Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

Allyall

Tugboats wrote: »

so we have to wait 6 years 8 months for the book and film:(

We will probably be able to read excerpts in the Mail/Indeherald/Sun

And watch interviews with the Parents on the LLS.

chickcharnley

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

None of that makes any real sense to be honest.
Like if you feel that the standard Peruvian sentence is too lenient then fair enough, but there's no reason for these two to be 'made an example of' as there is absolutely nothing different in this case to any other two gringos. Initial denial followed by a guilty plea a few months later is fairly standard.

You do seem to have quite a problem with the solicitor going by every post of yours coming up with a different term of abuse for him, though the girls can hardly be blamed for his sudden appearance. And anyway judicial systems in civilised countries tend not to go down your desired path of giving extra sentences because of an objectionable defence team (not withstanding that I don't think he was ever an official part of the defence).

Its just a strange attitude this 'make an example of them' thing - arguably as objectionable an attitude as 'send the poor little white girls home' that other posters get accused of.

Treating them no better or worse than any others is surely the fairest, and is exactly what the Peruvians seem to have done.

i deny the accusations youve made above- get your facts straight; and for the record ive no problem with the preuvian justice sytem at all in fact id admire it, now me thinks youre on the defensive a bit youre either from the north or a solicitor or both

end of the road

chickcharnley wrote: »

the sentence that they got was very lenient

no it wasn't,

chickcharnley wrote: »

they should have got more time to make an example out of them

so not for the crime then? just give them a large sentence to "make an example of them" thats no reason to send people to prison

chickcharnley wrote: »

as for this bring them home stuff; i object not on the british or irish taxpayers bill!

we don't get to object, if the lawyers and judges decide its going to happen then it is, and the british and irish tax payer will pay up, no reason why they shouldn't be brought home, suggesting they shouldn't be brought home doesn't make you have any moral high ground or make one feel moral and high and mighty about drugs, specially if they take a recreational drug legal or not

end of the road

chickcharnley wrote: »

well to discourage other "gringos" from being so stupid in the first place; and to show that they wont get special treatment; much unlike they get here in Ireland; in addition it would show that telling cock and bull stories and sending out gowlbag solicitors only makes thing worse

a waste of time and money so as it won't work

Ash.J.Williams

6 years for being an eegit isn't lenient... i think some people here are getting off on the idea of two girls in prison...

Idbatterim

they will probably be out in half the time, to be honest, I wouldnt be calling for them to be shut up for 10 years or so, but a year or two is too lenient, 3-4 years is about right IMO...

chickcharnley

end of the road wrote: »

no it wasn't,

so not for the crime then? just give them a large sentence to "make an example of them" thats no reason to send people to prison

we don't get to object, if the lawyers and judges decide its going to happen then it is, and the british and irish tax payer will pay up, no reason why they shouldn't be brought home, suggesting they shouldn't be brought home doesn't make you have any moral high ground or make one feel moral and high and mighty about drugs, specially if they take a recreational drug legal or not

youre grandstanding and inacurate interpretations of what ive said are at best amusing but ultimately incorrect; what i will say to summarise:
two stupid girls get caught smugling cocaine; make up coercion story; get nordie jowl bag solicitor to come out and defend them who makes it worse for them, peruvians dont believe their story, girls change their story and plead guilty, get six years and we are still suppossed to feel sory for them? bring them home etc? they got off light in view of the knacker bull**** stories the nordie one and her solicitor were trying to pull in the end it didnt work; fair play to the peruvians over and out:pac:

chopper6

I wonder will the Nordie gasbag have anything to say about this.

Allyall

Idbatterim wrote: »

they will probably be out in half the time, to be honest, I wouldnt be calling for them to be shut up for 10 years or so, but a year or two is too lenient, 3-4 years is about right IMO...

2 years and 2 months-ish if we are to believe all the previous reports.

1/3 of their sentence.

I do find myself feeling sorry for them every now and then, but then remember, it wasn't a bag/ounce/personal use.
They had intended on bringing quite a fair bit back, and then, God knows what.

Fact is it's illegal and I think I am Pie said it best in this post as to why they should serve a proper sentence, and explained who/how it effects.

The only thing he failed to mention was that Australians also do it. :pac:

end of the road

chickcharnley wrote: »

nordie jowl bag solicitor

grow up

end of the road

Allyall wrote: »

Fact is it's illegal and I think I am Pie said it best in this post as to why they should serve a proper sentence, and explained who/how it effects.

alcohol effects, fast food effects, if you want to take the likes of coke and your stupid enough to do so then fill your boots, people want drugs like this kept illegal and for us to piss trillions down the drain to fail to eradicate the problem so that means criminal gangs and mules, sometimes one has to realise when something is a lost cause

chickcharnley

end of the road wrote: »

grow up

nordie matlock then:D and where is he? oh where art thou nordie perry mason?

Allyall

end of the road wrote: »

alcohol effects, fast food effects, if you want to take the likes of coke and your stupid enough to do so then fill your boots, people want drugs like this kept illegal and for us to piss trillions down the drain to fail to eradicate the problem so that means criminal gangs and mules, sometimes one has to realise when something is a lost cause

Did you read his post? It's affecting entire Countries.
What you reckon is just give up, That makes no sense.
I get the point, legalise it and control it. But to cease fighting crime because they're losing, is tripe.

I agree to an extent that we should have more say in what is and isn't legalised, (as some laws are archaic) and it could be controlled. Peru could tax the cráp out of it, EU could allow it only with Prescription or alternative methods. Strictly over 25 or whatever. But right now, it is illegal. The two girls knew that.
They didn't go over there to get themselves a handful, to save themselves some cash.

If i went over to South America and tried to smuggle back 1.5 millions worth of alcohol/tobacco, which is legal, i'm pretty sure i'd be breaking a few laws and would likely end up in court also.

Just because it's easier to carry, and they're making 100% profit (The smugglers, not necessarily the girls) doesn't mean, go ahead, do it.

It's helping contribute to the fight, against the side of the law, and for that alone, they should serve time.
Organised crime in all of its forms should be stamped out and the scum should be washed off the face of the earth.

If those girls are too daft to realise they were helping criminals, then some time in Prison may help them wake up. It may also probably make them hate "the system" even more, but i doubt they'll be rushing out to help the smugglers again.

Guy:Incognito

end of the road wrote: »

we don't get to object, if the lawyers and judges decide its going to happen then it is, and the british and irish tax payer will pay up, no reason why they shouldn't be brought home, suggesting they shouldn't be brought home doesn't make you have any moral high ground or make one feel moral and high and mighty about drugs, specially if they take a recreational drug legal or not

Theres a fair big reason why they shouldnt be brought home , brcause they commited the crime in peru. What makes them special compared to peruvian inmates that have to serve their sentences in peru? Why would you want them singled out for special treatment?

dundalkfc10

Allyall wrote: »

Did you read his post? It's affecting entire Countries.
What you reckon is just give up, That makes no sense.
I get the point, legalise it and control it. But to cease fighting crime because they're losing, is tripe.

I agree to an extent that we should have more say in what is and isn't legalised, (as some laws are archaic) and it could be controlled. Peru could tax the cráp out of it, EU could allow it only with Prescription or alternative methods. Strictly over 25 or whatever. But right now, it is illegal. The two girls knew that.
They didn't go over there to get themselves a handful, to save themselves some cash.

If i went over to South America and tried to smuggle back 1.5 millions worth of alcohol/tobacco, which is legal, i'm pretty sure i'd be breaking a few laws and would likely end up in court also.

Just because it's easier to carry, and they're making 100% profit (The smugglers, not necessarily the girls) doesn't mean, go ahead, do it.

It's helping contribute to the fight, against the side of the law, and for that alone, they should serve time.
Organised crime in all of its forms should be stamped out and the scum should be washed off the face of the earth.

If those girls are too daft to realise they were helping criminals, then some time in Prison may help them wake up. It may also probably make them hate "the system" even more, but i doubt they'll be rushing out to help the smugglers again.

FFS sure they are criminals themselves!!!

Drug Smuggling (Dealing/Making/Smuggling drugs are all the same) Scum who deserve every minute they are kept in Jail!

end of the road

Allyall wrote: »

Did you read his post? It's affecting entire Countries.

i read his post and i stand by mine

Allyall wrote: »

What you reckon is just give up, That makes no sense.

in relation to the drugs trade yes give up, giving up is the only option and makes sense as then countries will be pushed toards legalization control taxation and so on.

