Laura Plummer and Tramadol

coopster_the_1st

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The likes of you and Mambo with your ultra-liberal views are building up huge problems for future generations.

It is your views that are fuelling the rise of the right wing although you are blind to the destructive world you are creating in your 'hug a criminal' bubble.

And what should the punishment be for speeding, say 40 in a 30 zone, or for failing to declare some of your income on your tax return or exaggerating the value of your cycling jersey in an insurance claim?

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

my_grandadʹs_bike

Ben6899 wrote:

We have a zero tolerance on alcohol, drugs and other listed substances (including prescription drugs) where I work. The rules are black and white, there are no blurred lines and, if you're tested with anything in your system (including undeclared medication), there's only one likely outcome.

It's better that way and it's effective!

Really? Is that legal under employment law? Surely you have the right to privacy regarding medical conditions as long as it doesn't affect your ability to carry out your job?

On another note I had three great years at university in Hull and it didn't include any tramadol I swear. I will however admit that as a city it won't be everyone's cup of tea

Ben6899

my grandad's bike wrote:

Really? Is that legal under employment law? Surely you have the right to privacy regarding medical conditions as long as it doesn't affect your ability to carry out your job?

You answered your own question.

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

my_grandadʹs_bike

Ben6899 wrote:

my grandad's bike wrote:

Really? Is that legal under employment law? Surely you have the right to privacy regarding medical conditions as long as it doesn't affect your ability to carry out your job?

You answered your own question.

Still sounds like a grey area to me.

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

Yeah, whatever. So basically, you still retain your entitlement to drive, even though your car is impounded. It's good to know that someone who gets nicked for doing 100mph outside a school can just rock on down to Hertz the next day and pick up another motor...

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The likes of you and Mambo with your ultra-liberal views are building up huge problems for future generations.

It is your views that are fuelling the rise of the right wing although you are blind to the destructive world you are creating in your 'hug a criminal' bubble.

And what should the punishment be for speeding, say 40 in a 30 zone, or for failing to declare some of your income on your tax return or exaggerating the value of your cycling jersey in an insurance claim?

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

what your 25x insurance punishment would do is hit a genuine mistake made by someone who could "afford" the £20k to 25k fine by taking out a loan etc but the real problem driver, the kind that has no intention of having a legal vehicle, who wont stop in an accident, wont pay the fine and will presumably go to jail... but under Judge Taliban Coopster, for how long? 12months? 12 years? (and who is paying for this trebling of the prison population) whatever he ll come out, buy a wreck and drive it around again.

That's the prob with Nice an Simple deterrents, they arent.

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

Yeah, whatever. So basically, you still retain your entitlement to drive, even though your car is impounded. It's good to know that someone who gets nicked for doing 100mph outside a school can just rock on down to Hertz the next day and pick up another motor...

Yeah, whatever! I see sensationalism still exists. 40 in a 30 is not the same as 100 in a 30...

coopster_the_1st

mamba80 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The likes of you and Mambo with your ultra-liberal views are building up huge problems for future generations.

It is your views that are fuelling the rise of the right wing although you are blind to the destructive world you are creating in your 'hug a criminal' bubble.

And what should the punishment be for speeding, say 40 in a 30 zone, or for failing to declare some of your income on your tax return or exaggerating the value of your cycling jersey in an insurance claim?

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

what your 25x insurance punishment would do is hit a genuine mistake made by someone who could "afford" the £20k to 25k fine by taking out a loan etc but the real problem driver, the kind that has no intention of having a legal vehicle, who wont stop in an accident, wont pay the fine and will presumably go to jail... but under Judge Taliban Coopster, for how long? 12months? 12 years? (and who is paying for this trebling of the prison population) whatever he ll come out, buy a wreck and drive it around again.

That's the prob with Nice an Simple deterrents, they arent.

At least when they are locked away they are not a danger to law abiding citizens. No need to increase the sentences, just make jails less hotel like. At beginning of the sentence one to a cell and smaller cells, moving up the scale to an open cell with communal areas with TV's etc, at the end of sentence thus re-enforcing a sort of 'freedom view'

Your 'hug a criminal' approach leaves them free to continue as there is no deterrent for their actions except the rest of us suffer!

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Yes, can't remember it featuring but it's been a few years. Temazepan was the prescription drug that I was aware of being commonly abused in Scotland.

Fair point, well made.
I was probably getting confused with Frankie Boyle.

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

Yeah, whatever. So basically, you still retain your entitlement to drive, even though your car is impounded. It's good to know that someone who gets nicked for doing 100mph outside a school can just rock on down to Hertz the next day and pick up another motor...

Yeah, whatever! I see sensationalism still exists. 40 in a 30 is not the same as 100 in a 30...

You said the penalty would be the same, but "with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed". I'm simply using your sensationally stupid ideas against you, that's all.

Ben6899

my grandad's bike wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

my grandad's bike wrote:

Really? Is that legal under employment law? Surely you have the right to privacy regarding medical conditions as long as it doesn't affect your ability to carry out your job?

You answered your own question.

Still sounds like a grey area to me.

It's not what I do, but would you want your plane being flown by a pilot prescribed lithium?

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

Yeah, whatever. So basically, you still retain your entitlement to drive, even though your car is impounded. It's good to know that someone who gets nicked for doing 100mph outside a school can just rock on down to Hertz the next day and pick up another motor...

Yeah, whatever! I see sensationalism still exists. 40 in a 30 is not the same as 100 in a 30...

You said the penalty would be the same, but "with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed". I'm simply using your sensationally stupid ideas against you, that's all.

I was think 45 in a 30 when I wrote that. After a certain speed, based on the limit, bans and prison would kick in. That you believe that would not be the case just makes me :roll: :roll: :roll: at you

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

Yeah, whatever. So basically, you still retain your entitlement to drive, even though your car is impounded. It's good to know that someone who gets nicked for doing 100mph outside a school can just rock on down to Hertz the next day and pick up another motor...

Yeah, whatever! I see sensationalism still exists. 40 in a 30 is not the same as 100 in a 30...

You said the penalty would be the same, but "with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed". I'm simply using your sensationally stupid ideas against you, that's all.

I was think 45 in a 30 when I wrote that. After a certain speed, based on the limit, bans and prison would kick in. That you believe that would not be the case just makes me :roll: :roll: :roll: at you

So it's my fault - for unpicking the limitations of your monumentally-stupid 'car confiscating' idea, when you had ample opportunity to explain it yourself. The other alternative, obviously, is that you simply hadn't thought it through before blurting it out. But I'm sure that's not the case.

For someone who claims to have all the answers, you're certainly doing a sh1t job of getting them across..

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

Is it ok to get a hire car, while your regular car is confiscated?

Sure, or use the wife's car.

However you still have the inconvenience and cost of getting home, getting to the impound to collect the car and arranging and paying for the hire car, etc. eg It is going to be hard to arrange and collect a hire car late on a Sunday night if you require the use of a car early on a Monday morning.

Yeah, whatever. So basically, you still retain your entitlement to drive, even though your car is impounded. It's good to know that someone who gets nicked for doing 100mph outside a school can just rock on down to Hertz the next day and pick up another motor...

Yeah, whatever! I see sensationalism still exists. 40 in a 30 is not the same as 100 in a 30...

You said the penalty would be the same, but "with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed". I'm simply using your sensationally stupid ideas against you, that's all.

I was think 45 in a 30 when I wrote that. After a certain speed, based on the limit, bans and prison would kick in. That you believe that would not be the case just makes me :roll: :roll: :roll: at you

So it's my fault - for unpicking the limitations of your monumentally-stupid 'car confiscating' idea, when you had ample opportunity to explain it yourself. The other alternative, obviously, is that you simply hadn't thought it through before blurting it out. But I'm sure that's not the case.

For someone who claims to have all the answers, you're certainly doing a sh1t job of getting them across..

What better idea do you have for a 40 in a 30?

Ben6899

6pts and a temporary ban?

Up there for discussion, obviously, but it's more of a punishment than having to drive the wife's car or borrow something from Avis.

imposter2.0

Coopster the 1st wrote:

What better idea do you have for a 40 in a 30?

Well, I certainly don't have some fking idiotic 'car confiscating' plan, if that's what you're thinking...

But this thread is about hapless British tourists getting banged up in foreign countries after failing to realise that "I didn't know" constitutes an acceptable defence in court.

coopster_the_1st

Imposter wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

What better idea do you have for a 40 in a 30?

Well, I certainly don't have some fking idiotic 'car confiscating' plan, if that's what you're thinking...

But this thread is about hapless British tourists getting banged up in foreign countries after failing to realise that "I didn't know" constitutes an acceptable defence in court.

Exactly as I expected :roll: :roll:

Except this thread is not some hapless British tourist who "didn't know", just that she got caught, and her and her family are now looking for excuses.

mamba80

Coopster the 1st wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

For the 40 in a 30, car confiscated for a week with the confiscation period increasing relative to the excess speed.

For the tax and insurance claim examples, a fine of 25 times the value of the wrong doing.

Nice simple deterrents and after a few weeks of noise from the liberal and twatter crowd the rules would be respected.

what your 25x insurance punishment would do is hit a genuine mistake made by someone who could "afford" the £20k to 25k fine by taking out a loan etc but the real problem driver, the kind that has no intention of having a legal vehicle, who wont stop in an accident, wont pay the fine and will presumably go to jail... but under Judge Taliban Coopster, for how long? 12months? 12 years? (and who is paying for this trebling of the prison population) whatever he ll come out, buy a wreck and drive it around again.

That's the prob with Nice an Simple deterrents, they arent.

At least when they are locked away they are not a danger to law abiding citizens. No need to increase the sentences, just make jails less hotel like. At beginning of the sentence one to a cell and smaller cells, moving up the scale to an open cell with communal areas with TV's etc, at the end of sentence thus re-enforcing a sort of 'freedom view'

Your 'hug a criminal' approach leaves them free to continue as there is no deterrent for their actions except the rest of us suffer!

We ve got open prisons already for people soon to be released, what we ve not got is re hab.

But you ve not suggested a suitable sentence for our non fine paying "motorist" nor all the other ones that drive without ins or what happens when he is released? and this just ONE crime, what about all the others? how big do you think the prison estate should be?

You suggested that LP knew what she was doing, yet the deterrent of the death penalty didnt deter her, blows a hole in your theory.
Back on thread..... i d suggest that given how hot AP security is supposed to be, how on earth did she get these drugs through a UK airport?.... which leads me on to prevention... which is the way to limit crime, be it vocational training, apprenticeships, sport and above all "hope" no kid in a sink estate is going to give a fcuk about the law, if his life prospects are close to zero and his role models are fellow criminals and gangsters, they dont care about themselves, jail or anyone else.
Its not about hug a criminal, its about looking at what works, what limits crime and prevention.

socrates

Yes. So give them apprenticeships, training, chance of free sports clubs and everything else for breaking the law. Meanwhile children who are law abiding have to go out there and compete with so many others for a small number of jobs, not to mention PAY for what they use. Some incentive to go straight.

mamba80

socrates wrote:

Yes. So give them apprenticeships, training, chance of free sports clubs and everything else for breaking the law. Meanwhile children who are law abiding have to go out there and compete with so many others for a small number of jobs, not to mention PAY for what they use. Some incentive to go straight.

i can understand POV but when it costs 64k per year to keep a 15yo in a young offenders institute, preventing them from ending up there is money well spent, not to mention the victims spared being a victim! and the offenders on-going costs as they doubtless drift into more criminality and or unemployment, low skilled work.... costing us much more.

the alternative is sterilisation... but i think thats been tried before with limited success.

of course opportunities should be available to all

pblakeney

mamba80 wrote:

socrates wrote:

Yes. So give them apprenticeships, training, chance of free sports clubs and everything else for breaking the law. Meanwhile children who are law abiding have to go out there and compete with so many others for a small number of jobs, not to mention PAY for what they use. Some incentive to go straight.

i can understand POV but when it costs 64k per year to keep a 15yo in a young offenders institute, preventing them from ending up there is money well spent, not to mention the victims spared being a victim! and the offenders on-going costs as they doubtless drift into more criminality and or unemployment, low skilled work.... costing us much more.

the alternative is sterilisation... but i think thats been tried before with limited success.

of course opportunities should be available to all

So we will have more time served apprentices who can't find jobs and become fitter crims?

webboo

This is a women who visits her " husband " 4 times a year. Odd sort of relationship to say the least. There is not a lot of sympathy for her on the Hull Daily Mail twitter site which is surprising given how tolerant Gotham City is of losers.

tangled_metal

Several pages have passed since I last looked in on this thread.

Have we reached a consensus over whether a drug smuggler found guilty by a foreign court should serve her time or be let off? Is it OK to administer the law of the country the alleged crimes were committed in or do we let compassion for someone let them off.

I just want to know which way is acceptable to think about this case but haven't time to read 5 pages

FishFish

The answer is within those 5 pages.

Matthewfalle

Is this still going on? Jeeez Louise.

She's a rubbish drug dealer who got busted and is now doing time in the country she was busted in.

3 years actually isn't a bad sentence once she gets time off for good behaviour and all that jazz. Then she can go home to Hull and be a professional stupid person, appear on morning tv and sell her story, all that jazz. She's going to come out of this minted.

I can't for the life of me understand why people are trying to defend her.

Next please.

DeVlaeminck

What drug dealer buys a plane ticket to Egypt to smuggle £25 of tramadol?

FishFish

Matthew is right. There is no more to it than this. All the other stuff is just variability in peoples compassion.

daniel_b

DeVlaeminck wrote:

What drug dealer buys a plane ticket to Egypt to smuggle £25 of tramadol?

Matthewfalle wrote:

...a rubbish drug dealer