# Akmal Shaikh - China executes mentally ill Briton



## BradK (30 December 2009)

Akmal Shaikh, a British bi-polar sufferer who was homeless in Poland, was lured to China with dreams of becoming an international popstar - and incidently carried 4kg of heroin into China on the way to his dream. 

Despite the most strident appeals from the British government, he was executed yesterday by the Chinese. The basis of the British objection was that he was: 

a) he suffers from bi-polar disorder and that it is against UN convention to execute the mentally ill - in addition, during the two years of his incarceration, no attempt was made to give him medical help nor was a mental health assessment carried out. 
b) the original trial, which handed down the death sentence, went for 30 minutes - casting strong doubt on the ability of the Chinese prosecutors to give sufficient evidence, nor Shaikh to have sufficient defence. 

Now, most readers of British newspapers have very little sympathy with the chap - saying that 4kg of herion rips through about 28,000 families (not sure how they came across this statistic), ruining lives, and they think he is the scum of the earth and he should be put to death. 


On the other side, is this going to hurt China's standing in the world? Or will the world forget about it 2 days? Does the UK-Chinese relationship matter than much to the Chinese anyway? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ck-in-row-over-britons-execution-1852307.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/29/akmal-shaikh-execution-china-drugs

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6970479.ece

Also, following the story over the past few days, I realise that Rupert's papers - news.com.au and London's Times Online cared very little for the story on humanitarian grounds, and are now only getting onto it as a diplomatic incident. 

Brad


----------



## Bushman (30 December 2009)

Gordon Brown is dreaming if he thinks the Chinese government give two hoots about British outrage. It is not the 19th century Gordon! The Brits have a notorious imperial track record in China too which would not be helping in British-Sino relations. 

As for a bullet to the back of the head for drug mule with a mental illness, seems a case of heaping misery on misery. However 4 kg of heroin is not simply a backpacker being caught with a few spliffs.


----------



## wayneL (30 December 2009)

Bushman said:


> Gordon Brown is dreaming if he thinks the Chinese government give two hoots about British outrage. It is not the 19th century Gordon! The Brits have a notorious imperial track record in China too which would not be helping in British-Sino relations.
> 
> As for a bullet to the back of the head for drug mule with a mental illness, seems a case of heaping misery on misery. However 4 kg of heroin is not simply a backpacker being caught with a few spliffs.




Being a delusional sociopath himself, I guess Gordo must feel some empathy for the man.


----------



## lukeaye (30 December 2009)

Well i beleive you have this all wrong.

You know why nobody will care?

Look at this name, he is clearly islamic.

Even i have been desensitised to this. I hear of something bad happen to muslims and i feel nothing.


----------



## Fishbulb (30 December 2009)

Who gives a rats about the UN or their dumbarse charter in the first place? 

Then, why are people surprised by what a sovereign country does within its own borders? And after that, mental or not, he was sprung with four k of smack. 

Outrage? Nah...one man's life versus what's happening the world over on any given day.

If they're going to get into the outrageous, then pull the Chinese up on Tibet or what happened during their great leap forward or the cultural revolution.


----------



## lukeaye (30 December 2009)

Well i think the moral of the story is, 

if your going to smuggle anything into China, you better make damn sure its rice


----------



## Julia (30 December 2009)

Looking at it from yet another point of view, if he were to have been let off, that would have sent the message that all you needed to do to not be punished for trafficking heroin is to appear mentally ill.

If he had bipolar, then I'd be surprised if that prevented him from understanding that he was actually carrying drugs and was doing something illegal.  Bipolar doesn't imply being out of touch with reality.


----------



## sam76 (30 December 2009)

Julia said:


> Looking at it from yet another point of view, if he were to have been let off, that would have sent the message that all you needed to do to not be punished for trafficking heroin is to appear mentally ill.
> 
> If he had bipolar, then I'd be surprised if that prevented him from understanding that he was actually carrying drugs and was doing something illegal.  Bipolar doesn't imply being out of touch with reality.




My sentiments exactly.

The dude tried to import 4kgs of Heroin into a country that has the death penalty for this kind of stuff.

He got caught.

He was punished.

Enough said.

Too many bloody lefties in postions of authority these days.


----------



## maomao (30 December 2009)

If he had been mentally ill for years, where was the British government and his family? He wouldn't be homeless in another country and become a target of drug dealers if he was looked after properly. It's his government and family who failed him.


----------



## Fishbulb (30 December 2009)

maomao said:


> If he had been mentally ill for years, where was the British government and his family? He wouldn't be homeless in another country and become a target of drug dealers if he was looked after properly. It's his government and family who failed him.




You can't physically restrain an adult. He failed himself.


----------



## pilots (30 December 2009)

Who paid for the air ticket, looks to me he was a drug mule who got caught, bet he won't will try that again.


----------



## lasty (30 December 2009)

Amnesty international and the UN need to look at the majority of human rights.
That is us who are frustrated by the level of violence in our streets.
So next time you see an Amnesty International charity collector or a UN official remind them with a punch that they should be protecting the majority and not some drug mule.
More people die from drugs each year than Chinese executions.
Once again the pinkos don't  have a clue the dole bludging bastards.


----------



## nunthewiser (30 December 2009)

Next Tuesday at 10pm there will be a candlelight vigil in Trafalgar Square in benefit of Akmal Shaikh .

Please bring a salad and a lighter .

Thankyou.


----------



## BradK (30 December 2009)

Here is a letter to the Guardian just published written by two of his cousins.

They criticise the media, Reprieve (the humanitarian body who was trying to get him off), British economic dependence on China and its now subservient place in the world and the failure of British diplomacy. 

Anyway... over to the cousins... 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/dec/30/akmal-shaikh-china-execution-human-rights


We were deeply angered and disgusted at the execution of our cousin Akmal Shaikh, whose mental illness was not taken into account in his court hearing (Fury as China refuses to pardon death row Briton, 29 December). We were shocked that, apart from Sky News, his case received only sporadic media attention during his two years in prison. Only when news was released of his imminent execution did it get the coverage it deserved. Wouldn't more media attention at an earlier stage have applied more pressure to the Chinese authorities? Wasn't this lack of coverage an injustice in itself?

Though we are indebted to Reprieve and others for the efforts they made on our cousin's behalf, we were not comfortable with the strategy pursued; but we didn't say anything as we respected the wishes of those concerned. We understand the strategy was based on expert advice that, as the Chinese regime is a brutal one, the best approach is to not criticise it as this may make things worse.

But didn't Moazzam Begg's father voice his criticism towards the US while he was campaigning for his son's release?

One of the justifications we are told for invading countries like Afghanistan is "human rights violations". If it is accepted by all that there are gross violations taking place in China, why aren't they too invaded? This is purely to do with the fact that China is a powerful country economically. Britain's economic dependence far outweighs these "individual cases".

Did the British government pull out its diplomats in protest? Did it have a hard-hitting strategy to persuade the Chinese authorities to change their decision?

This is an example of Britain's powerlessness in the world. Their strategy of being shoulder to shoulder with the US in the "war on terror" has not given them the status they so desperately desire.

We are not mourning simply for our cousin as a lot of other people, including Muslims in China, have experienced and will continue to experience the same fate, without any real justification; our hearts pour out to them too.

Amina Shaikh and Ridwan Shaikh


----------



## BradK (30 December 2009)

... see post above... guess the family have nothing to lose now and can say what they bloody well please about their adopted homeland.


----------



## BradK (30 December 2009)

And on all things British diplomatic, Iran have come out and said that London deserves a 'punch in the mouth' over its role a 'chief culprit' in the latest Iranian upsurge in violence. 

... dont want to get off topic... perhaps this belongs in the Iranian Civil War thread. 

Dear dear old chaps, the British really are coming down in the stakes, aren't they? 

Brad


----------



## BradK (30 December 2009)

Robert Fisk, I believe one of the world's remaining brilliant journalists, is wondering aloud why no Muslim clerics came to Akmal Shaikh's defence? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinio...-akmal-shaikhs-life-to-be-spared-1852825.html

Brad


----------



## Julia (30 December 2009)

maomao said:


> If he had been mentally ill for years, where was the British government and his family? He wouldn't be homeless in another country and become a target of drug dealers if he was looked after properly. It's his government and family who failed him.



Without meaning to be disrespectful, this comment shows a lack of understanding of the management of people with mental illness.  Unless they are criminally insane, the State cannot hold them in any secure facility.

Just think about it:  if all the people who had a mental illness such as bipolar, depression, even schizophrenia, were required to have their freedom restricted, the outcry from not just the Left but everyone would be deafening.  And what would it cost to house such patients.  Obviously such a notion is ridiculous.

And it's almost as unreasonable to suggest that his family should have taken responsibility for his every move.  If you've ever had ongoing contact with someone with a mental illness you would know that this is simply not feasible.

He was apparently bipolar.  Most such people have periods of complete lucidity, and even in their extremes of hypomanic or manic behaviour or acute depression do not lack awareness of reality.


----------



## Tink (31 December 2009)

I am not one for the death penalty, but I cant stand drug mules.

Like all these other drug cases overseas, they have to go by that countries laws and if they havent learned that yet - thats life.

If he got away with it, they wouldnt be crying.


----------



## DB008 (31 December 2009)

BradK said:


> Akmal Shaikh, a British bi-polar sufferer who was homeless in Poland, was lured to China with dreams of becoming an international popstar - and incidently carried 4kg of heroin into China on the way to his dream.
> Brad





He won't be doing that again. One less f**kwit in society.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

The lack of compassion for, and active vilification of, someone with a mental illness shown on this thread is appalling.


----------



## lukeaye (31 December 2009)

After reading about this again i have a few questions.

1. "lured to China with dreams of becoming an international popstar" How was he lured? Did sony China offer him a contract? Or did a drug dealer offer him a singing career? Did he even speak Chinese?

I think the most likely case is the author of the story, made it up, to appeal to those reading, a way of liking him to you or me. They could have said he wanted to be a fire fighter, an astronaut, common dream that can be related to you or I. the bottom line is, who cares what he wanted to be?

2. If you want to move to another country, why would you take 5kg of heroin with you? sounds like he is already a rockstar. If you are muslim, then for gods sake don't take drugs, explosives, weapons because the world hates you right now. Whether you are all terrorists or not, you have to be careful.

3. Are China now a target of islamic extremists? If they are how this impact the "war on terror". If China get invloved things could get very ugly.

5. Whats the punishment for a chinese person possesing 5kg of heroin in china?

6. Is there any proof of him having bi-polar? I know the australian girl who converted to muslim to get out of the death penalty in bali, since him being muslim won't help i china, did he play the mental illness card?

Don't get me wrong, if he does have bi-polar i feel very very sorry for him and his family. I would not wish that upon my worst enemy. I question the legitamicy though.


----------



## outback (31 December 2009)

If it was member of any of our families we would do whatever we could to prevent this from happening. 

Accepting that he did in fact have a mental illness, this seemed a reasonable card to play in his defence. As Julia pointed out as well as my own understanding, this would not cloud his judgement on whether this was the right or wrong thing to do. Certainly it could impact on what he perceived his chances of getting away with it.

A 30 minute trial seems pretty quick to establish guilt or innocence when deciding someones life.

IF he in fact carried the heroin, and IF the trial was fair, and IF the penalty for this offence is death, then the law has been carried out. I say "IF" only because I don't know the facts, not that I am questioning what happened.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

outback said:


> A 30 minute trial seems pretty quick to establish guilt or innocence when deciding someones life.
> 
> IF he in fact carried the heroin, and IF the trial was fair, and IF the penalty for this offence is death, then the law has been carried out. I say "IF" only because I don't know the facts, not that I am questioning what happened.




I think your points may remain the one voice of reason on this tabloid thread.


----------



## sam76 (31 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> The lack of compassion for, and active vilification of, someone with a mental illness shown on this thread is appalling.




It's not that he has a illness, Timmy. It's the fact that they were using it as an excuse.  As Julia said.  Bipolar hardly makes you incaple of knowing what's going on around you. 

 it's kind of like saying Asthma made me do it


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

sam76 said:


> It's not that he has a illness, Timmy. It's the fact that they were using it as an excuse.  As Julia said.  Bipolar hardly makes you incaple of knowing what's going on around you.
> 
> it's kind of like saying Asthma made me do it




Sam - with a 30-minute trial I don't think anyone can conclude he had intent (mentally impaired) or not.


----------



## pilots (31 December 2009)

*Re: Jamal Sikh - China executes mentally ill Briton*



Timmy said:


> The lack of compassion for, and active vilification of, someone with a mental illness shown on this thread is appalling.




Timmy, had all the drugs he was transporting got on the the streets of China would you have the same compassion to all the people who would have used the drugs. If the whole world would do what China has done we may slow down this drug trade.


----------



## sam76 (31 December 2009)

Fair enough.

My issue is with using his 'mental-state' as an excuse.

nothing else.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

pilots said:


> Timmy, *had all the drugs he was transporting got on the the streets of China would you have the same compassion to all the people who would have used the drugs*. If the whole world would do what China has done we may slow down this drug trade.






sam76 said:


> Fair enough.
> 
> My issue is with using his 'mental-state' as an excuse.
> 
> nothing else.




Sorry guys, IF he was mentally ill (and I believe he was, and in the absence of a fair trial it can remain only a belief) then executing him is the wrong thing to do.  

Pilots, I believe (the bold part) may be a straw man argument (those better versed in rhetoric can let me know if it is some device other than a straw man).


----------



## nomore4s (31 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Sam - with a 30-minute trial I don't think anyone can conclude he had intent (mentally impaired) or not.




Timmy I'm going to have to disagree with you to a certain extent here.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he was caught in possession of the drugs, so why do the Chinese need to establish intent?
He broke their laws and they punished him to the full extent of their laws, so I don't see why the Chinese have to justify themselves to any other Country. Even if the Chinese had established he did have bipolar I doubt very much that would have stopped him being executed.

I agree with Julia & Sam bipolar or depression is hardly an excuse to smuggle 4kg of drugs into a country. While he was probably in a dark place and easily coerced the same could be said about some of the Bali 9. Still need to suffer the consequences to their actions.

We are getting extremely soft imo, any excuse to justify our poor choices will do it seems.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

nomore4s said:


> There doesn't seem to be any doubt that he was caught in possession of the drugs, so why do the Chinese need to establish intent?




Leave it to the lawyers to explain that to you.


----------



## nomore4s (31 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Leave it to the lawyers to explain that to you.




lol, come on Timmy, this is China we're talking about. 

If he was caught smuggling the drugs in I still don't see why China need to establish intent, surely by having the drugs on him there was intent to smuggle them in?

If he was caught in the same circumstances smuggling the dope into Oz surely he would have been convicted here? No doubt the penalty wouldn't have been anywhere near as harsh though.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

Sorry 4s - I am no lawyer and am not capable of explaining the importance of intent ... let alone knowing how this may apply in China.

But I do know that executing the mentally ill, for a crime that they may not know they are committing (and in the absence of a fair trial I am giving the man the benefit of the doubt) is wrong.  As is cheering the executioners on.  In China, or anywhere else.


----------



## sam76 (31 December 2009)

but his mental state isn't really an issue because bipolar isn't mind altering etc...

mood swings is hardly a defence

Sheesh, my wife would be importing drugs if it was, lol


----------



## pilots (31 December 2009)

Timmy, This is the same old story we get in Australia, EVERY time some one here has a car prang of hits his wife we are told in the courts I am sorry but it is not my fault I was DRUNK,  or I was on DRUGS.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

pilots said:


> Timmy, This is the same old story we get in Australia, EVERY time some one here has a car prang of hits his wife we are told in the courts I am sorry but it is not my fault I was DRUNK,  or I was on DRUGS.




Big difference between an ILLNESS and being drunk/high.

Big difference between a fair trail and a 30-minute trial too - especially for a capital offense.


----------



## nomore4s (31 December 2009)

sam76 said:


> mood swings is hardly a defence
> 
> Sheesh, my wife would be importing drugs if it was, lol




hahaha, mine too


----------



## sam76 (31 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Big difference between an ILLNESS and being drunk/high.
> 
> Big difference between a fair trail and a 30-minute trial too - especially for a capital offense.




Are you saying that bi-polar can be a plausible defence for importing 4kgs of Heroin, Timmy?


----------



## lukeaye (31 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> Big difference between an ILLNESS and being drunk/high.
> 
> Big difference between a fair trail and a 30-minute trial too - especially for a capital offense.




I strongly agree with that point. Basically what China has said, is your life is valued at a 30 min assesment. That is a bit of a joke.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

sam76 said:


> Are you saying that bi-polar can be a plausible defence for importing 4kgs of Heroin, Timmy?




I am saying that I have no idea what mental illness(es) the man may have had and that a 30-minute trial is insufficient to ascertain this.

I am saying that I believe (see earlier reasoning) he was mentally ill and was incapable of knowing what he was doing and that in the absence of such intent then executing him was wrong (whether in China or anywhere else).

I am saying his trial/hearing was unfair.

I am saying I am appalled at the lack of compassion for the man, the active vilification of him as a mentally ill person, and the active vilification of mentally ill people in general displayed by some (not all) posters in this thread.


----------



## nunthewiser (31 December 2009)

I thought my post was the best one in this thread actually.


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> I thought my post was the best one in this thread actually.




Nun, this hardly needs saying


----------



## Timmy (31 December 2009)

And now I am saying I am off for the day/evening.

Hope to see you all next year!

This being NYE, and just to piss off the uptight, Happy Holidays!


----------



## sam76 (31 December 2009)

Happy Holidays to you too, mate.


----------



## nunthewiser (31 December 2009)

you too Timmy


----------



## Julia (31 December 2009)

Timmy said:


> The lack of compassion for, and active vilification of, someone with a mental illness shown on this thread is appalling.



I don't think that pointing out that someone with bipolar is still in touch with reality and therefore able to assess a situation is lacking in compassion.  It is simply being objective.  There is no connection with having or not having compassion.



Timmy said:


> Sam - with a 30-minute trial I don't think anyone can conclude he had intent (mentally impaired) or not.



Um, how long do you need when he was discovered with the heroin on his person?




Timmy said:


> Sorry guys, IF he was mentally ill (and I believe he was, and in the absence of a fair trial it can remain only a belief) then executing him is the wrong thing to do.



Timmy, sorry, but this remark shows a lack of understanding of bipolar disease.
Our courts and jails are full of people with mental illnesses.  Last time I saw the stats I think it was about 70% of inmates in jails who are considered to have some form of mental illness.

The difference in this case is that it's China's law that this crime carries the death penalty whereas we prefer that the taxpayer house the offenders.




Timmy said:


> Sorry 4s - I am no lawyer and am not capable of explaining the importance of intent ... let alone knowing how this may apply in China.



Again, why is there any confusion about 'intent' when he was found with the heroin on his person?




> But I do know that executing the mentally ill, for a crime that they may not know they are committing (and in the absence of a fair trial I am giving the man the benefit of the doubt) is wrong.



On this principle, then, you would excuse most of the people who commit crimes.  I suppose you could quite easily say that to commit a crime which has a known result of incarceration (in Australia) or death (in China) would ipso facto define a person as being mentally ill.
Again, there is no suggestion that someone with bipolar does not know what they are doing.
  Why do you think this?


----------



## lasty (31 December 2009)

China simply realised that having 2 Charlie Sheens on the planet wasn't a good idea so one had to go.


----------



## Fishbulb (31 December 2009)

Come the revolution, people who defend those that don't take responsibility for their own actions will be the first ones up against the wall.


----------



## wayneL (31 December 2009)

Fishbulb said:


> Come the revolution...



Include me in! :shoot:


----------



## DB008 (31 December 2009)

lukeaye said:


> I strongly agree with that point. Basically what China has said, is your life is valued at a 30 min assesment. That is a bit of a joke.




No.
They are saying, importing 4kg of drugs is not on.
Should be no trial. Bipolar is NO excuse. Give me a break. A very good friend of mine has this disorder, and he knows the difference between right and wrong.


----------



## Macquack (31 December 2009)

DB008 said:


> No.
> They are saying, importing 4kg of drugs is not on.
> *Should be no trial*.




No trial, you must be joking?


----------



## bunyip (31 December 2009)

Having Bi-polar would not prevent him from knowing what he was doing.
If he'd just walked in with the drugs in plain view, then we could assume he had no understanding of what he was doing.
You can bet your life that's not what happened....he would have tried to conceal them - clearly this indicates that he knew he was breaking the law.
I know one person with Bi-polar, and my wife has come across many BP sufferers in her career as a mental health nurse. Believe me, he would have known what he was doing.
I have zero sympathy for hard drug traffickers....they're mass murderers. In Australia he would have got some pathetic little sentence like six or seven years in the slammer, and he would have been out in four if he behaved himself. Then probably would have gone back to his old tricks again.
China - much more sensible than Australian in matters of criminal punishment - made sure he could never trouble society again.
Good on them. I don't often praise the Chinese, but they got it right this time. 
When or if Australia starts following the lead of China and Singapore in executing drug traffickers, then and only then might we start making some serious inroads into the drug trafficking problem in this country.


----------



## pilots (31 December 2009)

Bunyip, your post would be one of the best this year.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 December 2009)

Its a difficult one isn't it.

Mental illness in the West is a defence.

In China and other places the impact of the crime tends to take precedence.

The Chinese won't listen to the UK's bleatings on this at any level.

My instinct is to support the Chinese stand on this but they are such a weird mob, with endemic corruption by the ruling class and bugger all justice for the rest.

I certainly won't lose any sleep over it, in any case.

gg


----------



## bunyip (1 January 2010)

And I'd be absolutely delighted if the Bali Nine were executed as well. 
The slimy bastards had enough hard drugs on them to dose up tens of thousands of people, and they intended to bring those drugs right here into our midst.
There's no question that at least some of those tens of thousands of Australians would have overdosed and probably died. But those nine mongrels couldn't give a toss about that....all they were interested in was the money, and to hell with everyone else.
Not good enough. Kill them. 
Do society the double favour of getting rid of nine oxygen thieves, while at the same time sending the strongest possible message that you forfeit your life if you traffic drugs.


----------



## Macquack (1 January 2010)

Bunyip, have you had a relative or friend overdose on heroin? I ask the question because you take a bloody hard line.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

I profess to not know a huge amount about this case, and am therefore by no means passing judgment.....

But I have this inescapable question in all cases like this....

Should mental illness be a defense in this case or any other....

Could anyone actually argue that Binliner or any of the Bali Bombers and other terroists are in any way sane....are they not mentally ill and does mental illness form a legitimate excuse for crashing airliners into buildings....

Im not sure on this guy as I stated, but I do seriously question mental illness as a legitimate legal or ethical defence in many cases world wide....

Having said that I know there are hoards of people who without proper medication and care would committ offences..... 

Its a difficult question and one which possibly a jury should be making decisions on rather then legislation and case law....

Bunyips I agree with the intnet of your comments but probably not in all cases....unfortunately many of these countries which still have the death penalty also lack legal integrity and proper justice procedures......meaning someone who on the balance of propability could only be innocent can actually be found or forced to plead guilty....eg: possibly Shapelle Corby.....

For the life of me why would someone export drugs to Bali where there is a death penalty and the street value is less then 20% of the street value in Australia.......it defies logic....and given the Airline baggage handling events that have occured since her trial .... the poor women deserves our support for a retrial......even if she is possibly guilty....why because she on the balance of all probability is innocent....and certainly not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.....

The drug mules are an entirely different story.....but one must consider the uestion of duress and abuse of power exercised over them......Im not saying that makes them innocent, but t may be a determingin factor between a length sentence and a death penalty....Its at least worth discussing...its too late after the fact...

One thing I am EXTREMELY certain about - Australia is inexcusably and PATHETICALLY soft on crime! And the NSW Juvinille crimes act is the worst legislation on the face of this planet....  If kids had the living crap scared out of them the first time they offeneded it would possibly stop a lot of this rubbish well before it becomes habituated criminal behaviour.

Sure incarciration is not the answer , but hard labour, community crime, councilling, offender / victim confrontations etc are all options.....put tracking devices on these regular offenders and curfews...


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

pilots said:


> Bunyip, your post would be one of the best this year.




They make nasal delivery technolgy sprays for these sorts of premature statements....its the 1st of january for god sake....

Now this ones the best of the year.....ha ha


----------



## bunyip (1 January 2010)

Macquack said:


> Bunyip, have you had a relative or friend overdose on heroin? I ask the question because you take a bloody hard line.




I've never had a friend or relative overdose on heroin. But I've seen enough in the media and in real life examples to know that drugs wreak terrible havoc in our society.
And my wife, a mental health nurse, can tell some horrid stories of the terrible drug-related illnesses she's seen in psychiatric hospitals. 
And it all starts with the mongrels who get involved in the drug trade for their personal financial gain, such as the Bali nine for example.

Yes, I take a hard line, but a realistic one if we really want to get serious about drastically reducing the drug trade. 
It's ludicrous to give similar jail terms to a bank robber and a hard drug trafficker. But that's what happens.
As bad as he is, the bank robber is not the same evil, mass murdering bastard that a hard drug trafficker is.
It's easy to think the soft, emotional way by saying _'Oh no, we can't kill drug traffickers - that's just plain wrong'._
But it's more difficult to use some hard-nosed reality and consider the bigger picture by saying _'OK, killing one drug trafficker might save hundreds of lives, firstly be eliminating him permanently from the drug trade, secondly by discouraging other potential mongrels who might otherwise have been tempted to try their hand at drug trafficking'._

Keep killing drug traffickers, and sooner or later we'll reach a situation like Singapore where they have one of the lowest rate of drug trafficking of any country in the world.

Think about the current penalties for drug trafficking in Australia.....are they working? Definitely not....drug trafficking is increasing. Why? Because the penalties are not sufficient deterrent. 
Solution - increase the penalties to whatever is needed to ensure that they do work. No point in kidding ourselves that we'll ever stamp out drug trafficking completely - even Singapore hasn't been able to do that. But by hell, they've cut drug trafficking down to very low levels - the sort of levels we'd welcome in Australia if we could achieve them.
Singapore hasn't achieved this good result by playing tiddlywinks with druggies.....they get fair dinkum and eliminate them, and in the process stop many other people from ever becoming traffickers in the first place.
We need to do the same here in Australia - then we might start getting some real results.


----------



## bunyip (1 January 2010)

condog said:


> Bunyips I agree with the intnet of your comments but probably not in all cases....unfortunately many of these countries which still have the death penalty also lack legal integrity and proper justice procedures......meaning someone who on the balance of propability could only be innocent can actually be found or forced to plead guilty....eg: possibly Shapelle Corby.....
> 
> For the life of me why would someone export drugs to Bali where there is a death penalty and the street value is less then 20% of the street value in Australia.......it defies logic....and given the Airline baggage handling events that have occured since her trial .... the poor women deserves our support for a retrial......even if she is possibly guilty....why because she on the balance of all probability is innocent....and certainly not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.....
> 
> ...




I agree.....the death penalty in a corrupt, pathetic, incompetent society like Indonesia could be badly misused due to their inability and complete lack of interest in giving people fair trials. 
Corby, for example, should not be in jail at all, since there was no evidence that she placed the drugs in her bag. 
Wheter she's innocent or guilty is not the question here. The fact is that she was convicted and jailed for 20 years without a shred of evidence.
Bali Nine, different story - the irrefutable evidence was that they were caught with the drugs strapped to their bodies.
In theory they should probably be handed over to Australia for punishment, since it was Australia they were headed for with their drugs. In practice though, I'm pleased the Indonesians are dealing with them - at least they get a decent penalty there, 20 years for some, life for others. 
Under the ridiculous Australian penalty system, they'd be walking the streets again in seven or eight years.
On the other hand, I'd welcome the Bali nine being sent to Australia if they were shot or hung when they got here.


----------



## condog (1 January 2010)

Hey bunyips 

I agree drug dealers are somehow involved in potential / real mass homicide or at least assualt / inflicting grevious bodily harm, and child abuse for the families of drug users.......its an aweful situation.....

We certainly need to be massively tougher on all crimes in Australia including drug trafficing......the doo gooders are a pathetic soft bunch who put the rights of criminals above the rights of victims........and they are just as bad by association........ 

Never should the right of a proven guilty criminal come even remotely close to the rights of a truamatised victim, never.....
Society and in particular the legal system has absolutely lost the plot in australia......

For starter houses should be sanctuaries where you feel completely safe and no one ever dare violate or enter your premises even if you where over sease with the doors open......

Armed robbers should have 20-30 years minimum

Secondly drug traffficers and manufactures with commercial intentions should be put to hard labour for 20-30 years minimum......

Murder , gang rape , un equivickly proven violent rape to unknown victims and attempted murder should carry 30+ years hard labour......

Petty criminals should be forced to repay debts and do labour for society with tracking devices and curfews / home detentions if need be.....

People say we could never afford it......  with the money we would all save on security, councilling and insurance we could pay for it 500 times over....

Unfortuantely we have been conditioned by pathetic justice to think that security is a necesity and that freedom is a right even for criminals.....
Mate I never thought id say it , but I wish a crime upon every doo gooder out there, until they finally change there tune...

If ti wasnt for stinking pathetic doo gooders who protect the guilty we could all enjoy a massively safer and better society....

We have become so pathetic in terms of pollitical correctness and mis guided justice that Andrew Symmonds got more punishment for having one beer then most criminals get for break and enter....

Society with its pent up frustrations is targeting the worng people


----------



## Julia (1 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> I agree.....the death penalty in a corrupt, pathetic, incompetent society like Indonesia could be badly misused due to their inability and complete lack of interest in giving people fair trials.
> Corby, for example, should not be in jail at all, since there was no evidence that she placed the drugs in her bag.
> Wheter she's innocent or guilty is not the question here. The fact is that she was convicted and jailed for 20 years without a shred of evidence.



If you were to travel to Indonesia and your bag was found on arrival to contain drugs, wouldn't you expect that Indonesia would expect that that was your responsibility?

To take your argument to its logical conclusion, you would say that every person entering any country with contraband in their luggage could not be deemed guilty because no one actually filmed them putting whatever it was in their luggage!

A hell of a lot of crimes would go unpunished, wouldn't they?




> Bali Nine, different story - the irrefutable evidence was that they were caught with the drugs strapped to their bodies.
> In theory they should probably be handed over to Australia for punishment, since it was Australia they were headed for with their drugs. In practice though, I'm pleased the Indonesians are dealing with them - at least they get a decent penalty there, 20 years for some, life for others.
> Under the ridiculous Australian penalty system, they'd be walking the streets again in seven or eight years.
> On the other hand, I'd welcome the Bali nine being sent to Australia if they were shot or hung when they got here.



There is a huge double standard here.  Maybe because Ms Corby is an attractive young woman whilst the Bali Nine were decidedly less so.

Ms Corby carried the drugs in her luggage.  The Bali Nine carried the drugs on their person(s).  But you think one should be free, and the others should be executed.


----------



## Tink (2 January 2010)

I agree that the sentences should be harsher regarding drug trafficking in this country Bunyip. Its the only way that people are going to get the message, but, as stated, I dont agree with the death penalty

I would go down the same line as Schapelle Corby - 20 years is a good start. As for her not being guilty or in there, I dont agree. She chose to take the risk and its not the first time she has been down that road.

Truth is, a majority of those traffickers are already involved in crime, so they dont give two hoots about anyone else.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

I think if you're going to look at traffickers as the problem, then you've only got half the equation. Users are the other half. It's a symbiotic relationship, so one simply can't wring one's hands over a poor old addict, and kill the traffickers. 

Addicts and users are just as big in the ******** stakes as the providers.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Julia said:


> If you were to travel to Indonesia and your bag was found on arrival to contain drugs, wouldn't you expect that Indonesia would expect that that was your responsibility?
> 
> To take your argument to its logical conclusion, you would say that every person entering any country with contraband in their luggage could not be deemed guilty because no one actually filmed them putting whatever it was in their luggage!
> 
> ...




 Shapelle Corby being reasonably attractive has nothing to do with it. If she was caught with heroin strapped to her body, as were the Bali nine, then I'd be calling for her execution even if she was Miss World at the time. I detest drug traffickers regardless of their looks or gender.

The Indonesian prosecution and the police came up with no evidence against Corby, nor did they even make any attempt to procure evidence. The police didn't even finger print the drugs.
If I pinch a ring from a jewellers shop and then slip it into your handbag, unknown to you, that doesn't make you guilty of stealing the ring, at least not in this country. Different story in Indonesia though, apparently.

An Australian couple told of how years before the Corby case, they found drugs in their luggage when they unpacked their bags in their Bali hotel room. They contacted the Australian Embassy and asked for advice. They were told to flush the drugs down the toilet, but under no circumstances should they go to the police about it. If they did, they could expect to spend the next 20 years in jail. Such is the Indonesian legal system.....a complete joke, but not a very pleasant one if you're a victim of it.

Corby didn't get a fair trial.


----------



## condog (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> Shapelle Corby being reasonably attractive has nothing to do with it. If she was caught with heroin strapped to her body, as were the Bali nine, ..............even if she was Miss World at the time. I detest drug traffickers regardless of their looks or gender.
> 
> The Indonesian prosecution and the police came up with no evidence against Corby, nor did they even make any attempt to procure evidence. The police didn't even finger print the drugs.
> If I pinch a ring from a jewellers shop and then slip it into your handbag, unknown to you, that doesn't make you guilty of stealing the ring, at least not in this country. Different story in Indonesia though, apparently.
> ...




Here , here...with the exception of the hard line on the death panalty..that about sums it up as accurately as I could imagine it....

Well put bunyips.........vote 1 bunyips to take over from Mr Monk and run the coalition against Krudd...


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> I think if you're going to look at traffickers as the problem, then you've only got half the equation. Users are the other half. It's a symbiotic relationship, so one simply can't wring one's hands over a poor old addict, and kill the traffickers.
> 
> Addicts and users are just as big in the ******** stakes as the providers.




Users can be brainless, immature kids who started out on something lighter, like pot, and once addicted, graduated to the heavier stuff. 
They're irresponsible fools and the drug trade couldn't flourish without them. But they're not the same evil people as drug traffickers whose business is to profit from causing misery, suffering and death to others.
Hard drug traffickers are mass murderers. Irrespective of whether we think they warrant the death penalty, the fact is they're treated leniently in this country.
From my observation, they seem to receive similar sentences to bank robbers, which is generally less than ten years in jail, and they're out much earlier if they behave themselves while in prison.
At the very least, hard drug traffickers should spend every single year of their remaining life in jail. No reduced sentences for good behaviour, and if they want to play up, put them in solitary for a few months. If they play up again, straight back into solitary they go.
Much simpler though, is to get rid of them permanently so they don't use up taxpayer money.
And if anyone wants to argue with me, ask yourselves whether Singapore's legal system works better or worse than ours.
Unless we introduce punishment so severe that it absolutely horrifies and frightens people half to death, crime will continue to spiral out of control in Australia.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> Users can be brainless, immature kids who started out on something lighter, like pot, and once addicted, graduated to the heavier stuff.
> They're irresponsible fools and the drug trade couldn't flourish without them. But they're not the same evil people as drug traffickers whose business is to profit from causing misery, suffering and death to others.
> Hard drug traffickers are mass murderers. Irrespective of whether we think they warrant the death penalty, the fact is they're treated leniently in this country.
> From my observation, they seem to receive similar sentences to bank robbers, which is generally less than ten years in jail, and they're out much earlier if they behave themselves while in prison.
> ...




So you say. But I'd guess you have no personal experience.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Tink said:


> I agree that the sentences should be harsher regarding drug trafficking in this country Bunyip. Its the only way that people are going to get the message, but, as stated, I dont agree with the death penalty
> 
> I would go down the same line as Schapelle Corby - 20 years is a good start. As for her not being guilty or in there, I dont agree. She chose to take the risk and its not the first time she has been down that road.
> 
> Truth is, a majority of those traffickers are already involved in crime, so they dont give two hoots about anyone else.




Tink, the fact is that neither you nor I know enough about the Corby case to pass judgement on whether or not she's guilty. I'm not going to get into a debate about her guilt or innocence......I'd be silly do so - I don't know the facts. 
But what I do know is that neither the police nor the prosecution came up with any evidence against Corby that would have held up in a proper legal system. 

The Corby debate is a bit like the Azaria Chamberlain case years ago, where her mother Lindy was convicted of killing her own child. Just about everyone, including me, had an opinion on whether she was innocent or guilty. It was damn stupid of all of us, since none of us really knew the facts.
To my discredit, I judged Lindy guilty....there was no reasonable basis for my judgement, it was just how I felt. It was pretty dumb of me, and I was subsequently proven wrong by the evidence that emerged after Lindy has spent years in jail for a crime she didn't commit.

I'm not going to fall into the trap a second time by making dumb judgements about the guilt or innocence of Shapelle Corby, when I don't know the facts.
But blind Freddie can see she didn't get a fair trial and no credible evidence was presented against her. On that basis alone, she should not be rotting in some filthy Indonesian jail.
I feel that sooner or later Corby will be released or pardoned before she's served out her 20 year sentence.....then people will come to realise what a pathetic joke the Indonesian legal system really is.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> So you say. But I'd guess you have no personal experience.




No personal experience of what?


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> No personal experience in what?




Direct experience with junkies and other drug users.


----------



## Tink (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> I think if you're going to look at traffickers as the problem, then you've only got half the equation. Users are the other half. It's a symbiotic relationship, so one simply can't wring one's hands over a poor old addict, and kill the traffickers.
> 
> Addicts and users are just as big in the ******** stakes as the providers.




No the other half is the top dog, the ones paying these traffickers to do their dirty work.

As for the users, they arent selling. Its the other 2 tiers that are the problem.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> Direct experience with junkies and other drug users.




No, I haven't had direct experience with junkies and other drug users.

So what point are you making exactly?


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> No, I haven't had direct experience with junkies and other drug users.
> 
> So what point are you making exactly?




I'm sure you get my point.

But in case; Unless one has direct experience with the addict, then one cannot know the mindset, nor the depths to which they can sink. Nor will one understand that theirs is a choice; a conscious decision to use their poison of choice, for whatever distorted reasoning they choose. And further to that, they will use virtually ANY methods to obtain that particular drug, and will, without hesitation, or at least, very little hesitation, walk over their own grandmother to get it. 

Now, unless you know this ****, or have seen it, then the handwringing that accompanies the academic, and remote observations that people have, amount to nothing. In fact, they're worse than nothing, because they don't help, or they entrench the user further. 

There are programs available that work, but they aren't unfortunately available in Australia, where the idiotic slogan "war on drugs" has really taken hold. 

The dealer, or provider, would be out of business if the user was not available. I don't like dealers, but having had direct, first hand experience with end users, and dealers, I dislike users more because of the excuses they make for their behaviour, and the excuses that the majority of do-gooders also make on their behalf. 

Yes, drug abuse is an illness, but it's self-inflicted, and they're not victims of traffickers, they're simply victims of their own stupidity.

</rant>


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

Tink said:


> No the other half is the top dog, the ones paying these traffickers to do their dirty work.
> 
> As for the users, they arent selling. Its the other 2 tiers that are the problem.




Wrong


----------



## BradK (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> No, I haven't had direct experience with junkies and other drug users.
> 
> So what point are you making exactly?




The point I would make is that you are pretty hardline on these issues without direct experience of junkies and other drug users. I agree with a tough stance on drugs and traffickers, however, to say that a blanket death penalty should be introduced is foolish. 

Not being a bleeding heart, but you have no idea how some people got to be where they are. And yet you are still pretty full on in your views. 

I just think a bit less of a one size fits all approach is needed. 

Agree with Fishbulb above - think of a bit of a silly decision that someone has made. And multiply that by 10 and add manipulation, emotional blackmail, self-harm and irrationality. And after you have multiplied that by 10 and added the rest, you will see that this **** goes on EVERYDAY for the user and their families. 

Remember, the families are very very very very much victims of the drug also - often is more ways than the user. Add up financial cost, worry, stress, loss of family reputation, emotional energy, work productivity lost. The user NEVER thinks of these things - only getting the next fix. The family is left with the rest. 

In short Bunyip - with respect - you don't know much mate. 

Brad


----------



## BradK (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> *From my observation*, they seem to receive similar sentences to bank robbers, which is generally less than ten years in jail, and they're out much earlier if they behave themselves while in prison.
> At the very least, hard drug traffickers should spend every single year of their remaining life in jail. No reduced sentences for good behaviour, and if they want to play up, put them in *solitary for a few months.* If they play up again, straight back into solitary they go.
> Much simpler though, is to get rid of them permanently so they don't use up taxpayer money.
> And if *anyone wants to argue with me*, ask yourselves whether Singapore's legal system works better or worse than ours.
> Unless we introduce punishment so severe that it absolutely horrifies and frightens people half to death, crime will continue to spiral out of control in Australia.




Flabbergasted. Speechless.


----------



## lukeaye (2 January 2010)

Bunyip i definently do not agree with your views.

I will admit i have taken drugs in the past, recreational, not a junkie.

And to be honest with you, people cause more harm when there are drunk then when they are on drugs. If i want to take a chance on my life and take drugs, then that is my decision, an illegal decision, but a decision none the less.

You obviously have no idea how much drugs do for econimies. They keep hundres of thousands employed. The authorities who monitor them, the rehab clinics, the nurses like your partner, the money spend by the dealers on various luxuries. Drugs keep the world spinning. As long as their is demand there will always be supply. 

To think i could have the death penalty, for having a couple of ecstacy tablets on me is just insance. Im not hurting anyone? Is it really that bad?

It makes more sense to have the death penalty for drink driving, then having a few drugs on you.


----------



## lukeaye (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> Unless we introduce punishment so severe that it absolutely horrifies and frightens people half to death, crime will continue to spiral out of control in Australia.




I didnt know crime was spiraling out of control?

Have you ever done anything illegal bunyip? If so would you take that hard line approach with yourself? 

What if your son or daughter got caught "experementing" with a single ecstacy tablet, because they succumbed to peer pressure?

Would you still lock her up for life? Get a grip on reality my man


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 January 2010)

It seems that we are concentrating way too much on "the crime" rather than the fact that this man was "mentally ill".

So if he had committed murder or paedophilia or trafficked drugs, matters little in the Chinese system. They top anyone guilty of these offences.

In our society "mental illness" is very common and very easy to fake, according to a trickcyclist mate of mine. Especially when a court case is looming. 

Even the official figures show that 25% of the population are mentally ill and an even higher proportion of those gaoled are likewise afflicted. and these I suppose are figures for people who cannot fake.

My mate says that some Psychiatrists do reports depending on what side are paying them, so if its the prosecution they will say sane, and if its the defence they will say bipolar.

Bipolar seems very common nowadays, every manjack seems to have it.

http://www.lawfoundation.net.au/ljf/app/CF3E9343EC3E96E1CA25718E000594DE.html

These are some figures from The Law and Justice Foundation website.



> High prevalence disorders: adults
> 
> Figures taken from the adult component of the NSMHW reveal that an estimated 17.7 to 18% of adults in Australia had experienced an anxiety, affective or substance use disorder, or a combination of these, in the 12 months preceding the 1997 survey. These rates mean that, overall, approximately 2 383 000 Australian adults had a high prevalence mental disorder.32 The NSW estimate at 17.4% (approximately 800 000 people) was not markedly different from the national average.33
> 
> ...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 January 2010)

Sorry I didn't mean to strangle the thread with objectivity and data.

How about we hang all drug dealers from lamposts near the exits from shopping centres?

He was a drug courier 1 tick,  He did it in China 2 ticks

He had bipolar 1 tick

2 ticks minus 1 tick = an execution.


gg


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> I'm sure you get my point.
> 
> But in case; Unless one has direct experience with the addict, then one cannot know the mindset, nor the depths to which they can sink. Nor will one understand that theirs is a choice; a conscious decision to use their poison of choice, for whatever distorted reasoning they choose. And further to that, they will use virtually ANY methods to obtain that particular drug, and will, without hesitation, or at least, very little hesitation, walk over their own grandmother to get it.
> 
> ...




If a kid grows up in a dysfunctional family, both parents violent, both guilty of substance abuse, whether it's drugs or booze or whatever, and early in life the kid ends up leaving home and becoming a street kid, there's every chance he'll get into the drug scene at an age where he's too young to make intelligent choices.
That's how at least some drug users get started, and I don't need to have direct contact with them to know that.
Yes, once hooked they'll do pretty much anything to get money for the next fix. But I repeat, these users are not as bad as the cold hearted, calculating criminals who bring large quantities of hard drugs into the country to line their own pockets with money.
Your average drug user in not a mass murdering mongrel.....his main concern is working out how to get his next fix. The hard drug trafficking criminals are a different story altogether.....they're mass murderers pure and simple. And they should be treated as such.

I'm not making excuses for the drug users.....they have a lot to answer for. They keep the drug trade going by providing the necessary demand. But many of them are decent people underneath their problems - they just got caught up in something bad when they were young and impressionable.

For the most part I agree with what you're saying....drug users are indeed victims of their own stupidity. I'm not kindly disposed to anyone in the drug trade, users or dealers. But it's the traffickers in large quantities of hard drugs that are really the ones with the evil minds and intentions.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> I didnt know crime was spiraling out of control?
> 
> Have you ever done anything illegal bunyip? If so would you take that hard line approach with yourself?
> 
> ...




If you're not aware of the escalating crime rate, then maybe you should keep yourself more in touch.

No, I haven't done anything illegal apart from get behind the wheel a time or two when I was young and stupid and probably over the limit.

Show me where I've suggested that people should be locked up for life for experimenting with one ecstasy tablet. If you can't do that, then perhaps you should stop misrepresenting my words.


----------



## Fishbulb (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> If a kid grows up in a dysfunctional family, both parents violent, both guilty of substance abuse, whether it's drugs or booze or whatever, and early in life the kid ends up leaving home and becoming a street kid, there's every chance he'll get into the drug scene at an age where he's too young to make intelligent choices.
> That's how at least some drug users get started, and I don't need to have direct contact with them to know that.
> Yes, once hooked they'll do pretty much anything to get money for the next fix. But I repeat, these users are not as bad as the cold hearted, calculating criminals who bring large quantities of hard drugs into the country to line their own pockets with money.
> Your average drug user in not a mass murdering mongrel.....his main concern is working out how to get his next fix. The hard drug trafficking criminals are a different story altogether.....they're mass murderers pure and simple. And they should be treated as such.
> ...




Hey, I'll just ignore the excuses you keep making for users. I don't think I or anyone else could convince you that they're not just innocent little victims, or just got caught up in their natural curiosity and experimentation the poor wee things. 

Instead I'll concentrate on this - That in effect, what you're saying, is that the evil minded deserve all the punishment coming to them for their cold-hearted ways. I agree. Because basically, you've described most criminal activity. 

I think instead of concentrating on ways of doing in the criminals, we, or our lawmakers rather, should be looking at ways of short circuiting the ways criminals can get involved. We in the west for the most part go about this entire sticky area all wrong. Perhaps look at what Switzerland is doing - click here


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

BradK said:


> The point I would make is that you are pretty hardline on these issues without direct experience of junkies and other drug users. I agree with a tough stance on drugs and traffickers, however, to say that a blanket death penalty should be introduced is foolish.
> 
> Not being a bleeding heart, but you have no idea how some people got to be where they are. And yet you are still pretty full on in your views.
> 
> ...




And with all due respect to you too Brad, you don't have a bloody clue how much I know.

You appear to think, for example, that I have no understanding of the impact of drugs on the families of the drug user. I assure you I do. 

I have never suggested a blanket death penalty that includes drug users. I'm well aware that some of them got into the drug scene due to circumstances that were largely beyond their control at the time.

My hard line comments about executing people were made in relation to traffickers of hard drugs......for example, the Bali nine who were strapped up with enough heroin to dose up tens of thousands of people. And the Mr Bigs who organised these drug mules. These are the people who need to be eliminated, not the poor weak bastards who experiment with ecstasy or some other drug for their own use.

Again with respect, Brad, maybe you should take the trouble to find out what life experiences I've had, what exactly I do know, before you got jumping to conclusions that I don't know much.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

lukeaye said:


> Bunyip i definently do not agree with your views.
> 
> I will admit i have taken drugs in the past, recreational, not a junkie.
> 
> ...




Lukeaye....you don't agree with my views yet you don't seem to have the faintest idea what my views actually are. You appear to think I'm advocating the death penalty for being in possession of a couple of ecstasy tablets. That is absurd....nowhere have I said or even hinted such a thing.

So you think the illegal drug trade is good for the economy. Are you suggesting then, that we should keep the drug trade going for that reason?

Regarding the comparison between alcohol and illegal drugs, I absolutely agree that booze is quite likely the worst drug of them all. It causes immense suffering in society.
Governments sicken me with their two-faced attitude towards alcohol. On the one hand they're constantly bombarding us with ads about the dangers of alcohol abuse, e.g. their drink driving ads and their 'one punch can kill' ads. On the other hand, they're encouraging people to drink as much as possible by continuously extending the hours of pubs and clubs.
Cigarette ads and sponsorship by cigarette companies has been banned in Australia for decades. Yet alcohol ads and sponsorship by alcohol companies are alive and well, with the governments blessing.
The fact is that governments make huge money from taxing booze, so from an economic viewpoint, the more we drink the better the government like it.

In my youth when pubs and clubs closed before midnight, there was only a fraction of the alcohol-related violence and car crashes that we have today.


----------



## lukeaye (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> When or if Australia starts following the lead of China and Singapore in executing drug traffickers, then and only then might we start making some serious inroads into the drug trafficking problem in this country.




This is what im refering to. By definition if i take 2 ecstacy pills into china, im up for execution. I think this is totally insane.

I wouldnt do it obviosuly because i don't want to die, but perhaps for somebody who doesn't know the laws of the land this is far far far to harsh.

So bunyip if your wife got forced to take drugs into another country because her life or somebody elses was threatened, and she got caught, would you be happy with a 30 min trial followed by a bullet in the head for her?

Your hardline approach does not take enough into consideration, a life is an invaluable thing. Its like your hatred and rage for drug traffickers in general, clouds your judgement. 

I still think its not the dealers fault. You can in no way way blame a drug dealer for the people that have destroyed their own lives due to the drugs. (unless of course they are bad drugs). But its up to the consumer as to what risk they want to take, they are simply providing a service and a supply to a demand.

The only way you will ever solve the problem is to address demand. The supply is not the problem. As long as their is addiction drug users will always find a way to get drugs. If one drug mule dies, another will step in his place. If a dealer dies, another will step in his place. The money involved is far to great, for both the dealers and authorities.

So if you really want to help the situation think about how you can get youth to avoid drugs. Not going around blindly shooting people


----------



## BradK (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> And with all due respect to you too Brad, you don't have a bloody clue how much I know.
> 
> Again with respect, Brad, *maybe you should take the trouble to find out what life experiences I've had,* what exactly I do know, before you got jumping to conclusions that I don't know much.




Lots of respect going around. 

So, what life experiences have you had in relation to friends or family involvement with drugs? 

Brad


----------



## Julia (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> The Indonesian prosecution and the police came up with no evidence against Corby, nor did they even make any attempt to procure evidence. The police didn't even finger print the drugs.



You don't consider the drugs in her bag are evidence then?

You haven't addressed my earlier point that - if you take this view, i.e. that a person has to be found with the drugs actually strapped to their body, then they are ipso facto completely innocent?
If so, why would not everyone carrying drugs in their clothing or luggage simply have to say "I didn't put them there", to be told "Oh, that's fine, mate, off you go then"


> Corby didn't get a fair trial.



That is probably true.
Perhaps some influence was accorded the fact that if she had no involvement in the drug trade, she would be the only member of her family not to be so involved.



bunyip said:


> Tink, the fact is that neither you nor I know enough about the Corby case to pass judgement on whether or not she's guilty. I'm not going to get into a debate about her guilt or innocence......I'd be silly do so - I don't know the facts.



But Bunyip, you effectively have declared that she should be free, which would imply innocence.



Fishbulb said:


> I'm sure you get my point.
> 
> But in case; Unless one has direct experience with the addict, then one cannot know the mindset, nor the depths to which they can sink. Nor will one understand that theirs is a choice; a conscious decision to use their poison of choice, for whatever distorted reasoning they choose. And further to that, they will use virtually ANY methods to obtain that particular drug, and will, without hesitation, or at least, very little hesitation, walk over their own grandmother to get it.



I completely agree.  And I have had personal experience with a drug user.
He disregarded career, colleagues, and family in pursuit of his drugs.

Also eschewed assistance.



> The dealer, or provider, would be out of business if the user was not available. I don't like dealers, but having had direct, first hand experience with end users, and dealers, I dislike users more because of the excuses they make for their behaviour, and the excuses that the majority of do-gooders also make on their behalf.



Agree.



> Yes, drug abuse is an illness, but it's self-inflicted, and they're not victims of traffickers, they're simply victims of their own stupidity.



I don't agree that drug abuse is an illness.  It is the result of a choice.





BradK said:


> Remember, the families are very very very very much victims of the drug also - often is more ways than the user. Add up financial cost, worry, stress, loss of family reputation, emotional energy, work productivity lost. The user NEVER thinks of these things - only getting the next fix. The family is left with the rest.



Quite correct.





lukeaye said:


> Bunyip i definently do not agree with your views.
> 
> I will admit i have taken drugs in the past, recreational, not a junkie.
> 
> You obviously have no idea how much drugs do for econimies. They keep hundres of thousands employed. The authorities who monitor them, the rehab clinics, the nurses like your partner, the money spend by the dealers on various luxuries. Drugs keep the world spinning. As long as their is demand there will always be supply.



What a totally ridiculous excuse for drug abuse.


----------



## DB008 (2 January 2010)

Does anybody here have views on personal comsumption? ie, going to music festival and taking a joint? 4kg of H is a little bit more than personal consumption.


----------



## IFocus (2 January 2010)

Fishbulb said:


> We in the west for the most part go about this entire sticky area all wrong. Perhaps look at what Switzerland is doing - click here




Nice one Fishbuld I wondered if anyone would bring this up.

Drugs, supply vers demand some thing we all are experts at 

One way to remove demand is for the Government to be the supplier and once you are the supplier you then have some control over the users and their behavior. 

Those nasty drug dealers are screwed because they no longer have a market.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

BradK said:


> Lots of respect going around.
> 
> So, what life experiences have you had in relation to friends or family involvement with drugs?
> 
> Brad




None of my friends or family have been involved in drugs. I do, however, know families who have been affected. I don't know them well enough to call them friends, but I do know them. And I'm well aware of the torment and trauma they've been through.
Also, anyone with a TV set will have seen families on TV who have been torn apart by drugs. It's all over the place, to such an extent that nobody can be unaware of just how horrible drug addiction is, and the lives it affects.

For some reason Brad, you seem to think I'm making light of the misery that drug addiction causes for users and their families. Nothing could be further from the truth.
My view is that the people who trade in this misery for their own profit, should be punished heavily. Frankly I don't care if it's life in prison instead of the death penalty. Of the two, life behind bars is probably the more horrible for the person concerned.
I don't care what happens to them - I just want them to cop penalties that fit the crime and act as an effective deterrent to others who might think of choosing the same path. I don't believe that's happening under Australian law at present.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

Julia

We can reasonably expect civilised countries to attempt to establish whether a person carrying drugs is the culprit, or whether they may be doing so unwittingly.
Indonesia didn't do that with Corby. As I understand it, her boogie board bag went through with the rest of her luggage, and when she collected it there were drugs inside.
No reasonable person would dismiss the possibility that she herself put the drugs in the bag. But equally, no reasonable person would dismiss the possibility that, unknown to her, the drugs were planted there by someone else.

She didn't get a fair trial. She shouldn't be in jail. This is not a judgement on her guilt or innocence. She may be as guilty as hell for all I know, but unless her guilt was proven beyond reasonable doubt, she'd be freed in any country with a fair and reasonable justice system. 

I mentioned earlier the Australian couple a couple of years before the Corby case, who found that drugs had been planted in the luggage when they unpacked in their Bali hotel room. According to the Australian Embassy in Indonesia, had they gone to the authorities they would have been judged guilty and would have done 20 years for a crime they didn't commit.
This may well be what's happened to Shapelle Corby....none of us really know for sure.


----------



## bunyip (2 January 2010)

lukeaye

What they do in China is up to them. 
There may well be countries in the world that lack the intelligence and judgement to distinguish between someone carrying a couple of ecstasy pills for personal use, and someone carrying several kilograms of hard drugs that are obviously destined for sale to many thousands of users.
I doubt if Australia would be such a country....I'd like to think we're somewhat more intelligent and capable down here.
If we had the death penalty as one of the penalties available for drug trafficking, I'd be pretty confident of our ability to responsibly decide which offenders it was handed out to.

Your hypothetical question about my wife.....I'm not going to speculate on a situation that she would never allow herself to get into.


----------



## IFocus (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> I don't care what happens to them - I just want them to cop penalties that fit the crime and act as an effective deterrent to others who might think of choosing the same path. I don't believe that's happening under Australian law at present.




Wont work only you and I fear the penalty, sounds like vengeance thinking rather than solution based the bad nasty guys don't care they just do it check out the USA statistics war on drugs etc total bull$hit how long have they been doing that gig?


----------



## Julia (2 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> Julia
> 
> We can reasonably expect civilised countries to attempt to establish whether a person carrying drugs is the culprit, or whether they may be doing so unwittingly.



How, exactly?   Don't you think it a little odd that - having carried her boogie board pre boarding, and then collecting it in Indonesia, she didn't notice that it was more than4kg heavier???  I sure as hell would notice that.

Could I ask you once more what you think is fair?

Say I travel to an overseas destination, having packed in my luggage 4kg of drugs.  When it is discovered at the overseas airport, may I reasonably expect that if I say 'well, I didn't put it there', I should be waved on my way into the country, drugs intact?

That's effectively what you are suggesting when you suggest that Ms Corby should not be considered the possessor of the drugs found in her luggage.

This is the point I'm trying (vainly so far) to make.

It's not about Corby specifically, just the general principle.


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

Julia said:


> When it is discovered at the overseas airport, may I reasonably expect that if I say 'well, I didn't put it there', I should be waved on my way into the country, drugs intact?




Are you being deliberately irrational here?  Or is this just more posturing?  Posters are trying to bring up reasonable points and you respond with this sort of inane question?  Or is it just sarcasm in the absence of any reasonable response?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 January 2010)

Timmy said:


> Are you being deliberately irrational here?  Or is this just more posturing?  Posters are trying to bring up reasonable points and you respond with this sort of inane question?




I see no posturing or irrationality in the statement by Julia. Its all part of a logical argument.

btw, you guys n gals would all fail 101 essay writing as the majority still ignore the "mentally" part of the statement.

gg


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I see no posturing or irrationality in the statement by Julia. Its all part of a logical argument.




I do.

There are other alternatives to Julia's being "waved on my way into the country, drugs intact?"


----------



## nunthewiser (3 January 2010)

IFocus said:


> check out the USA statistics war on drugs etc total bull$hit how long have they been doing that gig?





Yep, and how long have they provided safe passage in the opium trails for ................

whole crock of poo if you ask me 

p.s chapelle corby and this other Akmal goose are no different in my book .........They both broke the law in a foreign country ..........There rules ...........People know the consequences ...........Thats the punishment.


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> btw, you guys n gals would all fail 101 essay writing as the majority still ignore the "mentally" part of the statement.




BTW GG, I brought up the 'mentally" part of the statement but the cheersquad for the execution on this thread have decided, given their profound ignorance of bipolar disease and unwillingness to find out even the basics about it, that being mentally ill it is still OK to be executed.


----------



## nunthewiser (3 January 2010)

Timmy said:


> BTW GG, I brought up the 'mentally" part of the statement but the cheersquad for the execution on this thread have decided, given their profound ignorance of bipolar disease and unwillingness to find out even the basics about it, that being mentally ill it is still OK to be executed.





I am my own cheer squad ......... 4kg of smack is still 4kg of smack regardless of the mental state of the person carrying it ........ There punishment is already set for having 4kg of smack, not to worry  why are they carrying it.


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

nunthewiser said:


> I am my own cheer squad ......... 4kg of smack is still 4kg of smack regardless of the mental state of the person carrying it ........ There punishment is already set for having 4kg of smack, not to worry  why are they carrying it.




Nun, I can respect your point of view (I don't agree of course).  The reason I can respect your point of view is you are not basing your view on an ignorance of bipolar disease, which so many others are, using their ignorance to justify their ill-found opinion.  I wont repeat myself about this, gets boring.


----------



## Tink (3 January 2010)

No cheer squad here Timmy, I am not one for the death penalty, but its their rules.

I would like to see *harsher sentencing* here in Australia though for traffickers.

Doesnt it go by weight on how much a person is trying to traffick in for them to get executed in those countries? Why are we talking about one ecstasy tablet?


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

Tink said:


> No cheer squad here Timmy, I am not one for the death penalty, but its their rules.




Apologies, Tink.  Maybe I am being insensitive with that analogy.  

Given we are talking about putting a bullet into the brain of a mentally ill person I will persist with the insensitivity a little longer.


----------



## Fishbulb (3 January 2010)

IFocus said:


> Nice one Fishbuld I wondered if anyone would bring this up.
> 
> Drugs, supply vers demand some thing we all are experts at
> 
> ...




Exactly right.


Glad someone else sees it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 January 2010)

It needs to be remembered that the Chinese view of mental illness is different to ours.

For example anyone who is anti regme may be labelled as mentally ill.

This is a hangover from Marxist times and was practised in the USSR up until recently.

So "mentally ill" means nothing to the Chinese. It is trumped by the crime. In this case carrying lethal drugs.

Remember the Chinese nation was enslaved by the Western Powers in the latter part of the 19th and early 20th centuries by being supplied with cheap opium.

So they are naturally a little bit sensitive on this topic.

gg


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

These are very good points GG.


----------



## Tink (3 January 2010)

IFocus said:


> One way to remove demand is for the Government to be the supplier and once you are the supplier you then have some control over the users and their behavior.




Yep, just like alcohol, and we can see how well thats going..


----------



## pilots (3 January 2010)

Timmy said:


> Apologies, Tink.  Maybe I am being insensitive with that analogy.
> 
> Given we are talking about putting a bullet into the brain of a mentally ill person I will persist with the insensitivity a little longer.




Timmy, he got the jab in the arm, the bullet was not used on him.


----------



## Timmy (3 January 2010)

pilots said:


> Timmy, he got the jab in the arm, the bullet was not used on him.




Thanks for the clarification pilots, my mistake.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 January 2010)

As usual Peter Hitchens is on the money in this debate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/c...ight-save-drug-runners-sell-nation-river.html



> We fight to save drug-runners yet sell a nation down the river
> 
> By Peter Hitchens
> Last updated at 10:00 PM on 02nd January 2010
> ...




gg


----------



## IFocus (3 January 2010)

Tink said:


> Yep, just like alcohol, and we can see how well thats going..





Tink read up on when prohibition in the US was happening and the involvement of criminals then decide how its going..............also big difference between crime involving alcoholics and crime involving drug addicts


----------



## Julia (3 January 2010)

Timmy said:


> Are you being deliberately irrational here?  Or is this just more posturing?  Posters are trying to bring up reasonable points and you respond with this sort of inane question?  Or is it just sarcasm in the absence of any reasonable response?



Yes, I was being somewhat sarcastic.  No, I have not been 'posturing' as you put it in any of my earlier remarks.

I am not in favour of the death penalty.  However, that is China's law which the rest of us need to respect.  You have conceded this point to Tink.

Essentially all I have said is that someone with bipolar disorder is not by virtue of that disorder rendered unable to understand the laws of a country, so cannot be held not responsible for the carrying of drugs into that country.

Do you disagree with this?  If so, please spell out exactly why.

Similarly, since you have accused several of us on this thread of having no understanding of the symptoms of bipolar disorder, perhaps you would be good enough to explain just what constitutes this disorder, previously known as manic depression.

Even making allowances for the likely possibility that your extreme sensitivity in this discussion is a result of some personal connection with bipolar disorder, your rudeness in disagreeing with others seems unreasonable to me.



Timmy said:


> BTW GG, I brought up the 'mentally" part of the statement but the cheersquad for the execution on this thread have decided, given their profound ignorance of bipolar disease and unwillingness to find out even the basics about it, that being mentally ill it is still OK to be executed.



I think you are confusing acknowledging the reality of China's laws with being a 'cheersquad for execution'.  It is absolutely not the same thing.


----------



## condog (3 January 2010)

I have a family memebr with bi-polar and they know exactly right from wrong.......

Having said that certain kinds of crimes while manic are likely, but international drug courier is not likely...


----------



## bunyip (4 January 2010)

Julia and I have corresponded privately in relation to our views on the Corby matter. In the absence of any agreement, Julia has suggested we call a truce.

Just letting the group know in case you think I'm ignoring Julia's questions.
If Julia wishes to discuss the matter further then I'm more than willing to do so, privately.

As for the general content of the thread, it seems to have broadened to a discussion of how to control crime and in particular, drug-related crime. 
Here's my final take on the matter.....

If you want to learn how to do something successfully, you can do worse than study the methods of someone who's already successful in that field.
Singapore has an excellent track record in controlling all types of crime, not just drug-related crime.
They just don't tolerate crime escalating out of control like it's doing in Australia. They have the sense to do whatever is needed, including extremely tough penalties where necessary, to ensure that their citizens and their visitors obey the law and behave responsibly. As a result, they have one of the lowest crime rates in the world and they're one of the world's safest countries to visit or live in. 
They're not crime free - no country ever will  be - but they're making us look like complete amateurs when it comes to controlling crime.
At the very least we should look closely at their methods and consider using them as a model for our own crime control policies.
I have absolutely no doubt that we could make a huge difference to our crime statistics if we took a leaf out of Singapore's book.

Seems to me that we focus too much time and effort discussing what doesn't or won't work, but we ignore what's been proven to work in countries like Singapore.

I'm finished with this thread. There's a limit to how long I'll go on discussing the same issues over and over again, and that limit has been reached.
I'll leave you lot to go on arguing among yourselves. I'm off outside to pursue more productive and enjoyable activities.


----------



## Happy (4 January 2010)

condog said:


> I have a family memebr with bi-polar and they know exactly right from wrong.......




Not on subject, but hope one day most faulty genes are removed from out genetic material, otherwise fabric of our society will not be able to sustain the way we would like to live.


----------



## Happy (4 January 2010)

bunyip said:


> ...
> Singapore has an excellent track record in controlling all types of crime, not just drug-related crime.
> ...





Sooner we adopt proven way of producing desired results the better, as with UK or US models we don't seem to get anywhere meaningful !


----------



## Julia (4 January 2010)

sam76 said:


> Are you saying that bi-polar can be a plausible defence for importing 4kgs of Heroin, Timmy?



I have also asked something similar.  It would be good if you could respond, Timmy.



bunyip said:


> Julia and I have corresponded privately in relation to our views on the Corby matter. In the absence of any agreement, Julia has suggested we call a truce.




There is a certain irony in the fact that I am in trouble with Bunyip for (leaving the Corby issue aside) suggesting that capital punishment is not necessarily the answer to crime, or that a more hardline approach to crime is what Australia should pursue.  I simply don't know.  Bunyip has a good point when he brings up the lack of crime in Singapore.  Hard not to be persuaded by this.

But on the other hand, Timmy thinks I'm being lacking in understanding for thinking bipolar does not constitute a valid reason for not comprehending the drug laws of another country, particularly one as ruthless as China.

I've run the "does someone with bipolar usually lack the capacity to understand laws and penalties involved in drug trafficking" question by three medical people:  a GP, a psychologist and a psychiatrist.  All have said that, even if a person experienced a psychotic episode in the course of bipolar (which they all suggested is quite rare), it would be difficult to imagine this lasting long enough to allow the planning and arrangement of the trafficking of the 4kg of heroin into China.  They may, of course, all be wrong.

We can get bogged down in the finer points of mental illness which after all is always a subjective clinical diagnosis. It's not like diabetes e.g. where a laboratory test will give a definitive diagnosis.

We don't know actually whether the person concerned did have any mental illness. We know that his family have claimed this. I have not seen any verification such as his being treated for this. Nor have I seen any comment by any medical personnel that if he did have any version of bipolar he would therefore have been incapable of understanding China's drug laws.

I would really be grateful, Timmy,  if you could answer whether you consider mental illness should excuse someone from a crime. I think we could say that anyone who commits a crime could be considered to be mentally ill, if you were to take such a philosophy to an extreme.

I will agree, though, that 30 minutes is not long enough for a fair trial and withdraw my earlier comments on this, with apologies.

I feel passionately about drug users, dealers and  traffickers for very personal reasons.  Someone to whom I was very close was an opiate addict, and he manipulated his professional occupation not only to illegally prescribe for himself, but also succumbed to blackmail from heroin addicts, eventually ending up dealing heroin himself.   Ultimately he went to jail and is now dead, but before that he destroyed a marriage, two children, his career and the trust of his friends and colleagues.

So, no, I am never, ever going to have understanding or compassion for anyone at all who perpetuates the scourge of drug abuse.  

I acknowledge that perhaps I lack objectivity in this regard.


----------



## Timmy (4 January 2010)

Julia said:


> I have also asked something similar.  It would be good if you could respond, Timmy.




I already have, see post #40.


----------



## Timmy (4 January 2010)

Here is what I said in post #40:



Timmy said:


> I am saying that I have no idea what mental illness(es) the man may have had and that a 30-minute trial is insufficient to ascertain this.
> 
> I am saying that I believe (see earlier reasoning) he was mentally ill and was incapable of knowing what he was doing and that in the absence of such intent then executing him was wrong (whether in China or anywhere else).
> 
> ...




OK Julia, points 1 and 3, I think we are now in agreement.
Points 2 and 4, maybe not.


----------



## Timmy (4 January 2010)

OK to answer the other question.

I have split it into two.


Julia said:


> I would really be grateful, Timmy,  if you could answer whether you consider mental illness should excuse someone from a crime.



1. What does 'excuse' mean? If you mean is it a legitimate defence in a court, yes it is. If you mean an act is not a crime when committed by a mentally ill person, then of course not.  Leave it to the lawyers to argue intent etc., I have already said I am not a lawyer and am not capable of a sensible explanation of it.



Julia said:


> I think we could say that anyone who commits a crime could be considered to be mentally ill, if you were to take such a philosophy to an extreme.



2. Maybe there are extremists who would argue this, I am not one of them.


----------



## Julia (4 January 2010)

> I am saying I am appalled at the lack of compassion for the man, the active vilification of him as a mentally ill person, and the active vilification of mentally ill people in general displayed by some (not all) posters in this thread.



To quote this in response to my comments is something I absolutely take exception to.  I have not vilified the man at any stage, nor have I ever vilified anyone with mental illness.  I find such a suggestion insulting in the extreme.

I could ask you, for example, if all of the Bali Nine claimed they had some form of mental illness, would you have similar compassion for them?  Why could they also not garner sympathy by making such a claim?

If you look back over my posts in the many years I've been a member of ASF, you will see how often I have lamented how people with a mental illness are  ignored and not valued.  This dates back to governments globally deciding that people who have a mental illness should survive in the community rather than in the institutions that hitherto had given them a sense of security and ongoing treatment.  The appalling results of this irresponsible decision are out there for anyone to see if they want to take a walk through the country's most squalid caravan parks which constitute the home for many people who have never received the support promised by governments.  It is a national (and probably international) disgrace.

  For god's sake, I have spent nearly fifteen years in a purely voluntary capacity working with such people, trying to get more funding for them so they may live a life even remotely close to that which most of us enjoy, and in the meantime, supporting them socially and emotionally.  So please do not tell me that I vilify the mentally ill.

And prior to that I spent some hundreds of hours in psychiatric hospitals co-ordinating trials of anti-psychotic drugs.

I'd be interested to know what active measures you have personally taken, Timmy, on behalf of any mentally ill people.

Regarding the likely state of mind of the drug trafficker, I have in my previous post quoted the views of three medical people who all routinely deal with people with bipolar disorder.  You have ignored this.

Of course, you may well know more than they do.

I am somewhat confused as to why you have singled me out for condemnation of my remarks, when as far as I can tell, others have been far stronger in what they have said, and indeed could in some cases be genuinely considered to be vilifying the mentally ill.

Even if they are, it's their right  - as long as this forum allows free speech - to express such a view.

I don't propose to say anything more in response to your accusations toward me, Timmy.     You can think what you like, frankly.


----------



## Timmy (5 January 2010)

Julia said:


> Regarding the likely state of mind of the drug trafficker, I have in my previous post quoted the views of three medical people who all routinely deal with people with bipolar disorder.  You have ignored this.




Julia, you sent me a PM where you brought this up, I will quote this from your PM to me, I hope you don't mind:


			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I have asked the question re awareness in this case of three medical people I know:  a GP, a psychiatrist and a psychologist.   They all say a manic phase involving psychotic detachment from reality is quite rare and that it is unlikely this would be sustained long enough to enable the planning of such a drug smuggling venture.





and I replied in my PM to you thus:

_1. Unlikely does not rule it out.
2. He did not plan anything, he was simply given a suitcase to carry.
_
Did you not receive my PM?  That is the only reasonable reason I can see why you have said I ignored this?



Julia said:


> I don't propose to say anything more in response




Me either.


----------

