Gran's not going to jail

BillieTheBot · April 2005

Story.
Remember that 66-year-old granny from Northumberland who admitted cooking with cannabis, dubbed "Mrs Morrocan Roll" in the P&D forums? Well, guess what? She's been spared jail! Patrician Tabram was given a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.

Nice, isn't it? May I say that I hope she carries on cooking with cannabis, maybe the police can focus on real criminals now. Like motorists. Or those who eat apples in cars. :rolleyes:

Former Member · April 2005

i suspected they wouldn't come down with the full weight of the law, good to see that sense has prevailed..........i don't get the whole suspended sentence thing tho, how does that work.........i love the way she says she will still use it, just now she just gets her dealer to sort her mates out instead, completely defiant...........the whole state of affairs is ridiculous anyways, the drug companies are trying to keep a lid on this bcos they can't make money off it, outrageous.....

Former Member · April 2005

stargalaxy wrote:

Story.
Remember that 66-year-old granny from Northumberland who admitted cooking with cannabis, dubbed "Mrs Morrocan Roll" in the P&D forums? Well, guess what? She's been spared jail! Patrician Tabram was given a six-month prison sentence, suspended for two years.

Nice, isn't it? May I say that I hope she carries on cooking with cannabis, maybe the police can focus on real criminals now. Like motorists. Or those who eat apples in cars. :rolleyes:

well said!! leave her alone! and focus on the bastard that slashed my tyres!

Former Member · April 2005

you've just reminded me,where is rolly?

Former Member · April 2005

i'm glad she hasnt gone to prison, however if she was 21 not 66 she would be doing porridge right now. She has received sensible mitigation only because of who she is, and this has afforded her the opportunity to build a case publicly through the media.

Anyone else might have been made an example of. This might be interesting in terms of legal precident.

Former Member · April 2005

apollo_69 wrote:

...i don't get the whole suspended sentence thing tho, how does that work...

What this means is she has to keep out of trouble for two years. If she commits any criminal offences during that time, she's sent straight to jail to serve the full term.

Former Member · April 2005

She only got off with it because of her age. She was found with 21 bags of skunk, if that had have been some young person I bet the sentence would look alot different.

Former Member · April 2005

Shogun wrote:

She only got off with it because of her age. She was found with 21 bags of skunk, if that had have been some young person I bet the sentence would look alot different.

Yip, very true. Would look very bad on the establishment...and no doubt strengthen the case for legalisation.

But...good news nevertheless.

Former Member · April 2005

apollo_69 wrote:

the whole state of affairs is ridiculous anyways, the drug companies are trying to keep a lid on this bcos they can't make money off it, outrageous.....

And your evidence for that is?

Full legalisation is impossible, full stop, totally and absolutely impossible. That and the majority of voters dont want it.

Former Member · April 2005

bongbudda wrote:

And your evidence for that is?

Full legalisation is impossible, full stop, totally and absolutely impossible. That and the majority of voters dont want it.

No its not why do you say that ?

~Tha majority of votors certainly want it allowed for medical reasons.

Former Member · April 2005

Do they? Depends on the survey which you read.

And anyway, it is moving towards being allowed for this purpose anyway. Several very effective cannabis based treatments are already in production.

OK, if you dont think full legalisation is impossible how do you propose we get out of the international treaties we have signed?

Former Member · April 2005

Treaties are one tinng enfoprcing them is another,

What about the Netherlands "cause thats decriminalisation" well thats OK then.

A lot of treaties get ignored all the time, its only whan other nations take issue with it that youve got a problem look at america.

De criminalisation would be good I want to open a coffe/hash shop

Former Member · April 2005

bongbudda wrote:

Do they? Depends on the survey which you read.

And anyway, it is moving towards being allowed for this purpose anyway. Several very effective cannabis based treatments are already in production.

OK, if you dont think full legalisation is impossible how do you propose we get out of the international treaties we have signed?

if howard becomes prime minister he's going to tear up certain treaties is he not?

there are enough countries now to come to agreement about scrapping or changing them.
treaties are not written in stone by the finger of god ...as history shows us.

Former Member · April 2005

morrocan roll wrote:

if howard becomes prime minister he's going to tear up certain treaties is he not?

there are enough countries now to come to agreement about scrapping or changing them.
treaties are not written in stone by the finger of god ...as history shows us.

No, Howard says he will 'review' certain treaties, and no one really expects him to be able to get out of them.

There may come a time when the treaties are reviewed, if there are enough nations wanting change, but its not going to be for a long time yet.

Gran's not going to jail

Comments