This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I want to be an assistant to a rich, dysfunctional and drug-addled couple...
I want to be an assistant to a rich, dysfunctional and drug-addled couple...
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
Well i dont have a girlfriend at Present, but when and if i next do, ill keep you in mind
:-D
> I want to be an assistant to a rich, dysfunctional and drug-addled couple...
Well i dont have a girlfriend at Present, but when and if i next do, ill keep you in mind
:-D
In reply to icnoble:
David Cameron was on "Team Nigella", wasn't he?
And "Team Brooks" and "Team Coulson"...
I wouldn't let him pick my lottery numbers.
David Cameron was on "Team Nigella", wasn't he?
And "Team Brooks" and "Team Coulson"...
I wouldn't let him pick my lottery numbers.
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
Yeah, he was also on Team BAE Systems... He's the kiss of death, where teams are concerned.
> David Cameron was on "Team Nigella", wasn't he?
Yeah, he was also on Team BAE Systems... He's the kiss of death, where teams are concerned.
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
You can just rock up anytime then.
Dysfunctional, always.
You might have to use artistic Licence with the rich bit Though.
> Cheers - we can discuss personal terms while you're off your tits...
You can just rock up anytime then.
Dysfunctional, always.
You might have to use artistic Licence with the rich bit Though.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I love watching cookery programmes But I always found Nigella Lawson irritating in the extreme.
I love watching cookery programmes But I always found Nigella Lawson irritating in the extreme.
In reply to icnoble:
I remember watching her a few years ago, and the way she was wobbling her head around, and thinking that she'd had a few too many sherries. I was nearly right.
I remember watching her a few years ago, and the way she was wobbling her head around, and thinking that she'd had a few too many sherries. I was nearly right.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Will Saatchi now have to pay the Grillos' legal fees? And possibly even Nigella's? Not sure how this works.
Will Saatchi now have to pay the Grillos' legal fees? And possibly even Nigella's? Not sure how this works.
In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
No, of course not, any more than people who allege rape have to pay the legal fees of the defendant if he gets cleared.
jcm
No, of course not, any more than people who allege rape have to pay the legal fees of the defendant if he gets cleared.
jcm
In reply to Clauso:
Bugger. I hope not. He's also on team united Kingdom.
> He's the kiss of death, where teams are concerned.
Bugger. I hope not. He's also on team united Kingdom.
In reply to icnoble:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/20/david-cameron-team-nigella-...
If this had gone differently, there might have been some interesting fallout
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/20/david-cameron-team-nigella-...
If this had gone differently, there might have been some interesting fallout
In reply to graeme jackson:
To be fair, not all of it. Probably not the bit your in, certainly not the bit I'm in.
> Bugger. I hope not. He's also on team united Kingdom.
To be fair, not all of it. Probably not the bit your in, certainly not the bit I'm in.
In reply to toad:
"What she is getting through the back door is a character reference from someone respected and high up. This is an abuse of process of the court and the trial should be stayed," Metzer said. "My client can no longer get a fair trial."
Cameron, respected?
"What she is getting through the back door is a character reference from someone respected and high up. This is an abuse of process of the court and the trial should be stayed," Metzer said. "My client can no longer get a fair trial."
Cameron, respected?
In reply to icnoble:
Can someone summarise for me exactly what the point of this circus was?
PAs accused of fraud over credit card spending on themselves claimed it was to buy their silence and are now cleared.
I can't see anything about why they were cleared? Lack of evidence?
Also, I can't understand the comment from the Police about why they're not investigating the cocaine use further?
Can someone summarise for me exactly what the point of this circus was?
PAs accused of fraud over credit card spending on themselves claimed it was to buy their silence and are now cleared.
I can't see anything about why they were cleared? Lack of evidence?
Also, I can't understand the comment from the Police about why they're not investigating the cocaine use further?
In reply to Submit to Gravity:
Did you see the documentary about the Hoff. His personal assistant seemed to do ok for himself (money wise that is)
> I want to be an assistant to a rich, dysfunctional and drug-addled couple...
