M.Gove regrets using cocaine

Matthewfalle

at the time it was the yuppie and upper middle/upper class drug of choice.

atypical of the Tories lack of understanding and empathy with the working classes.

#outoftouch

Matthewfalle

john80 wrote:

To be honest at least give has been mashed out his tits. May apparently ran through a field of wheat. I can't imagine a childhood so pathetic as this.

this be the truth. probably why she turned out like she did.

#truth

tailwindhome

Gove's dead in the water

DeVlaeminck

Kajjal wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well who knows why he regrets taking it. Maybe he now thinks the enjoyment was not worth it given the subsequent embarrassment in his political career, maybe he has a greater awareness of the harm the cocaine trade does, who knows.

Ultimately who cares. If teachers are banned from teaching or doctors from practising medicine because of a 20 year old conviction for possession then more fool us for wasting their training when there is a shortage of both.

Personally I'm tranquil about a future PM having taken drugs, I've taken them myself (not for many years), everybody in my social circle did and i would think most contributing to this forum have at some time on same scale too. I'm not an advocate of cocaine use at all, I've never taken any either but I mean come on who really cares.

Who cares ?

The people being terrorised by the organised crime operations behind its production and distribution, the health care professionals & law enforcement having to deal with it, the addicts / users who’s families are impacted by this and also people through no fault of their own by the actions of people under the influence of drugs.

So you'd hold it against someone because 20 years ago they used cocaine ?

I don't think that 20 years ago there was much awareness of the harm drugs did in terms of the wider trade. The problem was seen as being one for the users if they became addicted and maybe in terms of addicts committing crime to feed their habit - I'm guessing Gove wasn't out robbing houses to buy this stuff.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

I don't think that 20 years ago there was much awareness of the harm drugs did in terms of the wider trade.

There was complete awareness 20 years ago. Users may have chosen to ignore this but circa 1999 the effects of drugs in all aspects were well known.
Chris Morris' Cake episode was 1997. That's a 22 years ago shocker! :oops:

Jez mon

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Kajjal wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well who knows why he regrets taking it. Maybe he now thinks the enjoyment was not worth it given the subsequent embarrassment in his political career, maybe he has a greater awareness of the harm the cocaine trade does, who knows.

Ultimately who cares. If teachers are banned from teaching or doctors from practising medicine because of a 20 year old conviction for possession then more fool us for wasting their training when there is a shortage of both.

Personally I'm tranquil about a future PM having taken drugs, I've taken them myself (not for many years), everybody in my social circle did and i would think most contributing to this forum have at some time on same scale too. I'm not an advocate of cocaine use at all, I've never taken any either but I mean come on who really cares.

Who cares ?

The people being terrorised by the organised crime operations behind its production and distribution, the health care professionals & law enforcement having to deal with it, the addicts / users who’s families are impacted by this and also people through no fault of their own by the actions of people under the influence of drugs.

So you'd hold it against someone because 20 years ago they used cocaine ?

I don't think that 20 years ago there was much awareness of the harm drugs did in terms of the wider trade. The problem was seen as being one for the users if they became addicted and maybe in terms of addicts committing crime to feed their habit - I'm guessing Gove wasn't out robbing houses to buy this stuff.

I think in the late 90s anyone who had cared to look into it would be able to find all about Pablo Escobar and his peers. There was less of a fair trade approach in general though.

Besides it was equally illegal 20 years ago. Which is sort of the point here.

DeVlaeminck

While the information may have been available that is different to there being awareness. 20 years ago I think very few people considered the impact of the drugs trade outside of its impact on the users themselves.

As for the Chris Morris reference - not sure what that has got to do with anything.

As for it being illegal - yes of course but the use of illegal drugs has been so widespread that if you are really going to hold relatively low level use of drugs against people then you aren't going to have many friends or listen to much music etc etc.

OK so maybe a few of you clearly do care - I still doubt many do - he obviously agrees or he wouldn't have confessed.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

As for the Chris Morris reference - not sure what that has got to do with anything.

Brass Eye was a spoof. The Cake episode was about drugs trade. A spoof only works if people are aware of the subject. People were aware of the subject. I'd say anyone with even a passing interest of the news in general knew in the 80s.

DeVlaeminck

PBlakeney wrote:

DeVlaeminck wrote:

As for the Chris Morris reference - not sure what that has got to do with anything.

Brass Eye was a spoof. The Cake episode was about drugs trade. A spoof only works if people are aware of the subject. People were aware of the subject. I'd say anyone with even a passing interest of the news in general knew in the 80s.

Yes I watched it when it came out I still don't see what your point is.

People were aware of drugs and their affects but I don't think many people really considered the impact of their drug use beyond the affects of the drugs themselves. There is far more awareness of that these days - I often hear it argued that middle class drug users ignore the wider impact - that wasn't said 20 years ago.

DeVlaeminck

And in any case would you really support say sacking a teacher, striking off a nurse or doctor etc etc if it was revealed that they had used cocaine 20 years ago - even if they now regretted it ? If you would then I suggest you are in a minority - if not then why object so much to Gove ?

pblakeney

"Michael Gove has defended overseeing a regime that could impose lifetime bans on teachers caught with class A drugs despite his own past use of cocaine."

I don't support it, Gove does.
Therein lies the issue.

DeVlaeminck

Well that is a different issue isn't it.

Gove may or may not be a hypocrite - my point was that I don't give a toss that he took cocaine 20 years ago and I don't think it should be held against him. Going by your last post you seem to have come round to my way of thinking.

pblakeney

DeVlaeminck wrote:

Well that is a different issue isn't it.

