UKC

Tulisa has been charged, while the police didn't want to know about Nigella's confessed cocaine use. AFAIK, Tulisa has been accused of supplying drugs (as in, she knew someone who could get some), while Nigella just used them (albeit with some involvement of her children, IIRC).

Is the main difference in the approach of the authorities the background of the two individuals?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


It's not an offence to "know someone who can get drugs". It is an offence to be concerned in the supply. Tulisa is alleged to have not just volunteered a number but provided the introduction and explained what to ask for.

Nigella has admitted historic possession offences. All other allegations were aabout drugs paraphenalia etc.


Different offences and different amounts of evidence.
Though I see the Met are looking into the Lawson case.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

No, I think its because they were presented with evidence that could secure a conviction in the case of Tulisa, that and its a much more serious crime.

The Nigella case is odd, because whilst they have a confession, they dont have physical evidence, and the crime is minor

In reply to balmybaldwin:

An inadmissible confession at that.

I presume she just needs to do a "no comment" interview, and unless people crawl out of the woodwork to testify against her, she's home and hosed.

I wonder if social services will poke their nose in?

In reply to off-duty:

Although you possibly wont believe me, I'm genuinely interested.

You seem to only post on this site when it concerns the Law, and you seem to have very little or no interest in actual climbing at all.

I understand that there are no rules saying you have to have an interest in climbing to use the UKC forums, but what purpose are you using the forums, other than policing these silly threads.

Again I don't want to cause offence to you!

In reply to xplorer:

I've explained before. I might well post under a different user name

A hangover from the more heated debates with people like niggle.

I sometimes just post for the sake of an argument - cf. Syria, socialism, conspiracy woo.

I hope this is alright with you...

In reply to xplorer:

Think of it like this: he's UKC's super-ego. You're the ego. The id? Choss, Birdie or something.

In reply to felt:

And you're the ego too??? Felt.....?

In reply to felt:

out with dog, currently hiding in a bus Shelter hiding From hells Heaviest coldest hailstorm. Felt my ears burning.

Not sure what an id is, but i am disappointed in this thread. I read the Title and Thought it was going to be: who would win in a fight. Or, if you had to, which would you?

In reply to xplorer:

In case you hadn't realised, there are plenty of other prolific posters on here who don't appear to climb much, but contribute to UKC's community and the place is all the better for it.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Just chat among yourselves...

In reply to Choss:


Yes, the id's you and no mistake.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Then it'd definitely be supplying...

In reply to Ramblin dave:



Be interesting to see which line they take (Boom Tish)

Apologies

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

mud wrestling?

Team Tulisa!

In reply to mack:

I snorted at that!

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Latest rumour is that Nigella buys her coke from Tulisa!!

In reply to mgco3:

Ha!