Thursday, 7 October 2010

ggreenwald As the Obama DOJ will undoubtedly argue, whatever happened to this person is a state secret that no court can review: http://is.gd/fPvdG

less than 10 seconds ago via web

♪♫ Tricky - Murder Weapon

Drug users are turning to legal highs - report

Young adults are turning to so-called legal highs as they seek alternatives to other drugs, according to experts.

The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse report warned the drugs had emerged as an alternative to the "low quality" of other substances.

Over the past years, the number seeking help for cocaine, crack cocaine and heroin use all fell.

But this was largely down to large reductions in the under 25 age group, as the number of over 40s actually increased.

The NTA believes this reflects the fact the "Trainspotting" generation who got hooked in the 1980s are now ageing and increasingly developing problems linked to their sustained drug use.

Treatment

The findings also chime with British Crime Survey figures which show overall drugs use has been steadily falling in recent years.

Less than 1% of the population use the most harmful drugs - crack cocaine and heroin.

The NTA figures showed that over the past year the number of people needing treatment for cocaine fell by 15% to 7,304, for crack cocaine by 17% to 3,686 and for crack and heroin together by 16% to 21,341.

This is almost entirely due to large falls in the under 25s seeking treatment as the over 40s have been rising in recent years.

For example, the number of over 40s being treated for crack cocaine or heroin use has risen by a third over the last four years.

The report, compiled with the help of Glasgow University, warned there was some anecdotal evidence of a move towards synthetic compounds known as legal highs, such as mephedrone, among younger age groups.

However, the NTA said it had yet to see many people wanting treatment for these, although it warned that could happen in time.

Peter Kelsey, of Lifeline Redcar and Cleveland, which helps drug users, said: "People hear the word legal and they think safe. Yet it's anything but.

"We're seeing a big rise in people coming to use because of legal highs, which we think may be down to the poor quality and price of coke and the legal aspect."

The government has already responded to the use of so-called legal highs.

Mephedrone - also known as Meow, Bubbles and M-Cat - was banned and made a class B drug in April.

The Home Office has also announced plans for year-long bans that could be introduced quickly if new drugs take off.

NTA chief executive Paul Hayes said the agency now had to "refocus" the treatment system in response to these trends.

@'BBC'

Just FUCK OFF Hicks...

Hicks set to fight Liverpool sale to NESV in High Court

However:

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4746910/LFC%20company%20articles.pdf

"Appointment and Retirement of Directors

81. (a) Each director appointed to the office of chairman of the board of directors of the Company may appoint any person as director of the Company and may remove and director (other than George N. Gillett Jnr and/or Thomas O Hicks). Any appointment or removal shall be made in writing and signed by the then current chairman."

The Current chairman being Martin Broughton.

The timing of this deal being made known is also important as 10 days are required to change the structure of the board so if Hicks found a way to do so he'd still run out of time before the RBS loan repayment deadline kicked in. The deal was made known 9 days before that deadline.

This was followed by a comment from a Guardian writer:

That 81a) is exactly the paragraph in Liverpool's articles of association which Broughton is relying on. They were changed on May 28, which has to be done with the approval of 75% of a company's shareholders, which means for them to be valid, Hicks and Gillett had to approve them.

Broughton insisted on that as a condition of taking over - that only he has the right to change directors. That meant he, Purslow and Ayre would always have a majority on the board.

He is also saying, confirmed by RBS yesterday, that Hicks and Gillette signed undertakings with the bank to commit to a sale and not do anything to frustrate "best endeavours" to find a buyer.

Broughton will say in court that he and the board clearly made "best endeavours" because they had a team at Barclays Capital working full time on it, and everybody in the world has known Liverpool is for sale. Throughout the whole search, this US consortium and the other, unnamed Asian one, were the only solid ones which came through, with proof of funds and a genuine commitment to buy.

Despite the brief and not very clear statement from Hicks' US-based spokesman yesterday, it is not at all clear what he is going to argue against that. Possibly claiming that he never approved the articles of association change - even though they require the approval of shareholders. Perhaps that he never actually gave those undertakings to the bank, or that Broughton's efforts do not add up to "best endeavours."

None of which is exactly where he promised Liverpool would be when he and Gillett walked on to the Anfield turf in February 2007 after buying the club with their borrowed money, promising - in their own official offer document:

"To strive to ensure the club is in the best position possible to achieve sustained on pitch success and long term stability. To do everything in their power to uphold the chierished traditions and contrinue to enhance the reputation of the club."

HERE