her mom says she's not the sort to deal in drugs but she is the sort to run off to Laos?  I couldn't get to Laos if I wanted to

> Maybe they are not out to shame anyone at all but are just upholding the laws of their own country. Why would the SAS want to spring her from jail? That would be the most retarded thing in the world. The biggest worry is that she will get a fair trial. I don't agree with the death penalty but if she has to abide by the law and if she is guilty it is her own fault. As for being raped in jail, I don't think anyone was under the illusion that a Laos jail sounded like too much fun. If she is innocent then she has been through one hell of a bad time, but if she is guilty then really serves her right. Either way, the British government have no business meddling in the judicial system of another country.

New-age retardation. All of your statement.

In my opinion, a country has every right to place the lives of people in their own country over the lives of those in another country. So if the SAS want to murder 20 prison guards, I'm all for it, since they are acting in defense of fellow citizenry.

If a government must be overbearing in it's power over it's citizens, then why not be overbearing in it's power protecting it's citizens? I expect something in return for paying taxes to fund my country's oversized military, so when I get tried in an improper manner, raped in prison, and then sentenced to death, I would definitely expect the money I put into taxes to be put to good use - saving me. Clearly some people think their politicians are the fuedal lords and they are serfs with what they expect their government to do.

> Chris_Balsz wrote:

> suppose she gets a fair trial and is found guilty?

guilty, but same treatment and sentence?

still direct action then.

> If she doesn't get a fair trial then there can still be very little complaint. It was her own choice to go to Laos. By going to Laos she ran the risk of being stitched up by some good old fashioned third world justice and she surely knew that before she went? Even so the UK can government can do nothing to affect the judicial process of another country and it would set a terrible precedent to try.

You are welcome to sit in your basement and never travel the world.

> Personally I don't want my tax money wasted on chasing after the misadventures of the ignorant. If she is innocent then sorry girl, sucks to be you but there is nothing that can be done for you without (apparently) diverting some of our overstretched military from Afghanistan to launch an attack in a foreign country.

And by that very reasoning your whole argument falls apart. In essence what you are saying is that a group of backward opium farmers 5,000 miles away are more valuable to the BRITISH government than one BRITISH citizen who has been tried improperly, raped, and sentenced to death.

Again, if you are going to extort your citizens out of enormous amounts of money, you may as well make it worth their while.

Would you condone the rescue of Gary Glitter if he was still being held in whichever country it was (Thailand?) and was facing the death penalty, EIW?

You're actually quite funny. I don't think we have had a troll as entertaining for a while.

I do not plan to sit in my basement and never travel the world, I am just aware that if I venture into another country I must live by that country's laws and be subject to that country's punishment if I fall foul of them. I also must be aware that if I am going to somewhere with a bit of a dodgy record when it comes to justice I am putting myself at risk of getting screwed over. If I were to travel to Laos I would go there having weighed up these risks. If I lose the gamble and it all goes wrong then it is bad luck but I knew the risks when I went and I made an informed decision to go anyway. I certainly wouldn't then expect my government to do something illegal by sending in the military to spring me. Being brought home to stand trial at home or to serve prison sentence at home is entirely different from troops storming in and shooting the place up. But as far as I am aware, that possibility is not something which Laos would ever be obliged to consent to, so while I am planning my trip to Laos I would not be able to bank on being able to get a trial or prison sentence at home if I end up in trouble.

"And by that very reasoning your whole argument falls apart. In essence what you are saying is that a group of backward opium farmers 5,000 miles away are more valuable to the BRITISH government than one BRITISH citizen who has been tried improperly, raped, and sentenced to death."

I never said anything which amounted to this. For one I wouldn't label the government and judicial system of Laos as being a group of backward opium farmers. Secondly the girl hasn't even been tried yet and it is not yet clear that she will be tried unfairly, it is also only speculated in the article that she has been raped and she has not been sentenced to death, it only says that is the possible sentence. It also says that no one has been executed in Laos since 1990. So I haven't said anything about any backward opium farmers and nor have I made any judgments on the worth to the British government of a British citizen who has been tried improperly, raped or sentenced to death. The fact is that countries around the world are free to rule themselves however they see fit, including setting their own laws. The British government has no right to interfere with the internal workings of another country and if an individual citizen chooses to enter a different country they must do so at their own risk and it is up to them to find out what those risks are beforehand.

As for ARF, I haven't spoken to him and if I had I don't really think I would have spoken to him about you. Don't flatter yourself.

Now go troll somewhere else

Your knee jerk reaction to the [TI] tag is quite cute Justi, you should probably stop spending so much time with Einstein though.

And as for SD "bringing me in", just no.

"And he was brought back to the Isles if I recall, imprisoned, and put on the sex offender registry. What more do you want?"

I'm aware, I didn't actually say he wasn't. And it was merely a hypothetical question.

Don't take the interwebs so seriously.

I was talking about the love of labeling people trolls.

Also, this is the sound of me caring about your political views:

Enlighten me about what? ^.-

Just to be clear, I was using the word troll to describe someone who I believed to be intentionally saying something controversial in order to gain a reaction which is what I believe the view that "Brit gets arrested overseas, let's send in the military" is aiming to do. I am not sure where the claim that TI are trolls comes from

> [TI] Sitting Duck wrote:

> You're actually quite funny. I don't think we have had a troll as entertaining for a while

As for ARF, I haven't spoken to him and if I had I don't really think I would have spoken to him about you. Don't flatter yourself.

Now go troll somewhere else

You seem very determined to call me a troll because I have a *gasp* expectation that the government should do more than just tax me 50%. Essentially when you experience someone with a different view on politics you say, "DURR DURR TROLL", correct?

I am merely saying that when the interests of your own citizens come in conflict with the interests of another country or that other country's right to rule, I believe it is the government's obligation to protect you and choose you over that country's citizens to protect you against unjust prosecution or treatment. Forgive me if I should expect more out of my government for 50% taxes than just a completely irrelevant war, a crappy healthcare system, and shitty public education system. All of which I don't even think should exist.

>The British government has no right to interfere with the internal workings of another country and if an individual citizen chooses to enter a different country they must do so at their own risk and it is up to them to find out what those risks are beforehand.

*Cough* Iraq *cough* Afghan- *cough*

Whew! Swine flu is in the air. Hey, at least if they ever grow balls and do what I said they should, they will be doing it for the benefit of their own people's rights and securities overseas, and not just for the camel-herders and oil corporations. And I never said whether they had any right to interfere. Because might makes right.