no s**t Sherlock you missed the point
Nope, re-read your own post... you’re the one who’s very much missed the point.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
no s**t Sherlock you missed the point
He was found guilty of two counts of trafficking a large commercial quantity of ecstasy and methylamphetamine and one count of inciting to import a commercial quantity of ecstasy.Selling drugs to people who want them (allegedly).
Not a criminal.
Next.
He was found guilty of two counts of trafficking a large commercial quantity of ecstasy and methylamphetamine and one count of inciting to import a commercial quantity of ecstasy.
I'm generally pro legalisation too. However, the fact is Fat Tony broke the law as it stands.Yeah...........and?
I can't possibly be pro-legalisation then support incarceration of the supply side can I?
It's not as if any of these individuals created the market or that there was a significant drop off after they were incarcerated.
I'm generally pro legalisation too. However, the fact is Fat Tony broke the law as it stands.
As we speak, it is. Time will tell whether recent happenings change that matter.Actually mate, it remains to be seen whether that is a "fact" according to law.
As we speak, it is.
Mate, we may well be on the same page regarding the likelihood of his - and possibly others - findings being quashed or new trials ordered. The latter being the most likely I reckon. But as we speak he remains in the jug because the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal found against him.As we speak, it's subject to appeal, and if you have been following me in this thread then you will understand that I am very confident their appeals will get up.
Just quietly Tony's drugs were bloody fantastic quality, hopefully he's back on the streets soon! We've missed you Tones!
No that's in the USA legal system not hereIt can be denied if it was obtained illegally... that's the law of the land.
They probably wont, also many of these people pleaded guilty .Rubbish.
You’re not guilty cos you’re guilty.
You’re guilty because you’re proven guilty in a court of law.
In a court of law, everybody - including you - has the right to a defence.
If your defence is working with police, you’re not actually getting a true defence.
If anybody walks free due to this, they’ll thoroughly deserve to.
Williams had a handy little business going pressing pills for the Morans until he got greedy and started cutting their lunch. Allegedly.Mokbel knew the business - high quality gear, at a price point that made taking lots possible, which meant enough cash flow to buy off whoever caused problems, as nothing is worse for the drug business than murders dragging in police attention.
William's hitting the crack pipe which made him burn with revenge for the Morans shooting him stuffed Tony.
They probably wont, also many of these people pleaded guilty .
Williams had a handy little business going pressing pills for the Morans until he got greedy and started cutting their lunch. Allegedly.
Williams was the root cause of the gangland wars.
Yes but the flip side is you could end up with a longer sentence, because they pleaded guilty they got a discountCan still be appealed. Noel Ashby (I think) or someone appealed a guilty verdict from a plea and the slate was wiped.
Yes but the flip side is you could end up with a longer sentence, because they pleaded guilty they got a discount
They will want to test it out with a low risk case first
Perhaps but evidence later found to be from a tainted source has plenty of history.This isn't your run of the mill appeal scenario.
Perhaps but evidence later found to be from a tainted source has plenty of history.
His contract was up in a couple months anywayInteresting timing.
Victims of Crime Commissioner and former Police Association secretary Greg Davies announces he has quit. “You always like to think you could have achieved more, and I would like to have achieved more than we have.”
Yes, I am familiar with section 138 of the Evidence Act, Brown & Dunning etc.
This is very different.
Why on what basis are they going to challenge it?