BoxRec

demolitiondaley wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote:

lefty wrote: Yeah it was a great job mate and I loved it. The truth mate I'm not taking your bait, can't believe I'm even wasting the one calorie it has taken to type this

Taking my bait?!I seriously i dont know what you mean.I can be serious on here unlike alot of the other wind up merchants on here!Ha

look directly below your post that howard replied to , it was a post by someone called thetruth

He's right Lefty that was aimed at "TheTruth"[/quote]Yeah i know now like i said,sorry lol

lefty wrote:

demolitiondaley wrote:

damianhucker1 wrote: Yeah it was a great job mate and I loved it. The truth mate I'm not taking your bait, can't believe I'm even wasting the one calorie it has taken to type this

Taking my bait?!I seriously i dont know what you mean.I can be serious on here unlike alot of the other wind up merchants on here!Ha

look directly below your post that howard replied to , it was a post by someone called thetruth

He's right Lefty that was aimed at "TheTruth"[/quote]Yeah i know now like i said,sorry lol[/quote]

That's a lot of quotes.

Generally the ex-con, unless he's been done for sexual assault or selling brown.

There has been the old busy who was spot on, and they've always been the older ones, but on the other hand I've met so many bullies in the force who like to abuse their powers.

I'd support Howard over any though.

It depends on the individual...I got accused of assulting an officer years back(which wasnt assult)went to magistrates&the 3 coppers all went in&gave differant stories,so got thrown out..The copper who accused me still gives me grief 13yrs later,so i defo would like to see him in the ring&get beat up...Ive also come across&met a few who are as nice a people you could meet&were become friends..i wouldnt support ANY con whos a nonce,burglar or peddles in hard drugs!!

demolitiondaley wrote:

banjo wrote:I don't have a problem with coppers, it's more the laws they have to enforce that I have a problem with, ex-cons aren't always bad people either, i'm not saying I have sympathy for them but they're not all evil bastards.

Tough one this, depends on what the con has done I guess. 8)

This is a crazy ass thread Banjo that has got Me vs Richard Towers written all over it. I must say when I was in the job I was decent and proud. I never hurt anyone who wasn't trying to hurt me and 99% of all confrontation never got physical due to my ability to impose my presence on a man and make him realise he would lose. A lot of the time I was just nice enough to people for them not to want to fall out with me. I pride myself on my personal safety skills and taught others coppers for 5 years before I left. Cops are like anyone, there is a small percentage that give the rest a bad name, those are the only ones that you usually see because the decent ones are the ones that will prevent a situation happening rather than revel in dealing with the aftermath. I never used my baton or gas in anger in 8 years and can count on one hand the number of people I punched (trust me with 2years on the riot squad that is an achievement). I never had one complaint about my use of force. So anyone who reckons all cops are pricks can come and knock on my door and tell me that to my face, I would have been the one who helped your gran cross the road or stopped your little sister getting beat by her dick head boyfriend

jBacca wrote:Generally the ex-con, unless he's been done for sexual assault or selling brown.

There has been the old busy who was spot on, and they've always been the older ones, but on the other hand I've met so many bullies in the force who like to abuse their powers.

I'd support Howard over any though.

I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all fornicating leeches on my tax??'

There are obviously good and bad ex-coppers and good and bad ex-cons, I know a fair few of both, it's down to the individual.

From my experience the cons are alot more organised than the police are

jizzle wrote:

jBacca wrote:Generally the ex-con, unless he's been done for sexual assault or selling brown.

There has been the old busy who was spot on, and they've always been the older ones, but on the other hand I've met so many bullies in the force who like to abuse their powers.

I'd support Howard over any though.

I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

What a dickhead response! so kiddy-fiddling or rape is the same as selling weed/pills to mates

Are you one of these people that believes the government is always right? (I'm not)

Chambers2 wrote:

jizzle wrote:

jBacca wrote:Generally the ex-con, unless he's been done for sexual assault or selling brown.

There has been the old busy who was spot on, and they've always been the older ones, but on the other hand I've met so many bullies in the force who like to abuse their powers.

I'd support Howard over any though.

I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

What a dickhead response! so kiddy-fiddling or rape is the same as selling weed/pills to mates

Are you one of these people that believes the government is always right? (I'm not)

Exactly. A hell of a lot of people go away for daft things, minor compared to others.

i have a copper mate who is a top bloke, i also have a few mates who are ex-cons, all are sound..I think a better question would be who would you support in a fight someone from a poor background or someone from a rich background...i would love to see a toff get a pasting

jBacca wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

jizzle wrote: I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

What a dickhead response! so kiddy-fiddling or rape is the same as selling weed/pills to mates

Are you one of these people that believes the government is always right? (I'm not)

Exactly. A hell of a lot of people go away for daft things, minor compared to others.

Exactly what? People get sent down because they break the rules. End of.

King Geedorah wrote:Who would you support? A hairdresser from Rhyl or a personal instructor from Wigan?

Now thats a tough one!

Chambers2 wrote:

jizzle wrote:

jBacca wrote:Generally the ex-con, unless he's been done for sexual assault or selling brown.

There has been the old busy who was spot on, and they've always been the older ones, but on the other hand I've met so many bullies in the force who like to abuse their powers.

I'd support Howard over any though.

I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

What a dickhead response! so kiddy-fiddling or rape is the same as selling weed/pills to mates

Are you one of these people that believes the government is always right? (I'm not)

Excellent response Chambers2...Go for the one sentence comparison to give it large.

Do I think kiddy fiddlers should be sent down? Yes.
Do I think rapists should be sent down? Yes.
Do I think people who support and are part of a vast network that blights communities and individuals with drugs like crack and crystal meth should be sent down? Yes.

Don't be so naive to think that the guy dealing in weed is not part of the network which imports coke, crack and heroin to these shores.

jizzle wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:

jizzle wrote: I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

What a dickhead response! so kiddy-fiddling or rape is the same as selling weed/pills to mates

Are you one of these people that believes the government is always right? (I'm not)

Excellent response Chambers2...Go for the one sentence comparison to give it large.

Do I think kiddy fiddlers should be sent down? Yes.
Do I think rapists should be sent down? Yes.
Do I think people who support and are part of a vast network that blights communities and individuals with drugs like crack and crystal meth should be sent down? Yes.

Don't be so naive to think that the guy dealing in weed is not part of the network which imports coke, crack and heroin to these shores.

I know for a fact he isn't.............. he grows it in his attic

Chambers2 wrote:

jizzle wrote:

Chambers2 wrote: What a dickhead response! so kiddy-fiddling or rape is the same as selling weed/pills to mates

Are you one of these people that believes the government is always right? (I'm not)

Excellent response Chambers2...Go for the one sentence comparison to give it large.

Do I think kiddy fiddlers should be sent down? Yes.
Do I think rapists should be sent down? Yes.
Do I think people who support and are part of a vast network that blights communities and individuals with drugs like crack and crystal meth should be sent down? Yes.

Don't be so naive to think that the guy dealing in weed is not part of the network which imports coke, crack and heroin to these shores.

I know for a fact he isn't.............. he grows it in his attic

Talk about miss the point...

jizzle wrote: Talk about miss the point...

I must admit I'm struggling to see a point in anything you've wrote on this thread.

I'll start with this post

jizzle wrote: I love these type of responses....'this crime is OK, but this one is bang out of order'...it's like cons who think that their crime is acceptable in comparison to others...How about 'they're all effing leeches on my tax??'

You criticised JBacca for saying "one crime is OK and another is not" (NO?), which makes perfect sense to me, so I gave 2 clear examples of crimes I find OK and ones that I don't

You then informed me that kiddly-fiddlers and rapists should be sent down (thanks for that) and tried to inform me that weed dealers are all involved in organised crime and the importation of cocaine and heroine...... which is utter drivel. Some organised crime gangs will be mass growing weed over here, but I'd say the majority of weed grown over here these days are small operations grown in houses, such as attics, garages, spare rooms, sheds.... (that's certainly where the weed I buy comes from, from various and numerous local sources)

Maybe it was you who was missing the point Jizzle?

King Geedorah wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:
Maybe it was you who was missing the point Jizzle?

I hate it when jizzle misses the points. It goes all over the bedding and ruins the eiderdown.

Sorry King...You know I'm working on my aim!

King Geedorah wrote:

Chambers2 wrote:
Maybe it was you who was missing the point Jizzle?

I hate it when jizzle misses the points. It goes all over the bedding and ruins the eiderdown.

Yeah, I hate it when it goes over the microwave and runs down the washing up

Chambers2 wrote:You criticised JBacca for saying "one crime is OK and another is not" (NO?), which makes perfect sense to me, so I gave 2 clear examples of crimes I find OK and ones that I don't

You then informed me that kiddly-fiddlers and rapists should be sent down (thanks for that) and tried to inform me that weed dealers are all involved in organised crime and the importation of cocaine and heroine...... which is utter drivel. Some organised crime gangs will be mass growing weed over here, but I'd say the majority of weed grown over here these days are small operations grown in houses, such as attics, garages, spare rooms, sheds.... (that's certainly where the weed I buy comes from, from various and numerous local sources)

Maybe it was you who was missing the point Jizzle?

I don't think so Chambers. I think all you are trying to do is justify an opinion which is fundamentally flawed.

At what point did I say that weed dealers are all involved in organised crime??

I said that they are all part of a network which stimulates demand and services supply for illegal drugs which at the top end include crack, coke, crystal, organised crime, sex trafficking and illegal arms as an example. The top end is fed by the bottom and drugs like weed are known as gateway drugs. People don't go from drinking ribena to mainlining. Now, not all smokers progress onto harder substances in fact only a small percentage do. But the small percentage that do, wreck their own lives, the lives of their families and the communities that they live in.

Now you can try and belittle me as much as you want but what I have just said is undeniable fact.

By the way, let's not get all keyboard warrior on this...I hate that sh1te

I'll agree to disagree knowing that I'm right and you're wrong.

King Geedorah wrote:

jizzle wrote:

King Geedorah wrote: I hate it when jizzle misses the points. It goes all over the bedding and ruins the eiderdown.

Sorry King...You know I'm working on my aim!

A man after my own heart.

Chambers2 wrote:

King Geedorah wrote: I hate it when jizzle misses the points. It goes all over the bedding and ruins the eiderdown.

Yeah, I hate it when it goes over the microwave and runs down the washing up

You need to sort out your Feng Shui. Washing in the microwave?!

PS Microwaves send out electromagnetic signals that destroy the mind.

Washing UP next to the microwave (it's actually about 8 foot away, so I may be exaggerating my projectile)

Chambers2 wrote:You criticised JBacca for saying "one crime is OK and another is not" (NO?), which makes perfect sense to me, so I gave 2 clear examples of crimes I find OK and ones that I don't

You then informed me that kiddly-fiddlers and rapists should be sent down (thanks for that) and tried to inform me that weed dealers are all involved in organised crime and the importation of cocaine and heroine...... which is utter drivel. Some organised crime gangs will be mass growing weed over here, but I'd say the majority of weed grown over here these days are small operations grown in houses, such as attics, garages, spare rooms, sheds.... (that's certainly where the weed I buy comes from, from various and numerous local sources)

Maybe it was you who was missing the point Jizzle?

jizzle wrote:I don't think so Chambers. I think all you are trying to do is justify an opinion which is fundamentally flawed.

Which opinion and what's the Flaw?

jizzle wrote: At what point did I say that weed dealers are all involved in organised crime?? .

Here :

jizzle wrote:Don't be so naive to think that the guy dealing in weed is not part of the network which imports coke, crack and heroin to these shores..

Importers of Coke, Heroine... are usually associated with organised crime

jizzle wrote:I said that they are all part of a network which stimulates demand and services supply for illegal drugs which at the top end include crack, coke, crystal, organised crime, sex trafficking and illegal arms as an example. The top end is fed by the bottom and drugs like weed are known as gateway drugs. People don't go from drinking ribena to mainlining. Now, not all smokers progress onto harder substances in fact only a small percentage do. But the small percentage that do, wreck their own lives, the lives of their families and the communities that they live in. ..

There's always going to be a demand for drugs, because they're good fun. Just because the government say it's ok for me to drink alcohol (a drug that makes people loud, aggressive and often violent) and not to smoke weed (a drug that makes people chilled and passive) it doesn't mean to say that's what I'm going to do as I'm capable of free-thought and don't get brainwashed by government BS, I make my own mind up. Have you been reading the governments handbook on drugs or somat??

The last Labour government employed independent people to evaluate the harm of certain drugs, they reported back that Marijuana and ecstacy were not as bad for people as alcohol..... the governmenty didn't like what they heard and got rid of them, because they're blinkered


So you reckon weed should remain illegal, because a small minority go onto take heroine? Weed is no more a gateway drug than nicotine or alcohol, should we ban those as well? There's no justifiable reason why alcohol is legal and mary-jane isn't IMO, do you know of one?

jizzle wrote:Now you can try and belittle me as much as you want but what I have just said is undeniable fact

By the way, let's not get all keyboard warrior on this...I hate that sh1te

It's undeniable drivel

Who's going 'all keyboard warrior'?? I though we were debating the issue

jizzle wrote:I'll agree to disagree knowing that I'm right and you're wrong.

you say I'm wrong, but fail to tell me what I'm wrong about. Can you elaborate?

OK. Bullet point time.

1) You are flawed in the 'one crime is OK and one is not.' If it were OK, it wouldn't be a crime. There's your flaw. A crime is a crime. It's there in the definition.

2) The quote about dealers and organised crime. I can't make it any clearer. I said they were part of the same network, not the same organisation. Your supplier is at the bottom end, organised crime at the top. But part of the same network. I didn't think you're ever going to understand what I mean.

3) Should weed remain illegal because of a small minority (which equates to 10,000s of people in the UK)? Yes.

4) I didn't advocate alochol or nicotine in this argument. You're pulling in popularist argument and statements.

jizzle wrote:OK. Bullet point time.

1) You are flawed in the 'one crime is OK and one is not.' If it were OK, it wouldn't be a crime. There's your flaw. A crime is a crime. It's there in the definition.

2) The quote about dealers and organised crime. I can't make it any clearer. I said they were part of the same network, not the same organisation. Your supplier is at the bottom end, organised crime at the top. But part of the same network. I didn't think you're ever going to understand what I mean.

3) Should weed remain illegal because of a small minority (which equates to 10,000s of people in the UK)? Yes.

4) I didn't advocate alochol or nicotine in this argument. You're pulling in popularist argument and statements.

1) That's where we disagree. Weed smoking is a crime, but there's nothing wrong with doing it IMO. What harm is it doing?

2) I undertand what you mean, you're just plain wrong. Alot/most weed is grown independently of coke and heroine importers. Bloke grows it in his attic, sells it to a small time dealer who distributes it. How are they in the same network as Coke and heroine dealers?

3) You're putting an illogical link between weed and heroine, just as the government do. They're are 10,000's of alchies in the country, quick ban it. Personally I prefer freedom of choice and not to ban things due to the lowest denomiter abusing them

4) I'm not pulling popularist arguments into this I'm pulling in common sense. Surely the laws of the land should follow the morals of the land? The law should be consistant IMO, it's not currently as I've highlighted earlier in the thread.



We're not going to agree on this as we're too very contrasting people. You're somebody who follows rules for the sake of it, I'm somebody who questions them

jizzle wrote:OK. Bullet point time.

1) You are flawed in the 'one crime is OK and one is not.' If it were OK, it wouldn't be a crime. There's your flaw. A crime is a crime. It's there in the definition.

2) The quote about dealers and organised crime. I can't make it any clearer. I said they were part of the same network, not the same organisation. Your supplier is at the bottom end, organised crime at the top. But part of the same network. I didn't think you're ever going to understand what I mean.

3) Should weed remain illegal because of a small minority (which equates to 10,000s of people in the UK)? Yes.

4) I didn't advocate alochol or nicotine in this argument. You're pulling in popularist argument and statements.

1) So I guess homosexuality was not OK, until the law was changed? That makes much less sense than the law just being wrong. It's far too simplistic to say a crime is just a crime: some are indictable, some are summary, some are routinely committed without the law ever being enforced (like taping radio/TV shows), some are enforced very harshly, and the levels of punishment are all different. On the flipside, walking past a dying person without helping them is most certainly not OK, but neither is it a crime.

2) Some of the weed in this country is not from the same network as those that deal in harder stuff, some of it's grown by people and sold on. Not all dealers are connected to the larger organised crime networks.

3) In that case, booze should be illegal because of the massive minority (close to a million alcohol-related hospital admissions a year) who bugger themselves and other people up on it. Oh wait, we live in a society where we accept some of the risks of freedom rather than trying to shut down everything risky. Except in the case of non-alcoholic drugs.

Jizzle - I hope you've appreciated your free education this afternoon