No evidence bloke filmed snorting coke was snorting coke.

Burnsy2023 · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:48

OldCoals said:
Interesting that he hasn't sued the Sun for libel.

That's very unlikely to succeed if he did. The chances are it was cocaine, but the Police can't prove that without reasonable doubt.

Burnsy2023 · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:49

Freakbro said:
So either he was taking cocaine or the Sun is mis-reporting the events

Or he was taking cocaine but the Police can't prove that to the standard required for a criminal prosecution.

There are plenty of cases where I'm 99% sure someone did something, but if I can't prove it, it's going nowhere.

OhEsEcks · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:49

Freakbro said:
So either he was taking cocaine or the Sun is mis-reporting the events, there's no 'alleged' in those sentences

Or they believed him to be taking cocaine at the time and all they'll have to do is post an apology three or four pages into the rag tucked away in a corner.

Danthus · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:50

Burnsy2023 said:
That's very unlikely to succeed if he did. The chances are it was cocaine, but the Police can't prove that without reasonable doubt.

That is because he was snorting cocaine.

Dis86 · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:50

Burnsy2023 said:
That's very unlikely to succeed if he did. The chances are it was cocaine, but the Police can't prove that without reasonable doubt.

We could use a law based upon intent methinks. We have conspiracy charges for other things, why not drugs?

Freakbro · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:52

Burnsy2023 said:
Or he was taking cocaine but the Police can't prove that to the standard required for a criminal prosecution.

There are plenty of cases where I'm 99% sure someone did something, but if I can't prove it, it's going nowhere.

I appreciate the police's point of view and I know they need hard evidence (but you can't deny it's a farce

), but I was answering Glaucus's statement that the Sun didn't misreport anything

Danthus · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:53

Burnsy2023 said:
Or he was taking cocaine but the Police can't prove that to the standard required for a criminal prosecution.

There are plenty of cases where I'm 99% sure someone did something, but if I can't prove it, it's going nowhere.

Yet we send cases to court and let a jury decided.

OhEsEcks · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:53

OldCoals said:
That is because he was snorting cocaine.

Whoever bought the cocaine could have been told it was cocaine and without a lab test or roadside test, wouldn't know how pure it was. Or even if it actually contained any cocaine at all. They just have to take the word of whoever they're buying it off "yeah mate, it's coke". Could be amphetamines, could be some research chemical from China. It's going to be bulked too.

Freakbro · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:56

OhEsEcks said:
Whoever bought the cocaine could have been told it was cocaine and without a lab test or roadside test, wouldn't know how pure it was. Or even if it actually contained any cocaine at all. They just have to take the word of whoever they're buying it off "yeah mate, it's coke". Could be amphetamines, could be some research chemical from China. It's going to be bulked too.

Of course it's going to be cut, but I'm sure Lord Sewel has better contact's than just 'taking the word from whoever they're buying it off'

It was coke

Wizzfizz · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:56

Snorting to see here

OhEsEcks · 22 Sep 2015 at 18:59

Freakbro said:
Of course it's going to be cut, but I'm sure Lord Sewel has better contact's than just 'taking the word from whoever they're buying it off'

If he has such great contacts...how is it he gets caught on camera? I'm serious. For someone in his line of work, your contacts will be a lot more discreet. And not working for the Sun. If they're not telling you they're working for the Sun, they're not telling you they've been bulking plant food with baking soda.

Jonny69 · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:01

That doesn't look much like a hooker's **** to me. Misleading press is misleading.

Wizzfizz · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:02

The Sun never misleads come on!!

Freakbro · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:05

OhEsEcks said:
If he has such great contacts...how is it he gets caught on camera? I'm serious. For someone in his line of work, your contacts will be a lot more discreet. And not working for the Sun. If they're not telling you they're working for the Sun, they're not telling you they've been bulking plant food with baking soda.

What's having good contacts for coke got to do with him being caught on camera?

Anyone could have set up the sting for any reason....sounds like the way he was ****ging all his peers off in that tape he could easily have upset enough people to stitch him up from his 'regular' activities

Edit : sl.agging seems to have fallen foul of the swear filter

oulton · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:07

OhEsEcks said:
If they did a "forensic examination" that means dogs and swabs. And if that didn't pick up anything, then he should probably try and get his money back.

I remember I bought a bag of what I thought was E and munched my way through 20 of them at a weekend rave. My internal organs started shutting down on the sunday morning and the next thing I woke up in hospital a couple days later. The doctor was like "It was mostly amphetamine, if it had been pure E it would have killed you a lot sooner, how do you feel" and the first thing I said was "ripped off". That's when I realised I had a drug problem.

he will have got the place cleaned properly before any snout got there

Glaucus · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:09

Freakbro said:
I appreciate the police's point of view and I know they need hard evidence (but you can't deny it's a farce ), but I was answering Glaucus's statement that the Sun didn't misreport anything

They haven't, in the video he's talking about cocaine. He couldn't win a liable. Just 'isle the police have no evidence of what the substance is, And no evidence for criminal prosecution. Nothing odd about that at all.
Even a regular person wouldn't be prosecuted. Enough videos on youtube of drug taking of it was that easy to up their stats.
Very much different levels of evidence required and who's got to prove what. They aren't at all related like you think.

Burnsy2023 · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:12

OldCoals said:
Yet we send cases to court and let a jury decided.

Except it doesn't meet the evidential stage of the full code test: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/code_for_crown_prosecutors/codetest.html

Werewolf · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:12

RaohNS said:
When running from the scene of a crime holding a gun/knife just make up any **** and bull story.

This is one rule for them. If this was your average Joe they would be dodging balls in prison by now

Yes, you're right :rolleyes:

They investigate.
They found no trace of the alleged coke.

They decided there wasn't anything more to do.

Whilst you're in favour of prosecuting people because there is a video of them appearing to do something and saying they're doing it, will you also be in favour of prosecuting all the actors who over the years have ended up with footage of them appearing to do something, and saying it's something illegal (pretty much every actor who has ever done a drugs scene for example).

oulton · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:13

Glaucus said:
They haven't, in the video he's talking about cocaine. He couldn't win a liable. Just 'isle the police have no evidence of what the substance is, And no evidence for criminal prosecution. Nothing odd about that at all.
Even a regular person wouldn't be prosecuted. Enough videos on youtube of drug taking of it was that easy to up their stats.
Very much different levels of evidence required and who's got to prove what. They aren't at all related like you think.

libel you mean

balky12 · 22 Sep 2015 at 19:15

Like the people who were calling for Nigella Lawson's head when she admitted doing coke in her book... like come one. What next? Arrest all the rock and roll stars because they admitted to taking drugs at some point in their life.

No evidence bloke filmed snorting coke was snorting coke.

Man of Honour