Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kidintheriot)
    I don't see how having an addiction is being arrogant. He has had a number of implants to try and fight his heroin habit and, if stories are to believed, is in rehab at the moment.
    I think there is a great deal to be written about him; perhaps you could check out The Libertines society or listen to some Babyshambles. He's a very talented musician and lyricist and it blows my mind that so many people can supposedly hate someone they've never met.
    Oh no I dont hate him, hates a pretty strong word for someone you dint even know! I just get the impression that the number of times he keep re-offending comes across as being quite arrogant and that he somehow believes he is higher than the law. Plus as I said, I think he hasnt been sent to jail yet because of his celebrity status. Which probably hasnt helped him at all because on some level he knows that he can get away with it without too harsh a punishment. Didnt know he was in rehab at the moment but good luck to him anyway.
    And Ive heard some Babyshamles stuff, its good! But it still winds me up a little because he's pretty rich and he's just spending it on drink and drugs, when there's plenty of homeless/poor people that would kill to have a 10th of the amount of money he has.
    I think if he went to prison then it could be a good thing, could well give him the wake up call he needs to stop taking drugs.
    But yea, no one can make a proper judgement on his life and how he's leading it, its all just speculation from various stories about him, you never know what goes on behind closed doors!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    Oh no I dont hate him, hates a pretty strong word for someone you dint even know! I just get the impression that the number of times he keep re-offending comes across as being quite arrogant and that he somehow believes he is higher than the law. Plus as I said, I think he hasnt been sent to jail yet because of his celebrity status. Which probably hasnt helped him at all because on some level he knows that he can get away with it without too harsh a punishment. Didnt know he was in rehab at the moment but good luck to him anyway.
    And Ive heard some Babyshamles stuff, its good! But it still winds me up a little because he's pretty rich and he's just spending it on drink and drugs, when there's plenty of homeless/poor people that would kill to have a 10th of the amount of money he has.
    I think if he went to prison then it could be a good thing, could well give him the wake up call he needs to stop taking drugs.
    But yea, no one can make a proper judgement on his life and how he's leading it, its all just speculation from various stories about him, you never know what goes on behind closed doors!
    One of the more sensible posts.
    I disagree that his celebrity status has helped him out of jail; I think it's because he shows that he wants to change and has checked into rehab a number of times. I think going to prison wouldn't really help him much tbh, because everyone knows drugs can be found more easily in prison than anywhere else. He needs help from people like Focus 12 I think, who have a lot of experience and who have helped people like Russell Brand and Davina McCall. Maybe then he'd pull through.
    I read somewhere recently that he isn't actually very rich; Babyshambles Ltd are apparently losing loads of money and before he was pretty much living off Kate Moss. I don't think he's got as much money as would be expected.
    And totally agree that it's all just speculation - I just have a lot of faith in him and really hope that one day he can totally kick his habits and get well again.
    It irritates me a lot when he is judged by the tabloids and then idiots go out and believe every word they read, suddenly deciding to hate him. I appreciate that that isn't what you were doing though, sorry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yea I mean Im sure he's not a bad guy, lots of people have problems with drugs!... But the whole celebrities getting off lightly has been a very recent topping, so I guess some of my annoyance is directed at other celebrities not being punished. I already mentioned the Lindsay Lohan one, I think its an absolute joke that she only got 24 hours in jail for seven different offences including drink and drugs! Nicole richie got a four day sentence, and only ended up going to jail for a total of around 80 minutes. And paris hilton who was given a 45 day sentence (which I think is more like what all us non-famous people would recieve!) left jail after a few days to be on house arrest, and in all fairness, she did get sent back to jail, only to have her sentence shortened to 23 days!... I try not to form my opinion of celebrities from what heat magazine tells me, but you cant ignore the fact that celebrities do appear to be given special treatment when it comes to breaking the law.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We don't know if their sentences are unusual though, because ordinary people's jail terms aren't in the papers or on TV. There's no way to know what Average Joe would get for doing the same as Pete, because his case isn't reported. Lindsay Lohan's short spell in prison may be unreasonable to you, but that's not to say it's abnormal.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    He's no role model put it that way.
    And I really don't care about him to be honest. :cool:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Yea you're right... but in the case of Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton at least I think you can generally say they got off lightly. Serving 80 minutes of a four day sentence sounds ridiculous. As does Paris Hilton leaving jail in a matter of a few days so she could be under house arrest, only have to me made to return because a judge saw no reason why she should be able to be under house rest. And then having her sentence more than halfed! I think you can say this sort of thing doesnt happen to everyone else as it would turn the whole process of people serving their sentences into a complete shambles! I know the USA system is probably differnt to the UK one, but there's people getting higher sentences than that for simply failing to make sure their child attends school regularly!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    For what reason? I never actually realised there was so much to even write about the man. He should go to prison because he blatantly shows an arrogance in the fact that he keeps re-offending. Maybe a stint in prison is just the wake up call he needs.
    For using some drugs and occasionally driving without insurance?

