Jump to content

Clooty Cap

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Clooty Cap

  1. Are you suggesting that drugs don't vary in the level of (potential) danger they pose, and that drinking a pint of beer, or smoking a joint is roughly equivalent to taking crystal meth or PCP? The personal effects may be different however what about human cost. A joint? Most of the herbal cannabis available in Scotland comes from crime groups and many are triad based. Ask the male of the Asian family who has been secreted in a loft for years being fed basics at harvest time under fear of either he or his family dying. Or his wife or daughters in brothels. Pretty sure that wasn't the life they were promised. Better still. If we don't want to look at the trafficking aspect look closer to home. www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-18826528 This is a boy in the north of Scotland. Abducted and taken to Portugal. Parts cut off him. Real reservoir dogs stuff. All related to cannabis. So no, I don't see any difference and I certainly wouldn't class anything as soft. Wherever there is potential to make money, there is potential for people to be exploited. Whether it be in the drugs trade, sex industries, precious metals and precious stones or even clothes and textiles industries. The human costs you list as being associated with cannabis manufacture by drug gangs are terrible but why do you think there are gangs doing this? Probably because your average cannabis user doesn't want to risk growing it for themselves because of the fact it's illegal.
  2. its good that the trend seems to have been changed as the stats I posted up for 2010 were a bit of a shock.
  3. My unproven theory about heroin use increasing at times when softer drugs are in short supply would appear to be backed up by the then head of the CADSS Gill Hession, if you read the article you might have seen this. As for the boom in synthetic highs, I would assume the boom in the usage of these products is mostly down to the legality issue and the presumption that they are safe since they can be purchased over the internet. This won't have any affect on heroin usage though, unless over the same time the supply of heroin into the isle was cut off. Shetland does seem to be the kind of place that has a tendency to encourage substance, once again this is touched on in the link I posted earlier.
  4. First of all, I don't think anyone is saying that the drugs dog charity has been instrumental in causing the heroin problem in Shetland, so yes that statement would be absolute rubbish, what has been discussed is the possibility that since the drugs dog started operating in Shetland, that there appears to be an increase in heroin use that could be caused by a shortage of your so called softer drug. The drugs dogs may be spending a lot of time in schools educating youngsters to the dangers of drugs but there are still plenty of school leavers deciding that despite what they've been warned about drug use, they want to find out in person what the attraction is. I found this article about heroin use in Shetland, it's from a magazine called Druglink, Sept-Oct 2010. Here's an interesting quote from it, http://www.drugscope.org.uk/Resources/Drugscope/Documents/PDF/Publications/DruglinkSept-Oct2010.pdf "Figures from community alcohol and Drug services shetland (caDss), the isles’ main treatment agency, highlight the extent of heroin’s penetration. in 2001, caDss treated a small pocket of heroin users, around three-quarters of whom were incomers from elsewhere. nine years on, around 70-80 per cent of its heroin-using clients have been born or brought up in shetland. contrary to sensationalist headlines slamming shetland for having ‘scotland’s worst heroin problem’, the numbers are relatively low. caDss now treats around 100 heroin users, a fraction of most urban caseloads. Yet worryingly, while treatment agencies across britain are witnessing an ageing heroin-using population, shetland is bucking the trend. under-25s now account for around half of caDss drug treatment clients, compared to a quarter in 2006." These stats from the community alcohol and Drugs services shetland would suggest that up to 2010 there has been an increase in heroin use and that it has predominantly in the under 25s. In fact nearly every stat in this article would suggest that young heroin users have increased throughout the period the drugs dog have been in use. So maybe the education needs to be worked on.
  5. I disagree. This way is more democratic. You don't have to pay unless you do consider it good value. I agree to a certain extent with what you say but there are plenty of people who don't question if it's good value, they base their decision to donate money on an understanding that it's necessary for them to continue funding the dogs if they are to continue operating in Shetland.
  6. So gollywog has taken on an offensive element (for some reason) not present in the initial object. If that were the case then I would say an object with that name can take on the new offensive connotations of the language used to name it. Especially in this case where the doll is a caricature of a black man and the name gollywog is an insult directed at black people.Its all a matter of context.
  7. Because how we use language can attribute meanings to words that the word doesn't have when used in its original context.
  8. There is a doll called Barbie, the doll is perfectly innocent, calling a person barbie or comparing someone to barbie is an insult. It doesn't require someone to explain the difference between the doll and the insult for it to be clear there is a difference.
  9. Unless you can provide one example of any one who has contributed to this discussion worshiping Gollywogs then I would suggest you retract that statement as it is neither humorous or factual.
  10. Although you are right that value for money does play a part in how effective a service like "dogs agains drugs" are perceived to be, I personally feel that as we are led to believe they are an effective tool in the fight agains crime in Shetland then they should be funded solely with money from the police budget, we all pay taxes and a percentage of that money is put towards paying for the provision of our local police force, we shouldn't have to pay extra through charities and the like to provide extra tools to the police.You do seem to be saying that the budget provided to you would allow for you to fund the dogs and handlers yourself. The way the economy is locally there are many local services that have had their budgets cut due to the council not having the funds available, COPE for example has had to scale down their operations to the extent of shutting the Karabuni, services like The Freefield centre were also affected, I would rather see money raised locally from charity and buisness donations go to services like this than being spent on something you appear to have admitted you could be funding yourself. As for how to tackle the problem of substance abuse in Shetland, well I would say something has to change because as a man much wiser than me has once said "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." The current drug policy obviously isn't working but it's probably one for the people at the Community Alcohol and Drugs Services Shetland to tackle as they would have better ideas than me on the way forward in the isle.
  11. If they're going over Tescos roundabout at 30 they'll no have many fillings left in their teeth.
  12. I can only hope that whatever he may have got onto his keyboard isn't nearly as nasty as the image conjured up in my mind.
  13. That could be difficult to ascertain as you would need to have a similar period without the dolls, even then, very hard to use as evidence that folk have just not gone into the shop. Some visitors may just not go in. As for the rest of Shetland, there is not much else beyond the shops there, folk may not know about it as they may never had a need to use that part of the highway.. Gibber, remember this is not a jolly jape, you have been told you are wrong, take it like a man Perhaps, with comments on Policing and the comments here, the worst thing that could happen is that visitors and those not originally from Shetland may just see the place as a 3rd world "county" in a Alfred Sauvy sense. That could though become bad. Not necessarily SP, most shops in Shetland will run on such a fine line between success and failure that they can ill afford to deliberately discourage customers from entering the shop, and to actively discriminate against a whole ethnic group would be a suicidal buisness plan for any shop with such small profit margins. Doesn't Lemn himself try educate us as to the fact that the shops in Shetland are unsustainable without the money tourists pour into their tills when the cruise ships visit? Despite having these dolls for sale in her shop and on display in the window the shop in question has managed to stay open, it has been a success when so many around her have failed. Is it not possible that the number of people offended by this display are low enough as to stop her losing out on business to any significant degree and as such it could also be possible that as has been stated by others before that of all the many different nationalities and races of people who visit this island on an annual basis that only a few individuals have taken any real offence at these dolls.
  14. I'm not aware of anyone denying people the right to be offended, what I have seen is people taking issue with the stance of, once someone has taken offence then all efforts must be made to remove the source of the offence. Just because someone takes offence it doesn't make that person right and the unoffended wrong. I think the other thing that is being forgotten here is that the items causing offence are in a shop, the main aim of this shop is to entice people in to spend money, had there been a significant number of people who have been offended then surely that would have had a detrimental affect on the shops sales.
  15. Would that be this seizure by any chance? http://www.shetlandtimes.co.uk/2013/08/21/two-jailed-for-three-years-and-nine-months-for-bringing-40000-worth-of-heroin-to-isles Doesn't really seem like a perfect example of the dogs proving their worth if that is the case you are speaking of, from the write up in the Times it would suggest that the dogs were along for the ride if they played any part in the seizure at all. Good old fashioned police work seemed to be the deciding factor in getting a result in this case. Would you say the dogs would be kept in service if they were to be funded from your annual budget rather than from charity, public and business funds?
  16. Personally I wouldn't use that word, and have never dreamed of using it in any context that referred to a black person, the only reason I mentioned RDH using it was that from the very first time I heard the stand up routine I quoted it struck a cord with me as a great way to live your life. " if something is designed to offend you then just don't let it " very refreshing to hear that from someone who has probably faced real persecution throughout their life. For the record I do hate seeing racism, sexism and homophobic attitudes being portrayed anywhere, but that doesn't necessarily mean that I agree that just because someone takes offence at a comment or situation because that feel it may be homophobic for example, then that person is correct to take offence, if that makes any sense.
  17. The act of an individual, letting or not letting something offend, does not define whether something can or can't be called offensive. As you said "...if something is offensive...he just smiled and got on with it...". It's still offensive no matter how he decides to react to it. that's not what i said, you took parts of my quote to create something new that becomes something that you said. In fact what i said was the exact opposite of that.Should someone want to say something to offend me how I react to it is the deciding factor on if its offensive. Should I fall out with you and you decide to call me every name under the sun, if I decide to say to myself he's just saying that because we fell out and laugh about it then there is no offense regardless of how much you wanted to offend me, but if I take your name calling to heart and let it hurt my feelings then your comment becomes offensive.
  18. You seem to have deliberately got the wrong end of the stick, what Lemn did was deliberately attack the shops owner for selling the dolls, he made a point of making it a personal attack against an individual. The shops owner, as far as we are aware didn't set out to make a display that she knew would be seen as a potentially offensive to a certain group or individual, if she did then it would have surely been counterproductive to what the main aim of a display in a shop window is intended to achieve, entice customers into her shop to spend money. I cant speak for everyone but i would say that Lemn is entitled to feel that the display is something that he isn't comfortable with, the problem arises when Lemn voiced his feeling in the manner he did. He didn't speak to the shop owner about how he felt then he proceeded to tell everyone how nasty and vindictive this woman was and that she was without a doubt a racist because of her actions, he seems unwilling to admit that this is his opinion and that there is a chance that he could be wrong. I find it distasteful when i see a placard in a church window claiming that god is the answer to all your problems especially when you consider that bible seems to condone abhorrent acts such as slavery, but that's just my opinion it doesn't make it a fact and it doesn't mean that the church should stop placing placards in there window claiming how great god is either.
  19. As for Reginald D Hunter, I think he is one of the best 'off the cuff' comedians of modern time. I never realised until today that he was black! Can I say that? Coloured? Non caucasian? One of my best friends is .... etc etc When discussing this at work yesterday I brought up RDH and 2 of my workmates didn't have a clue who I was talking about so I felt I'd maybe better give some background information just to be on the safe side especially when you consider the subject we are discussing here.
  20. I disagree, what RDH shows is that the act of taking offence is entirely in the head of the individual, he doesn't say if something is offensive then just don't show it, he's not saying being called the N word "wounded him" but he just smiled and got on with it, He is stating that he doesn't take offence in the first instance. For something to be offensive, offence has to be both intended and received. What Lemn has done is infer that there was offence intended where there never was. Lemn states that on a daily basis the shopkeeper has made a conscious decision to place these offensive dolls in her window. That's simply untrue, she may have made a decision to place the dolls in her window but for Lemm to imply that it is done in a provocative and offensive manner is simply him placing excessive emphasis on his own opinions and being unduly egocentric.
  21. I don't know if any of you are aware of a comedian called Reginald D Hunter, if you are you'll know he is an African American and he was brought up in Georgia in the 1970's, the reason I bring him up is because he probably has a lot in common with Lemn Sissay, a black man brought up in the 1970's who has probably been a victim of genuine racism. Reginald though has taken his experiences and used them in a totally different way than Lemn. When talking about people using the N word at him this is his take on it "that word was designed to hurt me, in fact it was on this planet before me. So if something is designed to hurt you, what do you do? You don’t let it. Like, if I was a woman, I wouldn’t let words like “b+*@h†or “c&@-†or “fat†upset me. I would be more offended by words like “you’re gonna be paid lessâ€." The reason I bring this up is it kind of shows that what is offensive is very subjective, no doubt how Lemn would react to the N word would differ significantly from how Reginald reacts to it even though they have both probably had a very similar experience with it throughout their lifetime. As such it's a shame that this Golly issue has snowballed into where we now are, purely because one person has decided that their views on the subject are the correct view and that the rest of us need to be educated as to why our views are wrong and how only his opinion can be the right one.
  22. Maybe you could expand on how you feel the sniffer dogs provide value by comparing the costs of providing the dogs against a value of drugs found solely by the dogs without any other information from tip offs or intelligence led investigations. It would also be interesting to hear how the dogs are useful in helping to deal with alcohol related offences as well as those associated with "synthetic" highs. I have no doubt that the drugs dogs do have a value but cant help but feel for the amount of time they have been operating in Shetland and the cost of providing the dogs there should have been a more noticeable reduction in the use of drugs in the isle, I also suspect that were 100% of the cost of running the dogs to be met by the police then they would have been scrapped years ago as they just aren't cost effective.
  23. The drugs dogs are a white elephant Suzanna, the majority of drugs found on the isle come from intelligence or tip off led busts, a drugs dog won't catch an unknown dealer unless they happen to cross paths while the dealer has a quantity of drugs on them and that's highly unlikely as a dealer will probably avoid going places you may find a drugs dog. Anyone wanting to get drugs onto the isle just has to put a little thought into how they go about it and the drugs dogs are made totally useless, using any type of air tight packaging or simply driving a car off the boat renders the sniffer dog useless unless the police recieve a tip off telling them who to target. Your money that gets thrown at the drug dogs would be far better spent on services to help those with drug addictions issues, and education of the younger generations to encourage them to stay clear of drugs in the first place, but that education has to be has to be well thought out as current plan obviously isn't working. And I'm sorry to say that your last sentence is a perfect example of how the current drug education policy doesn't work, it's tantamount to saying "don't do drugs, drugs are bad" without giving any reason why. Even the police admit that drink causes far more anti social problems than most recreational drugs do, there has been plenty of statements from the larger police forces down south stating that its easier to police a club full of Ecstasy users than a club full of drunks. You could maybe do a google search on Professor David Nutt, who was at one time the governments advisor on drug policy, he is very forward thinking on ways to eventually win the war on drugs.
  24. FinnBlack wrote "I've seen it happen- folk laughing and playing along with racist comments so they don't isolate themselves, so they 'fit" surely its the context of what is being said that is the important thing in such a situation, for instance I'm one of the least sexist people you could meet and if i come across someone who displays genuine sexism towards someone in the workplace or home i wont hesitate to shout them down, but in a group of friends having a laugh i can come across as a throwback to 1950s male chauvinism if the situation arises that we're having a conversation about sexism and i know my friends will take it in the humour intended. this is the same way I view these dolls, although they may when used in a certain context be a vessel for racism, the mere act of being doesn't automatically make them or the possession of one an act of racism. Also when you consider that the dolls were seen in one of the photos next to a picture of Muhammad Ali after he's knocked out an opponent, a photo that shows a great symbol and an amazing person in the fight against racism, i find it quite hard to believe that an accusation of racism should then be thrown in the direction of the shops owner and at Shetland in general.
  25. Oh dear indeed, the saddest bit was this quote from the article. "it was seen to hit the blade of a small wind turbine in Tarbert and was killed." Makes you wonder if we should also campaign to stop the installation of small domestic turbines since they seem to pose such a threat to wildlife.
  • Create New...