source

Cannabis smoking leads to criminality, judge tells arsonist
By Stewart Payne
(Filed: 07/10/2005)

A judge issued a warning about what he believes to be a clear link between cannabis and crime when jailing a drug user
Judge Anthony Niblett told an arsonist who had set fire to his former girlfriend's house while under the influence of the drug: "Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality."

Sentencing Peter West, 33, a habitual drug user, at Hove Crown Court, East Sussex, he added: "Your brain has been steeped in cannabis for most of your adult life."

He described West as a danger to the public after hearing how the blaze gutted the three-bedroom house in Partridge Green, West Sussex, and left his girlfriend and her two young children with just the clothes they stood in. He had set light to her house in a rage fuelled by cannabis and vodka, the court was told.

West, from Cowfold, West Sussex, was a heavy cannabis smoker and also used heroin, cocaine and crack. Lisa Williams, his former partner, told police that West had become increasingly moody and aggressive in the weeks before the attack. On the night of the arson he suddenly punched her and said he was going to burn down the house with all of them inside.

Miss Williams fled with her children. West set the house alight, leading to their neighbours being evacuated.

West admitted assault and arson. Jailing him for life, the judge said West must serve a minimum of two-and-a-half-years before being considered for parole. However, he will remain under licence for life.

The judge criticised the Crown Prosecution Service for not charging West with the more serious offence of arson being reckless as to whether life was endangered.

In March this year the Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to re-examine the dangers of cannabis. He acted after researchers in Holland said using it "moderately increases" the risk of psychotic symptoms among the young.

The latest research follows increasing concerns about the downgrading of the drug. Health campaigners claim that there is growing evidence that cannabis is more damaging to mental health than was previously thought

Even with this addage, Cannabis gets the blame...Why?

winstone

Reefer madness .........of course its nowt to do with the smack,coke n crack,its that awful evil weed ...bastards

This is a very badly written report - not only is there of course the issue of what this guey was taking but the piece at the bottom suggests that he had mental health problems which he clearly didnt . So anyone reading it would think that mental health problem equals arson which it doesnt.

judges dont live in the real world....my judge at preston crown on tuesday accepted that since i have been on cannabis..i have not offended for the past 22years,,, 25 convictions before that and that was when i was on perscription drugs for my disability...

WALOB from start to finish WALOB

No doubt the Judge believes what he says which brings into question the judges ability to judge, he may well be educated to a high standard but is obviously lacking in common sense and intelligence.

I bet he actually believes in "REEFER MADNESS" and is a member of seedy private club


Third rule applies in triplicate.

After reading this article in yesterdays Argos we think the Judge should retire after making comments like that.Or be put down

Have to agree with others coments reefer Madness strikes again

Happy Friday peeps
Vibro and Mrs Hashcake

I followed the link, it's from the fecking torygraph (of which I suspect the senile old twat presiding is a daily reader), so it's utterly unsurprising. Smoking pot doesn't lead to criminality, but criminally bad reporting and judging possibly may, cos I really want to go and burn the judges house down now

Those wishing to complain about the behaviour of Judge Niblett can mail Natasha Kumalo or write to...

Natasha Kumalo
The Department for Constitutional Affairs
Judicial Correspondence Unit
2nd Floor, Selborne House
54-60 Victoria Street
London
SW1E 6QW

Yeah... He punches his girlfriend, then tries to burn everybody to death.... Very sane.....

Of course, the judge probably owns shares in allied breweries, or bass charrington.
The narrow-minded shit-sucker probably believes that all other races are inferior to the british, and that the reports that show 80,000 deaths a year from alcohol, and 30,000 from tobacco, well, just namby-pamby liberal hype???

The b.b.c. have been running programs on foetal alcohol syndrome,
A few articles, and the blatant links to behavioural problems.

Drugs such as cannabis do not "cause" crime, this judge is a waste of taxes, and should be charged with fraud.

I suspect the judge in question is a born-again, bush-loving, card-carrying paedophile.....


Laz

that's a brilliant letter HVY, hope you get a response.

Typical sensitive comment there nigfis, and showing your usual grasp of the issues

Oh, but all people with a mental illness are violent nutters who assault people and commit arson, aren't they.


Wanker.

Thats not quite what I meant - he was out of it on vodka etc and did those things but at the bottom they talk about cannabis and mental health which has nothing absolute nothing to do with this case. The inference form the way its reported is cannabis - madness - arson, which is wrong on all levels.

maddness.
I think i'll go and put my light right near the girls burn the shit out of em. Cos i'm mad i smoke cannabis

there was a story in the local paper last week about a rasta up in court for selling weed in long street, cape town. the spliff buyer was given a telling off and a small fine. then came the turn of ol' ras,
judge to rasta: so do you think it's good to sell dagga out in public
rasta to judge: the public needs good dagga. why how much do you want?
judge: no you don't understand
rasta: yeah i do, how much you looking for?
the conversation continued like this for a while until the judge was so perplexed. shaking his head, he uttered the sweet words "case dismissed".
send this geezer to an english crown court for a month or 2. (and the judge aswell)

"Those whose minds are seeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality."


This is what i read in the argus yesterday - made me mad as hell



Wicked letter Hvy - Im in the process of emailing the letters page at the Argus to let him know my thoughts.

love

Mrs HC


link to argus article
http://www.theargus.co.uk/the_argus/archiv...6/NEWS10ZM.html

Oh but all arsonists are of sound fucking mind eh Boo-jumped-up-shithead?

i fail to see how nig's comment is insensitive...



thats not how it read to me.



why dont you two stop flirting and just rent a room for the night!

I've just hit a bong and i'm going CRAZY............

Right wheres the 4star and my zippo.......

so the fact he was pissed as f**k had nothing to do with it ffs

Drop the insults folks.

It amazes me that judges who spout such shite have any credibility left at all ffs

"Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality"


as are those who sit in chambers, Judge Nesbitt so ignorant of FACT sits in judgement of a sociopath.

" Dear Gandalf,

Thank you for your email today, in which you express concern about
comments made by His Honour Judge Niblett.

This serves to confirm that we have received your email, and are currently
considering your complaint. We aim to send you a reply by 28 October but
will write and tell you, if, for any reason, it will take longer. If, in
the meantime, you wish to make any further enquiries about your letter,
please contact this office on the telephone number below.

Yours sincerely,
Miss N Kumalo
Judicial Correspondence Unit

Tel: 020 7210 8933
Fax: 020 7210 8653

I will tell you what leads to criminality you decrepit bewigged old buffon, living in a fascist police state where our so called leaders can commit mass murder and then justify it by the bullshit "war on terror" bollocks, which they formulated in order to bring in new laws which erode everyones human rights and give them yet more power to fuck with our lives, considering that only 25% of the electorate actually voted for these pseudo christian warmongers this in my eyes makes their position very dodgy indeed since they claim to represent the majority of the country when 75% of the electorate didnt vote them in! when a government can blatantly lie to the public and then go to war against several countries murdering tens of thousands of people in the process of securing oil supplies for the west and not even appear to show any remorse or regret for the crimes perpetrated in the name of the civilised western christian world and ultimately get away with it.
a few postings on this forum also point the way towards other reasons ie the "class war" in which if you are landed gentry you can grow all the illegal drug plants you want and then charge the public to look at them for educational purposes! and because you are upper class you WILL recieve a licence from the gov to grow them......meanwhile joe public growing a few plants for personal use in PRIVATE will be jailed, demonised by the fascist media,bullied and harrased by the pigs....there truly is one rule for the upper classes and another very different one for us!, old queen victoria used cannabis(and cocaine and opium and whatver else she fancied) the records from the chemists shop in Braemar also showed that old vicky wasnt alone in her drug taking as the amounts of drugs recorded as being sent up to the castle show that just about every guest attending old vicky's parties was awash with coke laudanum and cannabis.....but thats ok as she was the queen and nobody would even bat an eyelid never mind suggesting that she was a drug addled criminal.....didnt she enslave over half the world in pusuit of the glory of the british empire using war and terror and a downright racist agenda to secure the steady flow of monies and goods for the british people?

Also the blatant hypocrisy of the present royals where prince herbert(harry) can go to a party with the rest of the parasitic upper classes stoned out of his face dressed as a NAZI , get caught smoking cannabis(and the rest) and yet he can still join his mums army and become an officer while real soldiers who are fighting wars on behalf of mummy and her government are being ejected from the forces with a blot on thier service record forever stigmatised as a druggie for having a puff or a line to relieve the stress.......makes me fuckin sick.

Is it any wonder that people have no respect for the law when it is plainly obvious that the outcome of any criminal procedings is more dependant on which class you belong to than the severity of the crime, if you are of the "right" class you will be dealt with more leniently because you belong to a "good " family and your offence was "victimless" and you promise it was a one off and it will never happen again!!, if you are from a council scheme or unemployed or both you can expect the full weight of the law to be applied to you because as we all know we are viewed as scum and should be dealt with accordingly........yet when we are needed to fight a war for them we are suddenly all usefull members of society and the "great british public" who rally round the flag in defense of the nation......which will return to shafting us at every turn after we have done thier dirty business for them.

Should we have respect for the law,government,monarchy or the upper classes...........I say why the fuck should we when it is obvious to those with half a brain that the whole system is utterly corrupt and designed to keep us in a place where we have little or no freedom to make our own decisions about our own lives and the nanny state decides what we should and shouldnt be able to do regardles of evidence, ethical and moral values.

Perhaps we should take a leaf out of thier own book and declare war on these "christian fundamentalists" who are inciting terror among thier own populace or do what the kings and queens of old used to do when they wanted more land/power/positions ie get your army to kill your relatives and or other royals in other countries and simply take it all in the name of the divine right of kings etc.

The whole system which we currently suffer under needs to be purged from the face of the earth and the only way we can do that is to have a revolution and put them all where they belong......six feet under.
will this rant be classed as "glorifying terror" under the new law? if so then they will have to arrest all the French and the Americans and the Italians living in this country as their governments have all come into being as a result of popular revolutions against the status quo.

rant done (thats without a smoke too....jeebus)

Gandalf, snap.

great post hogie...

Sorry, no, think you'll find that it was indeed the vodka.

Go to your local A+E (if you still have one) this evening and take a look around. Are the casualties there caused by gangs of peeps running around with specially sharpened packets of Rizlas, or by stupid tossers who don't know how to handle their drink?

Hmmmmm Hmmmmmm.

Actually I quite agree with the old judge, cannabis smoking leads to freer thought, which may very well lead to criminality. imagine a population that thinks for themselves, that would scare the shit out of the architect of the universe and co.

My line of thought exactly hogie62... well said

go to medicalmarihana.ca then get on to your MP.

This makes me wonder if the judge would qualify this as Cannabis, because not many on uk420 would

no wonder reefer madness is here, I'd get mad if my reefer contained this shit

winnie

"Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality."

SENT: http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtm.../07/ndope07.xml

sent to: natasha.kumalo@dca.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Ms. Kumalo,

I refer to the above article that reports the comments of Judge Anthony Niblett who said "Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality."

Somewhere between 4 and 10 million people in the UK have used cannabis in the last year or so, the vast majority of whom, beyond their cannabis offences, are law-abiding citizens. Many of them may also be using for "medical" reasons, and although the law may not accept the medical benefits of cannabis, it is profoundly unjust to accuse them of being "capable of quite extraordinary criminality."

I wish this complaint to be taken formally and to be advised of any and all actions taken as a result.

Alun Buffry
Legalise Cannabis Alliance
PO Box 198
Norwich
NR3 3WB

Amazing how Vodka was not a contributing factor. Perhaps cannabis in his system prevented him murdering ? Its idiot judges like this who do not understand tars all drug users a psycopaths.

Arse holes

Keep on Blazing

OK, I can writer letters as well

Derek

-----------------------------------------------

Ms Kumalo

I would like to make a formal complaint about the comments made by Judge Anthony Niblett, as reported in the Daily Telegraph on 8th October 2005.

The judge said "Those whose minds are steeped in cannabis are capable of quite extraordinary criminality." This is an outrageous statement and is not supported by fact. The case in question featured a person who was "in a rage fuelled by cannabis and vodka", the person concerned was also a regular users of heroin, cocaine and crack.

It would seem far more likely that the actions of this individual were caused by the vodka, heroin and crack than by cannabis, so why did this judge make the statement he did?

I would go further and suggest that this judge has no concept of the effect of drink or other drugs on people and should be bared from judging any further such cases.

I look forward to your reply and an investigation into these comments.

Sincerely
(name, address, telphone)

of course it does its criminalised!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The judicary are one of my biggest worries about this county at the mo.

Lock up ex-vicars and OAP's coz they refused to pay their full council tax as a protest, while we are constantly told that violent criminals cannot have long sentences due to the jails being overcrowded. (Slighty off topic but it gets me very angry!)

Another similiar case can be found on the following link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/3399805.stm

As you can see from the report alcohol played no part in it!

Reply from the Dept. of Constutional Affairs to my complaint regarding Judge Nibblet's comments...



and by return....

A most excellent reply Hyfuel. Well done that man!......

like it. has the religious hatred law came into place yet?

Keep up the good work Hvyfuel, it will be interesting to see the reply from that one!.

remind me not to pick an argument with you. you're good

I enjoyed your letter, HvyFuel, but this is incorrect: 'The prohibition of cannabis, which is today held in place by the military bullying and political coercion of the USA, was imposed upon us by one HJ Anslinger, Chief of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, with the backing of the media baron Randolf Hearst and the Du Pont family.'

In fact, cannabis was prohibited in 1928, further to a resolution of the second International Opium Convention which convened in Geneva in 1925. What happened was that the international community - this was before the UN - first met in (I think) 1923 to discuss What To Do About Opium. The South African candidate stood up and said he thought cannabis must be highly addictive, too, because the blacks refused to work in the mines unless they got their dagga. Three years later, the community reassembled in Geneva, where the Egyptian delegate famously declared that 'the illicit use of hashish is the principal cause of most of the cases of insanity occurring in Egypt', and proposed that cannabis should also be treated as a habit-forming drug and controlled internationally.

Consequently, a sub-committee was set up, which concluded that: 'The abuse of these preparations (of cannabis) which are chewed or eaten and the smoking of the drug are especially dangerous since their immoderate use due to addiction leads to troubles at least as serious as those caused in similar conditions by the use of opium and its derivatives.' `Of course, this was as wrong then as it is now and the British knew it. We were the world authorities on cannabis consumption, because of the Indian Hemp Drugs Commission Report of 1894, which had investigated these allegations (that cannabis is highly addictive and makes people mad) and found them to be groundless. Therefore, the British delegation abstained from the vote. But we were still bound by the resolution, so the legislation was enacted and came into force on September 28th, 1928.

am off ti rob a bank

Quite right, but do you think that without the military and economic pressure of the USA it would still be illegal? Thereby the US prohibition has forced UN prohibition to remain in place, making Anslinger the patron of modern prohibition.

The Egyptian authorites were the first in the world to ban cannabis use in 1868 btw as the rulers of the country believed it made the people disrespectful toward them. The UK not only abstained at that vote, there has never been a vote in the UK parliament concerning the legality of cannabis, unless you count the B to C move but that concerned only the severity of punishment.

Dear Mr Williams

You have taken exception to comments attributed by the Telegraph newspaper
on 8th October 2005 to His Honour Judge Anthony Niblett in the matter of the
use of cannabis. Specifically, you have described as outrageous his
comments about those whose minds are steeped in cannabis being capable of
quite extraordinary criminality.

You consider it far more likely that the actions of the defendant in
question were caused by vodka, heroin and crack than by cannabis. You
suggest that Judge Niblett has no concept of the effect of drink or other
drugs on people and that he should be barred from judging any further such
cases.

The Lord Chancellor is grateful to you for taking the trouble to write in
order to express your concerns. At the same time, he wishes to point out
that Judges are entitled to express their opinions on those issues pertinent
to the proceedings over which they preside. It would be wrong to assume
that remarks made in relation to any specific case denote a general opinion
or bias that might be attributed to other proceedings. Furthermore, quite
apart from the privilege conferred by judicial independence from the state,
it is every person's right, including your own, in a democratic society, to
express opinions on matters of public debate. Any attempt to prevent that
free exchange of views would itself be undemocratic.

May we nevertheless express our thanks again for your communication.


Henry Hochfelder
Judicial Correspondence Unit

So he's saying they can talk shit in the name of democracy. Likewise so can we mere mortals, but our words will not be heard or listened to.

Or in other words, 'F*ck off, we don't give a shit.'

Here's the reply I received today - seems like "freedom of speech" applies to judges - have you ever tried speaking freely in front of a judge? Apparently (see end of letter) we are not free to pass this message on, but since we're here, I'm doing it anyway.

Dear Mr Buffry

Thank you for your E Mailed communication of 8 October 2005.

You have taken exception to comments attributed by the Telegraph newspaper on 8th October 2005 to His Honour Judge Anthony Niblett in the matter of the use of cannabis. Specifically, you have described as outrageous his comments about those whose minds are steeped in cannabis being capable of quite extraordinary criminality.

You state that between 4 and 10 million people in the UK have used cannabis in the last year or so, the vast majority of whom, beyond their cannabis offences, are law-abiding citizens. You also refer to its use for medical reasons, adding that although the law may not accept the medical benefits of cannabis, it is profoundly unjust to accuse them of boing "capable of quite extraordinary criminality".

The Lord Chancellor is grateful to you for taking the trouble to write in order to express your concerns. At the same time, he wishes to point out that Judges are entitled to express their opinions on those issues pertinent to the proceedings over which they preside. It would be wrong to assume that remarks made in relation to any specific case denote a general opinion or bias that might be attributed to other proceedings. Furthermore, quite apart from the privilege conferred by judicial independence from the state, it is every person's right, including your own, in a democratic society, to express opinions on matters of public debate. Any attempt to prevent that free exchange of views would itself be undemocratic.

May we nevertheless express our thanks again for your communication.

Yours sincerely

Henry Hochfelder aka Bollockshead
Judicial Correspondence Unit

This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.

Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.

This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Department For Constitutional Affairs. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.