Drug gang get 29 years in jail

The scene in Northumberland Road

The scene in Northumberland Road

First published in Crime

THEY were vying for control of the drugs supply in Southampton and across the south coast.

Each member of this eight-man gang played a vital part in peddling heroin and crack cocaine on the streets of the city – determined to be the main suppliers and dealers in the area.

But today all but one are behind bars, serving sentences totalling 29 years after a serious crime led detectives to uncover and disband one of the key drugs supply networks, known as ‘Marcus’, which has been operating in the city for years.

It was in the early hours of April 9, 2011 – just 12 hours after a fatal shooting at the city’s docks on board a submarine in a completely unrelated incident – that a gun was fired again, elsewhere in Southampton.

At a house in Northumberland Road, seven shots were fired into the communal area from an automatic machine gun and the victim, Aaron Conway, was left with a gunshot wound to the foot.

It was the latest incident of increasing drugs-related violence in Southampton and it had reached a shocking new level.

But despite the efforts of police, witnesses were reluctant to help and Conway said little to assist.

However, it was during the initial investigations into what had happened that police recovered a mobile phone that was to help them unravel some of the most serious drug-related trouble in Southampton, as well as disturb the flow of class A drugs into the city. The mobile, known as the “deal” or “dirty” phone, was central to the mysteriously- named Marcus network. It contained key phone numbers, but was also the point at which users could place orders.

Last August officers from the Hampshire Major Investigation Team (HMIT) launched an investigation, codenamed Operation Lundy, aimed at discovering exactly what was going on and how vast amounts of crack cocaine and heroin were being brought to the south coast from London.

Using a variety of tactics, including surveillance on properties and undercover officers to buy drugs, they watched the movements of Paul Hughes, Ahmed Salim, Jamiu Abdulrahman, Justin Barton, Conway, Philip Walker, Mohammed Sharmarke and Joseph Horgan.

It quickly became apparent that Salim, using a rented red Mini Cooper, was transporting the drugs from the capital to Southampton – racking up more than 18,000 miles in the three months police were watching him.

They found that as well as in Northumberland Road, a property already linked to Conway, there was related activity in Hill Farm Road and Chapel Road, near St Mary’s Stadium. Undercover officers posing as drug users managed to buy crack cocaine and heroin several times, setting up deals by calling the “dirty”

phone and speaking to Hughes, who would then meet the buyers himself or send out runners to complete the transaction.

Southampton Crown Court heard how on one occasion officer had been directed to a bus stop in Hill Lane to collect their goods, while another time the drugs were handed over near to homes in Wilton Avenue. Drug deals would also regularly take place in and around the city centre, close to St Mary’s Church or the nearby underpass.

Over the course of the next three months police watched members of the gang coming to and from the various houses, depositing cash at banks, visiting a locksmith and carrying a safe to a property in Carlton Place.

They arrested Abdulrahman twice – once after the landlord of the Northumberland Road property reported concerns about drug dealing, and a month later in a swoop at Mayflower Park.

The first time they found he had £200 cash on him, and when he was picked up in the park he was carrying 19 drug wraps and a deal list.

Salim, who had earlier been spotted in a Jaguar showroom admiring a car worth £68,000, was also arrested in the Mayflower Park raid.

He was found to have two mobile phones on him, and his fingerprints were on the deal list.

Conway, meanwhile, was stopped in the street, searched and found with 25 wraps of cocaine, cannabis and cash.

As the operation developed, investigators built up a picture of a network supplying large quantities of drugs from London to key properties in Southampton and West Sussex, from where they were sold. Armed with the evidence, a team of 100 officers and police staff carried out dawn raids across Hampshire, London and Surrey on December 6 last year, arresting 11 people. In total, £16,000-worth of heroin and crack cocaine was recovered or known to have been dealt.

The safe the dealers had been seen with was found at a Kingsclere Avenue squat where Hughes was living. It had traces of class A drugs on it, and officers discovered the key on Salim.

Eight members of the network were charged, with all but one admitting their part in the conspiracy.

Barton, the only one who denied involvement, was convicted by a Southampton Crown Court jury earlier this year.

Detective Inspector Simon Baker, who led Operation Lundy, said: “This investigation stemmed from an incident in April 2011 when a sub-machine gun was discharged on the streets of Southampton. This incident could easily have resulted in a murder and it was only through pure luck that it didn’t.

“Officers from HMIT were determined to rid the streets of those involved in the supply of class A drugs in the city. We used a variety of tactics to obtain sufficient evidence to ensure these individuals were convicted for their roles in a well organised drug network, and I am proud of the tireless work my team has done to achieve this.”

The Gang Members:

Daily Echo: Paul Hughes

PAUL HUGHES - Sentence: Six years

HEROIN addict Hughes was a major player in the network, commanding and co-ordinating a string of runners beneath him after getting into dealing to pay off his own huge drug debts.
The Ireland-born 31-year-old, of Kingsclere Avenue, Southampton, had the mobile phone at the
centre of the conspiracy, regularly contacting Salim and Conway to organise deliveries from London to the main stash houses. Police found a safe at the dad-of-one’s house, while he had £870 in cash on him when he was arrested in October.

Daily Echo: Ahmed Salim

AHMED SALIM - Sentence: Five years

SALIM was in charge of logistics for the gang, ferrying heroin and crack cocaine from London to
properties in Southampton and West Sussex. Driving up and down the M3 virtually every day, the 22-year-old clocked up more than 18,000 miles in just three months visiting Bournemouth, Portsmouth and Eastbourne in a rented Mini Cooper. Salim, from London, was said to be motivated by money and played an important “management function” in the chain, close to the source of the drugs.

Daily Echo: Jamiu Abdulrahman

JAMIU ABDULRAHMAN - Sentence: Three years

THE youngest member of the conspiracy, Abdulrahman got into drug-dealing to make money he hoped to use to finance his music business. The 18-year-old, from London, was born in Nigeria and brought to the UK by his parents. A street dealer, he was seen on several occasions at locations around Southampton where drugs were sold, and was forensically linked to individual deals through DNA evidence.

Daily Echo: Aaron Conway

AARON CONWAY - Sentence: Six years.

THE victim of the shooting that sparked the investigation, Conway started out as a street dealer but progressed through the organisation. Known to have strong links to the organisation in  London, he was seen associating with Salim and Hughes and was spotted travelling in the rented Mini Cooper used to bring drugs from the capital to the south coast. The 27-year-old, from London, was seen at premises used for selling drugs, and was arrested with Barton at a known dealing location in Portsmouth.

Daily Echo: Joseph Morgan

JOSEPH HORGAN - Sentence: Supervision order

THE drugs runner made more than 20 transactions with undercover officers. The 30-year-old dad-of-two was once a civil engineer who held down full-time jobs, but became a “hanger-on” to the conspiracy through his heroin addiction. He performed a lesser role in the network, but did have knowledge of the scope of the operation and worked as part of gang. Horgan, of Bellevue Road, Southampton, has an extensive list of previous convictions, including many for class B drugs.

Daily Echo: Mohammed Sharmake

MOHAMMED SHARMARKE - Sentence: Three years.

A TRUSTED carrier for the gang, Sharmarke brought £16,000-worth of crack cocaine and heroin to Hill Farm Road in December 2011. The 28-year-old father-of-two from London, played a limited role under the direction of others, but prosecutors said he must have had some clear idea of the scale of the Marcus operation. Although his list of previous convictions was not as serious as
others’, it included possession of cocaine with intent to supply.

Daily Echo: Justin Barton

JUSTIN BARTON - Sentence: Four years

THE only member of the gang to deny his role, Barton was a senior runner motivated by cash.
Police found text messages that proved he was in contact with other members of the conspiracy on significant days, and when he was arrested he had £247 in cash and three wraps of heroin on him. The 20-year-old, from Orpington in Surrey, remains in denial about his involvement, but was proved to have a significant role as a runner, with money being deposited into his account by Salim.

Daily Echo: Philip Walker

PHILIP WALKER - Sentence: 26 months

STREET dealer Walker admitted to police he had been “stupid” after repeatedly selling drugs to
undercover officers investigating the gang. The 42-year-old, of Greenlea Crescent, Southampton, was attempting to grow cannabis plants at home when he was arrested.
But while he hoped to net himself up to £24,000 a year harvesting the crop every six weeks, his heroin addiction meant his “hapless” attempts were unlikely to have got the plants to full maturity.

Comments (21)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:00pm Fri 31 Aug 12

ajw1986 says...

crikey, a supervision order among them? 100% should be jailed not just 99%.

Still nice to see an in depth article here on DE!! :)

Small step towards drug crime but a good one nonetheless.
crikey, a supervision order among them? 100% should be jailed not just 99%. Still nice to see an in depth article here on DE!! :) Small step towards drug crime but a good one nonetheless. ajw1986
  • Score: 0

12:10pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Georgem says...

ajw1986 wrote:
crikey, a supervision order among them? 100% should be jailed not just 99%.

Still nice to see an in depth article here on DE!! :)

Small step towards drug crime but a good one nonetheless.
The guy that got the supervision order undertook 20 transactions with undercover cops. Looks like he was their 'in' to the gang, so the chances are he was given a deal: squeal on the rest of the gang and we'll keep you out of prison.
[quote][p][bold]ajw1986[/bold] wrote: crikey, a supervision order among them? 100% should be jailed not just 99%. Still nice to see an in depth article here on DE!! :) Small step towards drug crime but a good one nonetheless.[/p][/quote]The guy that got the supervision order undertook 20 transactions with undercover cops. Looks like he was their 'in' to the gang, so the chances are he was given a deal: squeal on the rest of the gang and we'll keep you out of prison. Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:12pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Dasal says...

Excellent work by HMIT. A job well done.
What a pity our legal system doesn't allow for a heavier sentence for this scum.
Excellent work by HMIT. A job well done. What a pity our legal system doesn't allow for a heavier sentence for this scum. Dasal
  • Score: 0

12:23pm Fri 31 Aug 12

bigfella777 says...

The prison population is made up of 2 types of people these days,those who deal drugs and those who take drugs who have to commit crime to feed their habit.
Well done for for a succesful operation but I would have to say if this pattern is going to change in this country the sentences have to be much harsher,how long would somebody get in South East Asia for this?
It seems especially lenient when you think that somebody was going around firing a machine gun on Southamptons streets.
The prison population is made up of 2 types of people these days,those who deal drugs and those who take drugs who have to commit crime to feed their habit. Well done for for a succesful operation but I would have to say if this pattern is going to change in this country the sentences have to be much harsher,how long would somebody get in South East Asia for this? It seems especially lenient when you think that somebody was going around firing a machine gun on Southamptons streets. bigfella777
  • Score: 0

1:27pm Fri 31 Aug 12

mtdiablo says...

Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.
Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to. mtdiablo
  • Score: 0

2:27pm Fri 31 Aug 12

arthur dalyrimple says...

can,t beat cultural enrichment.
can,t beat cultural enrichment. arthur dalyrimple
  • Score: 0

9:46pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Inform Al says...

Suspended sentences on a short rope sounds appropriate.
Suspended sentences on a short rope sounds appropriate. Inform Al
  • Score: 0

10:33pm Fri 31 Aug 12

peenut81 says...

8 down, 50000 to go, 500020, 50030, 50040 get the picture..?
A pointless and un-winnable campaign trying to rid the streets of drugs.
8 down, 50000 to go, 500020, 50030, 50040 get the picture..? A pointless and un-winnable campaign trying to rid the streets of drugs. peenut81
  • Score: 0

11:31pm Fri 31 Aug 12

Georgem says...

peenut81 wrote:
8 down, 50000 to go, 500020, 50030, 50040 get the picture..?
A pointless and un-winnable campaign trying to rid the streets of drugs.
I agree. Here's a thought-provoking exercise, though. What would it take to legalise drugs? I mean, seriously think about it. Take the legality of alcohol as a prototype - the age limits involved, the licensing of manufacture, wholesale, retail, the purchase laws, who can consume what, when, what other activities, such as driving, can be done under what quantities, and a load of other aspects - and try and get a picture of what it would logistically take for a country to legalise drugs. Don't forget, of course, that with just alcohol legal at the moment, it's pretty simple, but with a multitude of different substances suddenly available, combinations of things complicate matters exponentially.

I'm not even looking to discuss this with anybody. Don't feel obliged to reply with anything. Just give the issue some serious thought, for your own entertainment, or interest, or whatever.

For the record, I'm very much in favour of making drugs a public health and a social issue, rather than a criminal one. The thought of actually making that happen boggles the mind. Try it.
[quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: 8 down, 50000 to go, 500020, 50030, 50040 get the picture..? A pointless and un-winnable campaign trying to rid the streets of drugs.[/p][/quote]I agree. Here's a thought-provoking exercise, though. What would it take to legalise drugs? I mean, seriously think about it. Take the legality of alcohol as a prototype - the age limits involved, the licensing of manufacture, wholesale, retail, the purchase laws, who can consume what, when, what other activities, such as driving, can be done under what quantities, and a load of other aspects - and try and get a picture of what it would logistically take for a country to legalise drugs. Don't forget, of course, that with just alcohol legal at the moment, it's pretty simple, but with a multitude of different substances suddenly available, combinations of things complicate matters exponentially. I'm not even looking to discuss this with anybody. Don't feel obliged to reply with anything. Just give the issue some serious thought, for your own entertainment, or interest, or whatever. For the record, I'm very much in favour of making drugs a public health and a social issue, rather than a criminal one. The thought of actually making that happen boggles the mind. Try it. Georgem
  • Score: 0

11:19am Sat 1 Sep 12

Mr. Cleanstreets says...

mtdiablo wrote:
Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.
Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations?
Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work.
The mind control is out there, why not utilise it!
Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out.
Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.
[quote][p][bold]mtdiablo[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.[/p][/quote]Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations? Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work. The mind control is out there, why not utilise it! Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out. Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion. Mr. Cleanstreets
  • Score: 0

12:00pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Mr. Cleanstreets wrote:
mtdiablo wrote:
Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.
Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations?
Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work.
The mind control is out there, why not utilise it!
Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out.
Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.
So which country has managed to reduce crime by killing all the criminals?
[quote][p][bold]Mr. Cleanstreets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mtdiablo[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.[/p][/quote]Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations? Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work. The mind control is out there, why not utilise it! Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out. Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.[/p][/quote]So which country has managed to reduce crime by killing all the criminals? Georgem
  • Score: 0

12:11pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Mr. Cleanstreets says...

Georgem wrote:
Mr. Cleanstreets wrote:
mtdiablo wrote:
Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.
Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations?
Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work.
The mind control is out there, why not utilise it!
Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out.
Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.
So which country has managed to reduce crime by killing all the criminals?
I've given you some food for thought...
It's your turn to chew it and digest it.
Topic of conversation number 2:
The death penalty, should we bring it back?
Pro 1- At least citizen joe wouldn't have to pay for them to rot and plot in prison
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr. Cleanstreets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mtdiablo[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.[/p][/quote]Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations? Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work. The mind control is out there, why not utilise it! Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out. Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.[/p][/quote]So which country has managed to reduce crime by killing all the criminals?[/p][/quote]I've given you some food for thought... It's your turn to chew it and digest it. Topic of conversation number 2: The death penalty, should we bring it back? Pro 1- At least citizen joe wouldn't have to pay for them to rot and plot in prison Mr. Cleanstreets
  • Score: 0

12:22pm Sat 1 Sep 12

freefinker says...

Georgem wrote:
peenut81 wrote:
8 down, 50000 to go, 500020, 50030, 50040 get the picture..?
A pointless and un-winnable campaign trying to rid the streets of drugs.
I agree. Here's a thought-provoking exercise, though. What would it take to legalise drugs? I mean, seriously think about it. Take the legality of alcohol as a prototype - the age limits involved, the licensing of manufacture, wholesale, retail, the purchase laws, who can consume what, when, what other activities, such as driving, can be done under what quantities, and a load of other aspects - and try and get a picture of what it would logistically take for a country to legalise drugs. Don't forget, of course, that with just alcohol legal at the moment, it's pretty simple, but with a multitude of different substances suddenly available, combinations of things complicate matters exponentially.

I'm not even looking to discuss this with anybody. Don't feel obliged to reply with anything. Just give the issue some serious thought, for your own entertainment, or interest, or whatever.

For the record, I'm very much in favour of making drugs a public health and a social issue, rather than a criminal one. The thought of actually making that happen boggles the mind. Try it.
You make a lot of good points. I too have maintained that drugs should be treated primarily as a health issue. The illegality of drugs under the current system only helps to boost organised crime, while not solving any of the problems drugs create. The so called ‘War on Drugs’ is a joke.

But we do need to be more precise when discussing ‘drugs’. Some are more or less harmless, certainly a LOT less harmful that the currently legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol. Some do cause considerable harm to the users. Some are highly physically addictive; others present absolutely no addiction problems.

Yet when the government’s previous chief scientific drugs advisor, Prof Nutt, dared to actually talk about the large body of accumulated evidence in a rational way, he was dismissed.

Unfortunately, it would seem the influence of the Daily Mail on politicians of all political persuasions is so great that rational debate and practical policies to the drugs ‘problem’ will never be allowed.

So, we continue with the current phony and unwinnable ‘war’, to the detriment of addicts and users, the prison service and the health service. But it sure is a major winner for organised crime.
[quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]peenut81[/bold] wrote: 8 down, 50000 to go, 500020, 50030, 50040 get the picture..? A pointless and un-winnable campaign trying to rid the streets of drugs.[/p][/quote]I agree. Here's a thought-provoking exercise, though. What would it take to legalise drugs? I mean, seriously think about it. Take the legality of alcohol as a prototype - the age limits involved, the licensing of manufacture, wholesale, retail, the purchase laws, who can consume what, when, what other activities, such as driving, can be done under what quantities, and a load of other aspects - and try and get a picture of what it would logistically take for a country to legalise drugs. Don't forget, of course, that with just alcohol legal at the moment, it's pretty simple, but with a multitude of different substances suddenly available, combinations of things complicate matters exponentially. I'm not even looking to discuss this with anybody. Don't feel obliged to reply with anything. Just give the issue some serious thought, for your own entertainment, or interest, or whatever. For the record, I'm very much in favour of making drugs a public health and a social issue, rather than a criminal one. The thought of actually making that happen boggles the mind. Try it.[/p][/quote]You make a lot of good points. I too have maintained that drugs should be treated primarily as a health issue. The illegality of drugs under the current system only helps to boost organised crime, while not solving any of the problems drugs create. The so called ‘War on Drugs’ is a joke. But we do need to be more precise when discussing ‘drugs’. Some are more or less harmless, certainly a LOT less harmful that the currently legal drugs of tobacco and alcohol. Some do cause considerable harm to the users. Some are highly physically addictive; others present absolutely no addiction problems. Yet when the government’s previous chief scientific drugs advisor, Prof Nutt, dared to actually talk about the large body of accumulated evidence in a rational way, he was dismissed. Unfortunately, it would seem the influence of the Daily Mail on politicians of all political persuasions is so great that rational debate and practical policies to the drugs ‘problem’ will never be allowed. So, we continue with the current phony and unwinnable ‘war’, to the detriment of addicts and users, the prison service and the health service. But it sure is a major winner for organised crime. freefinker
  • Score: 0

2:37pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Highfielder says...

I don't believe it would be right to de-criminalise drugs and I don't believe it is right to ignore to cannabis possession or use.
One of the reasons I am very much anti-drugs is because of the evidence of my own eyes when I walk through certain spots in Southampton (and other cities) and see young and prematurely aged and clearly brain-damaged drug users wasting their lives sitting on pavements begging for money for more drugs or a few cans of drink to blot out reality.
Even if drugs were made freely available what good would that do? It would mean more people dying after squandering their shortened lives and in the case of unlimited cannabis usage, paranoid delusions that often lead to suicides and murders.
Legalising drugs is a recipe for disaster.
Only draconian measures will reduce drug taking and the criminal drugs trade but as we no longer have enough police or border control officers or the national will to fight the drug trade it is unlikely to be a war we can win. However, congratulations to the Hampshire force for this victory.
I don't believe it would be right to de-criminalise drugs and I don't believe it is right to ignore to cannabis possession or use. One of the reasons I am very much anti-drugs is because of the evidence of my own eyes when I walk through certain spots in Southampton (and other cities) and see young and prematurely aged and clearly brain-damaged drug users wasting their lives sitting on pavements begging for money for more drugs or a few cans of drink to blot out reality. Even if drugs were made freely available what good would that do? It would mean more people dying after squandering their shortened lives and in the case of unlimited cannabis usage, paranoid delusions that often lead to suicides and murders. Legalising drugs is a recipe for disaster. Only draconian measures will reduce drug taking and the criminal drugs trade but as we no longer have enough police or border control officers or the national will to fight the drug trade it is unlikely to be a war we can win. However, congratulations to the Hampshire force for this victory. Highfielder
  • Score: 0

