And We Wonder Why Drugs Are Rife...

Oliver Cox has admitted being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs in Southend.

The 21-year-old was arrested and charged following police raids across the town on June 10 last year.

The raids were part of Essex Police’s crackdown on County Lines drug dealing in Southend and London. Cox admitted being involved in drug dealing from April to June that year.

Bang to rights, for once! 

Mitigating, Anthony Abell, said: “21 is very young.

“He has a very good chance to turn it around.

“He is a Christian, and he’s been studying that religion in prison.

“There is some good there in that way.”

Ha! Good luck with that old chestn... 

Judge Samantha Cohen...

Oh. 

...said: “You will be aware that Class A drugs are sold by organised criminal gangs and they bring with them violence and misery.

“They damage people’s lives.

“Another way the gangs work is by pressuring and coercing young people to become involved in their business and that’s what happened to you.

“You yourself were a victim of an organised crime gang who coerced you and pressured you to becoming involved in the drugs supply enterprise.”

/facepalm 

Judge Cohen said: “You are a young man, 20 at the time and you had your 21st birthday in prison.

“Mitigation says you are a bright young man and have lost your way, and you have capacity to find it again, and a guaranteed apprenticeship.

“It’s been organised by your older brother, who is putting his neck on the line for you.

“The pre-sentenced (sic) report says you got involved in debt in the gang and you had to pay it off.

“What you should have done is speak to people, speak to the authorities and go to your parents, who plainly support and love you.”

Cox, of Clifton Avenue, Benfleet, received two years in prison suspended for two years and a two month curfew from 8pm to 5am.

*sighs* 

Unless You Vaporised The Thing, Surely It Still Can...?

A man mauled in the face by a "pitbull-type" dog was attacked and injured by the same animal just hours earlier, a shocked neighbour has claimed.

It is said that the 50-year-old victim had wanted the dog seized by council wardens following the earlier incident at a home in Bolton, Greater Manchester.

The man, thought to be the dog's owner, suffered life-threatening injuries to his face and arm during a prolonged attack at the property in the Bolton suburb of Breightmet just after 1pm on Thursday.

He was due to undergo surgery on Friday, a Greater Manchester Police spokesman told the Mirror.

Good, the police are involved and will be charging him with...

Wait. What? 

The spokesman said the dog was "destroyed before its breed could be determined".

Errr... it doesn't have to be alive for that, does it? 

So, How's That Campaign Going..?

You know the one, aiming to get more urban people out into the countryside, enjoying the pleasures of nature. 

Especially from the BAME 'community', without which the country is somehow barren?

Oh...

The Owner Isn't The Only One That's Not Learning...

A Chippenham woman has been sentenced after her dog bit his third victim in two years.

Wait, what? Three times?

Ann Jefferies, 47, appeared at Swindon Magistrates’ Court having pleaded guilty earlier this year to owning a dog that caused injury whilst dangerously out of control.

The court heard that the defendant, of The Butts, had received a community protection notice in April 2018 after her Patterdale Terrier bit a person. The notice required her to muzzle the dog, named Digby, in public places. Despite that, just six months later in October 2018, Digby managed to bit (sic) another victim.

How? Simple. She didn't muzzle the beast. 

As a result, Jefferies was issued a community protection warning – again with the condition to have the pet muzzled whilst out in public places.

Wait, is it me, or...? 

Crown prosecutor Keith Ballinger said that on 25 January last year, he struck again – injuring Emily Meehan who was taking part in the Monkton Park parkrun alongside 226 other people, including many children.

Hairdresser Ms Meehan consciously gave the dog a wide birth, but it pulled away and bit her thigh. Screaming and shouting, she tried to prize the dog’s jaw from her flesh with great difficulty.

Again, no muzzle. And not since, either.

Mr Ballinger told the court that the victim says she has since seen the dog without a muzzle, stating in a statement that this made her “extremely angry”, adding that the owner has “clearly not learned [her lesson] from the incident”.

 So, is it the needle this time? Or does she have a really, really good excuse?

In an interview with police, Jefferies accepted she knew the dog didn’t like children and was asked to leave a dog training class due to persistent barking.

She also admitted she often forgets the dog’s muzzle and didn’t have it on her at the time of this attack.

That'll be 'No' then... 

Clare Gooding, defending, said the client has “taken on board the obvious issues that exist” and there have been no further incidents involving Digby.

She told the court Jefferies suffers from “thinking deficits” and can’t easily find ways around problems. But since the incident, she has been using a harness for better control and calming aromatherapy oil.

These 'thinking deficits' are clearly contagious. And the magistrates have caught them: 

Following the recommendation of the probation service, Jefferies was sentenced to a 12-month community order with 10 rehabilitation activity requirement days. She must also abide by a curfew between 8pm and 4am daily – monitored by GPS tag – for three months.

Magistrates decided against the destruction of Digby despite this incident being the third occasion of him injuring members of the public. However, a contingency destruction order was imposed – meaning if Digby is involved in any further incidents, he will be destroyed. Conditions of this order are that Jefferies must keep him muzzled and on a short lead in public.

Conditions that she's shown she won't comply with! 

Jefferies must also pay Ms Meehan compensation of £100 along with a victim surcharge of £90. No court costs were imposed.

Why not? Why is this costing the taxpayer money, and not the criminal? 

H/T: Lord 'Arry's Dad via Twitter  

OK, Who Remembers These In The Manifesto..?

Hmmm....

via GIPHY

Someone Should Go To Jail...

Disabled children in Brighton and Hove were left with unsafe, or no transport to school after council officials changed contractors in 2019.

A review into the fiasco by an independent barrister was commissioned by the city council, with a promise that the findings would be made public.

And clearly, promises were made to be broken, in Brighton... 

However, when it was due to be presented in March this year, councillors voted to kick out the press and public before deciding its contents would remain a secret.

Why? Well, that's a good question: 

The Argus can now reveal the barrister's report concluded that the council had illegally handed out contracts, broke its own rules in the process, and risked being sued by companies who missed out on the £500,000 contract.

Fearful of the council facing legal action should said companies find out they have grounds to sue, councillors decided to renege on the previous promise of publishing the document.

They know now. Let's hope they take you to the cleaners. 

Is This Scaremongering Or..?

The former head of the civil service, economist Gus O'Donnell, has now warned the UK is "facing a literacy crisis".

Lord O'Donnell, chairman of Pro Bono Economics, told the Wake Up to Money programme it was "unacceptable" that several million adults had "very poor literacy skills", calling the issue a "long-term problem".

Oh, come on! What evidence is there for this? 

*reads Twitter* 

Never mind...

'Why are they telling my children this?'

Because a 'community' that by its very nature cannot reproduce, can only recruit:

In a statement, the school said of the newsletter, written by the LGBTQ+ student society, had the intention of 'communicating safety advice to young people who may be considering risky practices ... Interest and curiosity are not necessarily fixed to a specific age group.

'Information can safeguard children seeking answers to questions they may have that they cannot find safely in isolation.'

Think this is the only school where this happens? 

"Why Are The Police So Brutal With A 16 Year Old Boy..?"

A man who shot the video told The Standard: “I was worried because he was starting to sound in agony, they removed the cuffs because he was complaining of pain and he started crying which they ignored and continued.

“I was a little worried because of how his arm was bending and they were asking him to roll over at one point while one of the officers had their bodyweight all on his legs.

“I felt their actions were over the top. I don’t believe that they helped the situation with brute force. At one point the officer had his knee over the man's crotch.

“He brought out the pepper spray after he pushed a man down who hadn’t moved. I did at one point feel like he was going to pepper spray the vicinity.”

The big meanies, picking on a poor 16 year old lad, what possible crime could he have committed? 

What sort of threat could they have faced from him?

Homophones Strike Again...

What..?!?