Options
Can someone explain the fake sheikh story?
IzzyS
Posts: 11,045
Forum Member
✭✭
I posted this on Facebook a few days ago but didn't receive any replies, so I thought I'd ask here -
"can anyone explain this whole Fake Sheikh story? (as featured on Panorama earlier this week). He set up stings and put celebs (Tulisa etc.) under pressure to supply drugs (but not under threat of violence, more in terms of offering to help with their career if they help them, I think - that sort of thing?), sure I get that but said celebs still did so of their own volition, thus breaking the law - he didn't threaten them, did he? because otherwise, what is it that he did thats so wrong. I'm not condoning setting people up per se but I'm a bit confused with this story. He's obviously a shady guy and all the rest of it but can anyone explain what he did that made the courts throw out the cases, other than that he filmed the deals and what-not? surely the celebs who supplied the drugs after his request, were still breaking the law and guilty of that charge?!."
Obviously he mis-represented himself and I presume the main issue is to do with entrapment? which I don't condone but I don't really understand why the celebs are let off the hook if they supplied drugs ultimately of their own volition
"can anyone explain this whole Fake Sheikh story? (as featured on Panorama earlier this week). He set up stings and put celebs (Tulisa etc.) under pressure to supply drugs (but not under threat of violence, more in terms of offering to help with their career if they help them, I think - that sort of thing?), sure I get that but said celebs still did so of their own volition, thus breaking the law - he didn't threaten them, did he? because otherwise, what is it that he did thats so wrong. I'm not condoning setting people up per se but I'm a bit confused with this story. He's obviously a shady guy and all the rest of it but can anyone explain what he did that made the courts throw out the cases, other than that he filmed the deals and what-not? surely the celebs who supplied the drugs after his request, were still breaking the law and guilty of that charge?!."
Obviously he mis-represented himself and I presume the main issue is to do with entrapment? which I don't condone but I don't really understand why the celebs are let off the hook if they supplied drugs ultimately of their own volition
0
Comments
Yes I thought its to do with entrapment. I'm not condoning mis-representing who you are etc. but still, if the celeb(s) can be IDed through footage taken and its clear they supplied the drugs or whatever it might be, then their still guilty of that charge, surely?.
What about that paedophile hunter guy, Stinson Hunter or whatever his name is? has he been charged? because he purposefully purported to be kids/teens to entice paedos.
Yes, that was mentioned in the Panorama show. I'm not quite sure how that works as a defence though, unless she was claiming any such footage wasn't real and only showed her portraying someone giving him the drugs(?!).
As an occupation, entrapping people really is pretty low.
Especially for drugs as well. If you, like me, think drugs should generally be legalised and their use is a victimless crime the whole thing is preposterously 'evil' and is profiteering and manipulation of the judicial system for headlines and money.
It also makes it possible perjury , and he is going to cost the taxpayer a small fortune as up to 30 prosecutions that have occurred due to his stories are being re-examined as he may have lied in testimony he gave on those. There are also the costs of the police investigations into those original cases.