UK Durham Police wont prosecute cannabis offences.

Good for them hope the rest of the country's police take this stance, it would rub out the rip off dealers who do god knows what to it if they grow it they know whats in it.more choice on medical benefits.

a reply to: EvillerBob

That list should be made into a thread of its own.

I might do that tomorow.

Wakey wakey! The cops have been slyly prosecuting people who have assets and mostly own their own homes with decent equity in them and are growing, its the easiest of pickings. Its because they can then, through the Proceeds of Crime act, dream up any amount they like to say any particular individual (obviously with collateral security) has earned and its impossible to defend against. The court itself has a vested interested in grabbing public money because what that money from the sale of assets goes into maintaining the budgets for the police, courts and all the legal staff and extortionate costs of solicitors and barristers. Plus, don't forget the lucrative auctions' of people's property the police hold which again goes into police funding and are obviously perks for the boys in blue and their legal buddies.

They haven't been bothering to arrest people who are tenants with no assets because it isn't worth their while unless there are other crimes involved such as guns etc or its a huge operation.

Nothing new here, it started in 2002 and has spectacularly increased in productivity as the budgets for the police and our courts etc etc have decreased.

Also small suppliers are ideal for supplying the fuzz and those within the legal profession with a taste not only for cannabis but also coc aine, as I said, Wakey Wakey - absolutely nothing to do with the police and politicians developing common sense, observing our legal processes and correct procedure, just a means of getting value for money when prosecuting the public.

The other important factor is still a quietly kept secret and that is that our courts are slowly grinding to a halt because many can't afford solicitors/barristers and cases are taking so much longer when people defend themselves. Add the backlog already in the system to the little inconvenience that there is a limit that becomes a public scandal when people are remanded in custody for long periods of time prior to trial or , worse, people simply sell up/borrow against their assets and push off abroad whilst waiting for trial. IMHO if its for growing cannabis, good on them people have a right to choose what they want to enjoy or use and its an area where the government have overstepped their remit to govern and their lies about cannabis have back-fired.

a reply to: Shiloh7

Its ALWAYS about the money.


As for why have gov and co been so anti? Ask the alcohol lobby.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: crazyewok

Just a quick question.

You're OK with the cops deciding which laws they will, or will not, enforce. So which laws won't you be OK with such selective enforcement?

Seriously, it's not the cops jobs, or prosecutors for that matter, to decide which laws they'll enforce on any given day.

Actually, in the UK, it is. UK Police are not there for "law enforcement", but to "keep the peace". Police Officers have a certain amount of discretion and the senior officers can decide on what resources to divert where.

As for prosecutors, even if there is clear evidence of a crime, they can decide to not prosecute if it isn't "in the Public interest".

We're not the USA - Our Police are not militarised drones hell bent on "enforcing the law", no matter what.

As for the OP, good news although no doubt the Home Office is now making some people's lives uncomfortable.

Cannabis legalisation is long overdue and anyone who claims it is "harmful" is misleading you. Parliament issued a report some years back which placed Cannabis at number 14 in the the list of drugs according to harm. Guess what was at number 2.... Alcohol.

The Governments stance of "there is clear evidence it causes harm" is a cop out. Based on that logic, they should criminalise Alcohol and tobacco. Some people, like myself, don't like drinking and it certainly doesn't agree with me. I can only have a few beers and have a chronic hangover the next day, so I prefer to use "something else". I only drink on a few occasions in a year.

Not to mention the fact that one can use cannabis and still be relatively compos mentis, whereas you can have a few beers and be well on your way to being incapable of of even ordering yourself a kebab.

As for claims of causing mental health - bogus. It might exacerbate pre-existing mental conditions, but it doesn't "cause" them. 16 years of "heavy" use and still not hearing those voices.....

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: crazyewok

Devon & Cornwall Constabulary have pretty much ignored 'reasonable' personal possession for years, they just won't formally announce it.

Same for most forces, I think - my local lot are Thames Valley.

I was assaulted in Feb in my own house by some nutjob and I was worried when the Police showed up, as you can imagine - they couldn't care less about my stash and didn't touch it...

I was chatting to two officers in the hospital afterwards and they both said the Government should legalise it. One of them said he loved policing WOMAD in Reading as the stoners were no trouble at all, but he hated Friday/Saturday nights in the town centre because of the drunks.

a reply to: stumason

Its interesting you mention the police being there to 'keep the peace'. Being older I have seen their remit go from 'protecting the public' to now 'keeping the peace'

But, isn't it always a giggle when they are policing peaceful demonstration don't you think? No arrest figures unless you can start trouble though by whatever nefarious means the fuzz can come up with.

Much of our current policing problems have actually been caused by politicians wanting arrest figures because it means that some of the discretion you mention, has to go by the board when they have to focus on politician's cherry-picked areas of the law to meet figures. Also not included is the remit to deliberately arrest people purely to grab legally their dna - which is probably sold again, for extra income to the police budget.

a reply to: Shiloh7

The original Metropolitan Police Act specifically mentions "the public Peace" and empowers officers to keep it by apprehending those who would disturb it. I don't know of it ever being to "protect the public", except for those cheesy motos on the side of Police cars these days.

But you are right, Politicians will set the Police targets in certain area's to meet political aims, the PCC's are an extension of that, having a Political person making strategic decisions on Policing, which is precisely what this Durham PCC is doing.

Also, being arrested and not charged means your DNA sample is supposed to be destroyed... I know there was a scandal some years back about it being retained by some forces though.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

Wouldn't touch the stuff myself

So an expert on the subject, in other words.

edit on 7/23/2015 by Monger because: (no reason given)

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Wakey wakey! The cops have been slyly prosecuting people who have assets and mostly own their own homes with decent equity in them and are growing, its the easiest of pickings. Its because they can then, through the Proceeds of Crime act, dream up any amount they like to say any particular individual (obviously with collateral security) has earned and its impossible to defend against. The court itself has a vested interested in grabbing public money because what that money from the sale of assets goes into maintaining the budgets for the police, courts and all the legal staff and extortionate costs of solicitors and barristers. Plus, don't forget the lucrative auctions' of people's property the police hold which again goes into police funding and are obviously perks for the boys in blue and their legal buddies.

They haven't been bothering to arrest people who are tenants with no assets because it isn't worth their while unless there are other crimes involved such as guns etc or its a huge operation.

Nothing new here, it started in 2002 and has spectacularly increased in productivity as the budgets for the police and our courts etc etc have decreased.

Also small suppliers are ideal for supplying the fuzz and those within the legal profession with a taste not only for cannabis but also coc aine, as I said, Wakey Wakey - absolutely nothing to do with the police and politicians developing common sense, observing our legal processes and correct procedure, just a means of getting value for money when prosecuting the public.

The other important factor is still a quietly kept secret and that is that our courts are slowly grinding to a halt because many can't afford solicitors/barristers and cases are taking so much longer when people defend themselves. Add the backlog already in the system to the little inconvenience that there is a limit that becomes a public scandal when people are remanded in custody for long periods of time prior to trial or , worse, people simply sell up/borrow against their assets and push off abroad whilst waiting for trial. IMHO if its for growing cannabis, good on them people have a right to choose what they want to enjoy or use and its an area where the government have overstepped their remit to govern and their lies about cannabis have back-fired.

Absolute buzzcocks.

If you're talking about the UK, anyway. Quite possibly in the US, some of their states have freaky seizure laws.

originally posted by: Monger

originally posted by: EvillerBob

Wouldn't touch the stuff myself

So an expert on the subject, in other words.