    If you were to send everyone who did that to jail, our already overcrowded prison system would absolutely collapse.

    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    Plus as I said, I think he hasnt been sent to jail yet because of his celebrity status.
    Pray tell, but why would a judge care? In fact, it seems obvious to me that one would probably be more inclined to punish him harshly as it would be a well publicised case.

    If anything, his apparent 'status' works against him in a court. TSR generally seems to have a very funny and entirely unrealistic view of the criminal justice system. If anything, Doherty has been punished harshly for his (rather modest) list of offences for which he has actually been convicted.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    Oh no I dont hate him, hates a pretty strong word for someone you dint even know! I just get the impression that the number of times he keep re-offending comes across as being quite arrogant and that he somehow believes he is higher than the law. Plus as I said, I think he hasnt been sent to jail yet because of his celebrity status. Which probably hasnt helped him at all because on some level he knows that he can get away with it without too harsh a punishment. Didnt know he was in rehab at the moment but good luck to him anyway.
    And Ive heard some Babyshamles stuff, its good! But it still winds me up a little because he's pretty rich and he's just spending it on drink and drugs, when there's plenty of homeless/poor people that would kill to have a 10th of the amount of money he has.
    I think if he went to prison then it could be a good thing, could well give him the wake up call he needs to stop taking drugs.
    But yea, no one can make a proper judgement on his life and how he's leading it, its all just speculation from various stories about him, you never know what goes on behind closed doors!
    good post

    and to the other poster I also find it irrating how people think they hate people, when most of the time they clearly don't know anything
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    For using some drugs and occasionally driving without insurance?

    If you were to send everyone who did that to jail, our already overcrowded prison system would absolutely collapse.



    Pray tell, but why would a judge care? In fact, it seems obvious to me that one would probably be more inclined to punish him harshly as it would be a well publicised case.

    If anything, his apparent 'status' works against him in a court. TSR generally seems to have a very funny and entirely unrealistic view of the criminal justice system. If anything, Doherty has been punished harshly for his (rather modest) list of offences for which he has actually been convicted.
    You say 'some drugs' like he's a kid thats been caught with £2 worth of weed on him, and this is certainly not the case. He has been caught a variety of time with drugs such as heroin and cocaine, those are class A drugs! Not to mention morphine as well. Also he's been in court for joy riding in a stolen car, the list of things he's been arrested for seems pretty endless. He was also caught giving cocaine to a teenager when he was carrying out one of his 'punishments' in rehab. This its self shows how much the punishment he's getting is not adequate.
    And I dont think thats really a fair question to ask - Im not a judge and never have been so I dont know exactly what reasoning they use when it comes to punishing celebrities. But from what you can see, the facts, they seem to be pretty damn lenient when it comes to jail sentences, especially in his case.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    You say 'some drugs' like he's a kid thats been caught with £2 worth of weed on him, and this is certainly not the case. He has been caught a variety of time with drugs such as heroin and cocaine, those are class A drugs!
    So's ecstacy. I find it hard to take the classifications in any way seriously.

    All the same, this isn't the 19th century... in fact, in the 19th century these things were legal, so I'm talking nonsense... but my point is that we as a society do not deal with drug addicts in a draconian manner. Why? Because it just does more harm than good.

    Also he's been in court for joy riding in a stolen car, the list of things he's been arrested for seems pretty endless.
    Ah, the old tabloid trick. "Been in court for" does not mean anything - what he has been convicted of is what matters.

    In fact, two minutes worth of research reveals what you have said to be a lie. He has been accused of car theft twice. In both occasions, he was released without charge, so he has never attended court accused of cartheft.

    He was also caught giving cocaine to a teenager when he was carrying out one of his 'punishments' in rehab. This its self shows how much the punishment he's getting is not adequate.
    He has never been convicted of supplying drugs, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, drugs in rehab clinics are hardly a new thing.

    And I dont think thats really a fair question to ask - Im not a judge and never have been so I dont know exactly what reasoning they use when it comes to punishing celebrities. But from what you can see, the facts, they seem to be pretty damn lenient when it comes to jail sentences, especially in his case.
    Well, maybe if you didn't imagine convictions, you wouldn't need to imagine how to punish them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    So's ecstacy. I find it hard to take the classifications in any way seriously.

    All the same, this isn't the 19th century... in fact, in the 19th century these things were legal, so I'm talking nonsense... but my point is that we as a society do not deal with drug addicts in a draconian manner. Why? Because it just does more harm than good.



    Ah, the old tabloid trick. "Been in court for" does not mean anything - what he has been convicted of is what matters.

    In fact, two minutes worth of research reveals what you have said to be a lie. He has been accused of car theft twice. In both occasions, he was released without charge, so he has never attended court accused of cartheft.



    He has never been convicted of supplying drugs, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, drugs in rehab clinics are hardly a new thing.



    Well, maybe if you didn't imagine convictions, you wouldn't need to imagine how to punish them.
    The classifications are there for a reason, so I dont think they should be taken that lightly to be honest. How could society benefit more from not punishing people harshly for having and using those sort of drugs? And this isnt even really about people who have been convicted of drugs offences in general anymore, he's been caught several times with class A drugs and has been caught giving them to a teenager. So I think anything less than a jail sentence after he keeps re-offending is a joke to be honest. Im not sure exactly how many times he has been arrested but after googling it, on one of the occasions, he was being charged with SEVEN counts of having drugs on him, I really cannot see how he has not been sent to prison for this and the fact that he repeatedly re-offends.
    And as for the 2 minutes research, in the story, the driver was arrested, while the other two male passengers (one of them being him) ran away, but the police caught them both, to me this reeks of being guilty whether he was actually convicted of it or not.
    Also, 'drugs in rehab is hardly a new thing' doesnt make it acceptable does it, I was quite disgusted that he had actually given a teenager cocaine when she was obviously there to recover from her addiction.
    As for the last comment, I dont see where I said he had been convicted for the joy-riding in a stolen car?? But if you ask me, there's no smoke without fire when it comes to him.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    The classifications are there for a reason, so I dont think they should be taken that lightly to be honest.
    Well if you follow the news, you'd have undoubtedly noticed that virtually every expert, committee or body that looks into the matter comes to the conclusion that the classifications are a load of nonsense. As the House of Commons Science Select Committee pointed out, there are plenty of class A drugs that are far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, solvents or cannabis.

    How could society benefit more from not punishing people harshly for having and using those sort of drugs?
    Because sending drug addicts to prison simply doesn't work and costs the taxpayer something like £50-60,000 a year per prisoner, which is why the state takes alternative options.

    Indeed, the countries with the best rates of curing drug addiction are the ones where the addicts are helped and not thrown into a criminal justice system which is entirely unequiped to deal with them.

    And this isnt even really about people who have been convicted of drugs offences in general anymore, he's been caught several times with class A drugs and has been caught giving them to a teenager.
    He has never been convicted of the latter, so I'm completely disregarding that.

    So I think anything less than a jail sentence after he keeps re-offending is a joke to be honest. Im not sure exactly how many times he has been arrested but after googling it, on one of the occasions, he was being charged with SEVEN counts of having drugs on him
    Again, charge does not equal conviction. Yes, he does get convicted a lot - he's (shockingly) an addict, it's kinda what they do. Sticking them in prison only normalises the experience and exposes them to far worse elements than themselves. However perhaps more importantly - using recreational drugs harms nobody but the addict.

    And as for the 2 minutes research, in the story, the driver was arrested, while the other two male passengers (one of them being him) ran away, but the police caught them both, to me this reeks of being guilty whether he was actually convicted of it or not.
    He was charge for driving without due care and attention and some other motoring offences, not stealing any car. God only knows if he was actually convicted.

    As for the 'running away' evidence - I'm afraid I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.

    Also, 'drugs in rehab is hardly a new thing' doesnt make it acceptable does it, I was quite disgusted that he had actually given a teenager cocaine when she was obviously there to recover from her addiction.
    Well, as I've said, this is hearsay. But again, they are drug addicts - getting clean is not a simple business.

    As for the last comment, I dont see where I said he had been convicted for the joy-riding in a stolen car?? But if you ask me, there's no smoke without fire when it comes to him.
    No, but you did imply it and you certainly did say he had been in court for it, which was an outright falsehood.

    As for your other comment, I shall hand over to Mark from Peep Show:

    "Is that what a thousand years of the English judicial system comes down to: no smoke without fire?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    As for your other comment, I shall hand over to Mark from Peep Show:

    "Is that what a thousand years of the English judicial system comes down to: no smoke without fire?"
    :rofl: Excellent use of Peep Show.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It's getting tiring now, quite how Amy Winehouse is becoming. Another rock star on drugs, another rock star going to court and being let out and so on.

