Should the Home Secretary be arrested?

Anthony Butcher · 19-07-2007, 06:28 PM

Should the Home Secretary and the six other Labour ministers who have admitted smoking cannabis be arrested, and receive at least an official police caution?

It seems to me that the only difference between them and people being arrested for possession now is that they didn't get caught.

Westcountryman · 19-07-2007, 06:40 PM

Yep, they've admitted to a criminal offence. Joe Public would get arrested, so should they.

tito · 19-07-2007, 08:19 PM

Yes, it is their own stupid law so they can bloody well suffer from it.

rjt · 20-07-2007, 07:19 AM

No they should not be arrested, as adults they can show they have learnt from their mistakes and be good publicity in order to advertise what an evil canabis is.

Alex McKee · 20-07-2007, 10:15 AM

No, they shouldn't be arrested unless an 'ordinary' member of the public would be in the same circumstances. I think it's unlikely that someone would be arrested for a minor crime committed 20 or 30 years ago.

TonyG · 20-07-2007, 12:31 PM

No. I doubt that an admission of that nature would constitute sufficient evidence to bring charges.
If they can't find enough evidence of cash fror honours then they would hardly be likely to make that one stand up.

Anthony Butcher · 20-07-2007, 01:10 PM

Do you not think that they should receive a formal caution from the police?

I am sure that anyone found in possession in front of a police officer would be arrested and then given a warning. Is that not so? I don't see how this is any different.

I am merely suggesting that they should get exactly the same treatment as anyone found in possession today.

TonyG · 20-07-2007, 01:11 PM

Bu they haven't been 'found in possession', it's no evidence at all.

Anthony Butcher · 20-07-2007, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TonyG

Bu they haven't been 'found in possession', it's no evidence at all.

Are you calling the Home Secretary a liar?

TonyG · 20-07-2007, 01:33 PM

No, but people do get confused a little after a spliff or two...

View Poll Results: Should the Home Secretary be arrested for smoking cannabis?
Yes	17	51.52%
No	12	36.36%
Don't Know / Care	4	12.12%
Voters: 33. You may not vote on this poll

19-07-2007, 06:28 PM	#1 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,538 Party: None	Should the Home Secretary be arrested? Should the Home Secretary and the six other Labour ministers who have admitted smoking cannabis be arrested, and receive at least an official police caution? It seems to me that the only difference between them and people being arrested for possession now is that they didn't get caught.

19-07-2007, 06:40 PM	#2 (permalink)
Westcountryman Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: The Westcountry. Posts: 5,827 Party: None	Yep, they've admitted to a criminal offence. Joe Public would get arrested, so should they. __________________ the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie. the cake is a lie.

20-07-2007, 12:31 PM	#6 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	No. I doubt that an admission of that nature would constitute sufficient evidence to bring charges. If they can't find enough evidence of cash fror honours then they would hardly be likely to make that one stand up. __________________ If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you? ---- http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

20-07-2007, 01:11 PM	#8 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	Bu they haven't been 'found in possession', it's no evidence at all. __________________ If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you? ---- http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

20-07-2007, 07:19 AM	#4 (permalink)
rjt Uber Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Aldershot Posts: 5,173	No they should not be arrested, as adults they can show they have learnt from their mistakes and be good publicity in order to advertise what an evil canabis is.

20-07-2007, 10:15 AM	#5 (permalink)
Alex McKee Moderator Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Gloucester Posts: 6,569	No, they shouldn't be arrested unless an 'ordinary' member of the public would be in the same circumstances. I think it's unlikely that someone would be arrested for a minor crime committed 20 or 30 years ago.

20-07-2007, 01:10 PM	#7 (permalink)
Anthony Butcher Administrator Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Long Ashton, Bristol Posts: 9,538 Party: None	Do you not think that they should receive a formal caution from the police? I am sure that anyone found in possession in front of a police officer would be arrested and then given a warning. Is that not so? I don't see how this is any different. I am merely suggesting that they should get exactly the same treatment as anyone found in possession today.

20-07-2007, 01:33 PM	#10 (permalink)
TonyG Uber Member Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 2,589	No, but people do get confused a little after a spliff or two... __________________ If you don't think you can change the world, who do you expect to do it for you? ---- http://www.mercola.com/townofallopat...ofallopath.htm

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode