Class snobbery?

Anonymous

Just read this. It was posted on Facebook by the comedian Jason Manford, regarding the 'entrapment' of Tulisa, of X-Factor fame. Quite an interesting read.

She is convinced there was an element of class snobbery – targeting the chav who flew too near the sun. "Other celebrities can be seen on camera with cocaine falling out of their pocket or hanging out of their nose. But certain people of a certain class can have one story and almost be seen as cool, whereas I supposedly gave someone a telephone number and am the biggest criminal of the year."

http://www.theguardian.com/culture/2014 ... attenstone.

At the end there is a link to another story related to the same.

VTech

This had nothing to do with class, it was to do with a reporter who was willing to lie and ruin someones life to make a paper sell more copies.
She didn't sell drugs and was even quoted as saying she hated them and what they did to people yet she has lost millions through this with little to no comeback.

Shocking.

Colinthecop

She didn't sell them but she acted as a middleman introducing her friend whom she knew could source drugs to a potential buyer.

This friend pleaded guilty to dealing drugs but his guilty plea was rejected by the judge who dismissed the case against them both.

She should have gone to jail along with her friend.... But it would seem the video evidence of her breaking the law was not good enough. I'd suggest she's done very well out of the British justice system and needs to stop playing the victim...

VTech

Colinthecop wrote:

She didn't sell them but she acted as a middleman introducing her friend whom she knew could source drugs to a potential buyer.

This friend pleaded guilty to dealing drugs but his guilty plea was rejected by the judge who dismissed the case against them both.

She should have gone to jail along with her friend.... But it would seem the video evidence of her breaking the law was not good enough. I'd suggest she's done very well out of the British justice system and needs to stop playing the victim...

The problem we have is that when we allow your lot to be involved in trying to "capture" people in the act so to speak we end up with the problems of the 80's when you would set up any tom dick or harry just to get a conviction so you looking good in the public eye.

Did you see any video of her selling drugs ?

arran77

veronese68

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me, I have a very low opinion of tabloid journalists and this only reinforces my views. The papers definitely seem to have favourites that can do no wrong, and others that they will hound to the ends of the earth.

Pross

I think she has a point, I can't imagine any journalist being interested if (for example) and Eton & Oxbridge educated Tory MP got caught up in a drug sale. It is absolutely only because she's is a common chav that she was persecuted.

VTech

Veronese68 wrote:

Unfortunately it doesn't surprise me, I have a very low opinion of tabloid journalists and this only reinforces my views. The papers definitely seem to have favourites that can do no wrong, and others that they will hound to the ends of the earth.

True,
What gets me is that the police are not prosecuting the reporter who almost certainly spiked her drink and offered her the part in exchange for sex just to see if she would take him up on it.
In modern society we call it entrapment and there is a reason that these actions are illegal !

She refused that, she refused drugs and she didn't sell or attempt to sell so whats the problem ?

She was asked to play a part of a drug dealing cockney and when she spoke in that manor they used that EXACT clip as if it were her trying to sell drugs. If that were the case almost all of our acting greats would have been locked up for drugs, rape, violence and money laundering.

Like her or not isn't the issue, the issue is that she was blamed for being a drug dealer and she wasn't and yet with all that now proven in a court, you have a policeman here on this forum saying she belonged in jail and yet we are to side with the police !

Very laughable.

Let me tell you a small story, My son was stopped after a road collision with a police car in december, he hit a marked police car in icy conditions as they were attending another accident.
There were no road warnings even though the accident had happened 20 minutes prior to my sons collision.

He called me in shock saying he had had an accident and that the police were going to charge him with speeding.
I told him to say nothing and he came home, a few days later he was contacted to give a statement and I spoke with my solicitor who said don't do it.
We opted for the arrest approach instead which happened several months later.
They arrested him to ask him questions and promptly put it to him that they had evidence of him speeding at 38mph on a 30 road.

I quickly took out my evidence of him never going past 27mph.
He was allowed to leave the station and 6 days later a "no further action" letter arrived.

Now can you imagine what would have happened if I didn't have a tracker on his car and couldn't have proven that the police were lying ? and yes, thats what they were doing, they were lying.

I of course was too clever for them because there is always a problem with them lying, they never had substance to their argument.

Colinthecop

VTech wrote:

Did you see any video of her selling drugs ?

Please read the first sentence/paragraph of my post again.... :roll:

Anonymous

What about the 3rd paragraph?

mr_goo

On the BBC news website last night regarding the Commonwealth games closing ceremony. They stated that Kylie Minogue will be the main attraction, along with 'ordinary people' joining in with the singing. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

arran77

Colinthecop wrote:

VTech wrote:

Did you see any video of her selling drugs ?

Please read the first sentence/paragraph of my post again.... :roll:

You've seen the video of her acting as a 'go between' then?

Colinthecop

coriordan wrote:

What about the 3rd paragraph?

Imagine a robbery at a jewellers,

Say someone plans it, another arranges the men to do it, someone disables the hold-up alarm, someone drives the getaway car, someone supplies the guns, two people go in and rob it, someone provides a safe house, someone gets rid of the loot.

Should we only prosecute the two men who did the actual robbery...?

Colinthecop

arran77 wrote:

You've seen the video of her acting as a 'go between' then?

No, I watched her first leaked video where she gave a crap blowjob, I promised myself then i'd not waste my time watching her again....

:?

Giraffoto

I don't see a class issue in this - the reptiles and their bent investigator set someone up, and then pass the files to the police. The police can hardly ignore it, or there'll be headlines about how there's one law for celebs and on for "ordinary people" and the whole thing gets put before a judge (note that job title, by the way) who judges it to be a load of cr@p and dismisses the case. This is how the justice system is meant to work isn't it? Judges judging stuff?

VTech

coriordan wrote:

What about the 3rd paragraph?

@colinthecop, the problem is, you are the person we look too for support on legal issues, you being the face of the police. Thats a great responsibility and I'm genuinely not being sarcastic here, I grew up to trust the police but sadly as a kid who came through the 80's it was proven that you couldn't really trust them at all.

Its a shame, you have the papers on one side willing to frame people to sell and on the other side you have the police willing to prosecute to save face with the public.

As for your last comment on the BJ, I can imagine the amount of hookers you've "let off" on your journey through the MET. Maybe thats how you can be such a good judge of what equates too a decent BJ ?

Anonymous

Colinthecop wrote:

coriordan wrote:

What about the 3rd paragraph?

Imagine a robbery at a jewellers,

Say someone plans it, another arranges the men to do it, someone disables the hold-up alarm, someone drives the getaway car, someone supplies the guns, two people go in and rob it, someone provides a safe house, someone gets rid of the loot.

Should we only prosecute the two men who did the actual robbery...?

What about the guy who happens to have a friend who knows about disabling alarms and passes on his details? If I had a friend who knew how to get hold of a bit of coke and you offered me £3.5m for his phone number and worldwide fame, I would probably give it to you. I don't think Tulisa is an idiot by any stretch of the imagination, and to sort a £900 drug deal, it's hardly racketeering and extortion.

arran77

Colinthecop wrote:

arran77 wrote:

You've seen the video of her acting as a 'go between' then?

No, I watched her first leaked video where she gave a crap blowjob, I promised myself then i'd not waste my time watching her again....

:?

Colinthecop wrote:

She should have gone to jail along with her friend.... But it would seem the video evidence of her breaking the law was not good enough. I'd suggest she's done very well out of the British justice system and needs to stop playing the victim...

OK, so you've not actually seen the evidence but you've concluded for yourself that it wasn't good enough but she should have gone to jail anyway :?

Is that the way the Police operate these days :roll:

VTech

What about the policeman who is supposed to have an unbiased view on criminal activity but in fact thinks everyone's guilty. Thats a dangerous position for us all.

My mother in law thought everyone was guilty, mind you, she thought that graham norton didn't act too camp so maybe I can't take her judgement with too much credit

Anonymous

Also, Colin - what are your views on the Mystery Sheik?

Paulie W

The evidence seemed to suggest that she agreed to set up the deal and in fact the dealer had already pleaded guilty to his part in this. The case was dismissed because Mahmood lied in a pre-trial hearing about whether he had been informed of a conversation Tulisa had with Mahmood's driver - in which she stated how much she despised drugs. Had that not come to light there is a fair chance she would have been found guilty - she herself was clearly expecting to be found guilty. It may well be that she agreed to the deal because she really wanted the part and thought it would strengthen the gangsta persona she was playing up to; that in reality she has never had anything to do with drugs beyond what you might expect of anyone involved in the music industry.

What I dont get is why she was targetted if there was no background to this, no suggestion that she has ever been involved in drugs taking or selling. Is this a case of the reporter simply deciding to target a high-profile celebrity?

arran77

coriordan wrote:

Also, Colin - what are your views on the Mystery Sheik?

I don't suppose he's seen the evidence on him but he still thinks the man should be hung, drawn and quartered anyway.

Paulie W

There's no mystery about the Sheik - he's a well established reporter who has been pulling similar sh!t for years!!

Anonymous

Paulie W wrote:

Is this a case of the reporter simply deciding to target a high-profile celebrity?

It seems to me that this is the point. The fact that she is deemed to be a 'chav' so fair game, but she wasn't even a high profile celebrity!

But why go through such lengths? I imagine they were expecting to uncover some high profile drugs ring.

I wonder what the cost for that 'scoop' was compared to revenues. Probably ludicrous one way or the other!

Colinthecop

VTech wrote:

As for your last comment on the BJ, I can imagine the amount of hookers you've "let off" on your journey through the MET. Maybe thats how you can be such a good judge of what equates too a decent BJ ?

I worked in Streatham for a while, that has the bottom-of-the-pile hookers, the ones with no teeth, HIV, open sores etc... So in all honesty, the opportunity never arose. If I worked the pubs and clubs of the west end, where the Heather Mills of the world worked, I might have been able to speak with a bit more authority...

coriordan wrote:

Also, Colin - what are your views on the Mystery Sheik?

He's got a job to do and he does it.... If you don't like his methods, don't buy the tabloid. If there was no demand for what he does then he wouldn't do it.

There was enough public outrage to get the NoTW out of publication so it can be done.

Personally, I have no strong feelings either way, I'd imagine his stories appeal to the Jeremy Kyle demographic of society, I'd like to think that's not me. 8)

Paulie W

coriordan wrote:

Paulie W wrote:

Is this a case of the reporter simply deciding to target a high-profile celebrity?

It seems to me that this is the point. The fact that she is deemed to be a 'chav' so fair game, but she wasn't even a high profile celebrity!

But why go through such lengths? I imagine they were expecting to uncover some high profile drugs ring.

I wonder what the cost for that 'scoop' was compared to revenues. Probably ludicrous one way or the other!

From a tabloid perspective I think she was high profile given her role as a judge on X-Factor, the sex tapes, her background. Interestingly this guy Mahmood has targetted toffs as well as 'chavs' - his first sting was Earl somebody or other! So I'm not sure the class thing quite works.

Paulie W

Colinthecop wrote:

coriordan wrote:

Also, Colin - what are your views on the Mystery Sheik?

He's got a job to do and he does it.... If you don't like his methods, don't buy the tabloid. If there was no demand for what he does then he wouldn't do it.

It's a bit more complicated than that though isn't it? I don't buy the tabloid but evidence he has collected in a number of instances has been used for criminal prosecutions or in some instances as evidence in disciplinary proceedings by a sporting body. I have a problem with evidence from these kind of stings ending up in court - even though on occasion it could be argued that this evidence has helped put away some very dodgy people.

arran77

Colinthecop wrote:

Personally, I have no strong feelings either way, I'd imagine his stories appeal to the Jeremy Kyle demographic of society, I'd like to think that's not me. 8)

The interesting thing here is that this type of 'news' no doubt doubt does appeal to this demographic of society but in this case the very subject of the news could be considered one of their own.

I guess the old saying 'there's no honour amongst thieves' is true

Anonymous

So passing on the contact details of someone who may deal drugs to land you a dream career is a jailable offense, yet what could be deemed entrapment, on more than one occasion (basically he did the exact same thing with aforementioned Earl), is deemed 'investigative journalism?

verylonglegs

I have to be honest I didn't really know who she was until this story was run across the BBC site last week. Surely she was tripped up by her own self-delusion and arrogance...she honestly believed she was being targeted to appear in a film with Leonardo DiCaprio and was in competition with Keira Knightley for the part and was being woo'd accordingly? Looking at her career history you'd have to be on drugs to believe that story from the fake sheikh, it's hilarious..how on earth did he keep a straight face pulling that one off.

pinno