Angela Rayner's sneaky eight-word response when asked if she's done drugs
Deputy PM Angela Rayner has said she's taken 'all sorts' of drugs - like painkillers paracetamol - when asked about demands to decriminalise possession of cannabis for personal use
Angela Rayner has said she's taken "all sorts" of drugs - like painkillers - when asked about demands to decriminalise possession of cannabis for personal use.
Ms Rayner, who is also the Housing Secretary, was challenged about the independent London Drugs Commission today calling for 'a fundamental reset' in the way cannabis use is dealt with by the authorities. Former Labour Justice Secretary Lord Charlie Falconer, who chaired the commission, said the criminal justice response must be focused on punishing dealers, not users.
Asked if she supported calls to legalise possession of cannabis in small amounts, Ms Rayner said: "No. That's not the government position and we're not going to be changing our policy."
Asked if she's ever done drugs, the deputy PM said with a small smile: "I've taken paracetamol, codeine and all sorts, yes."
Last year Keir Starmer refused say whether had had taken drugs. He responded only by saying: "I had a good time when I was a student." Pressed on what exactly that meant, the Labour leader replied: "It means I had a good time when I was a student."
The London Commission today published its findings from what it called 'the most comprehensive international study to date of the use, impact and policing of cannabis'.
It found that the impacts of stop and search and/or jail sentences cannot be justified on a person with a small amount of the drug. It said cannabis policing continues 'to focus on particular ethnic communities, creating damaging, long-lasting consequences for individuals, wider society, and police-community relations'.#
The commission concluded that the inclusion of cannabis as a class B drug in the Misuse of Drugs Act is 'disproportionate to the harms' caused by other drugs under the law. It calls for it to be moved to the Psychoactive Substances Act, where it would remain a criminal act to import, manufacture and distribute cannabis but not to possess it in small quantities for personal use.
Mayor of London Sadiq Khan welcomed the report. "I've long been clear that we need fresh thinking on how to reduce the substantial harms associated with drug-related crime in our communities," he said.
"We must recognise that better education, improved healthcare and more effective, equitable policing of cannabis use are long overdue."
But a Home Office spokeswoman said: 'We will continue to work with partners across health, policing and wider public services to drive down drug use, ensure more people receive timely treatment and support, and make our streets and communities safer. We have no intention of reclassifying cannabis from a Class B substance under the Misuse of Drugs Act.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New European
27 minutes ago
- New European
Britain enters a new nuclear age
Alongside an ambitious plan to build up to 12 new attack submarines, and to create jobs in six new ammunition factories, one of the most striking commitments is to enter discussions with the USA aimed at 'enhanced participation in Nato's nuclear mission'. This innocuous sounding sentence represents a big change in nuclear posture. Make no mistake: today's Strategic Defence Review marks the start of British rearmament. Not only does it signal the UK's commitment to increase defence spending to 3% of GDP, but to a type of spending designed to enhance the UK's strategic clout in the world. At present, only Belgium, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands host US-owned tactical nuclear bombs, with their aircraft designed to be 'dual capable' of delivering such bombs on target. The UK, which lacks tactical nuclear weapons, could now volunteer to do likewise, but would need to buy a different variant of the F-35 combat aircraft than the one that is flown from the Royal Navy's carriers. That would be a major change in nuclear policy – because the British deterrent has, since the 1990s, been strategic-only. As I've argued here before, we need a wider range of options because Putin is now making regular threats to use nukes against Nato, and tactical nukes against Ukraine – so it makes sense to place more of Nato's collective nuclear armoury closer to the front line, and distributed among a larger number of allies. Over and above deterring Russian aggression, almost everything Labour has announced today looks designed to achieve three things: to boost Britain's influence among its allies, to deliver high skilled jobs to places where they are scarce, and to get ahead of the game in the military technologies of the future. These don't only include drones – though the spectacular Ukrainian strike on Russia's strategic bomber fleet on Sunday shows that we've hardly even begun to understand their power. The technological arms race is now focused on niche areas of science – like nanotech, materials and quantum computing – and Labour, to its credit, has understood that it in any conflict with Russia it is the science labs of Oxbridge, Imperial and Edinburgh, not the 'playing fields of Eton', that might be decisive. Suggested Reading We must take a nuclear leap into the unknown Paul Mason For the armed forces, often bound by tradition and prone to inter-service rivalry, making the SDR work will be a challenge. Because in every domain of warfare – land, air, sea, space and cyberspace – they face the same problem: they are running decades-old kit designed for an era when Britain could choose which wars it fights, while at the same time moving to a completely new, digitally enabled way of fighting, in which technological change never stops. In this context, faced with a Russia that has turned itself into a war economy, and itself learned to innovate rapidly – deterrence comes down to showing Putin that our own industry, science and digital technology base could crank itself up to speed, and indeed surpass what Russia itself could achieve. For me, the most basic task of the SDR was to assess the scale of the Russian threat and offer the electorate an honest proposal of how to meet it – within our means. Though it might sound simple to achieve, it was not achieved at any point during 14 years of Conservative government, above all after 2020, when Boris Johnson and Dominic Cummings declared a 'tilt' of security priorities towards Asia, while systematically underfunding the ministry of defence. Labour reversed that stance, declaring from day one that its priority is: 'Nato First'. The SDR places maritime warfare as the highest priority and designates the Atlantic and the Arctic as the UK's prime areas of interest. There's been a row today over the precise form of words Keir Starmer is using – describing the 3% target in the 2030s as an ambition. I think it's clear that Labour means to find the money to achieve that – but it stands way outside the term of UK fiscal forecasting, and no chancellor would allow it to be stated as a firm commitment outside of a budget statement. The real question with the SDR is: do the capabilities match the threats? The answer is: only if you believe Russia can be deterred through Nato remaining cohesive and the UK leading an enhancement of continent-wide nuclear deterrence. If it cannot, then 3, 4 or even 5% won't be enough. In 1939, after seven years of rearmament, Britain's defence budget was 9% of GDP – and once war broke out it rose above 50%. Today's focus on the big stuff – submarines, which are the capital ships of the 21st century, and a £15bn upgrade to nuclear warheads – reflects Starmer's determination for this country to avoid any impression that it wants to be 'Little Britain'. With a cash-strapped treasury, it is a decision to spend on what's strategic, and rely on allies for that which is not. There is even the promise, thinking long term, to specify within this parliament a replacement for the Dreadnought submarines, currently being built at Barrow: and they don't even go out of service until 2050. I would like to have seen more spending and faster – above all because defence industrial investment is one of the surest ways to boost growth and social cohesion in communities that have seen too little of it. But until Labour can win the argument with the British people that they need to pay more tax, and tolerate more borrowing to fund defence, progress is going to be incremental. That, in turn, will depend on the outcome of Ukraine's peace negotiations with Russia. If they fail – and that looks likely – people may wake up to the fact that the prospect of endless war on our doorstep requires a change of attitude to defence. In that sense, the SDR was the start, not the end, of something.
Daily Mirror
35 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Disabled staff face 'pervasive' abuse as poll shows offensive jokes and bullying
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) said disabled people are facing 'pervasive' mistreatment at work, including being the butt of offensive jokes and subjected to intrusive questioning Nearly four in ten (39%) disabled workers have experienced bullying, discrimination and harassment at work, grim polling shows today(TUE). The Trades Union Congress (TUC) warned disabled people are facing 'pervasive' mistreatment at work. This includes being the butt of offensive jokes or 'banter' and being subjected to intrusive questioning about their disability. Of those who had faced mistreatment at work, more than one in ten (15%) left their job and employer altogether. Another three in ten (28%) said that it made them want to leave their job but they were unable to due to financial or other reasons. Some 42% said the most recent incident had a negative impact on their mental health, while one in five (20%) had to take time off. According to the poll, commissioned by the TUC, some 15% of those who have been mistreated faced intrusive or offensive questioning about their disability. Some 14% have been made to feel uncomfortable at work due to their disability, including through stereotypes or assumptions about their disability, or had seen or heard offensive jokes or "banter" about disabled people. And 12% said that they had experienced bullying, including sustained patterns of intimidating or abusive behaviour, clearly linked to their disability. The TUC said Labour's Employment Rights Bill will introduce key protections for disabled workers to help tackle this 'shockingly high' mistreatment. The legislation, currently passing through the House of Lords, includes a clause requiring employers to take all reasonable steps to prevent harassment of staff by third parties, such as customers and patients. Recent TUC polling shows that protecting workers from harassment is one of the most popular policies in the Bill – with almost eight in ten UK voters (78%) supporting it. The TUC has criticised the Tories and Reform UK, who it said 'have both mischaracterised the government's plans to protect workers from third-party harassment as an end to pub banter'. TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: 'No one should face bullying, harassment or discrimination at work. But the number of disabled workers reporting that this is their everyday experience is shockingly high. It's time to stamp out this pervasive mistreatment. Disabled workers deserve dignity and respect at work like every other worker does.' ::: Opinium surveyed 1,000 disabled workers online between January 22 and February 4.
Glasgow Times
36 minutes ago
- Glasgow Times
Bus powers could help TikTok-famous villages deal with problem parking
Jon Pearce praised the Government for proposing a suite of new powers which councils can use to run their own bus routes and prevent companies from pulling 'socially necessary' services. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which secured a second reading on Monday, would 'streamline' the franchising process when authorities bid to set up London-style networks, and would better secure 'lifeline routes' elsewhere. 'In part thanks to a TikTok craze to photograph sunset and sunrise over Mam Tor, communities where I live in High Peak have been plagued by illegal parking,' Labour's Mr Pearce told the Commons. The 517 metre-high hill in Derbyshire has become popular on social media, with several videos filmed at the landmark racking up more than 100,000 likes on TikTok. Mr Pearce continued: 'I'm co-ordinating a response to these issues with local stakeholders like the Peak park, police and councils, and a key tranche of what we need to do is deliver better bus services that are integrated with local train services. 'This Bill will transfer powers away from Westminster and empower local communities to take decisions necessary for our commuters to get to work, our students to get to college, our vulnerable to access the healthcare they need, and our honeypot villages to manage tourism sustainably.' Gritting crews were unable to reach a Peak District road near the hill earlier this year after more than 200 cars were double parked on it, according to Derbyshire County Council, and Mr Pearce previously wrote to authorities, when he warned that emergency services had been obstructed. The Bill would give councils the power to set up franchised bus networks to regulate routes, timetables, fares and vehicle standards, without the need for ministers' permission. Ms Alexander said the Government is 'fixing the broken' franchising process and told MPs: 'Proposed schemes need to jump through a myriad of hoops and they still require my consent to proceed, which is odd to say the least. 'The idea that I understand more what passengers in Leicestershire or Cornwall need than their local leaders is for the birds. In December, we opened up franchising to every local authority and now through this Bill we will further streamline the process making it simpler for franchise schemes to be granted and assessed.' Ms Alexander said the franchising model 'won't work everywhere', and added: 'That's why this Bill also strengthens enhanced partnerships and removes the ideological ban on establishing new local authority bus companies. 'Furthermore, by giving local authorities the power to design and pay bus operator grants in their areas, this Bill gives greater protections for socially necessary local services – securing those lifeline routes that keep communities connected.' Pressed about funding to local authorities for the £3 bus fare cap, Ms Alexander said: 'There is a spending review under way but I can confirm that I fully appreciate the importance of an affordable and accessible bus route.' Ms Alexander also said the Government will 'press pause' on so-called floating bus stops 'perceived to be poorly designed', amid concerns over accessibility issues and potential hazards for visually impaired people and others. Liberal Democrat transport spokesman Paul Kohler said the Bill 'rightly lifts the outdated, ideologically driven ban on municipally owned bus companies, empowering local authorities who wish to use it, rather than infantilising them' and added that 'it is not and must not become a one-size-fits-all approach'. He added: 'Empowering local authorities in law is one thing. Enabling them in practice is quite another. 'Whilst this Bill hands councils a set of keys to a new bus network, it doesn't ensure there's fuel in the tank.' Conservative shadow transport secretary Gareth Bacon earlier said improvements for passengers 'simply won't happen' without more Treasury money. He said: 'The Bill does not prioritise passengers and there is nothing in it that guarantees an improvement in service standards. 'The truth is that this Bill appears to be driven by political nostalgia. It is in many ways a thinly veiled attempt to recreate the municipal model of the pre-1986 era without fully considering the financial and operational realities of today.' The Bill will undergo further scrutiny in the Commons at a later date.