Allyall wrote: »

I get the point, legalise it and control it. But to cease fighting crime because they're losing, is tripe.

not fighting crime, fighting drugs/consentual prostitution and so on (people trafficing is different)

Allyall wrote: »

I agree to an extent that we should have more say in what is and isn't legalised, (as some laws are archaic) and it could be controlled. Peru could tax the cráp out of it, EU could allow it only with Prescription or alternative methods. Strictly over 25 or whatever.

something like this is what needs to happen and fast

Allyall wrote: »

It's helping contribute to the fight, against the side of the law

thats the only way the law will be changed eventually, countries have to be made to realise hard that the problem will never be eradicated, sometimes fighting against the side of the law is necessary, the law isn't always right

Allyall wrote: »

for that alone, they should serve time.

following that logic those who faught for the right for women to vote deserved to have been jailed for taking part in a fight against the side of the law (most likely they were). sometimes the law has to be faught to be changed.

Allyall wrote: »

Organised crime in all of its forms should be stamped out and the scum should be washed off the face of the earth.

yes i agree their are many parts of organized crime that need to be faught against all though it will never be stopped, but some things that are a part of organized crime can be made legal and taxed.

chopper6

chickcharnley wrote: »

nordie matlock then:D and where is he? oh where art thou nordie perry mason?

"Hi..I'm Peter Madden the Nordie Solicitor.
You might remember me from such legal cases as 'We were forced to carry these bags' and ' Mom,what's in that girl's bun?'"

end of the road

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Theres a fair big reason why they shouldnt be brought home , brcause they commited the crime in peru. What makes them special compared to peruvian inmates that have to serve their sentences in peru? Why would you want them singled out for special treatment?

frankly whether their brought home or not isn't an issue for me, if they are fine, if their not fine

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

end of the road wrote: »

alcohol effects, fast food effects, if you want to take the likes of coke and your stupid enough to do so then fill your boots, people want drugs like this kept illegal and for us to piss trillions down the drain to fail to eradicate the problem so that means criminal gangs and mules, sometimes one has to realise when something is a lost cause

I hear the argument for legalising drugs like marajuana amd one of the worst arguments from the "con" camp is: it's a drug, therefore it should be treated like a drug and all drugs are the same.

You, Sir, are making the same mistake: all drugs are clearly NOT the same. Levels of addiction vary. Say what you like about alcohol and fast food, people don't steal in order to get their next big mac.

chopper6

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

same mistake: all drugs are clearly NOT the same. Levels of addiction vary. Say what you like about alcohol and fast food, people don't steal in order to get their next big mac.

What about Hamburgler then?

end of the road

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Drug Smuggling (Dealing/Making/Smuggling drugs are all the same)

no their not
1. drug smuggling is the process of bringing drugs from one place to another.
2. drug dealing is selling the drugs to people who choose to take and want to take them.
3. making the drugs is the process of growing or making the necessary components and putting them together to make the drug.

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Scum who deserve every minute they are kept in Jail!

why? how are they scum? maybe they are but not for smuggling something that people want

I am pie

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I hear the argument for legalising drugs like marajuana amd one of the worst arguments from the "con" camp is: it's a drug, therefore it should be treated like a drug and all drugs are the same.

You, Sir, are making the same mistake: all drugs are clearly NOT the same. Levels of addiction vary. Say what you like about alcohol and fast food, people don't steal in order to get their next big mac.

There isn't even an intelligible claim being made here, just "we" should stop prohibition and "they" shouldn't arrest people for it.

It's here to stay, good or bad, while western hegemony governs what is internationally acceptable from a moral and legal perspective, prohibition ain't going anywhere. Ironically Peru, Bolivia and other Andean countries which would be producers of coke would have the most to gain if it was legalised and suffer (along with Mex & Arg) the most with it's current illegal state.

However, if you have any capacity for perspective or intelligent thought whatsoever you can understand that it is impossible for as number of reasons for them to legalise production of coke. There hands are tied.

This goes beyond a first year student rant proclaiming that everyone should be allowed to take whatever substance they choose, once you frame the conversation in those terms it becomes completely insular and self defeating. South American countries don't get to make their own policy in this respect. Options are limited to military conflict with the gangs (Mexico, failed cities and increasingly violent and paranoid gangs), ignore the problem (gangs consolidate power and increase rapidly like Colombia in the 80s, almost became failed narco state, now a much better place after a crackdown) or work within the contraints you have imposing stern sentences to try and put off feckless moneygrabbers looking to extend their party.

If you were Peru, what would you do? Remember, you can't make it legal because you'd collapse your economy, Peru's economy is currently one of the regional success stories, much US investment, stable and increasing in all good economic indicators.

Go on? Let's hear it?....this should be good...

end of the road

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I hear the argument for legalising drugs like marajuana amd one of the worst arguments from the "con" camp is: it's a drug, therefore it should be treated like a drug and all drugs are the same.

all drugs vary, however having some illegal and others not leads to a delusian that the legal ones are fine and the illegal ones aren't leading to the high and mighty brigade who preach about drugs while drinking and smoking, theres the problem for me, the fact is drugs will never be eradicated and therefore we have to manage the problem as best we can, the way were currently doing it isn't working and never will

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

You, Sir, are making the same mistake: all drugs are clearly NOT the same. Levels of addiction vary.

no i'm not, and i never said all drugs are the same, all i've said is that taking 1 drug and preaching all high and mighty about another drug is ridiculous and means you have no high ground.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Say what you like about alcohol and fast food, people don't steal in order to get their next big mac.

fast food is cheep in fairness, alcohol is also cheep, but if it wasn't most likely you would hear of people stealing to get it, the only reason i brought up fast food is to just remind the all high and mighty brigade that their are a lot of things that effect people, and that keeping 1 thing illegal because it effects people who know its effects just doesn't work

I am pie

end of the road wrote: »

no their not
1. drug smuggling is the process of bringing drugs from one place to another.
2. drug dealing is selling the drugs to people who choose to take and want to take them.
3. making the drugs is the process of growing or making the necessary components and putting them together to make the drug.

why? how are they scum? maybe they are but not for smuggling something that people want

Scum is strong, but they have a very confused moral compass. They acted out of greed. Let's be clear. Not like they were doing a humanitarian run for all the poor deprived cokeheads of Ibiza ffs. They acted out of greed, there actions contribute to the destabilisation of one of the more stable and successful countries in the region. A fact most of the "ooh isn't it orrrful over there" brigade seem to miss out on.

end of the road

I am pie wrote: »

There isn't even an intelligible claim being made here, just "we" should stop prohibition and "they" shouldn't arrest people for it.

It's here to stay, good or bad, while western hegemony governs what is internationally acceptable from a moral and legal perspective, prohibition ain't going anywhere. Ironically Peru, Bolivia and other Andean countries which would be producers of coke would have the most to gain if it was legalised and suffer (along with Mex & Arg) the most with it's current illegal state.

However, if you have any capacity for perspective or intelligent thought whatsoever you can understand that it is impossible for as number of reasons for them to legalise production of coke. There hands are tied.

This goes beyond a first year student rant proclaiming that everyone should be allowed to take whatever substance they choose, once you frame the conversation in those terms it becomes completely insular and self defeating. South American countries don't get to make their own policy in this respect. Options are limited to military conflict with the gangs (Mexico, failed cities and increasingly violent and paranoid gangs), ignore the problem (gangs consolidate power and increase rapidly like Colombia in the 80s, almost became failed narco state, now a much better place after a crackdown) or work within the contraints you have imposing stern sentences to try and put off feckless moneygrabbers looking to extend their party.

If you were Peru, what would you do? Remember, you can't make it legal because you'd collapse your economy, Peru's economy is currently one of the regional success stories, much US investment, stable and increasing in all good economic indicators.

Go on? Let's hear it?....this should be good...

theirs nothing that can be done, its over, the war on drugs has been lost, countries having to throw billions down the drain because the west are to stupid to see prohibition has failed cannot continue, it has to stop somewhere, murica and others will see that eventually, the only reason the south american and other countries would become a failed state if prohibition was abolished is because murica and their little puppets would probably make sure of it, afgannistan being an example. one of if not the biggest provider of opium and a failed state who have had america involved in some part or another in much of their wars whether it be boots on the ground or supporting extremist groups who would turn against them and who would rule by fear

end of the road

I am pie wrote: »

there actions contribute to the destabilisation of one of the more stable and successful countries in the region.

yeah, because no doubt eventually the west would poke their nose in and instead of allowing them to legalise or do what they feel is the best course, the west will pull away from these countries or even bomb them to put in a puppet government

dundalkfc10

end of the road wrote: »

no their not
1. drug smuggling is the process of bringing drugs from one place to another.
2. drug dealing is selling the drugs to people who choose to take and want to take them.
3. making the drugs is the process of growing or making the necessary components and putting them together to make the drug.

why? how are they scum? maybe they are but not for smuggling something that people want

I meant as in all the same, They are all Scum

So you saying Drug Dealers up and down Ireland, giving drugs to kids etc... are not Scum

Anyone involved in the drugs trade (Cocaine etc....) are Scum

bootybouncer

I always wondered why one of the girls requested double ff bras.................................... by a picture I saw yesterday now I know why

Ash.J.Williams

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

I meant as in all the same, They are all Scum

So you saying Drug Dealers up and down Ireland, giving drugs to kids etc... are not Scum

Anyone involved in the drugs trade (Cocaine etc....) are Scum

i've never heard of dealers "giving" drugs to anyone...normally there's a rate.

Allyall

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

FFS sure they are criminals themselves!!!

Drug Smuggling (Dealing/Making/Smuggling drugs are all the same) Scum who deserve every minute they are kept in Jail!

Yep, i meant Organised Crime etc.. I'm well aware they are criminals..

end of the road wrote: »

following that logic those who faught for the right for women to vote deserved to have been jailed for taking part in a fight against the side of the law (most likely they were). sometimes the law has to be faught to be changed.

No. It does not follow the same logic.

keeponhurling

bootybouncer wrote: »

I always wondered why one of the girls requested double ff bras.................................... by a picture I saw yesterday now I know why

What do you think she's smuggling this time ?

Allyall

I am pie wrote: »

There isn't even an intelligible claim being made here

I'm guessing here...

But i think you quoted the wrong person?

mikom

How long did Mr Big get?

I am pie

Allyall wrote: »

I'm guessing here...

But i think you quoted the wrong person?

An intelligent guess...sorry.

end of the road

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

So you saying Drug Dealers up and down Ireland, giving drugs to kids etc... are not Scum

if their selling to underage people then yes, if their selling to grown adults who choose to take such substances then thats just tough as theirs no legal alternative to buy such drugs

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Anyone involved in the drugs trade (Cocaine etc....) are Scum

but how? for mixing crap in with the drugs? yeah would agree there, for selling to grown adults who choose to buy them? no, for shooting people over a "patch" or because they can't pay? yes, sadly however thats what comes with criminalization.

I am pie

end of the road wrote: »

yeah, because no doubt eventually the west would poke their nose in and instead of allowing them to legalise or do what they feel is the best course, the west will pull away from these countries or even bomb them to put in a puppet government

No, they wouldn't, but they would however be completely free to isolate Peru as a trading partner (exlcuding them from their attempt at a Pacific Free trade zone), and as an investment destination. I don't think the majority of the US electorate would argue either. Put to a vote, would prohibition of coke be passed? Probably not in the US, so it's appropriate that the US govt acts as such.

Of course, perhaps if people would take into account the source countries before filling their snouts we could minimise the problem, however that is even more unlikely than the US changing their drugs policies because it's more important that people turn themselves into insufferable egomaniacs with coke than anything else...right?

Allyall

I am pie wrote: »

An intelligent guess...sorry.

Not me, Princess Consuela Bananahammock.

Edit.
Ah crud. I just deleted what i wrote.

dundalkfc10

end of the road wrote: »

if their selling to underage people then yes, if their selling to grown adults who choose to take such substances then thats just tough as theirs no legal alternative to buy such drugs



but how? for mixing crap in with the drugs? yeah would agree there, for selling to grown adults who choose to buy them? no, for shooting people over a "patch" or because they can't pay? yes, sadly however thats what comes with criminalization.

So in your opinion its ok for me to start selling drugs, once I ask for ID for anyone looking underage! Oh and what is Underage, 16/18/21?

Its ok again in your opinion to sell drugs to addicts who may be using money their kids need for food etc...
Surely it depends on what their mixing it with so?

Menas

End of the road, you are going way off topic here and keep making the same point over and over. Why not start a new thread with a poll on drugs legalisation.

end of the road

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

So in your opinion its ok for me to start selling drugs, once I ask for ID for anyone looking underage! Oh and what is Underage, 16/18/21?

i would rather it be legalised and licenced but as thats not going to happen then the criminal trade is the way people are going to get it, nothing or nobody can stop it if criminalization is going to continue

dundalkfc10 wrote: »

Its ok again in your opinion to sell drugs to addicts who may be using money their kids need for food etc...

you could apply that logic to any potentially addictive substances such as alcohol and cigarettes, however as i believe in personal responsibility for addicts also its up to them to realise they need to sort themselves out, its not up to me or anyone else not to sell alcohol or cigarettes to addicts.

end of the road

Trigger Happy wrote: »

End of the road, you are going way off topic here and keep making the same point over and over. Why not start a new thread with a poll on drugs legalisation.

yet you replied

Menas

end of the road wrote: »

yet you replied

I replied the 4th time you made your point. You must be on 40 now.

Set up a separate thread and I promise to vote in your poll. Make sure Hang em High is one of the options.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

chopper6 wrote: »

What about Hamburgler then?

Framed.

I am pie wrote: »

There isn't even an intelligible claim being made here, just "we" should stop prohibition and "they" shouldn't arrest people for it.

It's here to stay, good or bad, while western hegemony governs what is internationally acceptable from a moral and legal perspective, prohibition ain't going anywhere. Ironically Peru, Bolivia and other Andean countries which would be producers of coke would have the most to gain if it was legalised and suffer (along with Mex & Arg) the most with it's current illegal state.

However, if you have any capacity for perspective or intelligent thought whatsoever you can understand that it is impossible for as number of reasons for them to legalise production of coke. There hands are tied.

This goes beyond a first year student rant proclaiming that everyone should be allowed to take whatever substance they choose, once you frame the conversation in those terms it becomes completely insular and self defeating. South American countries don't get to make their own policy in this respect. Options are limited to military conflict with the gangs (Mexico, failed cities and increasingly violent and paranoid gangs), ignore the problem (gangs consolidate power and increase rapidly like Colombia in the 80s, almost became failed narco state, now a much better place after a crackdown) or work within the contraints you have imposing stern sentences to try and put off feckless moneygrabbers looking to extend their party.

If you were Peru, what would you do? Remember, you can't make it legal because you'd collapse your economy, Peru's economy is currently one of the regional success stories, much US investment, stable and increasing in all good economic indicators.

Go on? Let's hear it?....this should be good...

Doesn;t really deal with my point I was making to end-of-the-world.

end of the road wrote: »

all drugs vary, however having some illegal and others not leads to a delusian that the legal ones are fine and the illegal ones aren't leading to the high and mighty brigade who preach about drugs while drinking and smoking, theres the problem for me, the fact is drugs will never be eradicated and therefore we have to manage the problem as best we can, the way were currently doing it isn't working and never will

no i'm not, and i never said all drugs are the same, all i've said is that taking 1 drug and preaching all high and mighty about another drug is ridiculous and means you have no high ground.

So why bring up alochol and fast food? No one here has said they never touch drgus. I certainly never did. But being "high and mighty" about it is exactly the point I was making about people who drink coffee and want marajuana banned.

Furthermore, saying that someone takes a drug and can not call for other drugs to be banned most certinaly gives the impression that you see all drugs on a similar level.

fast food is cheep in fairness, alcohol is also cheep, but if it wasn't most likely you would hear of people stealing to get it, the only reason i brought up fast food is to just remind the all high and mighty brigade that their are a lot of things that effect people, and that keeping 1 thing illegal because it effects people who know its effects just doesn't work

Which is clearly not the argment: keeping a substance illegal for the reason that it has a track record of high addictability is, rightly or wrongly, the call here. Not keeping it illegal because it's a drug I don't take.

Finally (to get this back on topic) it doesnt really matter what the law is here, or what the moral attitude towards said drug is, the law in Peru is 80 months jail for smuggling it. If I went to Saudi Arabia and get caught smuggling pornography out it, I've broken the law in said country and will be tried and punished.

What my moral attitudes towards to porn are, and what the law states bacl home is completly irrelevant.

Bottom line: you obey the law of the country you are in even if you don't agree with it, or you find yourself in legal trouble.

Menas

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Bottom line: you obey the law of the country you are in even if you don't agree with it, or you find yourself in legal trouble.

And that is the most sensible point made in the last few pages. You cannot pick and choose the laws you want to obey.

You must obey the law of the land you are in or face the consequences if caught. No amount of stupidity (Peru 2) or moral indignation (EOTR) is acceptable as a defense.

I strongly support the right to protest but am not stupid enough to do what the Pussy riot girls did in Russia.

Back on topic. The family have been giving interviews and are upholding Michella's innocence 'in our eyes'.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/michaella-family-we-will-not-be-celebrating-christmas-29852215.html

keeponhurling

end of the road wrote: »

fast food is cheep in fairness, alcohol is also cheep, but if it wasn't most likely you would hear of people stealing to get it, the only reason i brought up fast food is to just remind the all high and mighty brigade that their are a lot of things that effect people, and that keeping 1 thing illegal because it effects people who know its effects just doesn't work

You still haven't explained about the hamburgler, which I believe means that there is an huge hole in your "nobody steals fast food" argument.

chickcharnley

chopper6 wrote: »

"Hi..I'm Peter Madden the Nordie Solicitor.
You might remember me from such legal cases as 'We were forced to carry these bags' and ' Mom,what's in that girl's bun?'"

absolute vintage-great stuff
anways my own 50 cent seing how the whole thing is geting slightly off-topic:
One of the reasons why people are annoyed by the peru 2 especially the one from the North is that her family and the nordie matlock continuously put out this theory that they were coercied; this is an affront to peolpe's intelligence, they clearly did this for their own self gain nothing else, it is in fact a symptom of the female knacker mentality in this country, i'll do something wrong blame somebody/something else and everybody should have sympathy for me and/or donate money to try and get me off, i put this question if two blokes did something similar would there be any fuss made? the two guys from Athlone is a case in point,
on the topic of legalisation, I would be in favour of it as the war on drugs cannot be won, but until this happens, better to obey the laws of the country concerned.
now wait for michaela's parents/family to be on the late show on friday night looking for money to pay legal costs (retirement scam fund for nordie matlock) or maybe ryan wouldnt want the topic of cocaine brought on the show as he may have to squirm his way out as witnessed by eamon Dunphy when he came on the late late a few weeks back

chopper6

chickcharnley wrote: »

absolute vintage-great stuff
anways my own 50 cent seing how the whole thing is geting slightly off-topic:
One of the reasons why people are annoyed by the peru 2 especially the one from the North is that her family and the nordie matlock continuously put out this theory that they were coercied; this is an affront to peolpe's intelligence, they clearly did this for their own self gain nothing else, it is in fact a symptom of the female knacker mentality in this country, i'll do something wrong blame somebody/something else and everybody should have sympathy for me and/or donate money to try and get me off, i put this question if two blokes did something similar would there be any fuss made? the two guys from Athlone is a case in point,
on the topic of legalisation, I would be in favour of it as the war on drugs cannot be won, but until this happens, better to obey the laws of the country concerned.
now wait for michaela's parents/family to be on the late show on friday night looking for money to pay legal costs (retirement scam fund for nordie matlock) or maybe ryan wouldnt want the topic of cocaine brought on the show as he may have to squirm his way out as witnessed by eamon Dunphy when he came on the late late a few weeks back

If the girls managed to get quite leniant sentences it was in spite of Matlock,not because of him.

He has skulked off back to the North,no doubt positive he's done agreat job to be sure to be sure.

chickcharnley

chopper6 wrote: »

If the girls managed to get quite leniant sentences it was in spite of Matlock,not because of him.

He has skulked off back to the North,no doubt positive he's done agreat job to be sure to be sure.

indeed chopper I fully agree, wonder when is he's next media appearance is the late late tonight perhaps?

chopper6

chickcharnley wrote: »

indeed chopper I fully agree, wonder when is he's next media appearance is the late late tonight perhaps?

I can't imagine he'sd make for the most riveting interview..

keeponhurling

I'd say in a David Brent type way he would make for a good interview actually