This deserves a tumbril, no?

A Labour MP could face a parliamentary inquiry for using House of Commons notepaper to plead with a judge not to jail her “beautiful son” for serious drug offences.

Kate Osamor stated her position at the time on Jeremy Corbyn’s front bench when she wrote to the judge who spared her son a jail term in October for possessing drugs including cocaine and ecstasy with intent to supply.

Her letter was released yesterday after the judge agreed with an application by The Times and other newspapers, which argued that the public interest demanded transparency in the sentencing process.

“Don’t you know who I am” not being one of those things we Brits really take to….

29 comments on “This deserves a tumbril, no?

  1. Remember that time when Jack Straw’s kid was up before the beak on similar charges, and there were injunctions against publishing that fact? It’s what they do.

  2. Equality and fraternity, comrades! One day every citizen will be able to abuse their position of power to get their son off serious drug offences! Until that glorious day, I shall continue to do so.

  3. Labour: For the Many who can’t abuse a powerful position to stop their child going to prison, Not the Few who can.

  4. Oh, lovely.

    Not only one of the hereditary Labour MPs, but a Special Person to boot!

    Diane could explain to you why normal rules don’t apply. West Indian mothers and all that.

  5. @The Sage

    The drugs and quantities involved being quite different in those two cases, I believe? £2500 worth in the Osamor case, though these numbers do tend to get inflated, and at a festival to boot (one with drugs deaths, albeit unconnected).

    On which point, can anyone explain to me what happened in this one to produce such a low sentence? The Graun says

    “Ishmael Osamor pleaded guilty to charges of possession with intent to supply cocaine, ecstasy, ketamine and cannabis on 18 September at Bournemouth crown court. It was accepted by the prosecution that Osamor was looking after the drugs for friends. Judge Stephen Climie said he had received five references in support of Osamor, which played a “significant” part in his decision to impose a community sentence of 200 hours of unpaid work.”

    So nobody is claiming personal use here, that wouldn’t have been plausible. But I am surprised to see how ‘looking after for friends’ is such a get-out clause – that argument clearly doesn’t work for looking after a gun or knife for your ‘mates’. The main distinction I can imagine here is the implication that the lad (heh, a fully grown 29 year old) didn’t stand to share in the profits even if he was taking a party in the criminal activity. Would it work for ‘looking after’ stolen goods?

  6. The tone of the letter comes across as rather commandeering as well, not much contrition.

    Her beautiful drug-dealing son…?

  7. ZaNu scum. And Sage –if the rumours are true a certain four-eyed Bliarite HS fixed the law for a lot more than his kid.

  8. Grist: Not only one of the hereditary Labour MPs, but a Special Person to boot!

    It’s probably a rite of passage – wasn’t the Blair boy found drunk in a gutter after celebrating the end of exams?

  9. Looking after for a friend is the usual pattern for a couple, or more, of dealers dealing in a public space. The guy doing the deal with the punter will only have on him sufficient for that particular deal. Often, won’t even be in possession of the goods until the sale’s agreed. He goes gets it off of the holder, who doesn’t get involved in transactions.
    It’s quite obvious security. The point of sale man never has on him more than personal use quantities & at the initial contact, nothing at all. Very difficult for police to secure a conviction for supply. The holder will also normally be holding the takings.
    The value of the drugs seized is irrelevant. Apart from the police & CPS’s usual tendency to vastly overvalue, the usual tactic for a team working something like a festival would be to have a stash somewhere & limit the gear actually in-play at any one time.. Maybe in a vehicle or even held by another holder. A team working an event could easily turn over 10 or 20k on a good day.

  10. @bis

    “Looking after for a friend is the usual pattern for a couple, or more, of dealers dealing in a public space. The guy doing the deal with the punter will only have on him sufficient for that particular deal. Often, won’t even be in possession of the goods until the sale’s agreed. He goes gets it off of the holder, who doesn’t get involved in transactions.”

    Yes, quite. This is what I’m struggling with here, even if for some reason the guy wasn’t going to get a cut (or at least it couldn’t be proved he was going to get a cut), it’s clearly a role within the scheme.

  11. Tractor Gent said:
    “I wonder what the voters of Edmonton think”

    Unfortunately they probably think that it’s just what they’d do if they were in her position.

  12. The worst thing is not that she tried it on – we sort of expect that from MPs now – but that it worked.

    That our judiciary is sow also corrupt is a relatively new development.

  13. I can be persuaded its a constitutional no-no to write personal matters on HofC letterheads to members of the judiciary, but Kate was his employer as well so perhaps there’s a defence there even though she was clearly writing as a parent. If there is an inquiry one slightly mischievious question might be asked: Kate signed it, but who typed it- one of her employees?

  14. As a Labour piece of scum, and a BAME female, she is more than entitled to the benefit of the Corbyn defence.

    Although present at the signing of the letter, she was not involved.

  15. If he was looking after it for a friend, surely it was labelled so he wouldn’t forget whose it was? That what I’d do, I forget why I’ve boiled a kettle sometimes.

  16. @MBE
    My guess is that the spook in question had a parent in important places became known very early on. The capture would have been on the books & hard to fade because he was initially grabbed by security. They’ve got him with the gear. If he’s allowed to walk, someone’s going to raise a stink with the press. But after that, it’s been all damage limitation by Plod.
    Been a normal capture they’d have sweated him with threats of serious time to get him to turn over his buddies. He doesn’t play ball he goes to court with Plod making out he’s a king-pin coke baron.

  17. Hey mon, dis ain’t No Way da black privy ledge. No way, shit man no way.

    Dis am de MP privy ledge.

    Sho is

  18. Can’t imagine anyone in her constituency’ll be all that bothered. These days, Edmonton’s like a chilly Mogadishu. .You’d be hard pressed to find anyone speaks english.

  19. Ta, Mr (or Ms) Miller.

    If we Brexit can we have a law that lets us hang little Blair and select HSs? It would make all the fuss worthwhile.

  20. If you’re talking decent kebabs, M’Lud, you really need Enfield or Southgate. Edmonton’s more elephant leg territory.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.