Gove may or may not be a hypocrite - my point was that I don't give a toss that he took cocaine 20 years ago and I don't think it should be held against him. Going by your last post you seem to have come round to my way of thinking.

Not quite. I do not believe that people were not aware of the drug industry as a whole 20 years ago, at least, not without being wilfully ignorant. The point above is the whole point of the issue and this thread. His hypocrisy. Other points are just whataboutery.

Pep

Exactly.
The fact he took drug should not be held against him.
The fact he is an hypocrite should.

slowbike

Your past experiences give you things to draw on in your current situation.
Gove was a journalist at the time of his ventures into drugs (? I believe) - drugs in journalists was "normal" so there would be a lot of peer pressure to conform. Low level drug taking isn't that detrimental to the individual (health wise).
It's not as though he's an ex drug addict is it?

I don't particularly like what I've seen of Gove - any more than I like what I've seen of the others - but then I'm not a Tory either ...

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

Your past experiences give you things to draw on in your current situation.
Gove was a journalist at the time of his ventures into drugs (? I believe) - drugs in journalists was "normal" so there would be a lot of peer pressure to conform. Low level drug taking isn't that detrimental to the individual (health wise).

But if you are involved in the manufacture and distribution of Gove's 2 or 3 lines then it almost certainly is detrimental. A point made by Gove himself. That's fine; people don't live up to their own expectations all the time. But a little more reflection beyond "I was fortunate not to have been sent to jail" might persuade people that this is more than just yet more blue-on-blue leadership shenanigans.

slowbike

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Your past experiences give you things to draw on in your current situation.
Gove was a journalist at the time of his ventures into drugs (? I believe) - drugs in journalists was "normal" so there would be a lot of peer pressure to conform. Low level drug taking isn't that detrimental to the individual (health wise).

But if you are involved in the manufacture and distribution of Gove's 2 or 3 lines then it almost certainly is detrimental. A point made by Gove himself. That's fine; people don't live up to their own expectations all the time. But a little more reflection beyond "I was fortunate not to have been sent to jail" might persuade people that this is more than just yet more blue-on-blue leadership shenanigans.

2 or 3 lines (in a lifetime) doesn't make any dent on the supply chain by itself - ok, so he (probably) did more than 2 or 3 lines - perhaps he'd do better coming out with some more compassionate line for the users and assistance for the dealers to break the supply chain further up the line.

But don't worry - BJ is going to cut higher rate tax - so his mates have nothing to fear....

rjsterry

Slowbike wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Your past experiences give you things to draw on in your current situation.
Gove was a journalist at the time of his ventures into drugs (? I believe) - drugs in journalists was "normal" so there would be a lot of peer pressure to conform. Low level drug taking isn't that detrimental to the individual (health wise).

But if you are involved in the manufacture and distribution of Gove's 2 or 3 lines then it almost certainly is detrimental. A point made by Gove himself. That's fine; people don't live up to their own expectations all the time. But a little more reflection beyond "I was fortunate not to have been sent to jail" might persuade people that this is more than just yet more blue-on-blue leadership shenanigans.

2 or 3 lines (in a lifetime) doesn't make any dent on the supply chain by itself - ok, so he (probably) did more than 2 or 3 lines - perhaps he'd do better coming out with some more compassionate line for the users and assistance for the dealers to break the supply chain further up the line.

But don't worry - BJ is going to cut higher rate tax - so his mates have nothing to fear....

No, Gove's consumption won't have made that much difference, but it's still funding organised crime.

Johnson's mates earn a lot more than £80K. That move is aimed solidly at middle England.

rick_chasey

It’s a pretty big tax break - would save me a significant amount - so where is the money going to come from?

briantrumpet

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s a pretty big tax break - would save me a significant amount - so where is the money going to come from?

I wonder if it would cost £350m a week.

rjsterry

briantrumpet wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s a pretty big tax break - would save me a significant amount - so where is the money going to come from?

I wonder if it would cost £350m a week.

See my post on the other thread. Increased NIC cover part of it, and the other £10bn/pa...?

kingstongraham

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Matthewfalle

rjsterry wrote:

briantrumpet wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s a pretty big tax break - would save me a significant amount - so where is the money going to come from?

I wonder if it would cost £350m a week.

See my post on the other thread. Increased NIC cover part of it, and the other £10bn/pa...?

according to R4 this morning from the Pot the Chancellor has put aside to cover costs/losses/whatever they call it from a hard Brexit.

#robbingPetertopayPaul

bompington

Matthewfalle wrote:

the Pot the Chancellor has put aside

FFS, surely not another drugs story breaking? ;-)

Matthewfalle

bompington wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

the Pot the Chancellor has put aside

FFS, surely not another drugs story breaking? ;-)

smoooooth dude, smoooooooth........ 8)

tailwindhome

NI is wetting itself with laughter at Gove's descripton of Bradley as a 'brilliant' secretary of state.
Her incompetence is the only thing every side in NI agree on.

He must be on something.

Stevo_666

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

Ben6899

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again...

Pretty sure?

It's the Class A that every well-off, upper middle class suit turns to.

kingstongraham

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

He's got something else that makes him talk incessant bollocks then?

rjsterry

KingstonGraham wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

I look forward to Michael Gove explaining to his colleagues that what Corbyn did in the 90s has no relevance today.

Pretty sure Gove has no intention of using coke again, whereas Corbyn will definitely use socialism again if given a chance.

He's got something else that makes him talk incessant **** then?

Still an improvement over Johnson, though.