Police Interceptors - Channel5

[Mungler]

 

14 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

They are not illegal - cannabis is, which seems to escape a large number.

 

But that's not been the debate and I don't think it's escaped anyone.

Let's for one moment park "cannabis use is illegal and thus you will lose your ticket" - that is indeed what the current position is, no question. There laws are made, rules are followed and for firearms licensing they have to be in black and white. We all get and understand that.

However, the wider questions (amongst many) raised in this discussion have been (and in specifically relation to cannabis):

1. does recreational drug use automatically make you unsafe / unfit? [and in the context of alcohol abuse (which is legal and socially acceptable)]

2. does drug use (automatically) make you a criminal or likely to associate with criminals? [and a wider discussion about "criminality" and legislation]

3. how has decriminalisation / legalisation worked in other countries and what are the comparables?

 

Interestingly, Nick Clegg was on LBC this morning and has been writing on the topic.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sir-nick-clegg-attitudes-drug-11825758

A lot of what he says, crosses over with what has been discussed on here and I think he's talking some sense.

 

[Rewulf]

4 minutes ago, Mungler said:

 

 

But that's not been the debate and I don't think it's escaped anyone.

Let's for one moment park "cannabis use is illegal and thus you will lose your ticket" - that is indeed what the current position is, no question. There laws are made, rules are followed and for firearms licensing they have to be in black and white. We all get and understand that.

However, the wider questions (amongst many) raised in this discussion have been (and in specifically relation to cannabis):

1. does recreational drug use automatically make you unsafe / unfit? [and in the context of alcohol abuse (which is legal and socially acceptable)]

2. does drug use (automatically) make you a criminal or likely to associate with criminals? [and a wider discussion about "criminality" and legislation]

3. how has decriminalisation / legalisation worked in other countries and what are the comparables?

 

Interestingly, Nick Clegg was on LBC this morning and has been writing on the topic.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sir-nick-clegg-attitudes-drug-11825758

A lot of what he says, crosses over with what has been discussed on here and I think he's talking some sense.

 

1. I think it depends on what 'recreational' drug we are talking about, ecstasy ? whats actually in it ? ketamine ,heroin, speed could all be a component.
Indeed, some people smoke heroin 'recreationally' but are not addicts, some take legal prescription drugs like smarties, so its all about context really.
The powers that be dont have time to do an in depth study of your habit though, so its generally a blanket ban.

2.Where do people buy recreational drugs from ? A drug dealer is usually a criminal in this example, so you are associating/ buying from criminals.
Drug possession after you have bought said drugs, also a criminal offence.

3.It hasnt stopped people using drugs has it?
It may have decriminalised it, and freed up resources, but it hasnt  made anyone less dead from overdoses, and wrecked anyones life less from addiction.
Dont get me wrong, Im all for legalising drugs especially cannabis, but dont think for one minute it will make the use of it go down.

[Gordon R]

Mungler - I find it hard to argue against what you say, so I won't. I accept there are other views than mine and I respect that and go some way to accepting them. In respect of points 1 and 2, I would say yes. Your point 3 is the most compelling for me.

However, I am anti drugs full stop and I am a bit old to change.

[12gauge82]

3 hours ago, Mungler said:

 

 

But that's not been the debate and I don't think it's escaped anyone.

Let's for one moment park "cannabis use is illegal and thus you will lose your ticket" - that is indeed what the current position is, no question. There laws are made, rules are followed and for firearms licensing they have to be in black and white. We all get and understand that.

However, the wider questions (amongst many) raised in this discussion have been (and in specifically relation to cannabis):

1. does recreational drug use automatically make you unsafe / unfit? [and in the context of alcohol abuse (which is legal and socially acceptable)]

No not automatically, but on average the chances of unsafe and or unfit people rises.

2. does drug use (automatically) make you a criminal or likely to associate with criminals? [and a wider discussion about "criminality" and legislation]

Again not automatically no, there are always exceptions to norms, but again on average, there is a significant rise in criminality associated with those who use drugs including those who only use or grow cannabis, people can dress it up any way they want but that is fact.

3. how has decriminalisation / legalisation worked in other countries and what are the comparables?

This is something I've never looked at and know very little about, id be intereted in any views, experiances, opinions and facts to this question.

 

 

 

 

[Cannon]

5 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Everyone who drives breaks the speed limit at some point, but I do not habitually break it. I drive to the speed limits, but it is easy to creep 1mph over the limit. The Police driver training limit is the speed limit plus 10% for overtaking. That said, the decision to use cannabis is a conscious decision, not an accidental one.

Smoking and alcohol usage are red herrings. Driving costs more lives than cannabis usage. So what?

They are not illegal - cannabis is, which seems to escape a large number.

 

The decision to exceed the speed limit should always be a concious one. By your logic, anyone who breaks the law should face the consequences. What you have said above indicates that you frequently drive without due care and attention, and break the speed limit. If you find it easy to creep over the speed limit, then by your own admission you find it easy to perform criminal acts without feeling like a criminal. Before posting heavy, judgemental opinions on everybody elses decisions, take a look inwards. Let he without sin cast the first stone, so to speak.

[Danger-Mouse]

1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said:

3. how has decriminalisation / legalisation worked in other countries and what are the comparables?

This is something I've never looked at and know very little about, id be intereted in any views, experiances, opinions and facts to this question.

Take a look at Portugal who decriminalised all drugs in 2001.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.fc0f93096f48

Among Portuguese adults, there are 3 drug overdose deaths for every 1,000,000 citizens. Comparable numbers in other countries range from 10.2 per million in the Netherlands to 44.6 per million in the U.K., all the way up to 126.8 per million in Estonia. The E.U. average is 17.3 per million.

"The reality is that Portugal’s drug situation has improved significantly in several key areas. Most notably, HIV infections and drug-related deaths have decreased, while the dramatic rise in use feared by some has failed to materialise."

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight

One of the most keenly disputed outcomes of Portugal’s reforms is their impact on levels of drug use. Conflicting accounts of how rates of use changed after 2001 are usually due to different data sets, age groups, or indicators of changing drug use patterns being used. But a more complete picture of the situation post-decriminalisation reveals:

 

• Levels of drug use are below the European average⁵
• Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24,⁶ the population most at risk of initiating drug use⁷
• Lifetime drug use among the general population has increased slightly,⁸ in line with trends in comparable nearby countries.⁹ However, lifetime use is widely considered to be the least accurate measure of a country’s current drug use situation^10 11
• Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population – which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends¹² – have decreased¹³
• Between 2000 and 2005 (the most recent years for which data are available) rates of problematic drug use and injecting drug use decreased¹⁴
• Drug use among adolescents decreased for several years following decriminalisation, but has since risen to around 2003 levels¹⁵
• Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased¹⁶

 

Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs. There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.

 

Additionally, decriminalisation does not appear to have caused an increase in crimes typically associated with drugs. While opportunistic thefts and robberies had gone up when measured in 2004, it has been suggested that this may have been because police were able to use the time saved by no longer arresting drug users to tackle (and record) other low-level crimes.³⁷ Although difficult to test, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact that, during the same period, there was a reduction in recorded cases of other, more complex crimes typically committed by people who are dependent on drugs, such as thefts from homes and businesses.

 

So, not perfect but certainly not horrendous either. All in all the decision to decriminalise seems to have brought about more positives than negatives.

[stumfelter]

Stoners shouldn't have guns.

[Mungler]

2 minutes ago, Danger-Mouse said:

 Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs. There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.

Additionally, decriminalisation does not appear to have caused an increase in crimes typically associated with drugs. While opportunistic thefts and robberies had gone up when measured in 2004, it has been suggested that this may have been because police were able to use the time saved by no longer arresting drug users to tackle (and record) other low-level crimes.³⁷ Although difficult to test, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact that, during the same period, there was a reduction in recorded cases of other, more complex crimes typically committed by people who are dependent on drugs, such as thefts from homes and businesses.

 

 

Very interesting.

I am a big fan of personal choice for anyone over the right age - traditionally that's 18, 21 or 25 and being safe I'd plum for 25 years of age. If I can make it to 45 and not be an alcoholic (and notwithstanding that I consider myself to have an addictive personality and alcohol is available everywhere including in petrol stations) then anyone can - it's a matter of personal choice. Following on, it appears that in Portugal with drug decriminalisation people didn't suddenly wake up one day and decide to give Smack a go, and that must be in the same way that we're not all raging alcoholics.

This spins back to the 50 year old with chronic back pain who wants a couple of plants in his loft - under Portuguese law he's not a criminal and in my view he should be able to do what he likes as long as there is no harm to others.

In Nick Clegg's interview on LBC (and on the written articles he's given in today's papers) I think he's got it right - at the moment the State's drug policy isn't working and the drug market place (and drug supply) is in the hands of criminals and the black economy. Controlling, regulating and taxing that supply chain makes absolute sense to me. There we go.

A most interesting thread and with no swearing and no toys being thrown.

[SpringDon]

I find many of the points difficult to argue against (even when contradictory- which is weird).

The only one that I find simply wrong is the idea that anyone who grows small amounts of cannabis will associate with drug dealers and those of a disreputable lifestyle. Whereas the reality is that many domestic growers become so because they don’t want to be involved in the “lifestyle” or associate with dealers.

[Zapp]

5 minutes ago, Mungler said:

A most interesting thread and with no swearing and no toys being thrown.

Completely agree with this, it's the best debate I've seen on here for a good while.  No nastiness or bickering and some really interesting points made.

Kudos chaps.

[TIGHTCHOKE]

1 minute ago, Zapp said:

Completely agree with this, it's the best debate I've seen on here for a good while.  No nastiness or bickering and some really interesting points made.

Kudos chaps.

If only Imogen was looking in!

[andrewluke]

23 minutes ago, Zapp said:

Completely agree with this, it's the best debate I've seen on here for a good while.  No nastiness or bickering and some really interesting points made.

Kudos chaps.

it will all change once i've had my spliff

[12gauge82]

13 minutes ago, andrewluke said:

it will all change once i've had my spliff

1 hour ago, Danger-Mouse said:

Take a look at Portugal who decriminalised all drugs in 2001.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/06/05/why-hardly-anyone-dies-from-a-drug-overdose-in-portugal/?utm_term=.fc0f93096f48

Among Portuguese adults, there are 3 drug overdose deaths for every 1,000,000 citizens. Comparable numbers in other countries range from 10.2 per million in the Netherlands to 44.6 per million in the U.K., all the way up to 126.8 per million in Estonia. The E.U. average is 17.3 per million.

"The reality is that Portugal’s drug situation has improved significantly in several key areas. Most notably, HIV infections and drug-related deaths have decreased, while the dramatic rise in use feared by some has failed to materialise."

http://www.tdpf.org.uk/blog/drug-decriminalisation-portugal-setting-record-straight

One of the most keenly disputed outcomes of Portugal’s reforms is their impact on levels of drug use. Conflicting accounts of how rates of use changed after 2001 are usually due to different data sets, age groups, or indicators of changing drug use patterns being used. But a more complete picture of the situation post-decriminalisation reveals:

 

• Levels of drug use are below the European average⁵
• Drug use has declined among those aged 15-24,⁶ the population most at risk of initiating drug use⁷
• Lifetime drug use among the general population has increased slightly,⁸ in line with trends in comparable nearby countries.⁹ However, lifetime use is widely considered to be the least accurate measure of a country’s current drug use situation^10 11
• Rates of past-year and past-month drug use among the general population – which are seen as the best indicators of evolving drug use trends¹² – have decreased¹³
• Between 2000 and 2005 (the most recent years for which data are available) rates of problematic drug use and injecting drug use decreased¹⁴
• Drug use among adolescents decreased for several years following decriminalisation, but has since risen to around 2003 levels¹⁵
• Rates of continuation of drug use (i.e. the proportion of the population that have ever used an illicit drug and continue to do so) have decreased¹⁶

 

Overall, this suggests that removing criminal penalties for personal drug possession did not cause an increase in levels of drug use. This tallies with a significant body of evidence from around the world that shows the enforcement of criminal drug laws has, at best, a marginal impact in deterring people from using drugs. There is essentially no relationship between the punitiveness of a country’s drug laws and its rates of drug use. Instead, drug use tends to rise and fall in line with broader cultural, social or economic trends.

 

Additionally, decriminalisation does not appear to have caused an increase in crimes typically associated with drugs. While opportunistic thefts and robberies had gone up when measured in 2004, it has been suggested that this may have been because police were able to use the time saved by no longer arresting drug users to tackle (and record) other low-level crimes.³⁷ Although difficult to test, this theory is perhaps supported by the fact that, during the same period, there was a reduction in recorded cases of other, more complex crimes typically committed by people who are dependent on drugs, such as thefts from homes and businesses.

 

So, not perfect but certainly not horrendous either. All in all the decision to decriminalise seems to have brought about more positives than negatives.

Really inteesting read, thanks

1 hour ago, Cannon said:

The decision to exceed the speed limit should always be a concious one. By your logic, anyone who breaks the law should face the consequences. What you have said above indicates that you frequently drive without due care and attention, and break the speed limit. If you find it easy to creep over the speed limit, then by your own admission you find it easy to perform criminal acts without feeling like a criminal. Before posting heavy, judgemental opinions on everybody elses decisions, take a look inwards. Let he without sin cast the first stone, so to speak.

One point of law, speeding without an added element of dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention ect ect, is not a criminal offence but a civil offence.

[grrclark]

6 hours ago, Rewulf said:

Indeed , what is a fact ?
Because it is written down somewhere, and it says it is.
You have based your opinion (that low level growers, and the occasional weed smoker are perfectly entitled, and safe to own firearms) on your beliefs that they are, Im presuming that you have experience to back your opinion up.
And, whilst the firearms licencing dept in most areas would disagree with you, they may not have facts or stats to back up their opinion to suitability.
It is what it is, the law.
Which may be an ***, but I think private firearms ownership is precarious enough without chucking drug use into legal ownership.

On the point of breaking the law in minor things like copyright  theft , or speeding, then yes, you can, and will be revoked for excessive speeding, so ergo, a person with a large amount of speeding convictions may struggle to be granted.
I would also think they would take a dim view of someone with a conviction for copyright theft/fraud.

You obviously feel very strongly on the subject Grr, which I respect.
But getting back to the original question, should someone who is busted with a grow, keep their legal guns?  and its got to be a no.
Most licensing areas take your ticket of you for drink driving, so why would they let a person who is breaking the law/ smoking illegal drugs keep theirs?
Even if its for medicinal purposes.

Sorry for the late reply, I have been out all day and a bit busy.

Addressing a couple of points, i'm not actually advocating that growers or users should necessarily be granted a licence.  What I was challenging was the sweeping statement that all drug users or drug growers present such a risk they should incur an automatic ban, or even a lifetime ban as suggested by one contributor.

The point I have been trying to make is that our current system already considers each individual applicant on their own merits, some have a criminal past and get a ticket and some have no criminal past yet don't get a ticket.

It is all based on perceived risk, that could be from criminality or disregard for the law, it could be based on association with bad people or it could be based on health.

My argument is that people should be considered on their individual merits and not based on unconsidered prejudice, no more than that.

What really grinds me is people who are wilfully ignorant, i.e. Those that are prepared to shout an unthinking answer and actuay don't care that it isn't thought through.

We as a shooting community face that unthinking prejudice all the time and complain about it, yet so many are unable to see when they are doing exactly the same thing to someone else.

Regrettably so many replies to this thread were simply unconsidered, i.e. Drugs = illegal = bad person = no gun.

Yet as I highlighted Speeding = illegal = well it isn't so bad really as it's trivial = mostly gun ok.

Or copyright theft = illegal = everyone does it really and it is so trivial that it doesn't count st all = gun ok.

The point being that we are being massive hypocrites if you choose to use illegal as a reason for no gun in one argument, but it doesn't matter in another one.

All I hoped to achieve by challenging some comments in posts is to make people consider the wider implications of suggesting an absolute outcome to generalisations or sweeping statements.

As for your original question about what constitutes a fact, well there is a very precise definition and it isn't just something being written down somewhere.

Definitely off topic now, but peddling of false facts is a scourge and a plague and it breeds ignorance and that is bad for all of us.  I will stop banging that drum now.

[ADT06]

22 minutes ago, grrclark said:

Sorry for the late reply, I have been out all day and a bit busy.

Addressing a couple of points, i'm not actually advocating that growers or users should necessarily be granted a licence.  What I was challenging was the sweeping statement that all drug users or drug growers present such a risk they should incur an automatic ban, or even a lifetime ban as suggested by one contributor.

The point I have been trying to make is that our current system already considers each individual applicant on their own merits, some have a criminal past and get a ticket and some have no criminal past yet don't get a ticket.

It is all based on perceived risk, that could be from criminality or disregard for the law, it could be based on association with bad people or it could be based on health.

My argument is that people should be considered on their individual merits and not based on unconsidered prejudice, no more than that.

What really grinds me is people who are wilfully ignorant, i.e. Those that are prepared to shout an unthinking answer and actuay don't care that it isn't thought through.

We as a shooting community face that unthinking prejudice all the time and complain about it, yet so many are unable to see when they are doing exactly the same thing to someone else.

Regrettably so many replies to this thread were simply unconsidered, i.e. Drugs = illegal = bad person = no gun.

Yet as I highlighted Speeding = illegal = well it isn't so bad really as it's trivial = mostly gun ok.

Or copyright theft = illegal = everyone does it really and it is so trivial that it doesn't count st all = gun ok.

The point being that we are being massive hypocrites if you choose to use illegal as a reason for no gun in one argument, but it doesn't matter in another one.

All I hoped to achieve by challenging some comments in posts is to make people consider the wider implications of suggesting an absolute outcome to generalisations or sweeping statements.

As for your original question about what constitutes a fact, well there is a very precise definition and it isn't just something being written down somewhere.

Definitely off topic now, but peddling of false facts is a scourge and a plague and it breeds ignorance and that is bad for all of us.  I will stop banging that drum now.

Over the course of this thread, my view has changed.

Simply put as you make out, context and perspective are key. Individual risk is key. 

A very good debate either way, and one of the hottest threads I’ve seen. Obviously this evidences how contentious the issue is. 

[Gordon R]

Quote

What you have said above indicates that you frequently drive without due care and attention, and break the speed limit. If you find it easy to creep over the speed limit, then by your own admission you find it easy to perform criminal acts without feeling like a criminal. Before posting heavy, judgemental opinions on everybody elses decisions, take a look inwards. Let he without sin cast the first stone, so to speak.

Cannon - getting a bit biblical. Perhaps you should read what I posted before. Don't spoil a decent thread by getting petty and inaccurate.

[Mungler]

1 hour ago, grrclark said:

Sorry for the late reply, I have been out all day and a bit busy.

Addressing a couple of points, i'm not actually advocating that growers or users should necessarily be granted a licence.  What I was challenging was the sweeping statement that all drug users or drug growers present such a risk they should incur an automatic ban, or even a lifetime ban as suggested by one contributor.

The point I have been trying to make is that our current system already considers each individual applicant on their own merits, some have a criminal past and get a ticket and some have no criminal past yet don't get a ticket.

It is all based on perceived risk, that could be from criminality or disregard for the law, it could be based on association with bad people or it could be based on health.

My argument is that people should be considered on their individual merits and not based on unconsidered prejudice, no more than that.

What really grinds me is people who are wilfully ignorant, i.e. Those that are prepared to shout an unthinking answer and actuay don't care that it isn't thought through.

We as a shooting community face that unthinking prejudice all the time and complain about it, yet so many are unable to see when they are doing exactly the same thing to someone else.

Regrettably so many replies to this thread were simply unconsidered, i.e. Drugs = illegal = bad person = no gun.

Yet as I highlighted Speeding = illegal = well it isn't so bad really as it's trivial = mostly gun ok.

Or copyright theft = illegal = everyone does it really and it is so trivial that it doesn't count st all = gun ok.

The point being that we are being massive hypocrites if you choose to use illegal as a reason for no gun in one argument, but it doesn't matter in another one.

All I hoped to achieve by challenging some comments in posts is to make people consider the wider implications of suggesting an absolute outcome to generalisations or sweeping statements.

As for your original question about what constitutes a fact, well there is a very precise definition and it isn't just something being written down somewhere.

Definitely off topic now, but peddling of false facts is a scourge and a plague and it breeds ignorance and that is bad for all of us.  I will stop banging that drum now.

On the money.

[Cannon]

11 hours ago, Gordon R said:

Cannon - getting a bit biblical. Perhaps you should read what I posted before. Don't spoil a decent thread by getting petty and inaccurate.

I merely highlighted the contradictory nature of your posts, so that perhaps in future you would give consideration to reviewing your content before posting. All for your own benefit of course, to save you looking like a hypocrite. Don't worry old boy, I'll keep you right.

[keg]

So no actual evidence? 

[Gordon R]

Quote

I merely highlighted the contradictory nature of your posts, so that perhaps in future you would give consideration to reviewing your content before posting. All for your own benefit of course, to save you looking like a hypocrite. Don't worry old boy, I'll keep you right.

Cannon - I view you as nothing more than a troll - a bit sad at that.

[Bobba]

14 hours ago, 12gauge82 said:

Really inteesting read, thanks

One point of law, speeding without an added element of dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention ect ect, is not a criminal offence but a civil offence.

Without wishing to derail this thread the above statement is too simplistic and misleading. Civil law governs relationships between individuals and organisations and covers such matters as contracts, negligence, family matters, employment etc., whereas criminal matters covers relationships between individuals and the state and by public laws which defines the boundaries of acceptable conduct. Breaking the speed limit is not, therefore, a civil offence. Speed limits are set by law. In breaking the law an offence has been committed.

The question really is does breaking the laws on  speeding carry  a criminal record?  Basically, if caught speeding and you are offered a fixed penalty notice (or are offered a speed awareness course) and you accept and pay within 28 days then no conviction is recorded against you and you do not have a criminal record. However, if you do not agree within 28 days and decide to fight the case and lose then you will have a conviction for speeding and that is a criminal offence.

[12gauge82]

30 minutes ago, Bobba said:

Without wishing to derail this thread the above statement is too simplistic and misleading. Civil law governs relationships between individuals and organisations and covers such matters as contracts, negligence, family matters, employment etc., whereas criminal matters covers relationships between individuals and the state and by public laws which defines the boundaries of acceptable conduct. Breaking the speed limit is not, therefore, a civil offence. Speed limits are set by law. In breaking the law an offence has been committed.

The question really is does breaking the laws on  speeding carry  a criminal record?  Basically, if caught speeding and you are offered a fixed penalty notice (or are offered a speed awareness course) and you accept and pay within 28 days then no conviction is recorded against you and you do not have a criminal record. However, if you do not agree within 28 days and decide to fight the case and lose then you will have a conviction for speeding and that is a criminal offence.

Yes quite correct, I couldn't be bothered to go that far into it.

[grrclark]

39 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said:

Yes quite correct, I couldn't be bothered to go that far into it.

So you chose to deliberately misrepresent the truth because you couldn't be bothered understanding what the actual "fact" of the law is?

It's ironic given your earlier (many) assertions of stating facts that were not facts at all, and then entirely misrepresenting something that is factual.  All rather comedic really.

[Bobba]

17 minutes ago, grrclark said:

So you chose to deliberately misrepresent the truth because you couldn't be bothered understanding what the actual "fact" of the law is?

It's ironic given your earlier (many) assertions of stating facts that were not facts at all, and then entirely misrepresenting something that is factual.  All rather comedic really.

Grrclark you beat me to it. A truly amazing admission by 12gauge82 to misleading PW members. I  have to take the view that in future anything 12gauge82 utters as fact should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

[12gauge82]

Not misleading at all, when you are caught speeding under normal conditions you accept a NIP (notice of intended prosecution) in exchange for points and a fine, it is then not classed as a criminal offence, so my stateent is correct, I just couldn't be bothered and doubt anyone would be interested in pages and pages of law to make a simple point.

46 minutes ago, grrclark said:

So you chose to deliberately misrepresent the truth because you couldn't be bothered understanding what the actual "fact" of the law is?

It's ironic given your earlier (many) assertions of stating facts that were not facts at all, and then entirely misrepresenting something that is factual.  All rather comedic really.

Like I said, what I posted earlier I beleive to be factual, it was a 3 year study by the police compiled of arrest data and intelligence reports, if you don't count that as factual that's up to you, you can make your own opinions.

26 minutes ago, Bobba said:

Grrclark you beat me to it. A truly amazing admission by 12gauge82 to misleading PW members. I  have to take the view that in future anything 12gauge82 utters as fact should be taken with a large pinch of salt.

Entirely up to you, no offence taken.

Edited January 11, 2018 by 12gauge82
Auto correct spelling