Did you see the documentary about the Hoff. His personal assistant seemed to do ok for himself (money wise that is)
In reply to teflonpete:
I read the first eight words of that and thought "not another Nigella scandal!"
> "What she is getting through the back door is a character reference from someone respected and high up. This is an abuse of process of the court and the trial should be stayed," Metzer said. "My client can no longer get a fair trial."
I read the first eight words of that and thought "not another Nigella scandal!"
In reply to LastBoyScout:
>Can someone summarise for me exactly what the point of this circus was?
Same as any other prosecution for theft, I suppose, albeit this one seems rather ill-judged.
>I can't see anything about why they were cleared? Lack of evidence?
Because the jury wasn't satisfied they were guilty. You don't get reasons.
>Also, I can't understand the comment from the Police about why they're not investigating the cocaine use further?
Which part of that is it you don't understand? On the basis of what we've heard in the newspapers, I'd suggest there's little prospect of a conviction and that the police can almost certainly find better things to do with their time.
jcm
>Can someone summarise for me exactly what the point of this circus was?
Same as any other prosecution for theft, I suppose, albeit this one seems rather ill-judged.
>I can't see anything about why they were cleared? Lack of evidence?
Because the jury wasn't satisfied they were guilty. You don't get reasons.
>Also, I can't understand the comment from the Police about why they're not investigating the cocaine use further?
Which part of that is it you don't understand? On the basis of what we've heard in the newspapers, I'd suggest there's little prospect of a conviction and that the police can almost certainly find better things to do with their time.
jcm
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
They were accused of fraud, not theft.
I can't see why spending £650k on yourself on someone else's company credit card is anything other than fraud.
Got confused - I read something about her having taken cannabis with her children, but surely possesion of cocaine should be investigated. So much for the "tough on drugs" stance!
> >Can someone summarise for me exactly what the point of this circus was?
> Same as any other prosecution for theft, I suppose, albeit this one seems rather ill-judged.
They were accused of fraud, not theft.
> >I can't see anything about why they were cleared? Lack of evidence?
> Because the jury wasn't satisfied they were guilty. You don't get reasons.
I can't see why spending £650k on yourself on someone else's company credit card is anything other than fraud.
> >Also, I can't understand the comment from the Police about why they're not investigating the cocaine use further?
> Which part of that is it you don't understand? On the basis of what we've heard in the newspapers, I'd suggest there's little prospect of a conviction and that the police can almost certainly find better things to do with their time.
Got confused - I read something about her having taken cannabis with her children, but surely possesion of cocaine should be investigated. So much for the "tough on drugs" stance!
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Well, the beauty of our jury system is that we'll never know. The defence was that the spending was authorised, backed up to some extent by the fact that NL's other two PAs were spending not dissimilar sums, I think.
But maybe the jury just thought Saatchi was an arsehole and they weren't going to send anyone to prison for taking his money. You can see how they might have got that impression.
jcm
> I can't see why spending £650k on yourself on someone else's company credit card is anything other than fraud.
Well, the beauty of our jury system is that we'll never know. The defence was that the spending was authorised, backed up to some extent by the fact that NL's other two PAs were spending not dissimilar sums, I think.
But maybe the jury just thought Saatchi was an arsehole and they weren't going to send anyone to prison for taking his money. You can see how they might have got that impression.
jcm
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Presumably because the jury believed the assertion that the spending was done with the permission of Lawson.
Of all the alleged crimes in the Met's in-tray, I suspect this would be quite a long way down the list of priorities and it would be the word of the Grillo sisters against that of Lawson - not exactly compelling reasons for launching an investigation.
> I can't see why spending £650k on yourself on someone else's company credit card is anything other than fraud.
Presumably because the jury believed the assertion that the spending was done with the permission of Lawson.
> Got confused - I read something about her having taken cannabis with her children, but surely possesion of cocaine should be investigated. So much for the "tough on drugs" stance!
Of all the alleged crimes in the Met's in-tray, I suspect this would be quite a long way down the list of priorities and it would be the word of the Grillo sisters against that of Lawson - not exactly compelling reasons for launching an investigation.
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Fraud is still theft.
They said they had permission, the jury weren't convinced that wasn't the case.
It wasn't suggested she was Pablo Escobar, would you say chasing a historic accusation of personal use, with no chance of conviction is really a good use of police resources.
> They were accused of fraud, not theft.
Fraud is still theft.
> I can't see why spending £650k on yourself on someone else's company credit card is anything other than fraud.
They said they had permission, the jury weren't convinced that wasn't the case.
> Got confused - I read something about her having taken cannabis with her children, but surely possesion of cocaine should be investigated. So much for the "tough on drugs" stance!
It wasn't suggested she was Pablo Escobar, would you say chasing a historic accusation of personal use, with no chance of conviction is really a good use of police resources.
In reply to The New NickB:
>chasing a historic accusation of personal use,
Admission, to be fair. But then probably you'd only get a caution ten years on anyway.
jcm
>chasing a historic accusation of personal use,
Admission, to be fair. But then probably you'd only get a caution ten years on anyway.
jcm
In reply to graeme jackson:
I think he's mainly on Team Cameron.
> Bugger. I hope not. He's also on team united Kingdom.
I think he's mainly on Team Cameron.
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
Any idiot can work out that this whole bullshit was all due to nigellas drug use. From the very first picture of saatchi checking her nose and the subsequent PA's allegations that they were allowed to spend on the cards to keep their mouths shut, it's blatantly obvious.
Why on earth would two very small people try and even consider making false allegations against two extremely powerful people. We all know that if the PA's were lying about nigellas drug abuse she would have destroyed them.
Even saatchis leaked letter makes it perfectly clear the nigella was and still probably is a raging coke head!
Any idiot can work out that this whole bullshit was all due to nigellas drug use. From the very first picture of saatchi checking her nose and the subsequent PA's allegations that they were allowed to spend on the cards to keep their mouths shut, it's blatantly obvious.
Why on earth would two very small people try and even consider making false allegations against two extremely powerful people. We all know that if the PA's were lying about nigellas drug abuse she would have destroyed them.
Even saatchis leaked letter makes it perfectly clear the nigella was and still probably is a raging coke head!
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
If the assistants were sacked when this came to light there may be a wrongful dismissal case, given what it is now agreed they were earning it could get expensive
> I do hope this soap opera continues.
If the assistants were sacked when this came to light there may be a wrongful dismissal case, given what it is now agreed they were earning it could get expensive
In reply to icnoble:
I don't really understand why anyone expects celebrity individuals to have redeeming characteristics?! Frankly, all parties involved seem pretty nauseating.
> I love watching cookery programmes But I always found Nigella Lawson irritating in the extreme.
I don't really understand why anyone expects celebrity individuals to have redeeming characteristics?! Frankly, all parties involved seem pretty nauseating.
In reply to teflonpete:
I've never heard it called that before.
> "What she is getting through the back door is a character reference from someone respected and high up.
I've never heard it called that before.
In reply to icnoble:
I'm pretty sure that whatever was spotted in her handbag was at least 75% baking powder. Maybe more.
I'm pretty sure that whatever was spotted in her handbag was at least 75% baking powder. Maybe more.
In reply to Removed User:
You owe me the beer that I just spat out, reading that comment, you bastard...
> I've never heard it called that before.
You owe me the beer that I just spat out, reading that comment, you bastard...
In reply to xplorer:
Yep, any idiot. It's just a pity they didn't come out with that defence when they were arrested in 2012. Or indeed at any time until after the very public assault on Lawson and the subsequent divorce.
Why on earth indeed? After all they were only being charged with half a million pounds worth of fraud. Interested to know how she would have "destroyed them" - considering they were able to make a bunch of entirely uncorroborated allegations, none of which included them actuallky witnessing her taking drugs, despite them being apparently very close friends.
