For all of you on a baccy run .....



Take care now :)
Posted by at
Labels: , ,

6 comments:

  1. AnonymousWednesday, March 30, 2011 12:17:00 pm

    luv it!

    ReplyDelete
  2. SHINAR'S BASKET CASEWednesday, March 30, 2011 12:33:00 pm

    Remember when I said 'Ian Huntley' would have more rights than a baccy smuggler?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1370954/Heroin-dealers-escape-jail-New-sentencing-proposals-mean-pushers-free.html

    Let me say though that I do NOT read the Daily Fail. I'm NOT an overweight british armchair xenophobe with the IQ of a retarded amoeba. Hell I don't read any of the red tops, its a class thing.

    BUT my Frau, who is both German and mentally ill and can therefore be excused, does read it and yesterday's headline caught my eye as I was binning her copy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Smoking HotWednesday, March 30, 2011 1:56:00 pm

    "For cannabis, the punishments are even softer. A subordinate dealer could avoid jail even if they were involved in the supply of up to 50kg of the Class B drug."

    l see your point SBC, wonder if the same applies to 'white van man' selling up to 50kg of tobacco?

    So this is the new strategy for drug dealers. l await with bated breath the new strategy that is imminent from HMRC/UKBA regarding tobacco ... maybe they too will soften their approach? ;)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Shinar's Basket CaseWednesday, March 30, 2011 2:12:00 pm

    50 kgs of tobacco??!

    They'd have "Armed Response" circling the White Van in a helicopter and probably tazer him, his wife and his dawg. If they didn't send a Sassman Kill Squad in first.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousThursday, March 31, 2011 8:51:00 am

    One point in that song cannot happen anymore. You are no longer allowed to smoke on any train :(

    ReplyDelete
  6. PropThursday, March 31, 2011 9:17:00 am

    'allowed' and 'cant' are not the same

    ReplyDelete

"In the eyes of the Tribunal the review letter contained several preconceptions, prejudgments and non-sequiturs"

"the absurdity of this reason is demonstrated by simply stating it"

"We therefore find that Mr Sked misdirected himself as to the Policy in carrying out the review and his decision is therefore one that no reasonable review officer could have arrived at."

... commonly known here at N2D as 'Skeds' ... that is to say these are Judges comments regarding UKBA Review Officer Ian Sked's reasons for rejecting peoples appeals against seizures.

Comments are now moderated to keep out spam and those with malicious intent. The author of this blog is not liable for the content of any comments ... period!

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)