Passing Time Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 If indeed you ever needed proof that port security is a joke, the latest drugs catch should prove it beyond doubt. £123,000 worth of cannabis in a car at the bus station. How the hell did it even get on the bloody boat?? I sincerely hope that the entire security staff were dismissed instantly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe they let the car travel so they could see who was meeting at this end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GD4ELI Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 Maybe they let the car travel so they could see who was meeting at this end. Exactly! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wrighty Posted April 22, 2012 Share Posted April 22, 2012 There is no port security without prior intelligence. The random searches are cursory at best. The only way to up it significantly would be to have airport style searches, emptying cars of all their contents... I'm sure none of us want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Dogs, at both ports and on the car deck whilst at sea, actually happens and they can smell/detect minute quantities of what they are trained to find. Place of arrest is irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wing of the Nut Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Whilst the point of arrest is irrelevant, the point is if the "dogd" are at both ports then the car should have been impounded at the UK end. Now I would imagine all the costs relating to this whilst it goes through the legal system will be borne by the good old IOM. Is this so that the local constabulary can lay claim to yet another drugs arrest when in reality it should not have even come over here? Good to see that university educated advocates can't even spell the most basic of words Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amadeus Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Whilst the point of arrest is irrelevant, the point is if the "dogd" are at both ports then the car should have been impounded at the UK end. Now I would imagine all the costs relating to this whilst it goes through the legal system will be borne by the good old IOM. Is this so that the local constabulary can lay claim to yet another drugs arrest when in reality it should not have even come over here? Good to see that university educated advocates can't even spell the most basic of words I'm guessing John is more than capable of teh ehnglisch spehling but might be using voice input Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asitis Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Whilst the point of arrest is irrelevant, the point is if the "dogd" are at both ports then the car should have been impounded at the UK end. Now I would imagine all the costs relating to this whilst it goes through the legal system will be borne by the good old IOM. Is this so that the local constabulary can lay claim to yet another drugs arrest when in reality it should not have even come over here? Good to see that university educated advocates can't even spell the most basic of words The idea is to try and arrest people responsible for the drug deal rather than the ground level couriers, it is never they who provide the cash and contacts to set up the importation. Also it enables the police here to arrest the people resident who fuel this trade, so not a good idea to settle for the UK end only . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 apologies for stumbling fingers. Where the arrest takes place will depend on on intelligence, including dogs, and what the operation is out to achieve The offences of possession with intent to supply catching in the UK and production/importation catching in IOM after coming off boat are different and carry different penalties Maybe the police wanted to catch the Manx connection at this end. Not every sailing has a dog at each end or on board as far as I am aware, the dogs get used at airports as well and for other purposes You would have to ask the Lancashire/Merseyside police why they did not stop it at Heysham/Liverpool. To suggest they didn't to allow the Manx police to improve their detection rate and to allow Manx Advocates to make money is bizarre Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
credente Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Maybe the police wanted to catch the Manx connection at this end. That seems a reasonable assumption - as is the probability that the sentence is likely to be harsher in the IoM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I didn't know Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 i bet they couldn't believe their their luck as they pulled into the police statiion car park. Cocky drug dealers or drug addled brains. they were taking the mick and got their comeuppence. Well done forces of law and order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 i'd suggest the port security knew which the car was but it made more sense to let them leave port and have the real police arrest them so it cut the paperwork??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 i bet they couldn't believe their their luck as they pulled into the police statiion car park. Cocky drug dealers or drug addled brains. they were taking the mick and got their comeuppence. Well done forces of law and order. Whose side are you on? The Manx people need this stuff, clearly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ballaughbiker Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Good to see that university educated advocates can't even spell the most basic of words Just as an aside, why is that good to see? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Endovelicus Posted April 23, 2012 Share Posted April 23, 2012 Good to see that university educated advocates can't even spell the most basic of words Just as an aside, why is that good to see? They all know how to spell 'hundreds,' 'thousands' and 'pounds.' What else do they need? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.010c25bfc4ad79d01b7451bf81c5baea.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.