Is this the worst Copper in Britain
Discussion
sidekick said:
At the risk of being completely off-thread I think the basic point of the discussion is that regardless of whether or not you think drugs should be decriminalised/legalised or are a good thing or a bad thing the basic point remains that Brunstrom is going about the job of directing the policing of N. Wales in a completely unbalanced and obsessive manner. :
Exactly, whatever your views on drugs and or speeding the man is clearly a tw@t! BTW if drugs are deemed 'OK' and acceptable for use by this man, then it follows he would not mind seeing more useage of them, in which case this would surely lead to more people under the influence whilst going about there normal business, say maybe when they are driving.
Would a wider spread use of drugs lead to more road accidents or worse still more speeding?
- still he could 'tax' them then by speeding fines. With the conflicting views on drugs shown on this thread I am glad to see there is one thing we all seem to agree on.... that Brunstrom is a f
g tt 
or 
or whatever floats your boat!cazzo said:
At the risk of being completely off-thread
BTW if drugs are deemed 'OK' and acceptable for use by this man, then it follows he would not mind seeing more useage of them, in which case this would surely lead to more people under the influence whilst going about there normal business, say maybe when they are driving.
Would a wider spread use of drugs lead to more road accidents or worse still more speeding?
With the conflicting views on drugs shown on this thread I am glad to see there is one thing we all seem to agree on.... that Brunstrom is a f
Exactly. Let us unite against the common enemy. Splitter.
Great post and info, plotloss, but I'd like to comment on:
Actually, the effects of extended misuse of coke may not be reversible, as new evidence suggests that it can cause permenant damage to the dopamine receptors in the brain. The initial pleasurable effects of cocaine are due to it blocking these receptors, which become increasingly desensitised / permemantly damaged, thus increasing amounts of the drug are required for the user to experience the same high.
This would also explain why crack was invented - the effect of cocaine no longer providing a satisfactory high to someone with damaged dopamine receptors. More info here. Additionally, damage to these neurons is the underlying cause of the motor disturbances seen in Parkinson's disease, although I do not know of any research into the correlation between Parkinson's & cocaine use / abuse.
Much information on dopamine blocking/reuptake is available due to research on Methylphenidate (Ritalin). It is a form of amphetamine chemically similar in effect to cocaine, and is by far the most widely researched medication to date, due to its indication as a treatment for ADD/ADHD (attention deficit disorder / hyperkinesis).
However, the potential implications of methylphenidate and cocaine cannot be directly compared, one reason being that the former (when taken orally as prescribed) takes around one hour to reach peak concentration level in the brain, but the latter takes only 3 seconds when snorted. The instant high of cocaine is considered to be the factor that increases the risk of cocaine addiction as opposed to the lower rate of methylphenidate dependancy.
>> Edited by griffless on Friday 8th August 14:19
plotloss said:
Coke is the most difficult one, its been used for 1000's of years by all manner of people. Again its effects are reversible and its not harmful in pure form. The addition of Bicard of Soda has given it a bad name and I am still somewhat over awed by the fact that in the 70's there was a chap in NYC that coke wasnt good enough for so he invented crack.
Actually, the effects of extended misuse of coke may not be reversible, as new evidence suggests that it can cause permenant damage to the dopamine receptors in the brain. The initial pleasurable effects of cocaine are due to it blocking these receptors, which become increasingly desensitised / permemantly damaged, thus increasing amounts of the drug are required for the user to experience the same high.
This would also explain why crack was invented - the effect of cocaine no longer providing a satisfactory high to someone with damaged dopamine receptors. More info here. Additionally, damage to these neurons is the underlying cause of the motor disturbances seen in Parkinson's disease, although I do not know of any research into the correlation between Parkinson's & cocaine use / abuse.
Much information on dopamine blocking/reuptake is available due to research on Methylphenidate (Ritalin). It is a form of amphetamine chemically similar in effect to cocaine, and is by far the most widely researched medication to date, due to its indication as a treatment for ADD/ADHD (attention deficit disorder / hyperkinesis).
However, the potential implications of methylphenidate and cocaine cannot be directly compared, one reason being that the former (when taken orally as prescribed) takes around one hour to reach peak concentration level in the brain, but the latter takes only 3 seconds when snorted. The instant high of cocaine is considered to be the factor that increases the risk of cocaine addiction as opposed to the lower rate of methylphenidate dependancy.
>> Edited by griffless on Friday 8th August 14:19
griffless said:
Actually, the effects of extended misuse of coke may not be reversible
What about that girl from 'Eastenders' who lost her septum (skin seperating the nostrils)
also the guy from Status Quo who on TV a while back shoved a pencil in one nostril and out the other 
- Both apparantly from Cocaine use. I suppose both of these are reversible via plastic surgery, but hardly harmless IMHO.
Whether drugs are or are not harmless is a seperate arguement from whether they should or should not be legal to buy and sell.
Being pro legalisation is not the same as being pro drugs or pro crime.
If the objective is to reduce the amount of drug addition and consequent harm, the only question worth asking is "does criminalisation work?" Do its benefits outweigh its cost?
The direct cost of criminalisation is easy to assess. It creates an enormous amount of organised crime, burglaries and muggings. It leads to poor quality drugs being supplied, and this leads to greater physical harm to the users, for example the injection of washing powder into their veins.
I believe it also increases experimentation by kids (and people who continue to behave like kids into their 20s). Make something illicit and you make it glamorous and rebellious. That is great marketing.
In my experience more American 16 year olds get drunk and show off with alcohol, than British 16 years olds, and French 16 year olds do it even less. And the drinking ages are respectively 21, 18 and (?)12. That is not likely to be a coincidence. The drinking laws have precisley the opposite effect of what they intended to do. I think this is an inevitable effect of prohibition.
Although illegal, drugs in the UK are affordable and are quite freely available. That leaves a large number of people who could get hold of drugs if they wanted to. But they choose not to. Why do we automatically assume that they would change their minds and start consuming drugs if they were legal? Drugs would still be the same. People would still be aware that they can pose a threat to your health and sanity if abused. Frankly, people would still look at regular drug users and think "you are an inadequate twat", just as they do if they see one of their mates who ALWAYS gets pissed and makes a fool of themself. The social stigma would remain amongst those who don't take drugs, and social pressure is surely one of the cheif reasons why people either do or do not take drugs?
The bottom line is that I don't believe criminalisation works at any level. It creates crime, it drives the problem underground and therefore separates addicts from the help they need. I don't belive it has much of a deterrent effect either.
The problem I see with legalisation is the transition period from the current regime. In the short term there might be a drug bonanza, and there would be casualties. But it seems to me the long term benefits of decriminalisation would outweigh the short-term pain.
Being pro legalisation is not the same as being pro drugs or pro crime.
If the objective is to reduce the amount of drug addition and consequent harm, the only question worth asking is "does criminalisation work?" Do its benefits outweigh its cost?
The direct cost of criminalisation is easy to assess. It creates an enormous amount of organised crime, burglaries and muggings. It leads to poor quality drugs being supplied, and this leads to greater physical harm to the users, for example the injection of washing powder into their veins.
I believe it also increases experimentation by kids (and people who continue to behave like kids into their 20s). Make something illicit and you make it glamorous and rebellious. That is great marketing.
In my experience more American 16 year olds get drunk and show off with alcohol, than British 16 years olds, and French 16 year olds do it even less. And the drinking ages are respectively 21, 18 and (?)12. That is not likely to be a coincidence. The drinking laws have precisley the opposite effect of what they intended to do. I think this is an inevitable effect of prohibition.
Although illegal, drugs in the UK are affordable and are quite freely available. That leaves a large number of people who could get hold of drugs if they wanted to. But they choose not to. Why do we automatically assume that they would change their minds and start consuming drugs if they were legal? Drugs would still be the same. People would still be aware that they can pose a threat to your health and sanity if abused. Frankly, people would still look at regular drug users and think "you are an inadequate twat", just as they do if they see one of their mates who ALWAYS gets pissed and makes a fool of themself. The social stigma would remain amongst those who don't take drugs, and social pressure is surely one of the cheif reasons why people either do or do not take drugs?
The bottom line is that I don't believe criminalisation works at any level. It creates crime, it drives the problem underground and therefore separates addicts from the help they need. I don't belive it has much of a deterrent effect either.
The problem I see with legalisation is the transition period from the current regime. In the short term there might be a drug bonanza, and there would be casualties. But it seems to me the long term benefits of decriminalisation would outweigh the short-term pain.
ATG said:
Whether drugs are or are not harmless is a seperate arguement from whether they should or should not be legal to buy and sell.
Being pro legalisation is not the same as being pro drugs or pro crime.
If the objective is to reduce the amount of drug addition and consequent harm, the only question worth asking is "does criminalisation work?" Do its benefits outweigh its cost?
The direct cost of criminalisation is easy to assess. It creates an enormous amount of organised crime, burglaries and muggings. It leads to poor quality drugs being supplied, and this leads to greater physical harm to the users, for example the injection of washing powder into their veins.
I believe it also increases experimentation by kids (and people who continue to behave like kids into their 20s). Make something illicit and you make it glamorous and rebellious. That is great marketing.
In my experience more American 16 year olds get drunk and show off with alcohol, than British 16 years olds, and French 16 year olds do it even less. And the drinking ages are respectively 21, 18 and (?)12. That is not likely to be a coincidence. The drinking laws have precisley the opposite effect of what they intended to do. I think this is an inevitable effect of prohibition.
Although illegal, drugs in the UK are affordable and are quite freely available. That leaves a large number of people who could get hold of drugs if they wanted to. But they choose not to. Why do we automatically assume that they would change their minds and start consuming drugs if they were legal? Drugs would still be the same. People would still be aware that they can pose a threat to your health and sanity if abused. Frankly, people would still look at regular drug users and think "you are an inadequate twat", just as they do if they see one of their mates who ALWAYS gets pissed and makes a fool of themself. The social stigma would remain amongst those who don't take drugs, and social pressure is surely one of the cheif reasons why people either do or do not take drugs?
The bottom line is that I don't believe criminalisation works at any level. It creates crime, it drives the problem underground and therefore separates addicts from the help they need. I don't belive it has much of a deterrent effect either.
The problem I see with legalisation is the transition period from the current regime. In the short term there might be a drug bonanza, and there would be casualties. But it seems to me the long term benefits of decriminalisation would outweigh the short-term pain.
Well I think this is the most sensible post I've read on this topic for a long time.
In my mind no one really gives a shit whether taking drugs is illegal or not.
Kids are gonna try this stuff anyway. I sometimes wonder whether people should be encouraged to try drugs - let me try that point again - perhaps educated with first hand knowledge - lets face it the shock horror front page news from the Daily Express - "girl dies after takeing one ecstasy pill" is utter bollox, and no one ever stops to wonder how many people die from taking an aspirin each month.
I'm really coming to the conclusion that this whole affair is a (n)utter waste of time - if you really want to understand the effects of drugs on a persons pyschology than I suggest you don't eat meat for a month and then go out and eat a really juicy steak, see what efect that has on you....
Then you might like to try not drinking coffee or tea for a month and see what effect that has on you....
But unfortunately there is another side of all of this drug taking malarky which rests on the side of operating machinery - and whilst ripped to the tits on acid might not be the best of states of mind to drive a car, in my experience anyone so f**ked just sits in front of the wheel and gives up wondering what it is they're supposed to be doing.
This whole subject is fraught with complications but as I once said to my father (a doctor) "Ecstasy, I think they should put it in the tap water instead of flouride"
hmmmm... I'msure this is gonna hurt now...
OK a break from the Drugs for a while.
Following is a letter written in a North Wales newspaper today, written by a former assisitant CC;
"SEVENTY-THREE per cent of respondents to a poll on Richard
Brunstrom indicated that they did not believe he was doing a
good job.
Mr Brunstrom says he acknowledges the results of the poll and
will consider this in reviewing policies.
That just won't do. I can only think he has either missed the
point completely or he is attempting a Blairite 'spin' response.
Respondents voted on his personal performance, not on North
Wales Police policies. The question was: 'Do you think Richard
Brunstrom is doing a good job?'
I would suggest a more appropriate response might be: 'I shall
have to carefully consider my own position.'
His dismissive response to a serious situation entirely of his
own making is a 'cop out', just as it was a 'cop-out' to respond
to criticism of the most abysmal burglary detection rate on
record by saying that he has asked the Deputy Chief Constable to
discuss this aspect of performance with divisional commanders.
So it's all their fault is it?
He is the Chief Constable and is ultimately responsible and
accountable for the performance of North Wales Police. Current
performance dearly merits much more of his personal attention by
way of 'time-out' from his all too frequent and bizarre
attention-drawing pronouncements and law-changing and life-
changing issues.
He dismisses the lowest ever detection rate of six percent for
house burglary, which has also now gained him much media
attention, as old news and ridiculous. Well the last one is
certainly an appropriate descrption - for which he personally
would have been called seriously to account by a less
sycophantic and more effective police authority.
Additionally, he described the six per cent as 'a blip'. Some
blip, especially if it is all down to a spate of burglaries in
Wrexham How enormous would that spate have to be to drag down an
otherwise presumably respectable North Wales detection rate to
six per cent?
He also says he is concerned is that national and local
politicians 'do not know what they are talking about'. How
arrogant and patronising. Does he not realise that he cannot
fool people that easily in publicly rejecting the legitimate
concerns of elected representatives about police performance?
Before he came to North Wales in 2000 the Force's detection rate
for burglaries in dwellings stood at 46.4 per cent for 1998/99,
37.9 per cent for 1997/98 and 32.3 per cent for 1996/97. Now he
proudly states that he has set a target 25 per cent detection
rate for house burglaries. This is an unprecedented decline in
performance for which he cannot shirk responsibility. It is a
major failure, made even worse by the Chairman of the Police
Authority and the Assistant Chief Constable describing the man
ultimately responsible for the worst house burglary detection
rate in the UK as the best chief constable in Britain.
We are entitled to expect a Chief Constable to be professionally
efficient, to set and sustain high standards of conduct for his
force, to be open, honest and proportionate in his responses and
to be ever mindful of the fact that policing in the UK is firmly
based on the consent and support of policed communities.
He must also be prepared to be held person ally accountable for
the performance of the force and must, therefore, ensure that
avail able resources are used to best effect and conditions
right for all members to give of their best.
Come on, Mr Brunstrom, North Wales Police is getting
unprecedented sums of money out of North Wales taxpayers and has
never before had anything like so many officers and support
staff. Concentrate on leading the performance of this fine body
of people instead of indulging yourself on local and national
platforms. The huge amounts of money lavished in the past three
years on such things as new offices for you and your Chief
Officer colleagues, and private offices and laptops for police
authority members has done nothing to enhance policing services.
Neither does it help burglary victims to hear that North Wales
Police is now the most technologically advanced force in the UK
when they also know the force is very unlikely to be able to
offer them a half decent service when they need it. We all want
to be genuinely proud of the performance of the North Wales
Police and not to have to listen to unconvincing 'spin' about
pride and distorted statistical arguments. To make a statement
like 'The Force is successful on all fronts' is just about as
absurd a comment as anyone could make.
I am deeply saddened after serving 30 years with great pride in
the North Wales Police to hear many serving and retired officers
express deep shame at the decline in performance and also in
officers' personal appearance standards since Mr Brunstrom's
appointment as Chief Constable.
North Wales Police performance always stood among that of
leading forces in the country. Just look at it now; lower
burglary detection rates in rural North Wales than metropolitan
Manchester and London; serving officers complaining of the
creation of a planet of extreme political correctness; a force
obsessed with speeding motorists whilst failing miserably to
bring dishonest and threatening criminals to justice.
It's time for Mr Brunstrom to suppress his natural inclination
to court publicity and to get a grip on the really important
police performance and public perception issues before the lack
of public confidence in him seriously damages the fine
reputation the North Wales Police has enjoyed over so many
years.
Former Assistant Chief Constable.
Elfed Wynn Roberts
Glasinfryn
Bangor.
>> Edited by cazzo on Friday 8th August 23:47
Following is a letter written in a North Wales newspaper today, written by a former assisitant CC;
"SEVENTY-THREE per cent of respondents to a poll on Richard
Brunstrom indicated that they did not believe he was doing a
good job.
Mr Brunstrom says he acknowledges the results of the poll and
will consider this in reviewing policies.
That just won't do. I can only think he has either missed the
point completely or he is attempting a Blairite 'spin' response.
Respondents voted on his personal performance, not on North
Wales Police policies. The question was: 'Do you think Richard
Brunstrom is doing a good job?'
I would suggest a more appropriate response might be: 'I shall
have to carefully consider my own position.'
His dismissive response to a serious situation entirely of his
own making is a 'cop out', just as it was a 'cop-out' to respond
to criticism of the most abysmal burglary detection rate on
record by saying that he has asked the Deputy Chief Constable to
discuss this aspect of performance with divisional commanders.
So it's all their fault is it?
He is the Chief Constable and is ultimately responsible and
accountable for the performance of North Wales Police. Current
performance dearly merits much more of his personal attention by
way of 'time-out' from his all too frequent and bizarre
attention-drawing pronouncements and law-changing and life-
changing issues.
He dismisses the lowest ever detection rate of six percent for
house burglary, which has also now gained him much media
attention, as old news and ridiculous. Well the last one is
certainly an appropriate descrption - for which he personally
would have been called seriously to account by a less
sycophantic and more effective police authority.
Additionally, he described the six per cent as 'a blip'. Some
blip, especially if it is all down to a spate of burglaries in
Wrexham How enormous would that spate have to be to drag down an
otherwise presumably respectable North Wales detection rate to
six per cent?
He also says he is concerned is that national and local
politicians 'do not know what they are talking about'. How
arrogant and patronising. Does he not realise that he cannot
fool people that easily in publicly rejecting the legitimate
concerns of elected representatives about police performance?
Before he came to North Wales in 2000 the Force's detection rate
for burglaries in dwellings stood at 46.4 per cent for 1998/99,
37.9 per cent for 1997/98 and 32.3 per cent for 1996/97. Now he
proudly states that he has set a target 25 per cent detection
rate for house burglaries. This is an unprecedented decline in
performance for which he cannot shirk responsibility. It is a
major failure, made even worse by the Chairman of the Police
Authority and the Assistant Chief Constable describing the man
ultimately responsible for the worst house burglary detection
rate in the UK as the best chief constable in Britain.
We are entitled to expect a Chief Constable to be professionally
efficient, to set and sustain high standards of conduct for his
force, to be open, honest and proportionate in his responses and
to be ever mindful of the fact that policing in the UK is firmly
based on the consent and support of policed communities.
He must also be prepared to be held person ally accountable for
the performance of the force and must, therefore, ensure that
avail able resources are used to best effect and conditions
right for all members to give of their best.
Come on, Mr Brunstrom, North Wales Police is getting
unprecedented sums of money out of North Wales taxpayers and has
never before had anything like so many officers and support
staff. Concentrate on leading the performance of this fine body
of people instead of indulging yourself on local and national
platforms. The huge amounts of money lavished in the past three
years on such things as new offices for you and your Chief
Officer colleagues, and private offices and laptops for police
authority members has done nothing to enhance policing services.
Neither does it help burglary victims to hear that North Wales
Police is now the most technologically advanced force in the UK
when they also know the force is very unlikely to be able to
offer them a half decent service when they need it. We all want
to be genuinely proud of the performance of the North Wales
Police and not to have to listen to unconvincing 'spin' about
pride and distorted statistical arguments. To make a statement
like 'The Force is successful on all fronts' is just about as
absurd a comment as anyone could make.
I am deeply saddened after serving 30 years with great pride in
the North Wales Police to hear many serving and retired officers
express deep shame at the decline in performance and also in
officers' personal appearance standards since Mr Brunstrom's
appointment as Chief Constable.
North Wales Police performance always stood among that of
leading forces in the country. Just look at it now; lower
burglary detection rates in rural North Wales than metropolitan
Manchester and London; serving officers complaining of the
creation of a planet of extreme political correctness; a force
obsessed with speeding motorists whilst failing miserably to
bring dishonest and threatening criminals to justice.
It's time for Mr Brunstrom to suppress his natural inclination
to court publicity and to get a grip on the really important
police performance and public perception issues before the lack
of public confidence in him seriously damages the fine
reputation the North Wales Police has enjoyed over so many
years.
Former Assistant Chief Constable.
Elfed Wynn Roberts
Glasinfryn
Bangor.
>> Edited by cazzo on Friday 8th August 23:47
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff