ianmartin 7 Posted February 16, 2010 While there's no excuse for what he did , how come he gets a custodial , and that tosser Pete Doherty , who gets nicked every other week for drugs offences still retains his liberty ? Is it ok coz its rock 'n' roll ? Stinks like the bog door of a kipper trawler to me. When you look at it like that - it is a disgrace what has happened to Andy. I suppose what they will trot out about Docherty is that it is for his own use - no-one else's. It does seem as if when you are a Celebrity or a Footballer you can - by and large - get away with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thischarmingman 18 Posted February 17, 2010 When you look at it like that - it is a disgrace what has happened to Andy. I suppose what they will trot out about Docherty is that it is for his own use - no-one else's. It does seem as if when you are a Celebrity or a Footballer you can - by and large - get away with it. I can't believe what I read on here sometimes. Somebody throws a red herring in the ring and some people gobble it up. I'm surprised anyone thinks that Andy's sentence is a 'disgrace' whether you compare it to some dopey rock star or not. Regardless of Andy's circumstances, which may be unfortuntate, he got what he probably deserved - a custodial sentence for moving about a fair amount of a substance that most consider it's not a good idea to introduce your kids to. Comparisons with Pete Doherty are just pointless. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RobMcCaffery 2,752 Posted February 17, 2010 I can't believe what I read on here sometimes. Somebody throws a red herring in the ring and some people gobble it up. I'm surprised anyone thinks that Andy's sentence is a 'disgrace' whether you compare it to some dopey rock star or not. Regardless of Andy's circumstances, which may be unfortuntate, he got what he probably deserved - a custodial sentence for moving about a fair amount of a substance that most consider it's not a good idea to introduce your kids to. Comparisons with Pete Doherty are just pointless. Also Andy's crime related to supply which is treated far more seriously in law than use which is Doherty's usual crime. Rob McCaffery. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SuzieQ 0 Posted February 17, 2010 This is the first I have seen of all this, and whilst I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of what Andy has done, it is not my place to do so! What really p's me off the press release which ends with stating his address, why do the press find it so damn necessary to do this? can they not just say Galvin of Whitstable, Kent without naming the road too? It bugs me every time I read these things in the local paper and they state where the accused lives, even before the trial they do it! OK, end of mini rant now! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BOBBATH 467 Posted February 17, 2010 I think they should legalise and tax all drugs-just like booze which can be equally devastating. If legal no more gangs, prohibition of drugs is just like prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20's-which also didn't work and which gave rise to the powerful mafia-still with us today. So as far as I am concerned Andy Galvin is like a bootlegger in the twenties-no worse than that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
HenryW 1,178 Posted February 17, 2010 So as far as I am concerned Andy Galvin is like a bootlegger in the twenties-no worse than that. No worse than Al Capone? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DK Rides Again 4 Posted February 18, 2010 This is the first I have seen of all this, and whilst I cannot comment on the rights or wrongs of what Andy has done, it is not my place to do so! What really p's me off the press release which ends with stating his address, why do the press find it so damn necessary to do this? can they not just say Galvin of Whitstable, Kent without naming the road too? It bugs me every time I read these things in the local paper and they state where the accused lives, even before the trial they do it! OK, end of mini rant now! Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr! It's a legal protection thing. Just to use the name in this case as an example, if the other Andy Galvin that lives in a completely different part of Whitstable (or in the next street) suddenly discovers he's being shunned by the rest of society, from the other parents at his kid's school to the bloke behind the counter at the off licence, under libel and defamation laws, he can (potentially) sue the paper that didn't properly distinguish him from the Andy Galvin that has been accused of heinous crimes. That's why they are often very specific about a defendant's address. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shazzybird 10 Posted February 18, 2010 Watch it guys mother superior Shazzy Bird will come on this thread and have a go at you lot for making a joke out of a serious situation I did keep my mouth shut Shazz I didnt come on here when I got told of the sentence I waited until someone else posted about it so why are you moaning? Grow up Vega!!!! am not getting drawn into this by you! I'll have a discussion about it quite happily face to face at Arena! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Saint 3 Posted February 18, 2010 I think they should legalise and tax all drugs-just like booze which can be equally devastating. If legal no more gangs, prohibition of drugs is just like prohibition of alcohol in the US in the 20's-which also didn't work and which gave rise to the powerful mafia-still with us today. So as far as I am concerned Andy Galvin is like a bootlegger in the twenties-no worse than that. To a point, I agree with your view. Legalising drugs would allow more control over their supply and use but there will always be someone who seeks to make more money out of the situation. Different drugs would be developed and sold illegally as "being better" than those available through legitimate sources or are "free of tax". I do disagree with your comment that dealers are no different to bootleggers, making it seem a somewhat less heinous a crime. Both are/were lawbreakers and sold potentially very harmful substances for a large profit. Bootlegging and drug dealing both involve a large amount of violence. I do find it incongruous that one of the most lethal drugs is perfectly legal and on open sale to anyone whilst other, arguably less dangerous, drugs are illegal. Alcohol is a big money spinner for governments though so I suppose that is why it is treated less seriously. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RobMcCaffery 2,752 Posted February 18, 2010 (edited) To a point, I agree with your view. Legalising drugs would allow more control over their supply and use but there will always be someone who seeks to make more money out of the situation. Different drugs would be developed and sold illegally as "being better" than those available through legitimate sources or are "free of tax". I do disagree with your comment that dealers are no different to bootleggers, making it seem a somewhat less heinous a crime. Both are/were lawbreakers and sold potentially very harmful substances for a large profit. Bootlegging and drug dealing both involve a large amount of violence. I do find it incongruous that one of the most lethal drugs is perfectly legal and on open sale to anyone whilst other, arguably less dangerous, drugs are illegal. Alcohol is a big money spinner for governments though so I suppose that is why it is treated less seriously. Despite what you may think after sampling some town centres at weekends many many people consume alcohol without taking it to excess and causing severe social problems. Only few become addicted. Can you say the same about heroin and cocaine? The 'less harmful than alcohol' argument is trotted out by many people, usually to justify the use of cannabis. Unfortunately the real drug problem is not someone getting off their face with 'waccy baccy'. Personally, my dislike of cannabis is down to the fact that it is a very personal inward pleasure whereas alcohol tends to be a social matter. There is a heck of a difference between smoking hash and injecting heroin. Addiction is everywhere though - just listen to people going on about how desperately they need to 'put the kettle on' or 'need a coffee to get started'. Ultimately though Andy committed a crime - fact. It's awful that he felt forced to do so but there are plenty of people short on cash who don't turn to crime to sort the problem out. Rob McCaffery Edited February 18, 2010 by rmc Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Old Saint 3 Posted February 18, 2010 ......... The 'less harmful than alcohol' argument is trotted out by many people, usually to justify the use of cannabis. Unfortunately the real drug problem is not someone getting off their face with 'waccy baccy'. Personally, my dislike of cannabis is down to the fact that it is a very personal inward pleasure whereas alcohol tends to be a social matter. ......... Rob McCaffery I do not condone either drugs or alcohol. My dislike about alcohol is for the very reason that you like it. Alcohol can be overly social as can be seen by the mess left on the streets. An overly large number of crimes are committed while under the influence of drink. Anyone, speedway rider, celebrity or ordinary person, deserves to be punished for any crime committed. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
