Abz Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Sends a message about 'don't go to effing China'....!? Or don't leave your luggue in the holder! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imi Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Watching the BBC interview with the bloke from the Foreign Office prattling about how he gave the Chinese a 'good talking' to. AS IF!!! Bovvered? I don't think so. If they shot him, the family can expect to get an invoice for the bullet. It must be hard to waking up in the morning and realising that the british empire no longer exists..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 What's wrong with 'doing good' and what's wrong with a 'fair trial'? He was being ironic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 It must be hard to waking up in the morning and realising that the british empire no longer exists..... eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share Posted December 29, 2009 The only fair trial a lot of people would accept is for him to be pitied, petted and pontificated about, then returned to the UK for further pontification amid the mire of the UK's legal aid system, then incarcerated at vast expense to the UK taxpayer, only to be released in risibly short time to probably commit further disorder. The Chinese have tried him, in their legal system, one that you accept when visiting their country. Kitchens, heat and all that? A strong message has been sent out that may well reduce further attempts at none indigenous people attempting to break their legal and ethical codes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyT Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Totally agree, segregated Car Parks are the future http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8432887.stm That's cracking Nic. As was China's diplomatic "F' Off" to Britain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I can't recall many of the big time villains of old claiming insanity. The Kray's didn't, as one example. It seems a modern association, apparently brought on when a trial looms, never when sunning themselves in some paradise with their ill gotten gains do they have these "psychotic episodes".. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just can't see what your argument is. What the Krays did or didn't claim, or what happened in the glorious past, when criminals stood up to be counted, is irrelevant. You seem to be claiming either that: 1) On the basis that some criminals undoubtedly fake mental illness to get them off the hook, no people who commit crimes can be mentally ill. OR 2)Mental illness doesn't exist, it's some new-fangled invention OR 3) It doesn't really matter, so long as he's dead. (1) is a flawed inductive argument ("Most swans are white, therefore all swans are white"), (2) is demonstrably incorrect and I can't believe you would think that (3) is a just and fair system. A judicial system always has to balance type I errors ( false positive: prosecuting the innocent or the insane) against type II errors (false negative: letting the genuinely guilty walk free). In the west,the type I miscarriages of justice are usually seen as so apalling that it's enshrined in Blackstone's principle: 'Better to let ten guilty men walk free than one innocent suffer' (or something like this) and in 'innocent until proven guilty'. That's why it's right and proper that any system goes to extraordinary lengths to ensure they have got it right. It's also why this whole case stinks: no transparency, no independent medical assessment, and the suspicion that a rigidly controlled judiciary cannot back down because doing so would mean a loss of face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 What's wrong with 'doing good' and what's wrong with a 'fair trial'? He was being ironic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourniquet Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Regardless of whatever has been said in the last 3 pages, the guy went to THEIR country, broke THEIR rules and suffered THEIR punishment - serves him right. If we weren't such a bunch of pussies then England might be that bit better off. I wonder if anyone else will be dumb enough in the future because our own justice and punishment system isn't worth a wet w4nk so maybe theirs works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkirby Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Regardless of whatever has been said in the last 3 pages, the guy went to THEIR country, broke THEIR rules and suffered THEIR punishment - serves him right. If we weren't such a bunch of pussies then England might be that bit better off. I wonder if anyone else will be dumb enough in the future because our own justice and punishment system isn't worth a wet w4nk so maybe theirs works. couldnt agree more, your brake their rules you takes your chances!! he and his family and lawyers had 2 years to prove his mental state and i'm sure a simple doctors note or medical records would have done this and he would not have been killed!! they obviously couldnt!! Nice to see a country sticking to its guns so to speak Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 What's wrong with 'doing good' and what's wrong with a 'fair trial'? I think there was just a hint of sarcasm in Tannhauser's post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogmaw Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I thought as much We need a sarcasm smiley but having re-read it was pretty obvious duh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nevins Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 I can see where this thread is going, so I think I'l keep my mouth shut. Even though I think the result was fair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 he and his family and lawyers had 2 years to prove his mental state and i'm sure a simple doctors note or medical records would have done this and he would not have been killed!! they obviously couldnt!! Again, how can you prove someone's current mental state on the basis of medical records? If you suffered a hernia tomorrow and then didn't show up for work, do you think it would be reasonable to be sacked because you have no previous record of having had a hernia? A more reasonable response would be to have someone assess your current state of health and make a decision based on that. The argument is that there has been no assessment of that type in situ. It's not up to the UK to 'write him a sick note'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourniquet Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Again, how can you prove someone's current mental state on the basis of medical records? If you suffered a hernia tomorrow and then didn't show up for work, do you think it would be reasonable to be sacked because you have no previous record of having had a hernia? A more reasonable response would be to have someone assess your current state of health and make a decision based on that. The argument is that there has been no assessment of that type in situ. It's not up to the UK to 'write him a sick note'. Who cares bout his mental state - he broke their rules and paid their penalty. Over the top it may be to us but he should of chose a more soppy country to smuggle drugs into or something - England for example ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lbm Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Here's someone who could do with a lethal injection, probably. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/8433783.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Wilson Posted December 29, 2009 Author Share Posted December 29, 2009 D is fine by me, I accept any legal system is flawed. As the lunatics are fast about to take over the asylum drastic measures are fine by me, even if I have the shame of knowing I am reliant on the strength of character of other systems in other lands to show the way Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkirby Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Again, how can you prove someone's current mental state on the basis of medical records? If you suffered a hernia tomorrow and then didn't show up for work, do you think it would be reasonable to be sacked because you have no previous record of having had a hernia? A more reasonable response would be to have someone assess your current state of health and make a decision based on that. The argument is that there has been no assessment of that type in situ. It's not up to the UK to 'write him a sick note'. Well to come out and say he has a certain mental illness he must have suffered from it in the past?? they cannot base their whole defence on the basis of he "might" have suffered it or started suffering just after he met the polish guy etc Its a small world nowadays and i seriously doubt the chinese would kill someone without making damm sure they had done everything by the book!! international pressure nowadays is huge and china needs the global market for it to continue to prosper so i really do think they would have looked into all avenues and still felt the crime deserved the punishment. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 D is fine by me, I accept any legal system is flawed. As the lunatics are fast about to take over the asylum drastic measures are fine by me, even if I have the shame of knowing I am reliant on the strength of character of other systems in other lands to show the way The trouble is that the countries you would regard as showing 'strength of character' with regard to punishment are, almost without exception, also the ones where the state acts with impunity against anyone it doesn't like. I believe that you would be strongly against more power being in the hands of the state, because of your previous comments about health and safety regulations, gun control and other issues. Yet in a country like China, the same 'no messing around with rights' attitude applies in the sentencing of this guy, there is also a level of control in other areas of life that I suggest you would find it much more unpleasant to live with. The treatment of many ordinary people in China during the olympics, for example, explodes the myth that only criminals or ne'er-do-wells suffer under such conditions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourniquet Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Errr yet but anyway back to the asian guy who was executed.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 What about the poor families that would have suffered if he had got this drug through? As said already it sends a clear message to others considering smuggling into that country so will no doubt save thousands more lives. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Errr yet but anyway back to the asian guy who was executed.... Racist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJ Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Who cares bout his mental state - he broke their rules and paid their penalty. Over the top it may be to us but he should of chose a more soppy country to smuggle drugs into or something - England for example ! So, you believe that even if he (or anyone else) has a confirmed mental illness and commits a crime, they should suffer the consequences? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tourniquet Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Oh shush lmao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tannhauser Posted December 29, 2009 Share Posted December 29, 2009 Well to come out and say he has a certain mental illness he must have suffered from it in the past?? Why? they cannot base their whole defence on the basis of he "might" have suffered it or started suffering just after he met the polish guy etc Why not? There's no quote marks needed in your sentence. He might have suffered it. I'm not saying he did, but I'm not convinced that this has been investigated. Its a small world nowadays and i seriously doubt the chinese would kill someone without making damm sure they had done everything by the book!! international pressure nowadays is huge and china needs the global market for it to continue to prosper so i really do think they would have looked into all avenues and still felt the crime deserved the punishment. I think this is very optimistic. Take a look at any reasonable source on China's human rights record (and by human rights, we're talking about extra-judicial killings, torture, beatings and the like) and you'll see that they are still a long way from 'going by the book'. They have come a long way, admitted, and you're right that this is to do with the wish to engage economically with the rest of the world. Also, according to the 'international pressure would have prevented it' argument, Guantanamo Bay could not have possibly exsted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.