    I like Doherty's music, I'm not a huge fan but I've got a few releases, it's not the best stuff, but he's always in the press for the wrong reasons.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Well if you follow the news, you'd have undoubtedly noticed that virtually every expert, committee or body that looks into the matter comes to the conclusion that the classifications are a load of nonsense. As the House of Commons Science Select Committee pointed out, there are plenty of class A drugs that are far less harmful than alcohol, tobacco, solvents or cannabis.



    Because sending drug addicts to prison simply doesn't work and costs the taxpayer something like £50-60,000 a year per prisoner, which is why the state takes alternative options.

    Indeed, the countries with the best rates of curing drug addiction are the ones where the addicts are helped and not thrown into a criminal justice system which is entirely unequiped to deal with them.



    He has never been convicted of the latter, so I'm completely disregarding that.



    Again, charge does not equal conviction. Yes, he does get convicted a lot - he's (shockingly) an addict, it's kinda what they do. Sticking them in prison only normalises the experience and exposes them to far worse elements than themselves. However perhaps more importantly - using recreational drugs harms nobody but the addict.



    He was charge for driving without due care and attention and some other motoring offences, not stealing any car. God only knows if he was actually convicted.

    As for the 'running away' evidence - I'm afraid I still believe in innocent until proven guilty.



    Well, as I've said, this is hearsay. But again, they are drug addicts - getting clean is not a simple business.



    No, but you did imply it and you certainly did say he had been in court for it, which was an outright falsehood.

    As for your other comment, I shall hand over to Mark from Peep Show:

    "Is that what a thousand years of the English judicial system comes down to: no smoke without fire?"
    Ugh, this is getting a little tedious now as I dont know the man, dont particularly care about him, we have some facts about him, but not all of them so end of the day it really is just all speculation. I dont know the man, I dont follow every single story about him, or drug classifications, because people like him and drugs dont really figure in my life as I dont get involved with them. Although, if drug classifications mean absolutely nothing, why are they there and why havent been changed?? And what is the best thing to do if a drug addict keeps re-offending, keep giving him a slap on the wrist and hope for the best? The man is ridiculous, and shows an obvious disregard for the law in that he has been convicted and arrested for many other offences. Most people manage to go through life without more than the odd minor law, what gives him the right to carry on re-offending and essentially, getting away with it?? And implying and actually stating something, are completely different things. Pete Doherty may make some good music, but thats about the only thing he seems to do right in my opinion. Its an awful shame because he's probably not a bad person, but he'll most likely end up dead eventually if he doesnt get proper treatment for his addiction, because any punishment he's been given so far has clearly had zero effect. Also, do these people not realise the image they are putting out to kids?? Especially the one's that listen to his music, and are easily impressionable and so are likely to look upon him as a role model?
    And as the poster above me has said - its tiring, another rockstar on drugs, another rockstar getting away with it etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    Also, do these people not realise the image they are putting out to kids?? Especially the one's that listen to his music, and are easily impressionable and so are likely to look upon him as a role model?
    I look up to him as a role model because of his music. As he himself has said in interviews, he gets young people coming up to him all the time and not one has ever asked for his dealer's number or anything like that. Just because people look up to him it doesn't mean they're going to start thinking heroin's a good idea.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    we have some facts about him, but not all of them so end of the day it really is just all speculation.
    Well, kindly stop speculating then - nobody's asking you to and it's nothing short of ridiculous when talking about sentencing of criminals. If you agree with the concept of innocence until guilt is proven, then you really shouldn't be bringing up unfounded allegations in a debate about punishment.

    And implying and actually stating something, are completely different things.
    You stated A, I told you A was a lie, you said that you didn't state B (which you pulled out of the air), I affirmed that A was a lie and that B was simply twisting words, now you state that implication is not the same as statement...

    I dont follow every single story about...drug classifications, because...drugs dont really figure in my life as I dont get involved with them.
    Yet you feel eminently qualified to pontificate on the rehabilitation of drug addicts?

    Although, if drug classifications mean absolutely nothing, why are they there and why havent been changed?
    They are there largely through ignorance, and they haven't been changed yet as they were largely a pet project of Charles Clarke (reclassification has been in the works since the start of 2006) - and he was, of course, removed rather unceremoniously following the foreign prisoners scandal. John Reid, probably the most authoritarian man on the Labour front benches, was given the job in his place and inevitably any major associations with his predecessor died.

    It will happen in the next few years, it is necessary... and it will probably fail, as it is a useless halfway house.

    Drugs laws would also be far more liberal if it wasn't for the armchair fascists in this country who complain about damn-near anything that doesn't involve hanging and flogging.

    And what is the best thing to do if a drug addict keeps re-offending, keep giving him a slap on the wrist and hope for the best?
    It's ridiculous to think about it in terms of punishment, they've done nothing remotely wrong, however rehabilitation should be a priority.

    The man is ridiculous, and shows an obvious disregard for the law in that he has been convicted and arrested for many other offences. Most people manage to go through life without more than the odd minor law, what gives him the right to carry on re-offending and essentially, getting away with it?
    He gets the same, if not worse, than anyone else who'd do these things. He is not punished harshly as they are fairly minor crimes. There, happy?

    Pete Doherty may make some good music, but thats about the only thing he seems to do right in my opinion.
    He's a silly arse, I agree. But we don't lock up people and throw the key away just because they're a bit daft and can't run their own affairs.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Libertin du Nord)
    Well, kindly stop speculating then - nobody's asking you to and it's nothing short of ridiculous when talking about sentencing of criminals. If you agree with the concept of innocence until guilt is proven, then you really shouldn't be bringing up unfounded allegations in a debate about punishment.



    You stated A, I told you A was a lie, you said that you didn't state B (which you pulled out of the air), I affirmed that A was a lie and that B was simply twisting words, now you state that implication is not the same as statement...



    Yet you feel eminently qualified to pontificate on the rehabilitation of drug addicts?



    They are there largely through ignorance, and they haven't been changed yet as they were largely a pet project of Charles Clarke (reclassification has been in the works since the start of 2006) - and he was, of course, removed rather unceremoniously following the foreign prisoners scandal. John Reid, probably the most authoritarian man on the Labour front benches, was given the job in his place and inevitably any major associations with his predecessor died.

    It will happen in the next few years, it is necessary... and it will probably fail, as it is a useless halfway house.

    Drugs laws would also be far more liberal if it wasn't for the armchair fascists in this country who complain about damn-near anything that doesn't involve hanging and flogging.



    It's ridiculous to think about it in terms of punishment, they've done nothing remotely wrong, however rehabilitation should be a priority.



    He gets the same, if not worse, than anyone else who'd do these things. He is not punished harshly as they are fairly minor crimes. There, happy?



    He's a silly arse, I agree. But we don't lock up people and throw the key away just because they're a bit daft and can't run their own affairs.
    Why should I not speculate and give my opinion? No one here has all the facts so its speculation from everyone really. And no I dont really agree with 'innocent until proven guilty' as it seems to be a bit too black and white. He may not have stolen the car, but surely it would be an admission of guilt that he knew he had done something wrong by running away? But whether he was charged and found guilty of anything to do with that situation, its still there that that actually happened. You yourself said that I implied he had been charged with something, and no, implying something and stating something are two different things no matter how you look at it.
    I dont think Im 'qualified' to advise on drug rehabilitation, and I was commenting on the general state of drug rehabilitation, only in his case. Just because I was giving a point of view doesnt mean Im assuming myself to be the worlds expert on sentencing on drugs offences. Rehabilitation should be a priority, but clearly this hasnt been effective with him, so you would have assumed by now that he would have been given a harsher punishment.
    How are you able to comment on whether he gets punished harshly compared to others who commit the same offences? Speculation as well?
    The point Im trying to put across isnt that they should 'lock them up and throw away the key' with anyone who commits drugs offences, but in his case, it may be a good wake up call, as he does appear to have little regard for the law with the various other offences he has committed. Although it may be a good idea to come down harsher on drugs offences in this country, because there does appear to be more and more people taking drugs these days. But hey, I dont know whether thats a completely accurate thing to say, it is after all, speculation! I dont have all the facts but Im not completely ignorant and probably have the same knowledge of drugs classifications etc as most others, so I dont think Im wrong for giving an opinion just because I havent read up on every possible story there is to read on these subjects.
    But aside from that, as I said before, kids look up to people like him, and it cant be a very good example to set. Which makes me wonder even more why he hasnt at least been made an example of, by getting a harsh punishment for the first couple of times he was convicted of these drugs offences
    On another point, has anyone ever seen a picture of the man looking remotely healthy? He always looks like a malnourished rat, cant understand why some teenage girls find him so attractive!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think hes cool
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prettygreeneyes99)
    On another point, has anyone ever seen a picture of the man looking remotely healthy? He always looks like a malnourished rat, cant understand why some teenage girls find him so attractive!
    He can look very attractive.

    Here, here and here.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.