This is why people are losing respect for the police...

Status
Not open for further replies.
Energize said:
Yet you can get 7 years in prison for cannabis possession, one despairs at the judiciary in this country, it's almost 3rd world.
Click to expand...
How many people that aren't actively growing commercial amounts of cannabis possession get 7 years?
In most cases it seems to be dealt with using a warning, caution, or fine these days.

You can't just compare the maximum you might get under one offence with what the court gives in another given the huge variation in factors that affect sentencing (GBH for example can have up to 5 years, whilst GBH with intent is 2-16 years).

Also as always, remember it's the government that sets the guidelines for sentencing and can/does push to avoid sending people to prison for too long because they've underinvested in prisons for the last 30 years, and it's got worse over the last 10.
 
Werewolf said:
How many people that aren't actively growing commercial amounts of cannabis possession get 7 years?
Click to expand...

Absolutely none, because it's 5 years for a start, and even then you're not going to get any prison time for simple possession (unless it's in the most egregious form with the worst mitigating circumstances) you'd be unlucky to get anything more than a simple caution/on the spot fine by the police or fine by the magistrates.

Even growing your own (production) doesn't get anything nowadays, only if it's linked with supply that it could get more serious.
 
Energize said:
Yet you can get 7 years in prison for cannabis possession, one despairs at the judiciary in this country, it's almost 3rd world.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's definitely not on, not that it's acceptable but you might accept a first lunge. This one is worse in that she gets up to go and then targets another attack.

Attack on emergency workers should carry a mandatory minimum jail sentence - even if it's only 4 weeks.
 
Richie said:
I'm guessing you're pro-cannabis then?

Also - excellent straw man for the reasons already mentioned above this post of mine.
Click to expand...

I'm not pro cannabis (whatever that means), I'm generally against drug use. However I support the fundamental human right of bodily autonomy and self ownership. The government does not own your body therefore it has no right to regulate what substances you consume.

It's not a straw man to argue that the sentence is too lenient given the maximum penalty for lesser crimes is higher. Do you actually know what a straw man is?

Werewolf said:
How many people that aren't actively growing commercial amounts of cannabis possession get 7 years?
In most cases it seems to be dealt with using a warning, caution, or fine these days.
Click to expand...

That's a separate offence of possession with intent to supply, it's up to 5 years for simple possession of class B and 7 years for class A (things like magic mushrooms).

Supplying or offering to supply a controlled drug/ Possession of a controlled drug with intent to supply it to another – Sentencing

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk

The starting point for possession of cannabis with intent to supply is 8 years custody.

The maximum sentence for a crime of low seriousness should not be more than the sentence people actually get for a crime of high seriousness. Non violent crimes like possession of drugs can never be more serious than violent crimes like GBH.

And while yes the government does set the guidelines, the judiciary is complicit in following them and sentencing people thus ultimately bears responsibility for giving reprehensibly high sentences for drug possession.

As Thomas Jefferson said when he wrote the declaration of independence, "If a law is unjust, man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so", and as Martin Luther King Jr said, "one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws".
 
Last edited:
Person arrested multiple times before for breaching an exclusion order, stages event again within the exclusion to push the law to the limit to get clicks and views on social media.

From what I can gather this is about restricting the harassment of women using abortion clinics from anti-abortion religious groups, so there is a 150m zone prohibiting any form of demonstration, leaflet distribution etc. So like these "auditor" videos you get someone knowingly push a restriction to the limit, to rub it in the police's face, then claim they are the victim when the witless copper struggles to handle the situation.

I guess she was perfectly entitled to have her 'silent prayer' 151m away from the clinic, so meh, another case of play silly games win silly prizes.
 
Freakbro said:
Person arrested multiple times before for breaching an exclusion order, stages event again within the exclusion to push the law to the limit to get clicks and views on social media.

From what I can gather this is about restricting the harassment of women using abortion clinics from anti-abortion religious groups, so there is a 150m zone prohibiting any form of demonstration, leaflet distribution etc. So like these "auditor" videos you get someone knowingly push a restriction to the limit, to rub it in the police's face, then claim they are the victim when the witless copper struggles to handle the situation.

I guess she was perfectly entitled to have her 'silent prayer' 151m away from the clinic, so meh, another case of play silly games win silly prizes.
Click to expand...
She was cleared: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-praying-outside-abortion-clinic-CLEARED.html

It's silly to arrest anyone for silent prayer, any law that imposes this is unjust. How do you determine silent prayer?
 
Longbow said:
She was cleared: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-praying-outside-abortion-clinic-CLEARED.html

It's silly to arrest anyone for silent prayer, any law that imposes this is unjust. How do you determine silent prayer?
Click to expand...
By asking them, the moment they open their mouths in the exclusion zone they've effectively given the police justification to move them on.

Also aren't there literally rules to force homeless people to move away from premises as well? If that's apparently acceptable I don't see why this shouldn't be.
 
kieran_read said:
No it's not it's intimidation and harassment to women seeking out abortions.

You can pray anywhere doesn't need to be there.
Click to expand...

You do realise George Orwell coined the term "thoughtcrime". I respect the right of women to get abortions without harassment, she is not harassing anyone by merely standing there, irrespective of what she may be thinking.
 
Roar87 said:
You do realise George Orwell coined the term "thoughtcrime". I respect the right of women to get abortions without harassment, she is not harassing anyone by merely standing there, irrespective of what she may be thinking.
Click to expand...
Well someone thought she was harassing them else the police wouldn't be there.
 
Roar87 said:
You do realise George Orwell coined the term "thoughtcrime". I respect the right of women to get abortions without harassment, she is not harassing anyone by merely standing there, irrespective of what she may be thinking.
Click to expand...
So if I told you directly that I disagreed with something you done and you upset me, you wouldn't be upset if I stood silently outside your house?

Just stood there.....

There is nothing Orwellian about stopping people from doing it there, you and others have every right to think and do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

You don't know the reasons or why a women may want an abortion having people standing there "praying" can be intimidating to them and shouldn't be allowed they have the right to feel safe.

Personally I completely agree with the exclusion zone it's sensible and it's hardly a wide area as it's only 150m
 
kieran_read said:
So if I told you directly that I disagreed with something you done and you upset me, you wouldn't be upset if I stood silently outside your house?

Just stood there.....

There is nothing Orwellian about stopping people from doing it there, you and others have every right to think and do what you want as long as it doesn't harm others.

You don't know the reasons or why a women may want an abortion having people standing there "praying" can be intimidating to them and shouldn't be allowed they have the right to feel safe.

Personally I completely agree with the exclusion zone it's sensible and it's hardly a wide area as it's only 150m
Click to expand...

I think a woman's right to not feel intimidated while getting an abortion don't extend beyond what is reasonably defined as harassment or intimidation. Standing in a spot silently isn't harassment or intimidation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom