Daily Archives: March 31, 2010

When your defence is a crime.


Andrew Pritchard sold cannabis in the 1980s and organised illegal raves in the 1990s. He had gangsters with guns provide security. This was all by his own admission. He was tried for importing hundreds of kilos of coke.He claimed he was smuggling in counterfeit cigars. Two juries failed to reach a verdict so he was acquitted.

This was all in MacIntyre’s underworld show.

I think he was smuggling cocaine –  I do not know that he was. His claims seems implausible but it is just possible. His girlfriend blinked so much, looked away so much when asked if he was guilty. Her denials were unconvicing. The man himself was closer to believable.

But if he is innocent of importing cocaine then this is only because he is guilty of illegally importing tobacco. For such a massive tax dodge he should be behind bars for a few years –  not the 35 that he would have been awarded for cocaine smuggling if he had been convicted of that.

The maximum sentence of supplying class A drugs is life. That said, I have never known it to be imposed. Even so life sentences can mean as little as 10 years.

Having been found not guilty of importing coke, he was not, so far as I know, charged with smuggling in tobacco. The case against him was overwhelming. He had said he smuggled in tobacco –  he said it under oath for months. If he were to retract this statement couldn’t he be charged with perjury and the coke trafficking charges be reinstated?

He got off scot free. Very unfair. His chums said he was a loveable rogue. No he was far worse than that – a thoroughly bad man. I know it is wrong but there is a part of me that envies his wealth and daring –  that even admires him. But this is bad of me. Sadly many poor boys will try to copy him. He is the role model for them.

I am minded to say we should legalise the weaker strains of weed. Hard drugs are a different matter. The libertarian in me says that people should be allowed to use them and prohibition is foredoomed. I have heard that experiments in issuing drugs for free causes crime to fall dramatically. This option appeals to me. If these fools want to ruin their health, let them. Just so long as they do not beat old folks to death whilst robbing them to pay for their next fix. It is not the drugs as such that harm others but the criminality that surrounds them.


A brief history of crime


I read this book, named in the title, a month back. I am reading it again now. That is how good it is. Peter Hitchens is a pompous prig and I once had the honour of pinging his ear in Reading Railway station. ‘Hey Pete put that in your column’ I said.

It was comical – ‘May I have your name?’ I refused to tell him. He followed me around, ‘You just committed an assault on me.’

He went out, he sneaked on me to a railway employee and I denied doing anything and Hitchens said of me ‘Thinks he’s clever.’ – ‘No Pete –  I AM clever.’

I left the station and he said, ‘Let’s gret some British Transport Police.’  He went off and I got away.

He could have had me caught by CCTV –  but oh he disapproves of that!

Anyhow the book is rollicking. I do think the prison regime a century ago was inhumane. In the US all the shakedowns seems harsh but at least the guards are in charge –  here it is the crims who run the place.

I agree with much of what Hitchens says. The weakest part is his attack on drugs. He eulogises the Victorian epoch. Yet we had all drugs as legal then –  for recreational use. Their use was very limited though.

His opposition to narcotics sits oddly with his libertarian instincts.

His attacks on PC police, endless bureaucracy, the bogus notion of institutional racism and  excessive gun control are all totally valid.

Hitchens is a stupid attention seeker. His vocabulary is often hyperbolic and ignorant. He is a contrarian. One can only put down much his bizarre range of views to attention seeking perversity.

I remember in 2001 a book called The Election was published. Various pundits were asked to forecast the result. Of a score of them only Hitchens predicted a Conservative victory –  and then by a landslide. How wrong can you get? Rather calls into question his judgement. I once questioned him about it and he said he only said that to get people to listen to him.

He was a Trotskyist and is now ultra-conservative. He likes the lunatic fringe.

He tried to be a Conservative MP in the 1990s and now hates that party. Sour grapes, per chance?

He calls for remoralisation and Christianity but never spells out exactly what he believes here. What do we do now that there are many atheists and people of other religions in the country?

Mad dog


I saw a programme about Mad Dog Johnnie Adair the other night. It was hosted by Donal MacIntyre. I like MacIntyre’s work but he seems sympathetic towards Adair. I suppose he needs to appear to be this was to get Mad Dog to open up.

Mad Dog is an extraordinarily loathsome character. He patently suffers from a very severe Napoleon complex. Why else be so musclebound? I am weak so I must appear strong.

His narcissism is nauseating. He likes walking around without his shirt showing his tattoos. He is a common criminal –  well worse than that. If his C Company of the UDA did not murder 40 Roman Catholic civilians it certainly encouraged this. He is complicit in the foulest and most shameful of crimes. As so often those who are the most opprobrious affect to be the proudest. He was about to get a hiding from the UDA as a teenager for beating up and old man and then they offered him to join their mob. This is typical of his low down and utterly cowardly behaviour.

His creed is gangsterism masquerading as a political stance. He is a drug dealer and a wife beater and yet accuses others of being scum. A senior retired RUC offier put these allegations to Adair and he did not contest them. Adair is conceited enough to refer to himself in the third person. Adair called himself a soldier yet had earrings.

His organisation propagated the most revolting sectarian bigotry that was a boon to the IRA. Adair has no sense of right and wrong and cheerily admits that if he had been born into a Roman Catholic family he would have been in the IRA. These two sets of terrorists are tweedledum and tweedledee. The UDA for all their posturing with guns killed very few republicans – they murdered defenceless and innocent people.

It is little surprise that the King of Chavs Michael Carroll should be star struck by Adair. Likewise Neo-Nazis admire Adair. So much for the UDA being British patriots.

One of the saddest things is that there is so little justice. These terrorists when they were in the Maze lived the life of Reilly. They should have been subjected to a harsh regime. Yet the republican and loyalist terrorists whinged that they were treated badly. Dedums, my heart bleeds.

Adair and his bone-headed thugs bring disgrace on unionism. It is terrible that the many honourable unionists should have their reputation besmirched by so despicable a man.