Peru drug smuggling case - READ OP BEFORE POSTING

Arthur Beesley

Ridiculous waste of NI taxpayers money flying her back and having to pay to imprison her 'at home' for years. Peruvian prison is good enough for Peruvian criminals, she should have been left to rot where she committed her crime.

That might have served as an example to other would be drug mules.

sashafierce

This post has been deleted.

dirtyden

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Ridiculous waste of NI taxpayers money flying her back and having to pay to imprison her 'at home' for years. Peruvian prison is good enough for Peruvian criminals, she should have been left to rot where she committed her crime.

That might have served as an example to other would be drug mules.

But she is not Peruvian. Why should the Peruvians pay for the upkeep of a northern irish person. It was not the Peruvian people who set her on the path she took.

There is more of an argument for northern Ireland picking up the tab than Peru.

Cantremember

end of the road wrote: »

get over it



its not, thats their job



yes they are.



they don't unless its extra rights.



yes, to add extra rights.



no it doesn't, human rights are non-negotiable

I recommend a course of study in the origins of rights.

Cantremember

dirtyden wrote: »

But she is not Peruvian. Why should the Peruvians pay for the upkeep of a northern irish person. It was not the Peruvian people who set her on the path she took.

There is more of an argument for northern Ireland picking up the tab than Peru.

The crime was committed in Peru. She was convicted under Peruvian law. It is a concession to convicted criminals to bring them home, that's all, not a case of the appropriate legal authority picking up the tab.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

blade1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It beats Garth Brooks I suppose:rolleyes:

end of the road

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Ridiculous waste of NI taxpayers money flying her back and having to pay to imprison her 'at home' for years. Peruvian prison is good enough for Peruvian criminals, she should have been left to rot where she committed her crime.

not at all. couldn't care a less either way to be honest. not the end of the world

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

That might have served as an example to other would be drug mules.

no it wouldn't, no such thing as a deterrant, you will either commit a crime or you won't

Paddy Cow

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Ridiculous waste of NI taxpayers money flying her back and having to pay to imprison her 'at home' for years. Peruvian prison is good enough for Peruvian criminals, she should have been left to rot where she committed her crime.

That might have served as an example to other would be drug mules.

I have no idea of the legalities but if the Peruvians send back British prisoners under certain circumstances then would it be fair to reason that the British send back Peruvian prisoners?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Reformed Character

Cantremember wrote: »

I recommend a course of study in the origins of rights.

Let us know once you have actually taken it yourself!

Arthur Beesley

dirtyden wrote: »

But she is not Peruvian. Why should the Peruvians pay for the upkeep of a northern irish person. It was not the Peruvian people who set her on the path she took.

There is more of an argument for northern Ireland picking up the tab than Peru.

Why should NI? By default she serves her time in the country she was convicted and sentenced in. Which country initiated this return?

Cantremember

Reformed Character wrote: »

Let us know once you have actually taken it yourself!

Completed. Over 30 years ago. You won't believe me of course. But you could start with the Glorious Revolution of 1688 to move into more recent times. It's an interesting course of study: you eventually reach a point where you see even the conception of "human" you have leads into the rights you want someone to have because they are human. Civil rights variance between societies is also revealing.

tipptom

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wonder would they be given a choice,can they be forced back to their own country or does it have to be applied for?
Would be interesting to know if Peruvians opted to stay in luxury in a foreign country prison or go back to a sh*thole but close to friends and family.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

dirtyden

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Why should NI? By default she serves her time in the country she was convicted and sentenced in. Which country initiated this return?

Technically that is correct and I was not really disagreeing with you point more offering a different opinion. My point was that I feel more sorry for the people of Peru paying than the people of Northern Ireland. I think morally if a person commits a crime 'on holiday' the country of origin has as much of a financial responsibility.

I am pie

She has an irish passport and has been interacting with the irish consulate....seems a bit rough that Her Majesty's Prison Service has to foot the bill now...

Anyway, she should be made to row back home the long way round until we've all forgotten about her.

Holsten

Ah I have to again laugh at this entire situation. Even more money spent bringing her back and putting her up.

Release the two of them. Keeping them in prison achieves NOTHING!!

I am pie

Holsten wrote: »

Ah I have to again laugh at this entire situation. Even more money spent bringing her back and putting her up.

Release the two of them. Keeping them in prison achieves NOTHING!!

Right, because releasing drug smugglers send a great message.

That message being that us rich white europeans don't give a fck what happens to South American countries where these drug gangs have such an impact. We'll let our citizens go over, break your laws and encourage your criminals and then set them free.

Genius.

pablo128

Holsten wrote: »

Ah I have to again laugh at this entire situation. Even more money spent bringing her back and putting her up.

Release the two of them. Keeping them in prison achieves NOTHING!!

She has to pay the travel costs herself.

lukin

Arthur Beesley wrote: »

Ridiculous waste of NI taxpayers money flying her back and having to pay to imprison her 'at home' for years. Peruvian prison is good enough for Peruvian criminals, she should have been left to rot where she committed her crime.

That might have served as an example to other would be drug mules.

There is a Facebook page set up saying the exact same thing. It's OK for us down here in the south to say it's great for her to be back home (even if she is still in jail) but we are not the ones footing the bill. The UK are.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Paddy Cow

Holsten wrote: »

Ah I have to again laugh at this entire situation. Even more money spent bringing her back and putting her up.

Release the two of them. Keeping them in prison achieves NOTHING!!

LOL do you think the Peruvians should let all drug smugglers through?
I can't be arsed putting forth a reasonable argument because either a)you are a troll looking for a quick reaction or b)you lack the foresight to see the bigger picture.

Peru has developed into a huge drug mule trade. They don't want the bad PR. I think the Peruvian authorities have a very different view on the situation than you do.

pablo128

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe. Or her family. Wasn't there a facebook fund back when she was awaiting trial?
In any case, the state won't have to pay her travel costs. Anoother thing to consider, is the fact that if she was released early, there would be serious implications for any further transfer agreements between the UK and other countries. Look at the furore over the Lockerbie bomber being released early on account of him having not long to live with cancer. As it happened, he really didn't have long to live.

end of the road

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no as there is no such thing as "bleeding hearts"

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

pablo128 wrote: »

Maybe. Or her family. Wasn't there a facebook fund back when she was awaiting trial?
In any case, the state won't have to pay her travel costs. Anoother thing to consider, is the fact that if she was released early, there would be serious implications for any further transfer agreements between the UK and other countries. Look at the furore over the Lockerbie bomber being released early on account of him having not long to live with cancer. As it happened, he really didn't have long to live.

in fairness, that was a matter for the scotish government, and there is a question mark as to whether he was infact the bomber.

end of the road

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i'm not

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

pablo128

end of the road wrote: »

in fairness, that was a matter for the scotish government, and there is a question mark as to whether he was infact the bomber.

Scottish, Northern Irish, still part of the UK last time I checked.

Holsten

Paddy Cow wrote: »

LOL do you think the Peruvians should let all drug smugglers through?
I can't be arsed putting forth a reasonable argument because either a)you are a troll looking for a quick reaction or b)you lack the foresight to see the bigger picture.

Peru has developed into a huge drug mule trade. They don't want the bad PR. I think the Peruvian authorities have a very different view on the situation than you do.

Please put forth your reasonable argument of why these two clowns should be locked up?

Outline what it is currently achieving. As if it's just for petty revenge because they've done something 'bad' then it's useless.

Lapin

Holsten wrote: »

Please put forth your reasonable argument of why these two clowns should be locked up?

Outline what it is currently achieving. As if it's just for petty revenge because they've done something 'bad' then it's useless.

Its called punishment for commiting a crime they pleaded guilty to.

Do you suggest we let all prisoners free simply because banging the fuckers up achieves nothing?

Holsten

Lapin wrote: »

Its called punishment for commiting a crime they pleaded guilty to.

Do you suggest we let all prisoners free simply because banging the fuckers up achieves nothing?

I see little to be gained from jailing a non violent offender.

Why do it if it achieves nothing?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Lapin

Holsten wrote: »

I see little to be gained from jailing a non violent offender.

Why do it if it achieves nothing?

Smuggling class A drugs is a complicant role in an extremely violent business ranging from gangland murders to petty crime.

There are plenty of victims related to such activity.

Sir Arthur Daley

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

20 weeks on the week on week off fas scheme maybe. :rolleyes:

Grandpa Hassan

Holsten wrote: »

I see little to be gained from jailing a non violent offender.

Why do it if it achieves nothing?

Sure let's let everyone do whatever they want as long as it's non violent. I assume you're not one of those calling for bankers to be jailed!?

pablo128

Holsten wrote: »

I see little to be gained from jailing a non violent offender.

Why do it if it achieves nothing?

If I thought I wouldn't be locked up for it, I'd be in Peru shovelling Peruvian pixie dust into my rucksack right now.

kingchess

Holsten wrote: »

Please put forth your reasonable argument of why these two clowns should be locked up?

Outline what it is currently achieving. As if it's just for petty revenge because they've done something 'bad' then it's useless.

I wonder could she bring back a little package for me,we could split the profit from it ,the downside would be that the package will cause misery to the people who buy it over here but of course there would be no point in putting her(or me) in jail because that will achieve nothing only petty revenge,

end of the road

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no bleeding hearts i'm afraid, she probably had people on facebook defending her but as i tend to do nothing else apart from chat to far away friends on there i wouldn't know about them or care

end of the road

Lapin wrote: »

Smuggling class A drugs is a complicant role in an extremely violent business ranging from gangland murders to petty crime.

There are plenty of victims related to such activity.

sadly thats what happens when you continue with a failed policy of criminalization, but if thats what people want thats fine, but just take that point on board at least.

end of the road

kingchess wrote: »

the package will cause misery to the people who buy it over here

and? they chose to take it, its a drug, drugs have side effects, some very bad, some not so bad, people can become addicted to them also, thats very sad, but people cannot claim not to know the effects of drugs these days.

kingchess

end of the road wrote: »

and? they chose to take it, its a drug, drugs have side effects, some very bad, some not so bad, people can become addicted to them also, thats very sad, but people cannot claim not to know the effects of drugs these days.

all fine and dandy,but it also has a knock on effect on people who dont take illegal drugs,the drug takers have to find the money to pay for these drugs somehow and it can be difficult to hold down a job when you are addicted to heroin etc which can lead some junkies to mugging and robbing the more law abiding citizens,. I think that all drugs should be legalized,for example google about "gin in the 18th century london"

Kidchameleon

Grandpa Hassan wrote: »

You mean except for the bit where they admitted they were lying!?

They admitted they lied about not knowing the drugs were in their suitcases. They still maintain that they were forced to take the drugs, that the criminals had photos of their family's. Ive yet to see evidence that proves the contrary.

Penny Dreadful wrote: »

They admitted that they carried out the crime

See above.

pablo128

Kidchameleon wrote: »

They admitted they lied about not knowing the drugs were in their suitcases. They still maintain that they were forced to take the drugs, that the criminals had photos of their family's. Ive yet to see evidence that proves the contrary.

If they are sure of that, and can prove it, they can appeal their case.

_Kaiser_

Standman wrote: »

What would be an adequate punishment for her then in your opinion?

I really think that many people with this kind of attitude like the idea of punishment more than than actually tackling any underlying issues.

Approaching the treatment of criminals in a level headed way doesn't give you the same satisfyingly fuzzy feeling of righteous indignation I suppose.

She should have been left to serve out her sentence in the country she committed the crime in - instead we have this nonsense

today McCollum Connolly’s solicitor confirmed that she would also be moved to a prison closer to home.

She will be transferred to the Ash House Women’s Prison in south Belfast to serve the remainder of her sentence.

In a statement, solicitor Kevin Winters said the 21-year-old and her family have “endured a significant amount of stress during what has been a traumatic time for them”.

Boo-fecking-hoo! So we should (still!) feel sorry for the poor little lamb??

THAT'S my problem with this crap. She's a legal adult who had an over-inflated sense of her own looks and entitlement (I watched the RTE documentary too) and not only did she brazenly try to smuggle a load of drugs out of Peru, she tried to lie to the whole world about it! Even after being sentenced we had RTE and others running puff pieces about the "poor girls"

Result... these 2 common criminals get shipped home while others rightly serve their time in the jurisdiction.

Guess crime pays after all, even for drug mules who get caught!

_Kaiser_

There's also the point of course too that if these had been 2 Irish/English/whatever GUYS, not only would we probably never have heard of it in the first place (or at most a few column inches in the "other news" section) but they would have been left to rot in Peru ... and rightly so!

But because this one is a "poor wee Irish girl" suddenly she's a celebrity! :rolleyes:

TwoShedsJackson

sashafierce wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

What makes you sure of that?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

end of the road wrote: »

sadly thats what happens when you continue with a failed policy of criminalization, but if thats what people want thats fine, but just take that point on board at least.

Not disagreeing with you, but ignorance of or refusal to accept the law (especially in a foreign jurisdiction) is not an excuse.

end of the road

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

She should have been left to serve out her sentence in the country she committed the crime in - instead we have this nonsense



Boo-fecking-hoo! So we should (still!) feel sorry for the poor little lamb??

THAT'S my problem with this crap. She's a legal adult who had an over-inflated sense of her own looks and entitlement (I watched the RTE documentary too) and not only did she brazenly try to smuggle a load of drugs out of Peru, she tried to lie to the whole world about it! Even after being sentenced we had RTE and others running puff pieces about the "poor girls"

Result... these 2 common criminals get shipped home while others rightly serve their time in the jurisdiction.

Guess crime pays after all, even for drug mules who get caught!

well its happening, so get over it