 Oct 12

Now forgive me if I'm wrong but OD'ing which results in death tends to be extremely dangerous to mind and brain.”
UNQUOTE

Thankyou for agreeing with me when I already replied to you

QUOTE
Drugs kill people
UNQUIOTE

Mostly they don’t.
The reason people die is not usually linked to the drug per se but the circumstances of its use. Many overdoses are because the drug is unexpectedly pure. In normal use it is astonishingly difficult to overdose on Heroin. Street buyers buy blind and so they will overdose accidentally: they have no way of telling how much heroin there is in their deal. Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer in addiction studies at John Moores University in Liverpool, has found the purity of street heroin varying from 20% to 90%. "Users can accidentally take three or four times as much as they are planning to," he says. That is not an argument for criminalising it so much as safer labeling. This is a food standards issue, not a criminal justice matter.
QUOTE RichardR1 says... 12:21pm Tue 23 Oct 12 Now forgive me if I'm wrong but OD'ing which results in death tends to be extremely dangerous to mind and brain.” UNQUOTE Thankyou for agreeing with me when I already replied to you QUOTE Drugs kill people UNQUIOTE Mostly they don’t. The reason people die is not usually linked to the drug per se but the circumstances of its use. Many overdoses are because the drug is unexpectedly pure. In normal use it is astonishingly difficult to overdose on Heroin. Street buyers buy blind and so they will overdose accidentally: they have no way of telling how much heroin there is in their deal. Dr Russell Newcombe, senior lecturer in addiction studies at John Moores University in Liverpool, has found the purity of street heroin varying from 20% to 90%. "Users can accidentally take three or four times as much as they are planning to," he says. That is not an argument for criminalising it so much as safer labeling. This is a food standards issue, not a criminal justice matter. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

4:32pm Tue 23 Oct 12

lordbuckethead says...

notscot, or anyone else for that matter - have you read 'High Society' by Ben Elton, one of the funniest books I've ever read - might be of interest you!
notscot, or anyone else for that matter - have you read 'High Society' by Ben Elton, one of the funniest books I've ever read - might be of interest you! lordbuckethead
  • Score: 0

4:53pm Tue 23 Oct 12

notscot says...

No - I haven't read anything by Ben Elton.
To TRL - copious quantities of tripe are still, at the end of the day, tripe.
Don't waste your time and mine - you write drivel.
No - I haven't read anything by Ben Elton. To TRL - copious quantities of tripe are still, at the end of the day, tripe. Don't waste your time and mine - you write drivel. notscot
  • Score: 0

6:27pm Tue 23 Oct 12

notscot says...

lordbuckethead wrote:
notscot, or anyone else for that matter - have you read 'High Society' by Ben Elton, one of the funniest books I've ever read - might be of interest you!
Just had a look. That's one I may get - thanks for the tip!!
[quote][p][bold]lordbuckethead[/bold] wrote: notscot, or anyone else for that matter - have you read 'High Society' by Ben Elton, one of the funniest books I've ever read - might be of interest you![/p][/quote]Just had a look. That's one I may get - thanks for the tip!! notscot
  • Score: 0

6:45pm Tue 23 Oct 12

itsamess3 says...

Do any of you realise PCC will have very limited powers.
1. meeting the public regularly and listening to their views
2.producing a police and crime plan setting out local priorities.
3.deciding how the budget will be spent.
4.appointing Chief Constables and dismissing them if needed.
They will start off with £60,000 less to spend due to their salary.

Will they listen to the public--can they centre on the drug problem--what area will be neglected with a known 20% cut in the budget.
Do any of you realise PCC will have very limited powers. 1. meeting the public regularly and listening to their views 2.producing a police and crime plan setting out local priorities. 3.deciding how the budget will be spent. 4.appointing Chief Constables and dismissing them if needed. They will start off with £60,000 less to spend due to their salary. Will they listen to the public--can they centre on the drug problem--what area will be neglected with a known 20% cut in the budget. itsamess3
  • Score: 0

7:14pm Tue 23 Oct 12

RichardR1 says...

I would suggest the powers you mention were incredibly powerful.

One man literally controlling crime policy, the budget and absolute control over the CC.

The salary range is in fact £65k to £100k depending on the location.

As for a reduction due to salary, the Police Authorities are not being retained so I am sure there would be substantial allowance savings, also the Police Authority are supported by a dedicated employed staff which averages about 14 people. The Police and Crime Commissioner can decide how many of those he needs.

So in theory this could save money. Is it the right move. No.
I would suggest the powers you mention were incredibly powerful. One man literally controlling crime policy, the budget and absolute control over the CC. The salary range is in fact £65k to £100k depending on the location. As for a reduction due to salary, the Police Authorities are not being retained so I am sure there would be substantial allowance savings, also the Police Authority are supported by a dedicated employed staff which averages about 14 people. The Police and Crime Commissioner can decide how many of those he needs. So in theory this could save money. Is it the right move. No. RichardR1
  • Score: 0

9:10pm Tue 23 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

Notascot

I clearly am wasting my time with you.

You are one of the brainwashed sheeple who are too scared to think for yourself.

Go back to watching the X Factor.
Thats your level.
Notascot I clearly am wasting my time with you. You are one of the brainwashed sheeple who are too scared to think for yourself. Go back to watching the X Factor. Thats your level. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

11:21pm Tue 23 Oct 12

notscot says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Notascot

I clearly am wasting my time with you.

You are one of the brainwashed sheeple who are too scared to think for yourself.

Go back to watching the X Factor.
Thats your level.
Good grief - yet another post from the village idiot.
Amazing how you "armchair experts" resort to ridiculous claims & half-baked insults when met with a differenceof opinion!!!
Your ridiculous claim that:
"Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users."
equates to:
I said it wasn't dangerous because it doesn't do damage to the mind or body of the users.
Right - tell that to the birds, numpty.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Notascot I clearly am wasting my time with you. You are one of the brainwashed sheeple who are too scared to think for yourself. Go back to watching the X Factor. Thats your level.[/p][/quote]Good grief - yet another post from the village idiot. Amazing how you "armchair experts" resort to ridiculous claims & half-baked insults when met with a differenceof opinion!!! Your ridiculous claim that: "Cocaine-related problems are widely perceived to be more common and more severe for intensive, high-dosage users and very rare and much less severe for occasional, low-dosage users." equates to: I said it wasn't dangerous because it doesn't do damage to the mind or body of the users. Right - tell that to the birds, numpty. notscot
  • Score: 0

6:00am Wed 24 Oct 12

The Real Librarian says...

Notascot
I am not offended by a different opinion.
I am offended by your boneheaded insistence tbat your opinion is superior to thorough medical studies and detailed research carried out by experts.
Notascot I am not offended by a different opinion. I am offended by your boneheaded insistence tbat your opinion is superior to thorough medical studies and detailed research carried out by experts. The Real Librarian
  • Score: 0

6:40am Wed 24 Oct 12

notscot says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Notascot
I am not offended by a different opinion.
I am offended by your boneheaded insistence tbat your opinion is superior to thorough medical studies and detailed research carried out by experts.
That's you own opinion you've attempted to dissect!!!
Look - when you're hoist by your own petard YOU WILL look ridiculous.
That's your responsibility, chappy - not mine.
I'm happy to read thorough medical research - but when numpties like you apply your own interpretation - and start with the insults when met with an opposing view - I wonder what on earth you think you're bringing to a discussion.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Notascot I am not offended by a different opinion. I am offended by your boneheaded insistence tbat your opinion is superior to thorough medical studies and detailed research carried out by experts.[/p][/quote]That's you own opinion you've attempted to dissect!!! Look - when you're hoist by your own petard YOU WILL look ridiculous. That's your responsibility, chappy - not mine. I'm happy to read thorough medical research - but when numpties like you apply your own interpretation - and start with the insults when met with an opposing view - I wonder what on earth you think you're bringing to a discussion. notscot
  • Score: 0

6:41am Wed 24 Oct 12

notscot says...

Your!!! attack of the fat digits again.
Your!!! attack of the fat digits again. notscot
  • Score: 0

1:33pm Wed 24 Oct 12

thelittlemorgan says...

I got the voting forms through the post and shoved them in the bin on reading the word .....'Police'......
I got the voting forms through the post and shoved them in the bin on reading the word .....'Police'...... thelittlemorgan
  • Score: 0

1:48pm Wed 24 Oct 12

lordbuckethead says...

thelittlemorgan wrote:
I got the voting forms through the post and shoved them in the bin on reading the word .....'Police'......
Yes I've got a spare one in the bin if anybody wants one. Don Jones 17% turnout? - I think optimistic. I'd say 15%.
[quote][p][bold]thelittlemorgan[/bold] wrote: I got the voting forms through the post and shoved them in the bin on reading the word .....'Police'......[/p][/quote]Yes I've got a spare one in the bin if anybody wants one. Don Jones 17% turnout? - I think optimistic. I'd say 15%. lordbuckethead
  • Score: 0

8:29pm Wed 24 Oct 12

notscot says...

lordbuckethead wrote:
thelittlemorgan wrote:
I got the voting forms through the post and shoved them in the bin on reading the word .....'Police'......
Yes I've got a spare one in the bin if anybody wants one. Don Jones 17% turnout? - I think optimistic. I'd say 15%.
less than 10%
[quote][p][bold]lordbuckethead[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]thelittlemorgan[/bold] wrote: I got the voting forms through the post and shoved them in the bin on reading the word .....'Police'......[/p][/quote]Yes I've got a spare one in the bin if anybody wants one. Don Jones 17% turnout? - I think optimistic. I'd say 15%.[/p][/quote]less than 10% notscot
  • Score: 0

2:18pm Thu 25 Oct 12

Don Jones says...

The Real Librarian wrote:
Notascot I clearly am wasting my time with you. You are one of the brainwashed sheeple who are too scared to think for yourself. Go back to watching the X Factor. Thats your level.
See, you can be patronising in under a thousand words. Well done.
[quote][p][bold]The Real Librarian[/bold] wrote: Notascot I clearly am wasting my time with you. You are one of the brainwashed sheeple who are too scared to think for yourself. Go back to watching the X Factor. Thats your level.[/p][/quote]See, you can be patronising in under a thousand words. Well done. Don Jones
  • Score: 0

9:39pm Thu 25 Oct 12

Daedalus says...

Yes, Don, I was wondering if The Real Librarian is paid by the word.
Yes, Don, I was wondering if The Real Librarian is paid by the word. Daedalus
  • Score: 0

10:53pm Thu 25 Oct 12

blueboy1 says...

"The easiest way to tackle drug related crime would be to decriminalise drugs."

What absolute garbage,

Costs £1000s of pounds per year on drug addicts.. a 7.62 bullet cost just 26p.
"The easiest way to tackle drug related crime would be to decriminalise drugs." What absolute garbage, Costs £1000s of pounds per year on drug addicts.. a 7.62 bullet cost just 26p. blueboy1
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree