Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:17:20 +0000, Marvin <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
No. It was a non profit venture.
>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>
>Not all obligations but it would put her case in a slightly better light.
The defendents had little personal money and did not live a lifestyle
indicating wealth. Quite the opposite, actually. They were not
obviously rich drug barons like, for example, the Rt. Hon Kenneth
Clarke, deputy chairman of British American Tobacco. The police found
reciepts from donations for £30,000 which had been used for running
the venture.
Clough
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 13:17:20 +0000, Marvin <kilauea3@yahoo.co.uk>
wrote:
>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
No. It was a non profit venture.
>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>
>Not all obligations but it would put her case in a slightly better light.
The defendents had little personal money and did not live a lifestyle
indicating wealth. Quite the opposite, actually. They were not
obviously rich drug barons like, for example, the Rt. Hon Kenneth
Clarke, deputy chairman of British American Tobacco. The police found
reciepts from donations for £30,000 which had been used for running
the venture.
Clough
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
<tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>
>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>
> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is fatal to live too long.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
<tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
<snip>
>>>
>>
>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>
> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is fatal to live too long.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>
> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
Why should it be?
If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
a loss. Will this help their case?
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
> <snip>
>
>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>
> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
Why should it be?
If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
a loss. Will this help their case?
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>
>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>
>Why should it be?
>If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>a loss. Will this help their case?
Of course not.
That is temporary, in order to increase profits. they are not
operating at a loss overall.
And it should be a mitigating factor because the crime is *dealing* in
the prohibited drugs. If you are not making a profit (nor attempting
to make a profit) on them, then you are outside the normal definition
of "dealing", although still legally committing the crime.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The best way to win an argument is to be right.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>
>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>
>Why should it be?
>If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>a loss. Will this help their case?
Of course not.
That is temporary, in order to increase profits. they are not
operating at a loss overall.
And it should be a mitigating factor because the crime is *dealing* in
the prohibited drugs. If you are not making a profit (nor attempting
to make a profit) on them, then you are outside the normal definition
of "dealing", although still legally committing the crime.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The best way to win an argument is to be right.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>> Why should it be?
>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>
> Of course not.
>
> That is temporary, in order to increase profits. they are not
> operating at a loss overall.
>
So, if in the spirit of Xmas charity and good will to my brother (the
crack dealer) I decide to seed the local market with free samples of
drugs as my present to him, do I get mitigation?
1) I'm making a cash loss apart from brotherly love, he didn't ask me to
do it.
2) It seemed to be a useful service to crack-heads unaddressed by the
NHS accredited prescribers, yet we all KNOW it was helping them.
If the Cannabis Crunchie Crew get off, how can they do me?
> And it should be a mitigating factor because the crime is *dealing* in
> the prohibited drugs. If you are not making a profit (nor attempting
> to make a profit) on them, then you are outside the normal definition
> of "dealing", although still legally committing the crime.
What IS the legal definition of dealing - is it 'cash for product' or is
it just 'involved with'?
It would seem to me that the English definition on dealing=involved and
should be applicable.
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>> Why should it be?
>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>
> Of course not.
>
> That is temporary, in order to increase profits. they are not
> operating at a loss overall.
>
So, if in the spirit of Xmas charity and good will to my brother (the
crack dealer) I decide to seed the local market with free samples of
drugs as my present to him, do I get mitigation?
1) I'm making a cash loss apart from brotherly love, he didn't ask me to
do it.
2) It seemed to be a useful service to crack-heads unaddressed by the
NHS accredited prescribers, yet we all KNOW it was helping them.
If the Cannabis Crunchie Crew get off, how can they do me?
> And it should be a mitigating factor because the crime is *dealing* in
> the prohibited drugs. If you are not making a profit (nor attempting
> to make a profit) on them, then you are outside the normal definition
> of "dealing", although still legally committing the crime.
What IS the legal definition of dealing - is it 'cash for product' or is
it just 'involved with'?
It would seem to me that the English definition on dealing=involved and
should be applicable.
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:59:07 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>>>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>> Why should it be?
>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> That is temporary, in order to increase profits. they are not
>> operating at a loss overall.
>>
>So, if in the spirit of Xmas charity and good will to my brother (the
>crack dealer) I decide to seed the local market with free samples of
>drugs as my present to him, do I get mitigation?
>
>1) I'm making a cash loss apart from brotherly love, he didn't ask me to
>do it.
>2) It seemed to be a useful service to crack-heads unaddressed by the
>NHS accredited prescribers, yet we all KNOW it was helping them.
>
>If the Cannabis Crunchie Crew get off, how can they do me?
>
First, they didn't. They were found guilty.
Second, quite easily, since the cases will be easily distinguishable.
>
>> And it should be a mitigating factor because the crime is *dealing* in
>> the prohibited drugs. If you are not making a profit (nor attempting
>> to make a profit) on them, then you are outside the normal definition
>> of "dealing", although still legally committing the crime.
>
>What IS the legal definition of dealing - is it 'cash for product' or is
>it just 'involved with'?
It is basically supplying others with the product.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Well, to be Frank, I'd have to change my name.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:59:07 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>>>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>> Why should it be?
>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>
>> Of course not.
>>
>> That is temporary, in order to increase profits. they are not
>> operating at a loss overall.
>>
>So, if in the spirit of Xmas charity and good will to my brother (the
>crack dealer) I decide to seed the local market with free samples of
>drugs as my present to him, do I get mitigation?
>
>1) I'm making a cash loss apart from brotherly love, he didn't ask me to
>do it.
>2) It seemed to be a useful service to crack-heads unaddressed by the
>NHS accredited prescribers, yet we all KNOW it was helping them.
>
>If the Cannabis Crunchie Crew get off, how can they do me?
>
First, they didn't. They were found guilty.
Second, quite easily, since the cases will be easily distinguishable.
>
>> And it should be a mitigating factor because the crime is *dealing* in
>> the prohibited drugs. If you are not making a profit (nor attempting
>> to make a profit) on them, then you are outside the normal definition
>> of "dealing", although still legally committing the crime.
>
>What IS the legal definition of dealing - is it 'cash for product' or is
>it just 'involved with'?
It is basically supplying others with the product.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Well, to be Frank, I'd have to change my name.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:59:07 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>So, if in the spirit of Xmas charity and good will to my brother (the
>crack dealer) I decide to seed the local market with free samples of
>drugs as my present to him, do I get mitigation?
No. You would not get mitigation for doing that. The defendents in
this case will get mitigation.
It has to do with motives. They will get mitigation because of their
altruistic intent to relieve real human suffering through what they
did.
>1) I'm making a cash loss apart from brotherly love, he didn't ask me to
>do it.
>2) It seemed to be a useful service to crack-heads unaddressed by the
>NHS accredited prescribers, yet we all KNOW it was helping them.
>If the Cannabis Crunchie Crew get off, how can they do me?
It is pretty obvious that the Cannabis Crunchie Crew will get off
lightly. Far more lightly than anyone handing out free samples of
crack would. The judge who will let them off lightly knows why, as do
most people, but I'm afraid it will always remain a mystery to you.
Clough
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:59:07 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>So, if in the spirit of Xmas charity and good will to my brother (the
>crack dealer) I decide to seed the local market with free samples of
>drugs as my present to him, do I get mitigation?
No. You would not get mitigation for doing that. The defendents in
this case will get mitigation.
It has to do with motives. They will get mitigation because of their
altruistic intent to relieve real human suffering through what they
did.
>1) I'm making a cash loss apart from brotherly love, he didn't ask me to
>do it.
>2) It seemed to be a useful service to crack-heads unaddressed by the
>NHS accredited prescribers, yet we all KNOW it was helping them.
>If the Cannabis Crunchie Crew get off, how can they do me?
It is pretty obvious that the Cannabis Crunchie Crew will get off
lightly. Far more lightly than anyone handing out free samples of
crack would. The judge who will let them off lightly knows why, as do
most people, but I'm afraid it will always remain a mystery to you.
Clough
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>
>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>
> Why should it be?
> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at a
> loss. Will this help their case?
I know The Sun and Daily Mail say that dealers give away crack and smack
to kids at school gates, but I really doubt that actually happens. It's
certainly never happened to me.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky wrote:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>
>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>
> Why should it be?
> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at a
> loss. Will this help their case?
I know The Sun and Daily Mail say that dealers give away crack and smack
to kids at school gates, but I really doubt that actually happens. It's
certainly never happened to me.
--
Phil Stovell, South Hampshire, UK
"They said I should not take him to the police, but rather
let him pay a dowry for my goat because he used it as his wife"
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky wrote:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>>
>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>
>> Why should it be?
>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily
>> operating at a loss. Will this help their case?
>
> I know The Sun and Daily Mail say that dealers give away crack and
> smack to kids at school gates, but I really doubt that actually
> happens. It's certainly never happened to me.
Same here. Though surly it must have happened at least once in the deep dark
past.
I think it goes back to the term "Pusher", when we all know illicit drugs
are pulled not pushed.
I still come across people who think drugs are pushed - it has become firmly
entrenched in popular mythology.
You may remember the song ' The Pusher' by 'The Band' differentiating
between a Dealer and a Pusher. Alas the term Dealer has been hijacked by the
forces of "law" & "order".
Slatts
Phil Stovell wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky wrote:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 12:14:00 GMT, "mike carley"
>>> <tess.stickles@privates.mi> wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Was she profiting from this little venture?
>>>> Does operating at a loss negate all other obligations?
>>>
>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>
>> Why should it be?
>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily
>> operating at a loss. Will this help their case?
>
> I know The Sun and Daily Mail say that dealers give away crack and
> smack to kids at school gates, but I really doubt that actually
> happens. It's certainly never happened to me.
Same here. Though surly it must have happened at least once in the deep dark
past.
I think it goes back to the term "Pusher", when we all know illicit drugs
are pulled not pushed.
I still come across people who think drugs are pushed - it has become firmly
entrenched in popular mythology.
You may remember the song ' The Pusher' by 'The Band' differentiating
between a Dealer and a Pusher. Alas the term Dealer has been hijacked by the
forces of "law" & "order".
Slatts
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>Why should it be?
The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
does have an influence on sentencing.
>If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>a loss. Will this help their case?
No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
why this should be.
Clough
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>Why should it be?
The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
does have an influence on sentencing.
>If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>a loss. Will this help their case?
No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
why this should be.
Clough
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Clough wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>
>
>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>
>> Why should it be?
>
> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
> does have an influence on sentencing.
>
>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>
> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
> why this should be.
>
> Clough
>
>
Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
Clough wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>
>
>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>
>> Why should it be?
>
> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
> does have an influence on sentencing.
>
>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>
> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
> why this should be.
>
> Clough
>
>
Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Clough wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>
>>> Why should it be?
>>
>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>
>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>
>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>> why this should be.
>Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
I've explained that motivation has an influence on sentencing.
The Cannabis Crunchie Crew will get off lightly because of this and it
is pretty obvious to most people why they should while your
hypothetical crack dealers would not. That you find this hypocritical
says more about you than it does about the facts of the case.
Clough
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Clough wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>
>>> Why should it be?
>>
>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>
>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>
>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>> why this should be.
>Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
I've explained that motivation has an influence on sentencing.
The Cannabis Crunchie Crew will get off lightly because of this and it
is pretty obvious to most people why they should while your
hypothetical crack dealers would not. That you find this hypocritical
says more about you than it does about the facts of the case.
Clough
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Clough wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>
>>> Why should it be?
>>
>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>
>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>
>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>> why this should be.
>>
>> Clough
>>
>>
>Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
The fact you think that is hypocritical shows that you are baffled.
It shows that you really do not understand the principles involved.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
This isn't hell, but I can see it from here.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Clough wrote:
>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>
>>> Why should it be?
>>
>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>
>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>
>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>> why this should be.
>>
>> Clough
>>
>>
>Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
The fact you think that is hypocritical shows that you are baffled.
It shows that you really do not understand the principles involved.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
This isn't hell, but I can see it from here.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>>> Why should it be?
>>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>>
>>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>>> why this should be.
>>>
>>> Clough
>>>
>>>
>> Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>> one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
>
> The fact you think that is hypocritical shows that you are baffled.
>
> It shows that you really do not understand the principles involved.
No, it show you don't understand my point.
I don't think they should receive any mitigation - in fact their stance
(of thinking themselves above the law) should increase their sentence.
Were Robin Hood's actions admirable or despicable (robbing the rich to
give to the poor)?
From a mitigation point of view your opinion would clearly depend which
camp you fell into - robbed or aided.
Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
is more harmful than beneficial.
GM crops have undoubted benefits , but also a huge set of risks.
Would you support me or shoot me if I decided to run a clandestine
kibbutz in Wales growing GM crops to feed the poor of Cardiff?
Alex Heney wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:24:57 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>
>> Clough wrote:
>>> On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 01:09:01 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> No, but it is a major mitigating factor.
>>>> Why should it be?
>>> The motivation and character of defendents is a mitigating factor. It
>>> does have an influence on sentencing.
>>>
>>>> If crack dealers hand out free samples they are temporarily operating at
>>>> a loss. Will this help their case?
>>> No, I would say it will not help their case. Quite possibly the
>>> opposite, although I'm pretty sure you are completely baffled as to
>>> why this should be.
>>>
>>> Clough
>>>
>>>
>> Why baffled? - I was pointing out how hypocritical it would be to treat
>> one bunch of drug dealers more leniently than another.
>
> The fact you think that is hypocritical shows that you are baffled.
>
> It shows that you really do not understand the principles involved.
No, it show you don't understand my point.
I don't think they should receive any mitigation - in fact their stance
(of thinking themselves above the law) should increase their sentence.
Were Robin Hood's actions admirable or despicable (robbing the rich to
give to the poor)?
From a mitigation point of view your opinion would clearly depend which
camp you fell into - robbed or aided.
Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
is more harmful than beneficial.
GM crops have undoubted benefits , but also a huge set of risks.
Would you support me or shoot me if I decided to run a clandestine
kibbutz in Wales growing GM crops to feed the poor of Cardiff?
Re: Choc bar drugs pair will appeal
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
>peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
> is more harmful than beneficial.
I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
At least I hope not.
Clough
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:58:41 +0000, Sharky <bill@microsoft,com > wrote:
>Sorry, but some might think self-rightious do-gooders tampering with
>peoples health might make sense but an equal number would argue that it
> is more harmful than beneficial.
I don't think an equal number of people in society are a daft as you.
At least I hope not.
Clough
Next: Petition to stop the prosecution of medical cannabis users
Previous: Police knew about drugs in chocolate
