Party Vibe

I suspect the only people who might be trying such a stunt wouldn’t want to chat about it on a public internet forum for their own safety, as they would want to sell it on to make it worthwhile.

otherwise, why bother? smuggling stuff across borders is a far worse crime than domestic posession or even supply, if you just want stimulant drugs for your own use the conventional ones found in the UK are making a resurgence.

The Police have only existed in their present form since 1823.

HM Revenue and Customs have had power since 1066. They are not the sort of people you want to be regularly getting on the wrong side of….

@DaftFader 394886 wrote:

If they just said “opiates” I very much doubt there was heroin in your mix as it’s fucking expensive compared to NRG what ever – much more likely some crushed up prescription opiate med.

which still begs the question – why on earth contaminate what was then legal stuff with class A substances, unless the vendors are sketchy “ex-dealers” who simply don’t give a shit?

@Kropotkin 394904 wrote:

I really don’t know what my rights were in that situation, could I actually simply have refused the caution without being taken off down the nick? They took my prints, photograph and a dna sample me as well and I was told I didn’t have to submit to that but it would be an offence not to!!

if you refuse a caution the cops either have to charge you and bail you to Court or give you words of advice (as you’ve done something dodgy enough to get nicked) and let you free. Whilst for large amounts you should always get legal advice, its a gamble as they could (and often do) keep rebailing you to return to a police station where the offence was committed at your own expense whilst the CPS builds up their case.

In fact some cops don’t actually do the full caution paperwork and just give words of advice (they might however put a marker on your PNC record you are a drugs user), which is why sometimes “cautions” don’t come up on enhanced CRB checks even when people think they have got one.

You’re however trading a very minor criminal record which most employers ignore as a “one off misdemeanour” with getting a reputation with the authorities for “playing the system” and “trying to make a stand”. A lot of 1990s pro-drug “activist” sources do encourage people to routinely refuse cautions for the above reasons or that they might even get let off but most of us have to live in the real world outside drugs/party culture at some point, if anything having to repeatedly be bailed / attend Court could be the result and thats a hassle as it is!

Ironically a lot of employers I know wouldn’t care about a caution for drugs ( I wouldn’t have my job were that not the case!) but would be more suspicious of someone who came up on pre-employment checking as constantly argumentative against any sort of rules and regulations when they had clearly been “caught red handed…”

@Kropotkin 394912 wrote:

As I understood it, a caution is not a criminal record but will remain on police files for three years. Are you saying that employers are allowed access to the police database and will routinely check to see if potential new employees are on there?

Not for all jobs but certain jobs require a CRB disclosure as a condition of employment.

Cautions remain on there for life. The old guidelines were to remove them from disclosure to private sector employers after 5 years but today most private sector employers do not have the right to ask about cautions (only convictions) and do not normally do so unless they are in a field of employment where CRB screening is mandatory.

I work in a company where this disclosure is required (its a healthcare organisation) and I’ve seen HR files where people in their 20s and 30s have had cautions from teenage years and young adulthood listed.

Where I work the rules are (provided its not a recent offence of theft or violence) it does not count against being considered for employment – however lying / assuming the caution is “spent” when it comes up on disclosure has led to people being dismissed. its not so much the offence itself but the lying and/or lack of remorse which is the problem as that impacts on how an employee might deal with a problem situation at work. We all make mistakes, and can only be “forgiven” if we admit to them and face up to the consequences…

not all employers are so “right on” as mine. if its a job application and competition is high, the person with the “clean” record usually gets the job, there are plenty of ways to reject the person with form without falling foul of the “political correctness police..” and TBH employers who are that strict find other ways of doing background checks on people, including monitoring their political activities and personal lifestyle so also remove such candidates as political activists or just plain hedonists…