Yes. Because Saatchi is such a credible witness when it comes to his ex-wife's character.
> Any idiot can work out that this whole bullshit was all due to nigellas drug use. From the very first picture of saatchi checking her nose and the subsequent PA's allegations that they were allowed to spend on the cards to keep their mouths shut, it's blatantly obvious.
Yep, any idiot. It's just a pity they didn't come out with that defence when they were arrested in 2012. Or indeed at any time until after the very public assault on Lawson and the subsequent divorce.
> Why on earth would two very small people try and even consider making false allegations against two extremely powerful people. We all know that if the PA's were lying about nigellas drug abuse she would have destroyed them.
Why on earth indeed? After all they were only being charged with half a million pounds worth of fraud. Interested to know how she would have "destroyed them" - considering they were able to make a bunch of entirely uncorroborated allegations, none of which included them actuallky witnessing her taking drugs, despite them being apparently very close friends.
> Even saatchis leaked letter makes it perfectly clear the nigella was and still probably is a raging coke head!
Yes. Because Saatchi is such a credible witness when it comes to his ex-wife's character.
In reply to off-duty:
So you honestly believe that they spent half a million and thought they would get away with it?
Don't be so naive. You only need to make a couple of observations to realise nigella has been sniffing the white stuff hard. Why would saatchi grab her and check her nose?
What's makes you think saatchi isn't credible.
How do you explain his email to her. He wouldn't write what he did, if he didn't believe she was a drug user.
Open your eyes off duty, it's a shame you're so narrow minded being a police officer, I think a lot of you are though. I bet you believe no police officer sniffs the white stuff don't you!
So you honestly believe that they spent half a million and thought they would get away with it?
Don't be so naive. You only need to make a couple of observations to realise nigella has been sniffing the white stuff hard. Why would saatchi grab her and check her nose?
What's makes you think saatchi isn't credible.
How do you explain his email to her. He wouldn't write what he did, if he didn't believe she was a drug user.
Open your eyes off duty, it's a shame you're so narrow minded being a police officer, I think a lot of you are though. I bet you believe no police officer sniffs the white stuff don't you!
In reply to off-duty:
And do you really believe that money doesn't mean power when it comes to how many injunctions nigella has made recently!
And do you really believe that money doesn't mean power when it comes to how many injunctions nigella has made recently!
In reply to off-duty:
Oh one last thing.....
So don't you agree with the jury then? Have you no faith in the justice system?
Oh one last thing.....
So don't you agree with the jury then? Have you no faith in the justice system?
In reply to xplorer:
i think it's you that is being naive. Cocaine is not a subtle drug and if these accused/acquitted were really "like family" and Nigella had been binging on it for years they would undoubtedly have seen the full range of action and been exhorted to join in. Nigella is not daft and has access to top quality legal advice. She would not tell blatant lies under oath when the contrary truth could be attested to by any number of people - proportionality - in order to protect herself from a bit of adverse publicity and maybe a police caution she would be risking the fate of lord Archole (extremely amusing and gratifying as it was in his particular odious case) where she could quite easily end up with a custodial sentence. I'm convinced she was telling the truth under expert advice
JS
i think it's you that is being naive. Cocaine is not a subtle drug and if these accused/acquitted were really "like family" and Nigella had been binging on it for years they would undoubtedly have seen the full range of action and been exhorted to join in. Nigella is not daft and has access to top quality legal advice. She would not tell blatant lies under oath when the contrary truth could be attested to by any number of people - proportionality - in order to protect herself from a bit of adverse publicity and maybe a police caution she would be risking the fate of lord Archole (extremely amusing and gratifying as it was in his particular odious case) where she could quite easily end up with a custodial sentence. I'm convinced she was telling the truth under expert advice
JS
In reply to xplorer:
LOL you are funny.
Yep, the only reason that Saatchi would have to assault her was because she had been on the snow - "hard".
I take it he covered her mouth because she had been inhaling cannabis, and throttled her because she had been mainlining heroin into her neck?
Yep Saatchi is the most credible character witness in the world ever.
Not everyone in the whole trial portrayed him as a domineering brute... oh wait - yes they did.
I can't think why Saatchi would possibly try and discredit her, other than he has been running a consistent campaign since the divorce to try and paint her as black and him as (excuse the pun)- white.
Do I agree with the jury - not particularly in this case. But the justice system has done it's job - which is to present a high barrier to proving guilt.
The prosecution were unable to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt - and I'm fairly sure the mud-slinging and split between the two prosecution witnesses didn't help the prosecution case.
I am quite sure that police officers sniff coke, and use other class A's. Hopefully they get lifted for it and sacked.
As for the injunctions - don't know anything about them.
Still the whole sorry mess provided a lead story for the BBC at the same time as a female police officer was shot and wounded in Leeds.
> So you honestly believe that they spent half a million and thought they would get away with it?
> Don't be so naive. You only need to make a couple of observations to realise nigella has been sniffing the white stuff hard. Why would saatchi grab her and check her nose?
> What's makes you think saatchi isn't credible.
> How do you explain his email to her. He wouldn't write what he did, if he didn't believe she was a drug user.
> Open your eyes off duty, it's a shame you're so narrow minded being a police officer, I think a lot of you are though. I bet you believe no police officer sniffs the white stuff don't you!
LOL you are funny.
Yep, the only reason that Saatchi would have to assault her was because she had been on the snow - "hard".
I take it he covered her mouth because she had been inhaling cannabis, and throttled her because she had been mainlining heroin into her neck?
Yep Saatchi is the most credible character witness in the world ever.
Not everyone in the whole trial portrayed him as a domineering brute... oh wait - yes they did.
I can't think why Saatchi would possibly try and discredit her, other than he has been running a consistent campaign since the divorce to try and paint her as black and him as (excuse the pun)- white.
Do I agree with the jury - not particularly in this case. But the justice system has done it's job - which is to present a high barrier to proving guilt.
The prosecution were unable to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt - and I'm fairly sure the mud-slinging and split between the two prosecution witnesses didn't help the prosecution case.
I am quite sure that police officers sniff coke, and use other class A's. Hopefully they get lifted for it and sacked.
As for the injunctions - don't know anything about them.
Still the whole sorry mess provided a lead story for the BBC at the same time as a female police officer was shot and wounded in Leeds.
In reply to off-duty:
you probably won't want to answer this but I'd be very interested to know your job/rank in the police. Having had a lot of contact with "street level" police through my own job I would say they have largely been decent people trying hard to do a very difficult job but also that their average IQ and communication skills have been at a pretty low "blue collar" level. You, on the other hand, give the impression of being a highly literate university graduate with a detailed knowledge and understanding of criminal law and a highly developed ability to analyse and debate that just doesn't marry up with any first hand experience i've had of the police service. I don't mean to insult anyone but there is a huge unexplained difference in there somewhere - what's the explanation?
JS
you probably won't want to answer this but I'd be very interested to know your job/rank in the police. Having had a lot of contact with "street level" police through my own job I would say they have largely been decent people trying hard to do a very difficult job but also that their average IQ and communication skills have been at a pretty low "blue collar" level. You, on the other hand, give the impression of being a highly literate university graduate with a detailed knowledge and understanding of criminal law and a highly developed ability to analyse and debate that just doesn't marry up with any first hand experience i've had of the police service. I don't mean to insult anyone but there is a huge unexplained difference in there somewhere - what's the explanation?
JS
In reply to janiejonesworld:
There are more of us in this job than you might think...(but most probably know better and keep their mouths shut )
I'm fairly confident that at times I also come across as dumb and a bad communicator (not just on here), but there is often no point in debating finer points of law and procedure when you are just trying to do a job, whether that is deal with a situation on the street or plough through an unremitting and ever increasing caseload.
> you probably won't want to answer this but I'd be very interested to know your job/rank in the police. Having had a lot of contact with "street level" police through my own job I would say they have largely been decent people trying hard to do a very difficult job but also that their average IQ and communication skills have been at a pretty low "blue collar" level. You, on the other hand, give the impression of being a highly literate university graduate with a detailed knowledge and understanding of criminal law and a highly developed ability to analyse and debate that just doesn't marry up with any first hand experience i've had of the police service. I don't mean to insult anyone but there is a huge unexplained difference in there somewhere - what's the explanation?
> JS
There are more of us in this job than you might think...(but most probably know better and keep their mouths shut )
I'm fairly confident that at times I also come across as dumb and a bad communicator (not just on here), but there is often no point in debating finer points of law and procedure when you are just trying to do a job, whether that is deal with a situation on the street or plough through an unremitting and ever increasing caseload.
Post edited at 22:56
In reply to off-duty:
a politician's answer- are you lining yourself up for metropolitan police commissioner?
a politician's answer- are you lining yourself up for metropolitan police commissioner?
In reply to janiejonesworld:
I think what you've got to understand is this forum like every other forum is monitored by the powers that be, for me you and off duty are both trolls or you could be multiple people posting under a singular id to help shape public opinion.
I think what you've got to understand is this forum like every other forum is monitored by the powers that be, for me you and off duty are both trolls or you could be multiple people posting under a singular id to help shape public opinion.
In reply to johnj:
its a fair cop I'm actually Tiggy Legge-Bourke (and Saddam Hussain on alternate tuesdays)
its a fair cop I'm actually Tiggy Legge-Bourke (and Saddam Hussain on alternate tuesdays)
In reply to johnj:
its a fair cop I'm actually Tiggy Legge-Bourke (and Saddam Hussain on alternate tuesdays)
its a fair cop I'm actually Tiggy Legge-Bourke (and Saddam Hussain on alternate tuesdays)
In reply to off-duty:
Come on dibble I know you wanna get a room with Janie jones but don't make it so obvious
:+)
Come on dibble I know you wanna get a room with Janie jones but don't make it so obvious
:+)
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
It will be interesting what happens in the Coulson and Brooks trial, and how Cameron comes out of that one.
> What a total pillock Cameron is.
> jcm
It will be interesting what happens in the Coulson and Brooks trial, and how Cameron comes out of that one.
In reply to icnoble:
Nigella Lawson's upcoming festive TV special looks a bit dull. All about cold turkey apparently.
Nigella Lawson's upcoming festive TV special looks a bit dull. All about cold turkey apparently.
In reply to icnoble:
Just bought the new Higella Lawson cook book.
The recipes are a bit short though, only a few lines every page.
Just bought the new Higella Lawson cook book.
The recipes are a bit short though, only a few lines every page.
Post edited at 13:07
In reply to icnoble:
Nigella Lawson has been inconsolable since her divorce from Charles Saatchi. She just keeps shouting out, "charlie, charlie, where's my fecking charlie?"
Nigella Lawson has been inconsolable since her divorce from Charles Saatchi. She just keeps shouting out, "charlie, charlie, where's my fecking charlie?"
In reply to Removed User:
Me neither, I'll be careful who I agree to do a 'character reference' for in future... ;0)
> I've never heard it called that before.
Me neither, I'll be careful who I agree to do a 'character reference' for in future... ;0)
In reply to LastBoyScout:
Seems that Scotland Yard has come under fire for stating they weren't going to follow up the drugs use - effectively condoning middle-class drug abuse.
> Also, I can't understand the comment from the Police about why they're not investigating the cocaine use further?
Seems that Scotland Yard has come under fire for stating they weren't going to follow up the drugs use - effectively condoning middle-class drug abuse.
In reply to icnoble:
There was confusion at TeamHigella last night when she was heard to say she wanted to see the snowman.
There was confusion at TeamHigella last night when she was heard to say she wanted to see the snowman.
In reply to icnoble:
More news from inside TeamHigella this morning from a Mr D.Cameron.Her Christmas day dinner party main will be her favourite -a very large joint.