3:06pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Mr. Cleanstreets wrote:
Georgem wrote:
Mr. Cleanstreets wrote:
mtdiablo wrote:
Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.
Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations?
Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work.
The mind control is out there, why not utilise it!
Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out.
Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.
So which country has managed to reduce crime by killing all the criminals?
I've given you some food for thought...
It's your turn to chew it and digest it.
Topic of conversation number 2:
The death penalty, should we bring it back?
Pro 1- At least citizen joe wouldn't have to pay for them to rot and plot in prison
That's a no-brainer. We can't be trusted with the death penalty. As for Citizen Joe paying for them to rot in prison, well, that's the price of justice.
[quote][p][bold]Mr. Cleanstreets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Georgem[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Mr. Cleanstreets[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mtdiablo[/bold] wrote: Ah yes, South East Asia, the bastion of fair and just law enforcement. That's who we should be comparing ourselves to.[/p][/quote]Well mate, the penal system here is obviously not working. Let's try brainwashing them whilst they are in the brink and then send them off to the Middle East to perform various mine sweeping operations? Being a civilised country with a fair judicial system has not and will not work. The mind control is out there, why not utilise it! Or better still, just kill them all and let god sort them out. Call me a nutter if you wish but I bet deep down inside you secound my opinion.[/p][/quote]So which country has managed to reduce crime by killing all the criminals?[/p][/quote]I've given you some food for thought... It's your turn to chew it and digest it. Topic of conversation number 2: The death penalty, should we bring it back? Pro 1- At least citizen joe wouldn't have to pay for them to rot and plot in prison[/p][/quote]That's a no-brainer. We can't be trusted with the death penalty. As for Citizen Joe paying for them to rot in prison, well, that's the price of justice. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:09pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Georgem says...

Highfielder wrote:
I don't believe it would be right to de-criminalise drugs and I don't believe it is right to ignore to cannabis possession or use.
One of the reasons I am very much anti-drugs is because of the evidence of my own eyes when I walk through certain spots in Southampton (and other cities) and see young and prematurely aged and clearly brain-damaged drug users wasting their lives sitting on pavements begging for money for more drugs or a few cans of drink to blot out reality.
Even if drugs were made freely available what good would that do? It would mean more people dying after squandering their shortened lives and in the case of unlimited cannabis usage, paranoid delusions that often lead to suicides and murders.
Legalising drugs is a recipe for disaster.
Only draconian measures will reduce drug taking and the criminal drugs trade but as we no longer have enough police or border control officers or the national will to fight the drug trade it is unlikely to be a war we can win. However, congratulations to the Hampshire force for this victory.
Draconian measures have not even remotely succeeded, ever, anywhere. Time to try something new.
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: I don't believe it would be right to de-criminalise drugs and I don't believe it is right to ignore to cannabis possession or use. One of the reasons I am very much anti-drugs is because of the evidence of my own eyes when I walk through certain spots in Southampton (and other cities) and see young and prematurely aged and clearly brain-damaged drug users wasting their lives sitting on pavements begging for money for more drugs or a few cans of drink to blot out reality. Even if drugs were made freely available what good would that do? It would mean more people dying after squandering their shortened lives and in the case of unlimited cannabis usage, paranoid delusions that often lead to suicides and murders. Legalising drugs is a recipe for disaster. Only draconian measures will reduce drug taking and the criminal drugs trade but as we no longer have enough police or border control officers or the national will to fight the drug trade it is unlikely to be a war we can win. However, congratulations to the Hampshire force for this victory.[/p][/quote]Draconian measures have not even remotely succeeded, ever, anywhere. Time to try something new. Georgem
  • Score: 0

3:10pm Sat 1 Sep 12

freefinker says...

Highfielder wrote:
I don't believe it would be right to de-criminalise drugs and I don't believe it is right to ignore to cannabis possession or use.
One of the reasons I am very much anti-drugs is because of the evidence of my own eyes when I walk through certain spots in Southampton (and other cities) and see young and prematurely aged and clearly brain-damaged drug users wasting their lives sitting on pavements begging for money for more drugs or a few cans of drink to blot out reality.
Even if drugs were made freely available what good would that do? It would mean more people dying after squandering their shortened lives and in the case of unlimited cannabis usage, paranoid delusions that often lead to suicides and murders.
Legalising drugs is a recipe for disaster.
Only draconian measures will reduce drug taking and the criminal drugs trade but as we no longer have enough police or border control officers or the national will to fight the drug trade it is unlikely to be a war we can win. However, congratulations to the Hampshire force for this victory.
.. seems you too, like politicians, get your 'facts' from the Daily Mail rather than scientific literature.
[quote][p][bold]Highfielder[/bold] wrote: I don't believe it would be right to de-criminalise drugs and I don't believe it is right to ignore to cannabis possession or use. One of the reasons I am very much anti-drugs is because of the evidence of my own eyes when I walk through certain spots in Southampton (and other cities) and see young and prematurely aged and clearly brain-damaged drug users wasting their lives sitting on pavements begging for money for more drugs or a few cans of drink to blot out reality. Even if drugs were made freely available what good would that do? It would mean more people dying after squandering their shortened lives and in the case of unlimited cannabis usage, paranoid delusions that often lead to suicides and murders. Legalising drugs is a recipe for disaster. Only draconian measures will reduce drug taking and the criminal drugs trade but as we no longer have enough police or border control officers or the national will to fight the drug trade it is unlikely to be a war we can win. However, congratulations to the Hampshire force for this victory.[/p][/quote].. seems you too, like politicians, get your 'facts' from the Daily Mail rather than scientific literature. freefinker
  • Score: 0

4:56pm Sat 1 Sep 12

SotonLad says...

Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.
Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change. SotonLad
  • Score: 0

5:23pm Sat 1 Sep 12

freefinker says...

SotonLad wrote:
Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.
‘Jailing one young criminal costs the taxpayer as much as £140,000 a year, a report says today. Locking up young offenders makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, the New Economics Foundation says.’
Guardian, Monday 1 March 2010

So that’s getting on for half a million quid it will cost us for one dude with ‘a couple of wraps’. Sounds like excellent value.

And the location of the money tree is?
[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.[/p][/quote]‘Jailing one young criminal costs the taxpayer as much as £140,000 a year, a report says today. Locking up young offenders makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, the New Economics Foundation says.’ Guardian, Monday 1 March 2010 So that’s getting on for half a million quid it will cost us for one dude with ‘a couple of wraps’. Sounds like excellent value. And the location of the money tree is? freefinker
  • Score: 0

6:12pm Sat 1 Sep 12

SotonLad says...

freefinker wrote:
SotonLad wrote:
Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.
‘Jailing one young criminal costs the taxpayer as much as £140,000 a year, a report says today. Locking up young offenders makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, the New Economics Foundation says.’
Guardian, Monday 1 March 2010

So that’s getting on for half a million quid it will cost us for one dude with ‘a couple of wraps’. Sounds like excellent value.

And the location of the money tree is?
We should be asking why it costs that much. Prisons are too comfortable, prisoners shouldn't have games consoles, etc... It's meant to be punishment, not a place to socialise with mates. I'm not saying they should live in squalor but it has to be a deterrent where as at the moment it's just a joke. The courts and sentencing are the biggest problem after all of the hard work is completed by the police.
[quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.[/p][/quote]‘Jailing one young criminal costs the taxpayer as much as £140,000 a year, a report says today. Locking up young offenders makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, the New Economics Foundation says.’ Guardian, Monday 1 March 2010 So that’s getting on for half a million quid it will cost us for one dude with ‘a couple of wraps’. Sounds like excellent value. And the location of the money tree is?[/p][/quote]We should be asking why it costs that much. Prisons are too comfortable, prisoners shouldn't have games consoles, etc... It's meant to be punishment, not a place to socialise with mates. I'm not saying they should live in squalor but it has to be a deterrent where as at the moment it's just a joke. The courts and sentencing are the biggest problem after all of the hard work is completed by the police. SotonLad
  • Score: 0

6:36pm Sat 1 Sep 12

Georgem says...

SotonLad wrote:
freefinker wrote:
SotonLad wrote:
Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.
‘Jailing one young criminal costs the taxpayer as much as £140,000 a year, a report says today. Locking up young offenders makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, the New Economics Foundation says.’
Guardian, Monday 1 March 2010

So that’s getting on for half a million quid it will cost us for one dude with ‘a couple of wraps’. Sounds like excellent value.

And the location of the money tree is?
We should be asking why it costs that much. Prisons are too comfortable, prisoners shouldn't have games consoles, etc... It's meant to be punishment, not a place to socialise with mates. I'm not saying they should live in squalor but it has to be a deterrent where as at the moment it's just a joke. The courts and sentencing are the biggest problem after all of the hard work is completed by the police.
Games consoles. TVs etc in prison serve a few purposes, none of which is "make it more pleasant for the prisoner". First, they keep prisoners occupied. If there's literally nothing for them to do, that spells trouble for the guards. It keeps them out of trouble. Second, they are a privilege, and as such, can be taken away from prisoners who step out of line. Keeping incarcerated people in line isn't as simple as beating them constantly, locking them up for longer, or other such measures. A mixture of carrot and stick, as with any other situation where a degree of control over people is is needed. Third, these luxuries give prisoners a degree of humanity. Why do we care about that? They ARE human beings. At some point, they're coming back into society. That's difficult enough without them having forgotten what normal life is like.

People have this idea that anything less than a gruel-and-beatings prison experience is some lily-livered liberal pandering to the human rights of prisoners. It isn't. It's pragmatism. It's realising that treating convicts like total subhuman scum, while perhaps satisfying and even deserved, doesn't actually solve the crime problem.
[quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]freefinker[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SotonLad[/bold] wrote: Cracking work by Hants police but as is often the case we have all been let down by the sentencing. Let's take an example - if someone was arrested for simple possession of a couple of wraps of heroin for their own use and they were sentencing to a minimum 3 years inside as a starting point, or someone arrested for possession with intent to supply got min 6 years (no serving half sentences) and so on then this may be more of a deterrent. No warnings, no cautions, etc.... Prison, and a lengthy sentence straight off. It has to change.[/p][/quote]‘Jailing one young criminal costs the taxpayer as much as £140,000 a year, a report says today. Locking up young offenders makes them more likely to commit further crimes and be unemployed later in life, the New Economics Foundation says.’ Guardian, Monday 1 March 2010 So that’s getting on for half a million quid it will cost us for one dude with ‘a couple of wraps’. Sounds like excellent value. And the location of the money tree is?[/p][/quote]We should be asking why it costs that much. Prisons are too comfortable, prisoners shouldn't have games consoles, etc... It's meant to be punishment, not a place to socialise with mates. I'm not saying they should live in squalor but it has to be a deterrent where as at the moment it's just a joke. The courts and sentencing are the biggest problem after all of the hard work is completed by the police.[/p][/quote]Games consoles. TVs etc in prison serve a few purposes, none of which is "make it more pleasant for the prisoner". First, they keep prisoners occupied. If there's literally nothing for them to do, that spells trouble for the guards. It keeps them out of trouble. Second, they are a privilege, and as such, can be taken away from prisoners who step out of line. Keeping incarcerated people in line isn't as simple as beating them constantly, locking them up for longer, or other such measures. A mixture of carrot and stick, as with any other situation where a degree of control over people is is needed. Third, these luxuries give prisoners a degree of humanity. Why do we care about that? They ARE human beings. At some point, they're coming back into society. That's difficult enough without them having forgotten what normal life is like. People have this idea that anything less than a gruel-and-beatings prison experience is some lily-livered liberal pandering to the human rights of prisoners. It isn't. It's pragmatism. It's realising that treating convicts like total subhuman scum, while perhaps satisfying and even deserved, doesn't actually solve the crime problem. Georgem
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree