Thursday, 30 October 2014

British drug policy is ineffectual, based on lies and is racist.

From today's Guardian Newspaper:

A significant number of ministers in both past and present cabinets, including the prime minister, admit that they have experimented with drugs themselves.

The only reason for persisting with a penal approach is that it is too difficult politically to reform it.

As defeat is quietly admitted in the war on drugs in one country after another, UK policy is becoming damagingly out of touch.

There was a small rise in drug taking in England and Wales last year.  Cannabis was the most widely used drug by a wide margin.

The average age of drug users is rising and the number of teenagers who admit taking drugs fell again.

Continuing to prosecute for possession of cannabis, for example, was shown in a report last year for the drug charity Release to have a seriously distorting effect on inner-city policing. In London in 2010, there were more than 1 million stop and searches for drugs, half of them on young people, a disproportionate number of them black (even though drug use is about twice as high among white people). Fewer than half of the white people stopped were charged, compared with nearly four-fifths of the black people.

Each year, more than 40,000 people are convicted of possession, a conviction that will damage their future employability, make further offences significantly more likely, relationships less certain and reduce earnings capacity by on average a fifth. Young people’s lives are being irreparably damaged by a policy that is intended to help and protect society.

The Cannabis Cover Up published on Amazon October 2014.

The Guardian

Wednesday, 29 October 2014

The British government as child abusers

Author Carolyne Willow has revealed that when it comes to the treatment of child prisoners in the United Kingdom, Charles Dickens is alive and well.

Ms Willow looked at admittedly incomplete records for 21 months leading up to December 2012.

Child prisoners, some as young as 12 years old, suffered 43,960 strip-searches. The real number is higher, but, as she reports "the State can only do so much to document its abuses". For example, “The data does not reveal what proportion of the children were subjected to intimate cavity searches.”

The numbers are actually worse than they seem, because they tend to be concentrated in some institutions and not others. So, Ashfield, a private prison run by Serco, holds a maximum of 400 boys, and performs an average of 399 strip-searches … every month.  At the other end, three of the “secure children’s homes” never conducted a single strip-search in the entire 21 month period.

The law was changed in 2011 so that routine strip searches were no longer allowed.  The result?  The following year there were 44,000 "necessary strip-searches".  On how many occasions were illicit materials found?  A mere 275 times! And what illicit materials were found? The overwhelming contraband of choice was tobacco. Drugs were found 15 times. No guns, no knives, no explosives, no big deal.

As Ms Willow concludes: "No need".

Friday, 24 October 2014

Sorry about the billion pound bill

Everybody wants a slice of my cannabis money.  The government has taken £700,000 from me under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) and the police and their pals stole another £100,000.

The UK government chose to involve itself in drug dealing in 2002 and now pockets hundreds of millions per year.  If it did not do so there would be some moral argument that the EU should not bill the UK for their cut of this money.

The EU bureaucrats are a bunch of rogues – we know that – but the UK politicians and civil servants are up to their necks in dirty deals with the ‘criminal fraternity’ so they are now stuffed with their own petard.  “What goes round comes round” is the phrase.  Cameron can hardly deny the crooks in Euroland their cut when his gang have already netted the proceeds of the crime.

Cannabis Man
Crimax

If there weren't any blacks.....

Back in the sixties a then famous playwright called Johnny Speight wrote a TV play "If there weren't any blacks you would have to invent them" - meaning the British always needed someone to blame.

This week an assistant at  a newsagents in St Helens refused to sell a packet of cigarettes to a soldier in uniform because she thought it was against the law to do so.  I wrote in The Cannabis Cover Up how the British public is demanding a law for everything - an attitude which is destroying diversity of opinion, free thought and bringing the law into disrepute.

A combination of poor education and a peculiar desire to be controlled by "their betters" results in the average dumb citizen clamouring for a new law everyday so they do not have to think for themselves.  Where a law does not exists the idiots go out an invent one!

 CRIMAX

Wednesday, 22 October 2014

Ched and Oscar - contrasting justice systems

My local free paper finally has a story it can get his teeth into – the ongoing saga of Ched Evans the Rhyl-based footballer convicted of rape.  The paper – The Journal – is in a quandary because it is being forced to report the story even-evenhandedly (for a change).  Usually it simply quotes verbatim the acid comments of some crusty old judge as he sentences another victim to several years in the pokey.



Because of the fuss being made by Sheffield United fans and Ched’s family, friends and supporters and the enquiry by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, it has become necessary to tell both sides of this story with a degree of accuracy and less sensationalism.

In my last post I compared the Ched Evans case with that of Oscar Pistorius.  Since then, Oscar has been sentenced to a five years prison sentence, though, apparently, only 10 months is likely actually to be spent in prison.



It is worth comparing and contrasting these cases.  In one, the accused denied the allegation, there was no evidence but he was convicted and sentenced to five years, two-and-a-half years spent in prison.  In the second, the accused admitted he killed a woman, was sentenced to five years but will only serve 10 months in prison.

The British have been accused (by an ex-prison governor) of being a nation of ‘incarcerholics’; the judges and juries get their rocks off by imprisoning people.  Apart from the somewhat unpleasant tendency of the British public to wish others ill, it is worth examining the role of the judges in cases where juries are asked to make a determination when there is little or no hard evidence available.

We are slipping into a situation where the legal profession is inclined to give undue weight to inference and supposition over hard fact.  Furthermore, judges are becoming the ‘spin doctors’ of the justice system, tailoring their summing up to the likelihood that it might be included as a sound bite on the evening’s news.

It should be remembered that juries, those 12 men and women dragged off the street, are amateurs and are too easily swayed by what a malevolent old judge might say.  There is no freedom of speech in a courtroom.  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Protocol, the judge and the barristers control everything.  Frequently, for the convenience of the system, more is left unsaid than is said.  Worse still, the prosecution, the judge and the police control access to what evidence there may be.

In the end, the job of the judge is to act as upholder of the system (not protector of the accused) and if the system is flawed, as the criminal justice system undoubtedly is, that means covering up those flaws and ‘bigging-up’ that system.  As I mentioned in my previous post, the members of jury were not present at the scene of the crime (if indeed there was a crime).  Unfortunately, in this country the population is so accustomed to bowing and scraping to royalty, the aristocracy and power in general, that they do not have the gumption to make up their own minds.  It is, therefore, all too easy for an experienced judge to lead a gullible, servile and under-educated bunch of jurors by their collective noses.

Ched Evans may be a rat.  Who knows?  It should be remembered, however, that he is only a ‘criminal’ because a bunch of people who know little or nothing have had their prejudices gold-plated by the summing up of judge whose duty it is to add gravitas to prejudice.

Saturday, 18 October 2014

Rape, footballers, athletes and unlawful killing

Female hysteria and the chattering classes are jumping on the Ched Evans bandwagon.  He is the footballer (who has a home in North Wales but plays for Sheffield United) who was convicted and jailed for rape.

It worth taking a moment to consider what this conviction for rape actually means.  In his case he was having a boozy night out with one of his mates when he met a girl who was equally 'merry' and had consumed more than a little alcohol.  They socialised for a while and then at some point there was a tacit agreement to go back to his place.  It is true that he did not produce a clipboard and pen and request authority to have intercourse in writing and have said document duly witnessed.  It was more of a nudge-nudge-wink-wink thing.

His lady friend, at some point the following day, having sobered up somewhat and having no recollection (she claims) how she came to be in his bed, made an allegation of rape.

To cut a long story short, a jury of twelve men and women (who were not present on the night) decided he was guilty of rape on the basis of assertions made by the prosecution barrister (who was also not present on the night).  The woman involved freely admits she cannot remember whether she was asked or gave her consent to having sex.  In other words, she may have consented.

The jury, it would seem, has taken the view that Ched should have been sufficiently schooled in medicine and psychiatry and sufficiently sober himself to form the considered opinion that the woman was too intoxicated to make an informed judgment.

As their verdict was unanimous the jury must have decided at some point that the woman bore no responsibility for remaining in control of her actions.  Think about how this view would be reversed if she had driven her car home in that state.

In South Africa, meanwhile, a man who has been found guilty of shooting to death his partner is being treated to a trial within a trial where the state mulls whether he should be imprisoned or merely fined a sum of money. You cannot imagine this discussion taking place in the good old UK.  A man has killed a woman who lived with him in his house with a gun and the debate rages as to whether he should face prison.

The people whose knee-jerk reaction is to vilify Ched Evans because he has, arbitrarily, been labelled a rapist might consider the degree to which local opinion and rigid mindset influences law.

The law is not an absolute.  It is the outcome of a combination of changing public opinion, hypocrisy, manipulation and hysteria.

Links: The Cannabis Cover up (how the government manipulates public opinion and law to achieve policy aims)

Ched Evans

CRIMAX

Wednesday, 15 October 2014

Bent British justice system and its love of money

Rebekah Brooks’ husband Charlie has lost his bid to recover the £600,000 in legal fees he incurred as a result of being a co-defendant in the phone-hacking trial.

Mr Justice Saunders ruled he was “satisfied that the defendants’ conduct brought suspicion on themselves and misled the prosecution into thinking that the case against them was stronger than it was”.

Brooks, a racehorse trainer, was acquitted along with his wife and Kuttner in June after a marathon eight-month trial.

In a statement Charlie Brooks said: “At least on a racecourse, when you back a winner the bookmakers pay you.”

“I am quite satisfied that Mr Brooks brought suspicion on himself and others,”  said the judge.

The trial jury heard that Brooks had decided not to answer questions during his police interview on advice from his lawyers.  Judge Saunders said solicitors frequently give this advice, but noted that they “do not know the truth”.  He went on to note: “Mr Brooks knew that he was entirely innocent."

So there you have it: if you are fingered by the police, go to court and lose, you pay your legal costs and that of the government.  If, however, you are entirely innocent but the government forces are "suspicious" - to quote the judge - when you win, you still cannot recover your costs from the government.

Mr Brooker, it would seem, "aroused suspicion" by taking advantage of his right to remain silent and thus requiring the police to make any case against him.

Bent or what?