No evidence bloke filmed snorting coke was snorting coke.

No this happened it was time a go now, but some guy we knew had £25K in a shoe box and 9 kg of cannabis resin in the wash basket. Stupid person. :rolleyes:

Got nicked it went to court and £17k was said to be found and 6kg of resin. :eek: The guy went nuts but what could he do? He still got time anyway and to argue the was more would be madness.

Don't be daft as they say, everyone is at it. ;)

Loads of stories about this happening and its not in the media I can assure you. :p

Yeah this always happens. Not even sure why there is a 'war on drugs' the whole things a complete farce.
 
VjLP3mx.png

If the judicial system could say "that's a photo of you snorting coke so you were snorting coke." and it was a photo from some joke like the above, you'd be pretty upset. This is why to say someone was snorting coke you need to show that what they were snorting was coke.

Incidentally, that was totally coke.
 
VjLP3mx.png

If the judicial system could say "that's a photo of you snorting coke so you were snorting coke." and it was a photo from some joke like the above, you'd be pretty upset. This is why to say someone was snorting coke you need to show that what they were snorting was coke.

Incidentally, that was totally coke.

Lol trust Harry :D
 
Interesting that he hasn't sued the Sun for libel. ;)

Isn't interesting at all.

I would never sue for libel even if I knew I had been lied about.

The burden of proof for civil libel makes it very difficult to actually win a case and the only people who ever win are the Lawyers.

I'd just laugh it off

Only a fool sues!
 
One law for them, another law for us little people.

Have you never watched those 'Road Wars' type programmes on TV? There are people who have been caught with stolen goods and got away with it on the basis of there being a lack of evidence. It's not a case of "one law for them" at all.

The reality is that there is no proof this guy is snorting coke. If he denies it in court, what evidence do they have he did it?
 
On another note,

Had this footage been obtained as a result of covert police surveillance carried out without a warrant I imagine it would not be admissible as evidence anyway.

Why should covert surveillance carried out by a news paper have any greater legal relevance?
 
On another note,

Had this footage been obtained as a result of covert police surveillance carried out without a warrant I imagine it would not be admissible as evidence anyway.

Why should covert surveillance carried out by a news paper have any greater legal relevance?

Because the state has a set of restrictions on it as part of RIPA which citizens do not. Which I think is reasonable.
 
Back
Top Bottom