More news from inside TeamHigella this morning from a Mr D.Cameron.Her Christmas day dinner party main will be her favourite -a very large joint.
Post edited at 09:39
In reply to Gelstat5:
News flash!
The criminal hard drug dealer that Higella Lawnone supports ....EXCLOOOOOOSIVE !!!!!!!!
'I got her a good un mate' He quipped before splurtting'She asked me for an ounce bag of green befour sayin"an a gram of cocaine"
'Well oi did nah wot to say Guvner so oi used me ol Drury Lane and said ...
"Oceanic????"
'She were well flummoxed like....for a coke ed !'
'Ha ha ha ha, em...ha'.
News flash!
The criminal hard drug dealer that Higella Lawnone supports ....EXCLOOOOOOSIVE !!!!!!!!
'I got her a good un mate' He quipped before splurtting'She asked me for an ounce bag of green befour sayin"an a gram of cocaine"
'Well oi did nah wot to say Guvner so oi used me ol Drury Lane and said ...
"Oceanic????"
'She were well flummoxed like....for a coke ed !'
'Ha ha ha ha, em...ha'.
Post edited at 18:45
In reply to icnoble:
Interviewer
Prime Minister, just how serious do you think the threat of drugs is to this country?
Prime Minister Thatcher
I think already we have far too much and we know it is serious and we know, as I indicated, that in recent years although the amount of heroin has gone up, the amount of cocaine has gone up even more.
Interviewer
You say the real thing is to start to tackle demand rather than supply. How are we going to do that?
Prime Minister Thatcher
We try to tackle it on all fronts. We do try to tackle supply and as you know—you heard President Barco—they do everything possible, but it is very difficult. We try to follow the drug pedlars and we try also to take the proceeds of drug laundering but of course, there would not be a market unless there were people who consumed drugs and therefore we thought it best to try to get at those as well, not in substitution for action on other fronts but as well.
Interviewer
Prime Minister, just how serious do you think the threat of drugs is to this country?
Prime Minister Thatcher
I think already we have far too much and we know it is serious and we know, as I indicated, that in recent years although the amount of heroin has gone up, the amount of cocaine has gone up even more.
Interviewer
You say the real thing is to start to tackle demand rather than supply. How are we going to do that?
Prime Minister Thatcher
We try to tackle it on all fronts. We do try to tackle supply and as you know—you heard President Barco—they do everything possible, but it is very difficult. We try to follow the drug pedlars and we try also to take the proceeds of drug laundering but of course, there would not be a market unless there were people who consumed drugs and therefore we thought it best to try to get at those as well, not in substitution for action on other fronts but as well.
Post edited at 19:25
In reply to off-duty:
"If I can't have her (i.e. possess her), nobody else is going to have her..."
"If I can't have her, her career's in tatters..."
"If I can't have her... [fill in the rest]"
If you want to live in hope, I'm told it makes a good breakfast... but a bad supper."
Mick
> I can't think why Saatchi would possibly try and discredit her, other than he has been running a consistent campaign since the divorce to try and paint her as black and him as (excuse the pun)- white.
"If I can't have her (i.e. possess her), nobody else is going to have her..."
"If I can't have her, her career's in tatters..."
"If I can't have her... [fill in the rest]"
> I am quite sure that police officers sniff coke, and use other class A's. Hopefully they get lifted for it and sacked.
If you want to live in hope, I'm told it makes a good breakfast... but a bad supper."
Mick
In reply to Gelstat5:
It would appear that the convention of not kicking a person when they're down is wasted on you.
Mick
It would appear that the convention of not kicking a person when they're down is wasted on you.
Mick
In reply to Gelstat5:
Wasn't Nigel listening ????
> Interviewer
> Prime Minister, just how serious do you think the threat of drugs is to this country?
> Prime Minister Thatcher
> I think already we have far too much and we know it is serious and we know, as I indicated, that in recent years although the amount of heroin has gone up, the amount of cocaine has gone up even more.
> Interviewer
> You say the real thing is to start to tackle demand rather than supply. How are we going to do that?
> Prime Minister Thatcher
> We try to tackle it on all fronts. We do try to tackle supply and as you know—you heard President Barco—they do everything possible, but it is very difficult. We try to follow the drug pedlars and we try also to take the proceeds of drug laundering but of course, there would not be a market unless there were people who consumed drugs and therefore we thought it best to try to get at those as well, not in substitution for action on other fronts but as well.
Wasn't Nigel listening ????
In reply to Mick Ward:
Tell that to team Tory Mick,tell it to teamtory.
> It would appear that the convention of not kicking a person when they're down is wasted on you.
> Mick
Tell that to team Tory Mick,tell it to teamtory.
In reply to Mick Ward:
Is she destitute Mick?
Penniless?
Selling the Big Issue?
Does she have less than £10 million?
Property and shares included?
Do you think she'll have to sign on?
Go on the game?
Starve?
Junkie ....well.
My heart bleeds.
> It would appear that the convention of not kicking a person when they're down is wasted on you.
> Mick
Is she destitute Mick?
Penniless?
Selling the Big Issue?
Does she have less than £10 million?
Property and shares included?
Do you think she'll have to sign on?
Go on the game?
Starve?
Junkie ....well.
My heart bleeds.
Post edited at 21:05
In reply to The New NickB:
Hush Toryboy,hush.Your junkie kitchen goddess is exposed,i know it's hard to accept but there's no need to be rude and abusive now,it isn't me supporting hard drug dealers now is it?C'mon be the good Tory you are now.
Hush Toryboy,hush.Your junkie kitchen goddess is exposed,i know it's hard to accept but there's no need to be rude and abusive now,it isn't me supporting hard drug dealers now is it?C'mon be the good Tory you are now.
Post edited at 21:31
In reply to icnoble:
Do you think Nigel Lawson deregulated cocaine use for the upper classes just like he deregulated everything else?
Do you think Nigel Lawson deregulated cocaine use for the upper classes just like he deregulated everything else?
In reply to Oceanrower:
No not 'the Shona' mate but i did admire her and her srong stance.
> Shona? Is that you?
No not 'the Shona' mate but i did admire her and her srong stance.
> Do you think Nigel Lawson deregulated cocaine use for the upper classes just like he deregulated everything else?
Maybe he slipped it in casual like,who would have thought that after all? rich Tory stockmarket gamblers bangin the white,nah ! too far fetched.
In reply to Gelstat5:
I'm no Nigela fan, I would follow Team Arsehole, if they were, well err funny xx
I'm no Nigela fan, I would follow Team Arsehole, if they were, well err funny xx
In reply to The New NickB:
You are a Tory NickB and a member of teamwan**er but i ain't no Shona.
Merry Crimbo Toryboy !
You are a Tory NickB and a member of teamwan**er but i ain't no Shona.
Merry Crimbo Toryboy !
In reply to Gelstat5:
You're still struggling on that fuuny thing! Wanker, that's fine, but Toryboy really is out of order. Anyway, night Shona, I hope Santa brings the revolution you want xx
You're still struggling on that fuuny thing! Wanker, that's fine, but Toryboy really is out of order. Anyway, night Shona, I hope Santa brings the revolution you want xx
In reply to The New NickB:
Hopefully Shona will take some fun from your boring,dreary,predictable and ...sorry i nodded off just thinking about your dullness.
Night ToryNick,and maybe one day soon you will see how very very Tory you actually are.
Hopefully Shona will take some fun from your boring,dreary,predictable and ...sorry i nodded off just thinking about your dullness.
Night ToryNick,and maybe one day soon you will see how very very Tory you actually are.
In reply to icnoble:
Last one for the ClassADrugusingToryteam...higella -
youtube.com/watch?v=mN7LW0Y00kE&
End.
Last one for the ClassADrugusingToryteam...higella -
youtube.com/watch?v=mN7LW0Y00kE&
End.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...