http://www.liberalconspiracy.org/200...cy-even-worse/
http://tinyurl.com/pjfdu2

x-no-archive: yes

firemonkey wrote:

> [..]
>
> [..]

FFS, we live on an island. How difficult can it be to police our borders
effectively?

nulab has utterly failed to provide enough rehab facilities. I can't see
the Tories improving that. However they might do something about
clearing drugs out of our prisons.

It doesn't help that our judiciary are so completely senile and
incompetent. There was a story last week about two burglars who were
caught for the zillionth time commiting crimes to fund their drug
habits. For the zillionth time they told the judge they really, really
wanted to get cleaned up and stop committing crime, and for the
zillionth time the judge fell for it and gave them another 'last chance'.

BTW, I had to laugh at the story of Pringles finally being deemed to be
a potato crisp. How on earth did someone get to be a 'senior high court
judge' and think otherwise?


Evil Nigel



I can just imagine the interview process for senior high court judges.

Panel chairman: "Next please".

An elderly man shuffles into the interview room with a zimmer frame, and
sits down facing the panel.

Panel chairman: "Name please."

Candidate: "Wait a second, I'm sure it will come to me soon."

Panel chairman: "Can you tie your own shoelaces?"

Candidate: "What's a shoelace? I'm not too good with these new-fangled
inventions."

Panel Chairman: "Why do you think we should appoint you as a senior high
court judge?"

Candidate: "Is that what this is about? I was only looking for somewhere
to sit down for a while."

Panel Chairman: "I have to say that in all my years I've never met
someone as well qualified for the post as yourself. You start
immediately. Usual conditions, five star hotels, chauffeur, stonking pay
and pension and you can never be sacked."

nigel <useweb> wrote:

> firemonkey wrote:
>
> > [..]
> > orse/
> >
> > [..]
>
> FFS, we live on an island. How difficult can it be to police our borders
> effectively?

Our borders are so policed.

> nulab has utterly failed to provide enough rehab facilities.

Rehab, so-called, doesn't work - so I'm glad that `Stasi NuLab' is
showing some sense for once.

All modern illegal drug policies that fail to permit people to use some
`illegal' drugs in a recreational fashion have all had the same effect:

All such policies increase the profits to organised criminals, increase
harm to society by the taking of recreational drugs, and cost society
huge amounts in terms of lost tax, policing, customs work, and the crime
committed by addicts to pay the organised criminals to keep their supply
of illegal drugs going.

Modern drug policies are mostly completely insane.

> I can't see
> the Tories improving that. However they might do something about
> clearing drugs out of our prisons.

They did do. Labour's made all things like that much worse, of course.

Everyone knows that the only solution to illegal drugs is to make them
legal again, as they all were in the 19th century. That way, you
instantly bankrupt a large fraction of the organized crime in the world
and cut off funding for most of the South American and Pakistani/Afghani
terrorists out there.

Other immediate benefits: the reduction in price of the drugs (over 90%
in all cases going from illegal to legal) means that addicts would no
longer need to commit crime to feed their habits, and it would also get
rid of all the health care costs of looking after people who have been
harmed by dangerously contaminated illegal drugs.

The sole purpose of keeping illegal drugs illegal is to ensure the
existence of organised crime - I'm sure that's all there is to it.

Our governments, for some reason, think that they need to have organised
criminals out there. Dunno why - all governments *are* organised
criminals who have just got themselves properly organised.

> It doesn't help that our judiciary are so completely senile and
> incompetent.

It doesn't help that this kind of idiotic notion is still pushed by
ignorant mockers such as yourself.

>There was a story last week about two burglars who were
> caught for the zillionth time commiting crimes to fund their drug
> habits. For the zillionth time they told the judge they really, really
> wanted to get cleaned up and stop committing crime, and for the
> zillionth time the judge fell for it and gave them another 'last chance'.

Of course, that's all lies, isn't it?

If it's true, cite me the case, show me the transcript, show me the
reports submitted to the court by the police and so on which informed
the judge's. Let's see what really happened.

In every single case like that, the judge weighs evidence and decides
what the most socially beneficial approach is going to be. Do you think
that they're blind to the harm that prison does? Of course not. Do you
think that they're blind to the harm that burlgaries cause? Of course
not.

But you, you sit there, you swallow the lies that the tabloid reporter
wrote about the case, making up a story to mock the judge, and you know
nothing about how the law works, so you sneer and mock and try to drag
everyone else down to your despicable level.

> BTW, I had to laugh at the story of Pringles finally being deemed to be
> a potato crisp. How on earth did someone get to be a 'senior high court
> judge' and think otherwise?

<sigh> Of course the process makes perfect sense if you look at the
actual laws that the politicians have given the courts to administer.

You can't blame the judges when they get madness from the legislators.

[snip stupid characterisation that misses the point entirely and
continues the idiotic idea that judges are out of touch. The problem is
that you are out of touch with the reality of the law.]

Rowland.