Fide Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34328196 The police are to take no action against Lord Sewel over allegations of drug use which led to him quitting the House of Lords. The peer resigned in July after being filmed by the Sun allegedly taking drugs in the company of prostitutes. The case led to calls for reform of the House of Lords. The BBC's home affairs correspondent Danny Shaw said the Met Police had closed its inquiry as there was "insufficient evidence to proceed". The police raided a property in central London during their investigation, which was prompted by a complaint made about Lord Sewel's conduct. Scotland Yard said in a statement: "The Met launched a criminal inquiry into allegations of drug-related offences involving a member of the House of Lords on Monday, 27 July. "The investigation, led by officers from the Special Enquiry Team of the Homicide and Major Crime Command, has now concluded. "Following a review of all the material, including a forensic examination of an address in central London, there is insufficient evidence to proceed with this investigation and the matter is now closed." Danny Shaw said the decision had seemingly drawn a line under the episode. Following the expose, Lord Sewel, 69, quit as deputy speaker of the Lords and chairman of the Lords Privileges and Conduct Committee, then quit Parliament altogether. In a statement to parliamentary officials announcing his resignation, he apologised for the "pain and embarrassment" caused and said his exit would "limit and help repair" the damage to the reputation of the Lords. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doulikefish Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 He quit and walked away and should never receive anymore of the public purse On another note if im 69 and doing drugs surrounded by hookers then its been all good Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdgarusQPFC Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 If i was filmed taking drugs id be in jail no question, but the second i have some influence in the government, money or fame the rules dont apply, funny that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Loads of people have been filmed taking drugs and not been done. Move along please, nothing happening here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MONKMAN Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 There's no way of them proving what he was taking. The authorities must be seen to be carrying out some sort of investigation though. It would be impossible to convict. Some boi though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lynx Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 If i was filmed taking drugs id be in jail no question, but the second i have some influence in the government, money or fame the rules dont apply, funny that okay then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 22, 2015 Share Posted September 22, 2015 Read the thread title and thought that Cilla had come back from the dead. Relieved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grim O'Grady Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Read the thread title and thought that Cilla had come back from the dead. Relieved. I read it in her accent funnily enough. I bet he's pissed off he resigned now though ha ha. Grimbo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Wilson Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 If i was filmed taking drugs id be in jail no question, but the second i have some influence in the government, money or fame the rules dont apply, funny thatIn what circumstances? If you are on private property, with acquaintances and the police see one, isolated, film of drug taking, what would they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BerwickMad Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 If i was filmed taking drugs id be in jail no question, but the second i have some influence in the government, money or fame the rules dont apply, funny thatYou wouldn't be in jail at all. I work in social housing and can't think of anyone I've ever come across sent to jail for taking drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFC90 Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 You wouldn't be in jail at all. I work in social housing and can't think of anyone I've ever come across sent to jail for taking drugs. That's because it's not illegal to take drugs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 You wouldn't be in jail at all. I work in social housing and can't think of anyone I've ever come across sent to jail for taking drugs. Pete Doherty got 6 months for possessing cocaine - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13451440. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Pete Doherty got 6 months for possessing cocaine - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13451440. I think the law states that only possession is illegal. Consuming drugs and being under the influence is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
effeffsee_the2nd Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 I think the law states that only possession is illegal. Consuming drugs and being under the influence is not. aye even then your unlikely to be prosecuted for having a small amount on you, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bishop Briggs Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 I think the law states that only possession is illegal. Consuming drugs and being under the influence is not. Really? You would need to possess to consume. You can't be under the influence of drugs and drive. George Michael was jailed for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Really? You would need to possess to consume. You can't be under the influence of drugs and drive. George Michael was jailed for that. What if someone put a line down and said help yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Really? You would need to possess to consume. You can't be under the influence of drugs and drive. George Michael was jailed for that. There is a difference between possession and consumption. It doesn't matter that one follows the other. I didn't mention anything about driving under the influence. That's a whole different area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 There is a difference between possession and consumption. It doesn't matter that one follows the other. I didn't mention anything about driving under the influence. That's a whole different area. So a mule that has swallowed baggies can claim that they are not in possession as they have consumed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So a mule that has swallowed baggies can claim that they are not in possession as they have consumed? That would be transportation and storage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonapersona Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 So a mule that has swallowed baggies can claim that they are not in possession as they have consumed? You would have to find some way to get those baggies otherwise what could you charge them with? Possession of something that may be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.