I base my comments on a significant amount of professional exposure to relevant situations. I know a damn sight more about the impact of cannabis on MHD's than most of my clients, otherwise they wouldn't need to hire me in the first place.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
Wakey wakey! The cops have been slyly prosecuting people who have assets and mostly own their own homes with decent equity in them and are growing, its the easiest of pickings. Its because they can then, through the Proceeds of Crime act, dream up any amount they like to say any particular individual (obviously with collateral security) has earned and its impossible to defend against. The court itself has a vested interested in grabbing public money because what that money from the sale of assets goes into maintaining the budgets for the police, courts and all the legal staff and extortionate costs of solicitors and barristers. Plus, don't forget the lucrative auctions' of people's property the police hold which again goes into police funding and are obviously perks for the boys in blue and their legal buddies.

They haven't been bothering to arrest people who are tenants with no assets because it isn't worth their while unless there are other crimes involved such as guns etc or its a huge operation.

Nothing new here, it started in 2002 and has spectacularly increased in productivity as the budgets for the police and our courts etc etc have decreased.

Also small suppliers are ideal for supplying the fuzz and those within the legal profession with a taste not only for cannabis but also coc aine, as I said, Wakey Wakey - absolutely nothing to do with the police and politicians developing common sense, observing our legal processes and correct procedure, just a means of getting value for money when prosecuting the public.

The other important factor is still a quietly kept secret and that is that our courts are slowly grinding to a halt because many can't afford solicitors/barristers and cases are taking so much longer when people defend themselves. Add the backlog already in the system to the little inconvenience that there is a limit that becomes a public scandal when people are remanded in custody for long periods of time prior to trial or , worse, people simply sell up/borrow against their assets and push off abroad whilst waiting for trial. IMHO if its for growing cannabis, good on them people have a right to choose what they want to enjoy or use and its an area where the government have overstepped their remit to govern and their lies about cannabis have back-fired.

I think you went a little far down the rabbit hole there.

originally posted by: CallYourBluff

originally posted by: Shiloh7

The court itself has a vested interested in grabbing public money because what that money from the sale of assets goes into maintaining the budgets for the police, courts and all the legal staff and extortionate costs of solicitors and barristers.

The other important factor is still a quietly kept secret and that is that our courts are slowly grinding to a halt because many can't afford solicitors/barristers and cases are taking so much longer when people defend themselves.

I think you went a little far down the rabbit hole there.

Not only that, it's completely missing out on some of the best bits of the whole thing!

www.telegraph.co.uk...

To summarise the link, a convicted drug dealer got to keep the proceeds because he couldn't afford a barrister therefore could not get a fair trial. Not surprising, considering the volume of work and the complexity of the case. 6,586 documents and 4,548 transactions to read, digest, and analyse.

If you did read it through, you'd also notice that he was facing asset seizure of around £4.5 million, even though the actual proceeds from the offences for which he was convicted came to a few hundred pounds. It's worth pointing out that they might have had reason to believe that the millions in assets were built up from criminal actions before he was caught, so I'm not going to jump straight on the "OMG THEY'RE STEALING HIS MONEY!1!1!" bandwagon.

a reply to: CallYourBluff

Care to disprove what I have written? Its you who needs to look at the facts and get yourself out of the rabbit hole.

If you think that by producing a much hackneyed bit of video as an insult to someone else's opinion you don't agree with, its been played out already and has become boring. You don't seem to be up-to-date with the topic you discuss.

a reply to: EvillerBob

You neglect to mention that the individual your article refers to was refused by 30 barristers to represent him, because of the lowly rates for the work they would have to do, as well as not be paid for their preparation time. Rabbit hole, sorry its actually about barristers fees and funding.

This case may well set a new precedent in our law because its allowed someone (already a known drug criminal) whose assets were frozen to avoid the implications of the Proceeds of Crime Act,due to not being fairly represented. We also don't know whether an appeal will be placed against this ruling, so we have to wait and see.

As the police had already frozen his supposed assets, there was no guarantee the barristers would get their money if the police were awarded the sum total of all he owned. We also don't know whether his assets were actually his own, held by a family member or someone else, which would also included further work for possible little or no return return.

This is not a typical case as it represents the behind the scenes fight between our barristers and the government over the removal of the money they use to earn through the legal aid system that has been withdrawn. This fight has been on the news in the past, I am surprised you didn't know about it.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: EvillerBob

You neglect to mention that the individual your article refers to was refused by 30 barristers to represent him, because of the lowly rates for the work they would have to do, as well as not be paid for their preparation time. Rabbit hole, sorry its actually about barristers fees and funding.

This case may well set a new precedent in our law because its allowed someone (already a known drug criminal) whose assets were frozen to avoid the implications of the Proceeds of Crime Act,due to not being fairly represented. We also don't know whether an appeal will be placed against this ruling, so we have to wait and see.

As the police had already frozen his supposed assets, there was no guarantee the barristers would get their money if the police were awarded the sum total of all he owned. We also don't know whether his assets were actually his own, held by a family member or someone else, which would also included further work for possible little or no return return.

This is not a typical case as it represents the behind the scenes fight between our barristers and the government over the removal of the money they use to earn through the legal aid system that has been withdrawn. This fight has been on the news in the past, I am surprised you didn't know about it.

I didn't "neglect to mention it" (which rather makes it sound like I was glossing over that point) I provided the link because I assumed people would read it

You also miss the point. The very things that you complain about in the earlier post actually worked in the defendant's favour.

a reply to: EvillerBob

No I didn't miss the point 'because I read through the whole article, you failed to take into account what the article told us. I acknowledged the fact that this particular case may well set a new precedent and also may yet be appealed, so we don't have a final decision on this ruling.

I noticed you chose to ignore the circumstances which are undoubtedly at play over this particular case, which is the ongoing battle between the barristers and the government's policy over legal aid which is a large source of guaranteed barrister's income.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: EvillerBob

No I didn't miss the point 'because I read through the whole article, you failed to take into account what the article told us. I acknowledged the fact that this particular case may well set a new precedent and also may yet be appealed, so we don't have a final decision on this ruling.

I noticed you chose to ignore the circumstances which are undoubtedly at play over this particular case, which is the ongoing battle between the barristers and the government's policy over legal aid which is a large source of guaranteed barrister's income.

edit on 24-7-2015 by Shiloh7 because: sorry I didn[t mean to hit the devil.

Some might call it ignoring, some might call it focusing on what was relevant to the reply. Why he couldn't get a barrister was not relevant to the point I was making. The important thing is that he could not get a suitably experienced barrister and, as a result, he got to keep the money.

In other words, the lack of access to legal services actually works against the prosecution in cases like this.

The vast (99.9%) majority of my clients are funded by legal aid. I'm familiar with the issues involved.

Edited to add: In fact this is why I, like quite a few other people in the profession, maintain separate business interests. A saying sprung up at the criminal bar a few years ago and it's getting more and more true by the day - criminal law is a second job. In other words, unless you're well established or you have a captive market, you need to practice in other areas as well to make ends meet.

a reply to: EvillerBob

So you are "in the profession" so are you saying you are a qualified, practising barrister? If you were you would be aware of the right to appeal and whether this case will set a precedent.

I am going no further with you over this because you have gone from claiming someone else's views are ludicrous but you cherry pick what you want to answer and supposedly ignore the fact the case you "quote" is irrelevant when its probably not even over yet.

If you think that our government made up of a lot of solicitors and barristers etc were not fully aware of the benefits of funding part of the legal aid system by confiscation of supposedly owned assets, then you don't get the whole point about why this case is extremely important. It could well blow a hole in the government's coffers simply because drugs are an area the police were/are focusing on due to its lucrative pickings. Without that money people, possibly like yourself if you are who you pose to be, will be out of pocket. Whether you can easily trip from one highly skilled and specialised part of the law to another will depend on what you specialised in e.g. land law, family law, maritime law etc etc. you will be burning the midnight oil.

originally posted by: Shiloh7
a reply to: EvillerBob

So you are "in the profession" so are you saying you are a qualified, practising barrister? If you were you would be aware of the right to appeal and whether this case will set a precedent.

Well, I know why I don't need to be too concerned about the appeal and the precedent. Do you?

Edited to add: Don't worry, it was actually a rhetorical question.