Brassed Off Britannia

Brassed Off Britannia

For a moan about the state of Britain and the World

 

 

 

Home   |   About BOB   |   Poetry   |   Contact Us   |   Forum Home

 
It is currently Sat Sep 21, 2019 9:43 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Equality under the law
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:35 am
Posts: 5976
Location: Fleurieu, South Australia
Bloke was picked up walking out of the disabled toilet during a race meeting.
He was found to be in possession of cocaine.
During questioning, his wife gave herself in, admitting she had also possessed narcotic.
Both plead guilty but were given a suspended sentence with no conviction being recorded.
Why? Hard to say but would being an Olympic medallist have anything to do with it?
http://www.smh.com.au/sport/swimming/geoff-huegill-pleads-guilty-to-possessing-cocaine-20140514-zrbz5.html
It'll cost him plenty in sponsorship.

Would the outcome have been different if he'd been a truck driver, tattooed bike rider or school teacher?

_________________
Love people, use things - not the opposite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 11:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 5357
Location: Holst country (to be different)
Same old, same old GG. Not what you know but who you know and if you got a buck or two in your pocket life get's easier.
Generally people who do this sort of thing have a history of drug taking and I must admit one shot in the clip made me think he might have been on some sort of steroid in his swimming days.
As for his bleeding heart about his kids, he didn't think of them before having a quick snort just his own gratification and hers, and guess what his kids are going to say if he tries to stop them snorting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 6:56 pm
Posts: 9404
Location: Lake District, England
Equality under the law would be a lot simpler if we didn't have stupid laws that penalise people for the harm they risk to themselves, 'possession' being a prime example. Pushers and dealers, obviously, but why users? Who do they harm but themselves? Not that all drugs are included - you can kill yourself with tobacco or drink yourself to death, in fact drinking drain cleaner is usually terminal but not illegal. But there's a list, an arbitrary one that excludes a whole range of potentially lethal substances that you can smoke, inject or snort with impunity. Seems daft to me.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 3:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 8:28 am
Posts: 5357
Location: Holst country (to be different)
Talking about drugs and all that very interesting programme on Radio 4 yesterday. You can get it on BBC iplayer and is worth a listen. It's titled The Public Philosopher and I think you will be pleasantly entertained and enlightened. The philosopher and his audience touch on many of the subjects we discuss on here. Give it a go.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 10:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 6348
cromwell man wrote:
As for his bleeding heart about his kids, he didn't think of them before having a quick snort just his own gratification and hers, and guess what his kids are going to say if he tries to stop them snorting.


You're right Crom, but then you're wrong.

The pressure to take drugs nowadays is almost irresistible. Hash is regarded as less harmful than alcohol. I read a report recently that said the amount of undigested cocaine being flushed into the London sewers was beginning to contaminate the water supply. As business and society and sport become ever more competitive the temptation to take performance enhancing drugs must be immense.

So yes you're right, he didn't think of his kids, but you're wrong to condemn him without knowing more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 11:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:18 pm
Posts: 3227
Location: Elgar country
Hook Dangler wrote:
The pressure to take drugs nowadays is almost irresistible. Hash is regarded as less harmful than alcohol. I read a report recently that said the amount of undigested cocaine being flushed into the London sewers was beginning to contaminate the water supply. As business and society and sport become ever more competitive the temptation to take performance enhancing drugs must be immense.

So yes you're right, he didn't think of his kids, but you're wrong to condemn him without knowing more.

A strange post, if I may say so, Hooky. I can't - through ignorance - dispute the hash/alcohol comparison. But should we really condone drug use simply because of the "pressure". A lot of social kudos, and much peace of mind, comes from the possession of loadsa money. There is therefore pressure to steal, and many succumb, but there is no push in society to excuse theft and fraud. What's so special about chemicals? You may say it's a 'victimless' crime, but doesn't everyone suffer when drug abuse is rife?

And your last sentence above...... it seems to imply that there may be circumstances when he would be right to kick his kids into touch in favour of a snort. Could you provide an example of such circumstances?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 12:19 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 6348
Senex Iracundus wrote:
A strange post, if I may say so, Hooky. I can't - through ignorance - dispute the hash/alcohol comparison. But should we really condone drug use simply because of the "pressure". A lot of social kudos, and much peace of mind, comes from the possession of loadsa money. There is therefore pressure to steal, and many succumb, but there is no push in society to excuse theft and fraud. What's so special about chemicals? You may say it's a 'victimless' crime, but doesn't everyone suffer when drug abuse is rife?

And your last sentence above...... it seems to imply that there may be circumstances when he would be right to kick his kids into touch in favour of a snort. Could you provide an example of such circumstances?


I do say its a victimless crime. How can you compare theft and fraud and any other crime against your fellow, with taking drugs? Imagine a situation where your livelihood depends on a treadmill of ever increasing sales and you're falling behind the rest of the team. A colleague tells you the reason they do better than you is they're high on cocaine most of the time.

In your own world of music are not drugs, as an aid to creativity, rife?

I don't imply that anyone is right to 'kick his kids into touch in favour of a snort', but when that snort is the tool by which he can produce the money to maintain those kids, it puts a different complexion on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 1:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 9:18 pm
Posts: 3227
Location: Elgar country
Hook Dangler wrote:
(1) I do say its a victimless crime. How can you compare theft and fraud and any other crime against your fellow, with taking drugs? Imagine a situation where your livelihood depends on a treadmill of ever increasing sales and you're falling behind the rest of the team. A colleague tells you the reason they do better than you is they're high on cocaine most of the time.

(2) In your own world of music are not drugs, as an aid to creativity, rife?

(3) I don't imply that anyone is right to 'kick his kids into touch in favour of a snort', but when that snort is the tool by which he can produce the money to maintain those kids, it puts a different complexion on it.

(1) Victimless? Money was stolen from my flat - money which, Mr Plod assured me, was by then flowing in someone's veins. As for your 'treadmill' scenario..... no, I would not compete by adding alien chemicals to my system. On that principle, capitalism (and all competition, eg sport) will ultimately depend on pharmaceuticals, distorting the human condition. It hardly represents a bright future, and it undermines the virtues of education, industry, creativity, and self-motivation. I'm surprised you are sympathetic to such an outcome.

(2) You're thinking of Nigel K? I've no idea how widespread drug abuse is in classical music, but I do not approve of it simply because it's music. Great heights can be reached without chemical aid, but, if they couldn't, I'd settle for lower peaks quite happily.

(3) But he could maintain his kids by stealing some cash - or by achieving without chemical aid. He doesn't help his kids by ending up in prison, being banned from his sport, or by cheating. A father is supposed to be a role model: is his message to his kids "Win by fair means or foul?" What sort of future are you arguing for?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 1:58 am 
Cumberland Cockney wrote:
Equality under the law would be a lot simpler if we didn't have stupid laws that penalise people for the harm they risk to themselves, 'possession' being a prime example. Pushers and dealers, obviously, but why users? Who do they harm but themselves? Not that all drugs are included - you can kill yourself with tobacco or drink yourself to death, in fact drinking drain cleaner is usually terminal but not illegal. But there's a list, an arbitrary one that excludes a whole range of potentially lethal substances that you can smoke, inject or snort with impunity. Seems daft to me.

Quote:
Equality under the law would be a lot simpler if we didn't have stupid laws that penalise people for the harm they risk to themselves,

I fail to see how decriminalising drug usage laws would bring about equality under the law. As it stands now, possession of a banned substance is illegal and as GG has pointed out this character has been perceived, to have received, preferential treatment because he was a high profile celeb'. the question is would a truck driver, tattooed bike rider or school teacher have received the same treatment?

well I don't know about teachers but it would appear that head teachers are a breed apart especially when they've been given an award, here peruse this little puzzle about Jo Shuter, head of Quintin Kynaston Community Academy, in St John's Wood, the puzzle being how did she escape prosecution
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24383163
Or this Gem about Sir Alan Davies, both used the law to circumvent the law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22577069

I will leave Ernest Saunders out of the equation, and instead move on to the case of Gary Barlow. He participates in a fraudulent scheme designed to evade paying tax.
I use the term fraudulent because the scheme was set up, not for the purpose that was claimed, which was charity, but rather for the personal and financial benefit of the participants.
Personal because in the case of Barlow it got him a knighthood, true Barlow's benevolent contributions to the Tory party was also a factor in the reward of an OBE but that aside, the financial benefits of the scam through the tax evasion, appears to have been a nice little earner.

It can be argued that Barlow didn't break any laws. Well that is all down to semantics, for if a poor man avoids tax it is called evasion, when a wealthy man evades tax it is called avoidance.

But it goes further, for it is the hypocrisy of it all, in that these people raise themselves up so high in their own estimation, and pontificate to the baseless like me, and yet they have less scruples and basic morality than anyone I know, and that is, and includes the dregs of society.

I reiterate what I have said many times before, ... the real crooks don't wear striped jumpers and masks but rather fine suits ... and if you want to find them, ... don't look in the inner city ghetto's, look in the corridors of power, for where the carcass lies there are the vultures also


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 2:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 6348
I'm not defending the taking of drugs, my only experience, other than Nick Teen and L.K.Hall, has been the odd spliff in bad company. But even that limited knowledge has given me understanding and sympathy for the addict.

I don't know if you've ever smoked, but if you have you'll know the desperate feeling when you've no fags, even worse when you've got fags but no matches. You'll do anything, drive anywhere, to feed the habit. Just imagine that feeling multiplied fifty times. That's how a crack addict feels. And he's in that state because some bastard pushed the stuff on him when he was vulnerable. And now he can't get off it and can't afford it. So crime is his only option.

Yes I know. In an ideal world he could have refused. He could have been an upright citizen like you and I. But the world isn't full of upright citizens, its full of people with problems, with hardship, with depression, with bewilderment, with illness. All of them prime targets for the vultures that deal drugs.

My answer to the problem? First use the Singapore solution. Hang the dealers. Then legalise all drugs under strict government control, so that we undercut the bastards and rescue the addicts.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 2:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:41 am
Posts: 6348
Shufti Cush wrote:

It can be argued that Barlow didn't break any laws. Well that is all down to semantics, for if a poor man avoids tax it is called evasion, when a wealthy man evades tax it is called avoidance.


"It can be argued that Barlow didn't break the law." Well did he or didn't he? Because if you cut out the bullshit, the political rhetoric, the semantics (yours not mine) you get down to that basic question. If he broke the law, arrest him. If he didn't and you don't like it, change the law. Blair and Brown had thirteen years to get their heads round the problem.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 2:59 am 
Quote:
"It can be argued that Barlow didn't break the law." Well did he or didn't he?

Yes you're right, the spirit if the law was broken, but it is how you interpret the law, it is how you interpret words (semantics). I could argue that the scheme was a con which it was... but semantics between evasion and avoidance will always lie with the powers that be.
Quote:
Because if you cut out the bullshit, the political rhetoric, the semantics (yours not mine) you get down to that basic question. If he broke the law, arrest him.

It isn't the law it is the interpretation of the law, semantics ....
Quote:
If he didn't and you don't like it, change the law.

It could be changed all you like but the truth is that the big earning lawyers are the ones who by manipulation of the law get the guilty off, and rob the innocent of their justice, they are by nature more guilty than the crooks because they, for coin of the realm, set the guilty free and rob the innocent of justice
Quote:
Blair and Brown had thirteen years to get their heads round the problem.

What can you expect from tories, ....


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 10:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:43 pm
Posts: 132
Location: Nottingham, England
POI:
Gary Barlow does not have a knighthood (yet?).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 12:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:35 am
Posts: 5976
Location: Fleurieu, South Australia
During our Tour Down Under (our version of Tour de France - same teams), some bloke was discovered to have set up a series of cameras disguised as coat hooks in the temporary toilets.
He'd been doing the same thing for weeks elsewhere.
At his trial, it was claimed he'd been "exploring his own sexuality".
The judge gave him a suspended sentence on the grounds that "his prospects for rehabilitation were good."
I thought that was the purpose of the correction system.
Oh, by the way, the cameras were in the men's toilets.

_________________
Love people, use things - not the opposite.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 12:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 2:35 am
Posts: 5976
Location: Fleurieu, South Australia
End of year party for small government department. All participants are well lubricated and night is wearing on.
Bloke A squeezes lady X's breast. Lady B says, "Don't worry; he's gay.
Lady A complains to boss B who says, "You mean he squeezed them like this?" and has a squeeze.
But it's okay because boss B is also queer.
Enquiry is held, Bloke A is sacked, boss B is demoted.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion ... 903873442#

Question: what would have been the outcome if both blokes were straight?

_________________
Love people, use things - not the opposite.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group