The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I must apologise for not knowing the finer details of this trial, such as the names of the young girl who died, or the defendants alledgedly responsible for her death, but I wanted to voice an opinion, based on what I do know.
The only reason this story got any press at all is because the pills happen to be ecstacy. I'm sure that hundreds of kids die each year because of finding and taking perscription pills and overdosing on them.
The only two factors as far as I'm concerned are :
A) The pills were in a none child-proof container (a plastic bag), meaning the young girl was able to get at them.
B) When they realised that she had taken them, their hesitation to dial 999 possibly resulted in her death. (possibly, as there is no way to prove whether she would have survived should medical attention had been immediate).
So, for a kick off, as far as I'm concerned, (A), although a little irresponsible, was not criminal behaviour. Paracetamol are supplied in packets that children could easily open, and eating a packet of these could be just as life threatening as eating 5 tablets of ecstacy. I believe that should a child eat a packet of paracetamol, the jury would regard this simply as an unfortunate incident. Besides, a 10 year old child ought to know that eating tablets of any kind can be dangerous.
So, on to (B). There is little doubt that failing to summon adequate medical attention when someone is thought to have overdosed on anything is irresponsible. The couple did not take no action at all though, it is reported they contacted several members of the girls family to ensure she got help, they were obviously concerned for her well being and sought advice/help from others who might have better insight. It is tragic that this hesitation possibly led to her death, but I would not consider it to be deserving of such harsh treatment by the law.
I caught the last sentence of todays update on this trial, and it appears the man involved has received a custodial sentence. If this is on the charge of Man Slaughter, then it is my opinion that they have made an example of him simply because the drug involved was ecstacy in his possession.
I'm not someone who blindly defends recreational drug-use, I am very open minded about both sides of any arguement, but half the time I think it is just the media whipping up a frenzy, scaring uneducated people into thinking everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
The only reason this story got any press at all is because the pills happen to be ecstacy. I'm sure that hundreds of kids die each year because of finding and taking perscription pills and overdosing on them.
The only two factors as far as I'm concerned are :
A) The pills were in a none child-proof container (a plastic bag), meaning the young girl was able to get at them.
B) When they realised that she had taken them, their hesitation to dial 999 possibly resulted in her death. (possibly, as there is no way to prove whether she would have survived should medical attention had been immediate).
So, for a kick off, as far as I'm concerned, (A), although a little irresponsible, was not criminal behaviour. Paracetamol are supplied in packets that children could easily open, and eating a packet of these could be just as life threatening as eating 5 tablets of ecstacy. I believe that should a child eat a packet of paracetamol, the jury would regard this simply as an unfortunate incident. Besides, a 10 year old child ought to know that eating tablets of any kind can be dangerous.
So, on to (B). There is little doubt that failing to summon adequate medical attention when someone is thought to have overdosed on anything is irresponsible. The couple did not take no action at all though, it is reported they contacted several members of the girls family to ensure she got help, they were obviously concerned for her well being and sought advice/help from others who might have better insight. It is tragic that this hesitation possibly led to her death, but I would not consider it to be deserving of such harsh treatment by the law.
I caught the last sentence of todays update on this trial, and it appears the man involved has received a custodial sentence. If this is on the charge of Man Slaughter, then it is my opinion that they have made an example of him simply because the drug involved was ecstacy in his possession.
I'm not someone who blindly defends recreational drug-use, I am very open minded about both sides of any arguement, but half the time I think it is just the media whipping up a frenzy, scaring uneducated people into thinking everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
Page:
I must apologise for not knowing the finer details of this trial, such as the names of the young girl who died, or the defendants alledgedly responsible for her death, but I wanted to voice an opinion, based on what I do know.
The only reason this story got any press at all is because the pills happen to be ecstacy. I'm sure that hundreds of kids die each year because of finding and taking perscription pills and overdosing on them.
The only two factors as far as I'm concerned are :
A) The pills were in a none child-proof container (a plastic bag), meaning the young girl was able to get at them.
B) When they realised that she had taken them, their hesitation to dial 999 possibly resulted in her death. (possibly, as there is no way to prove whether she would have survived should medical attention had been immediate).
So, for a kick off, as far as I'm concerned, (A), although a little irresponsible, was not criminal behaviour. Paracetamol are supplied in packets that children could easily open, and eating a packet of these could be just as life threatening as eating 5 tablets of ecstacy. I believe that should a child eat a packet of paracetamol, the jury would regard this simply as an unfortunate incident. Besides, a 10 year old child ought to know that eating tablets of any kind can be dangerous.
So, on to (B). There is little doubt that failing to summon adequate medical attention when someone is thought to have overdosed on anything is irresponsible. The couple did not take no action at all though, it is reported they contacted several members of the girls family to ensure she got help, they were obviously concerned for her well being and sought advice/help from others who might have better insight. It is tragic that this hesitation possibly led to her death, but I would not consider it to be deserving of such harsh treatment by the law.
I caught the last sentence of todays update on this trial, and it appears the man involved has received a custodial sentence. If this is on the charge of Man Slaughter, then it is my opinion that they have made an example of him simply because the drug involved was ecstacy in his possession.
I'm not someone who blindly defends recreational drug-use, I am very open minded about both sides of any arguement, but half the time I think it is just the media whipping up a frenzy, scaring uneducated people into thinking everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
The only reason this story got any press at all is because the pills happen to be ecstacy. I'm sure that hundreds of kids die each year because of finding and taking perscription pills and overdosing on them.
The only two factors as far as I'm concerned are :
A) The pills were in a none child-proof container (a plastic bag), meaning the young girl was able to get at them.
B) When they realised that she had taken them, their hesitation to dial 999 possibly resulted in her death. (possibly, as there is no way to prove whether she would have survived should medical attention had been immediate).
So, for a kick off, as far as I'm concerned, (A), although a little irresponsible, was not criminal behaviour. Paracetamol are supplied in packets that children could easily open, and eating a packet of these could be just as life threatening as eating 5 tablets of ecstacy. I believe that should a child eat a packet of paracetamol, the jury would regard this simply as an unfortunate incident. Besides, a 10 year old child ought to know that eating tablets of any kind can be dangerous.
So, on to (B). There is little doubt that failing to summon adequate medical attention when someone is thought to have overdosed on anything is irresponsible. The couple did not take no action at all though, it is reported they contacted several members of the girls family to ensure she got help, they were obviously concerned for her well being and sought advice/help from others who might have better insight. It is tragic that this hesitation possibly led to her death, but I would not consider it to be deserving of such harsh treatment by the law.
I caught the last sentence of todays update on this trial, and it appears the man involved has received a custodial sentence. If this is on the charge of Man Slaughter, then it is my opinion that they have made an example of him simply because the drug involved was ecstacy in his possession.
I'm not someone who blindly defends recreational drug-use, I am very open minded about both sides of any arguement, but half the time I think it is just the media whipping up a frenzy, scaring uneducated people into thinking everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
Jade Slack was her name ...
50.
That's the number of minutes the guy took to call 999.
4.
The number of deals that guy made made selling E during those 50 minutes.
That guy is one sick-headed fook.
That's the number of minutes the guy took to call 999.
4.
The number of deals that guy made made selling E during those 50 minutes.
That guy is one sick-headed fook.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
Everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
> What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
Everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
FantasyMeister wrote:
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
>
> Everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
heh, I can only hope you are joking
> ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> What are your opinions on this controversial trial?
>
> Everything and everyone connected with drugs is purely evil.
heh, I can only hope you are joking
Im pretty sure he got 3.5 years for drug dealing. Not anything for the childs death.
But ecstacy is still illegal. And if he wasnt a drug dealer, that young girl wouldnt be dead.
But ecstacy is still illegal. And if he wasnt a drug dealer, that young girl wouldnt be dead.
ßora† SagdiyeV wrote:
> heh, I can only hope you are joking
Of course I am. There is no such thing as 'evil'.
> heh, I can only hope you are joking
Of course I am. There is no such thing as 'evil'.
If E wasn't illegal, then the girl wouldn't be dead.
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> If E wasn't illegal, then the girl wouldn't be dead.
heh
> If E wasn't illegal, then the girl wouldn't be dead.
heh
Mouldy Cheese wrote:
> If E wasn't illegal, then the girl wouldn't be dead.
But perhaps if E was legal, then perhaps countless more would be dead.
I can never get my head completely around control and such... I desperately want to believe that people are able to make their own intelligent decisions, but unfortunately those decisions can often be quite selfish, no matter where the control begins or ends.
Oh well.
> If E wasn't illegal, then the girl wouldn't be dead.
But perhaps if E was legal, then perhaps countless more would be dead.
I can never get my head completely around control and such... I desperately want to believe that people are able to make their own intelligent decisions, but unfortunately those decisions can often be quite selfish, no matter where the control begins or ends.
Oh well.
Page: