Flushing that kind of thing down the toilet isn't very responsible, but it is ultimately the addict/dealers fault for possessing them in the first place.

If the guy repeatedly called the cops and nothing was done, i can understand his actions to some degree. If he acted as a vigilante he deserved a warning for doing something irresponsible, plus a pat on the back for dealing with a menace.

Jail for this is a joke.

I'm not seeing the 2 months jail time as a bad thing for him.

He's just ticked off a drug supplier, and likely his friends as well. His clients will be thinking of him as a rat...
basically there's going to be a few people out looking to beat this guy t a pulp.

If he's behind bars for a while, it gives them all a chance to cool down.


Obviously the police haven't been paying much attention, if such a supplier can operate in the open like that.

Unfortunatley in the UK the only people that get help from the government and protection from the courts is scum bags. The country is headed down the pan and has been for some time. I dont blame this guy as I have had problems with unemployed loser neighbours and you feel so frustrated at the situation. This is the usual treatment for first time offenders lashing out at these wasters and getting treated like the very people that are rapidy dissolving our society. I am in the process of moving to Japan, the lunatics can have the asylum there welcome to live in the #e they have created

The guy should have gone to the police. He knows it and has said as much.

But what this case really shows is that the erosion of trial by jury in the UK is an appalling thing. Would a jury have convicted him? Hell no. Instead, a Sherriff has ignored pleas for leniency. It's disgusting.

It's to deter people from vigilanteeism, so you don't see them going off half-baked and getting the wrong guy. England does have a history of lynch mobs!
My bet? The cops knew the dealer and he was a working "source."

I think the Sheriff's sentencing was too severe in the circumstances but it was his call. The defendant has the right of appeal to the Sheriff Principal, appeals for this kind of crime are normally heard quick enough.

Don't forget, Scotland has a separate legal system altogether. Most criminal offences are dealt with by summary procedure (i.e. no jury), it's for the Crown alone to decide when a solemn procedure (jury of 15) is more appropriate. Solemn procedures bring their own risks ... if found guilty the punishment is often more severe.

That's been the Scottish way for centuries, there's been no erosion of jury trials as such (because jury trials simply aren't as common as in England).

I stand corrected. I knew Scottish law had differences, but not to that level of detail. And I had no idea Scottish juries had fifteen rather than twelve jurors. Interesting.

That said, there is an erosion of right to trial by jury in England and Wales, I'm fairly sure I've seen articles on this in the past. Including this trial is obviously too much of a stretch, though.