For once, punishment fits crime


11:19 am - February 7th 2009

by Septicisle    


      Share on Tumblr

It’s good to see that good sense has prevailed in the case of Robert Holding, the 72-year-old milkman who also supplied his elderly customers with cannabis resin as a sideline, with Judge Lunt suspending the custodial sentence, despite him warning that he was likely to go to prison.

The ostensible reason is that Holding’s wife, who has Alzheimer’s, has gone into a care home and that in an “act of mercy”, the judge suspended the sentence so he could continue to visit her. It would however be nice to think that perhaps he was influenced by some of the reporting of the case, with even the right-wing virulently anti-drug papers taking a quite apparent dim view of him being sent to prison for trying to help people with their pains, however misguided.

Further evidence to his “crime” being purely to help was that he was selling the drug at well below street prices, making more money on his milk round itself. If all dealers were so publicly spirited, the war on drugs would be even more of a clusterfuck.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Septicisle' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He mostly blogs, poorly, over at Septicisle.info on politics and general media mendacity.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Crime

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I dream of the day my milkman delivers cannabis.

If someone’s crime is supplying drugs, then for the punishment to fit the crime, the judge should give the felon some drugs. As I wrote on my old blog:

I propose that the punishment should fit the crime. If someone murders, they are killed. If someone steals, their property is taken.

If someone is found guilty of distributing drugs, the judge should give them some drugs. If someone’s crime is public nudity, the judge should appear before them nude. If someone facilitates gambling by opening an illegal gambling den, the judge should invite the felon round his house for a few games of poker. If a man is guilty of wanking off another man in a public toilet, the judge should… well I think you get the idea.

This would neatly end the problem of people being prosecuted for victimless crimes.

I don’t know whether to believe this guy or not. My problem is I’ve had plenty of clients who are 72 years old and they’re tough as nails in consultation, but before the court, they’re feeble elderly people who wouldn’t harm a fly. Do we actually believe his story? I think the judge probably had no choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt. There would have been a public outcry, whether the man’s liar or not.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs




Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.