Akmal Shaikh

[bridge too far]

and I replied..."where did you get that from"..you like to give the impression you are a well read person, so forgive me if I dont believe if you woke up one day and though..

"I know, I now think the members of the UK armed forces or encouraged to have an independant thought or opinion"...

 

It's a view I've arrived at from my knowledge of many members of the armed forces (mostly relatives of mine). It hasn't been force-fed to me, it isn't a political view. It's a generalised view that I've come to all on my own.

 

I don't like to give anyone any impression about myself - I don't really care what anyone on here thinks about me.

 

I do however (probably unfairly) draw conclusions about others based on their contributions to any debate. Need I say more?

[INFLUENCED.COM]

I have that potential when I drive my car. It doesn't make me a mass murderer any more than the armed forces with their megatons of weapons or this poor fellow with the heroin. If I make a bad mistake tomorrow I could be responsible for a death (or more).

 

Would I deserve the death penalty (if I was not on drink, drugs or mobile phone)?

 

Not in this country but certainly in others, your mistake may not involve drink, drugs or a mobile but could still get you charged with dangerous driving or the like that renders you culpable for the death/s, would you having a mental illness mitigate your mistake ?

[Verbal]

that is all true...we have no idea of the real extent of his illness is..

if he was as disturbed as we are told then why was he travelling the world..surely (as it seems) he was a danger to himself and others

 

I've read this statement of your several times, and it makes less sense with every reading. I can only assume you don't understand the difference between psychological and physical impairment - or have somehow drifted through life without ever encountering the reality of psychological illness in others.

[Thedelldays]

I've read this statement of your several times, and it makes less sense with every reading. I can only assume you don't understand the difference between psychological and physical impairment - or have somehow drifted through life without ever encountering the reality of psychological illness in others.

do you the severity of his illness..?

[Verbal]

do you the severity of his illness..?

 

What?

[Thedelldays]

What?

do you..?

 

do you know all the details of what actually happened here..?

[Barney Trubble]

He was an adult who, on the face of it, was capable of looking after himself. There are lots of people with varying degrees of mental illness - are you suggesting that anyone with any sort of mental illness should be forcibly detained?

 

People with bi-polar disorder can be quite 'normal' (what ever that is) at one moment and not at the next. Think Spike Milligan, Stephen Fry etc.

 

From what I've read, I believe his disorder increased in severity following the break-up of his marriage some years ago.

 

So, if "on the face of it" he was capable of making decisions for himself, then why are we debating the mental health issue so much?

 

If, "on the face of it", he was deemed fine to live an independent life, then why should the Chinese government bend over backwards to accommodate the failings of:

 

A) The British mental health system, which has obviously failed as his condition must have come under the radar and he was assessed as being capable of understanding the consequences of his actions and the effect they have on himself and others, or;

 

B) The family of Mr Shaikh, who seem to have left him to his own devices, despite knowing of his condition and not monitoring or contacting him on a regular basis.

 

I understand how frustrating bi-polar can be, I have staff members who have the condition, at times, they are fantastic, other times, I have had to refer them to occupational health as I have capability issues arising from those that they are supposed to be safeguarding. Once again, it comes back to how we categorise those with mental health issues and what the best way of dealing with those conditions are.

 

One one hand, some seem to say that it's just a mental health issue, such as schizophrenic, of which can be treated with medication[to a degree] and these people should be allowed to live an independent life as practically posssible, which I am inclined to agree with.

 

The concern for me is that we can't then say 'but they have a mental health condition' when they do harm to themselves, or others and should not be governed by the same set of laws as those who are fortunate enough to escaped mental illness - bear in mind that "sickness is in us all" as one Psychiatrist recently told me:)

 

So, we either have to accept that once those supposedly responsible for assessing people with special needs/mental illness consider a person fit to look after themselves, without constant supervision, then they are capable and have control and understanding of their actions and they should face trial if they break the law.

 

If they don't, then why are they free to compromise themselves - maybe those responsible for releasing patients as low risk should then be held to blame?

 

If they aren't capable then that leads me back to a question I asked earlier about how as modern caring society, we deal with people with a mental illness.

 

How do we balance the rights and dignity of those with a mental illness against the general public who could be potentially exposed to danger?

 

For me, he was classed as being mentally fit, if he wasn't, then maybe Britain should take a look at itself and bear some of the blame for what has happened, instead of not having any monitoring in place of people who are mentally ill.

 

It's one thing saying that mentally ill people should have their independence and another to then try and say they didn't know right from wrong when they break the laws in any country, even more so when it's a communist country which is very blunt and clear about how they deal with law and order.

[Verbal]

do you..?

 

do you know all the details of what actually happened here..?

 

How on earth is that an answer to my question?

 

But since you ask, I would say there is clearly, in any rational jurisdiction, a 'reasonable doubt' about the state of Shaikh's mind. And if you bother to read the article that BTF linked to, you'll see why.

 

Now try answering my question.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

 

Just a quote from the site, in which they describe the symptoms when in the 'manic' state:

 

 

• feeling very happy, elated, or euphoric (overjoyed),
  
• talking very quickly,
  
• feeling full of energy,
  
• feeling full of self-importance
  
• feeling full of ‘great’ new ideas and having ‘important’ plans
  
• being easily distracted
  
• being easily irritated, or agitated,
  
• being delusional, having hallucinations, and disturbed, or illogical thinking
  
• not feeling like sleeping,
  
• not eating, and
  
• doing pleasurable things which often have disastrous consequences, such as spending large sums of money on expensive and, sometimes, unaffordable, items.
  

 

 

This list demonstrates how difficult it is to diagnose or for some to believe the condition even exists, apart from hallucinations I'm sure a large percentage of the population have experienced these symptons on a regular basis

[EastleighSoulBoy]

Not in this country but certainly in others, your mistake may not involve drink, drugs or a mobile but could still get you charged with dangerous driving or the like that renders you culpable for the death/s, would you having a mental illness mitigate your mistake ?

 

I don't know but if I was going to face the death penalty then I'd give it a try as a mitigating factor. But don't let this cloud the fact that this fellow had exhibited this illness prior to his pop star adventure which so sadly cost him his life. I would hardly be able to successfully plead mental illness if I had never exhibited any tendency previously. Which is what make this case all the more poignant because he had, and the Chinese Legal System chose to not allow the evidence.

[Thedelldays]

How on earth is that an answer to my question?

 

But since you ask, I would say there is clearly, in any rational jurisdiction, a 'reasonable doubt' about the state of Shaikh's mind. And if you bother to read the article that BTF linked to, you'll see why.

 

Now try answering my question.

no..

[Verbal]

 

Just a quote from the site, in which they describe the symptoms when in the 'manic' state:

 

 

• feeling very happy, elated, or euphoric (overjoyed),
  
• talking very quickly,
  
• feeling full of energy,
  
• feeling full of self-importance
  
• feeling full of ‘great’ new ideas and having ‘important’ plans
  
• being easily distracted
  
• being easily irritated, or agitated,
  
• being delusional, having hallucinations, and disturbed, or illogical thinking
  
• not feeling like sleeping,
  
• not eating, and
  
• doing pleasurable things which often have disastrous consequences, such as spending large sums of money on expensive and, sometimes, unaffordable, items.
  

 

 

This list demonstrates how difficult it is to diagnose or for some to believe the condition even exists, apart from hallucinations I'm sure a large percentage of the population have experienced these symptons on a regular basis

 

That's why judgements about the state of someone's mind are made by professional psychologists and not posters on a football fans' message board.

[Verbal]

no..

 

No what? You don't understand the distinction between psychological and physical impairment?

[INFLUENCED.COM]

 

That's why judgements about the state of someone's mind are made by professional psychologists and not posters on a football fans' message board.

 

Equally the same can be said of the judgements made by those within the legal system

[EastleighSoulBoy]

 

That's why judgements about the state of someone's mind are made by professional psychologists and not posters on a football fans' message board.

 

Indeed, and why any legal system of a responsible standing would halt due process to afford any claimant the full chance to explore the claim. And then pass judgement with that evidence in mind.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

No what? You don't understand the distinction between psychological and physical impairment?

 

No, it wouldn't make an argument to answer your question. Your question is far too sensible.

[Thedelldays]

No, it wouldn't make an argument to answer your question. Your question is far too sensible.

why..do I ask you to justify your opinion...no

why should I answer a question that the answer is private to me..?

[Verbal]

 

Equally the same can be said of the judgements made by those within the legal system

 

In no fair legal system that I know of would legal judgements - especially those with such finality - EVER be taken without professional psychological reports, where there was even a hint of mental illness.

 

In the US, for example, as a result of a supreme Court ruling in 2002, you're not allowed to execute ANYONE with an IQ below 70.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

why..do I ask you to justify your opinion...no

why should I answer a question that the answer is private to me..?

 

serious question. Do you understand Verbal's question?

 

I only ask because earlier, when I said I thought you were trolling, I wondered if you had read all the links but were just trying to be a WUM?

[Thedelldays]

serious question. Do you understand Verbal's question?

 

I only ask because earlier, when I said I thought you were trolling, I wondered if you had read all the links but were just trying to be a WUM?

 

yes..but that is all I am saying on it...

[EastleighSoulBoy]

yes..but that is all I am saying on it...

 

Ok.

[benjii]

And what you lot carry (legally) in your bunkers has the potential to cause?

 

You are trolling.

 

If you have read all the links placed here then you will be well aware that the weight of feeling is that this guy, although carrying the drug, more than likely had no idea what he was doing. Apart from travelling to China to become a pop star. Whoever set him up appealled to his baser instinct that he wanted fame and fortune.

 

Guilty, as charged, but the Chinese didn't really want to listen to any evidence otherwise.

 

I don't think he is; I think he's just genuinely thick.

[aintforever]

I don't think you have understanding of poverty and how it effects the really poor and uneducated. I doubt you have ever seen or been to a really poor area, like some in China. I bet you think that it's an optional thing or a lifestyle choice.

 

It may be for some sections of society and as you rightly say, you have that freedom to choose -if you are fortunate enough to be educated and have the ability to make that decision for yourself or not have it introduced to you at a young age from a addicted close family member.

 

Heroin is a vicious drug and unless there is a really serious deterrent, for the filth that bring it into the lives of those that are usually already less fortunate, then we might as well have an open door policy.

 

We all know Heroin is a nasty drug and the people responsible should be severely punished but the people who supply the drug are no more responsible for the deaths than the barman who sells the alcoholic booze or the shop that sells the cancer victim cigarettes (people in poverty use these vicious drugs also).

 

If you shoot all drug smugglers then it's only fair you shoot all the drug dealers, traffickers, suppliers and users as well.

 

If you are shooting people because of the deaths they might cause then drink driving and manslaughter must also be a capital offence. Most would consider selling drugs to not be as bad as raping, child abusing, GBH, ABH or armed robbery so those too must be capital offences.

 

**** it, just shoot all criminals.

[sotonjoe]

One of the 'little things' we do know is that the man had a mental illness, Bi-polar disorder, as explained in more personal detail by one of our fellow members earlier.

 

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Bipolar-disorder/Pages/Symptoms.aspx

 

Just a quote from the site, in which they describe the symptoms when in the 'manic' state:

 

 

• feeling very happy, elated, or euphoric (overjoyed),
  
• talking very quickly,
  
• feeling full of energy,
  
• feeling full of self-importance,
  
• feeling full of ‘great’ new ideas and having ‘important’ plans,
  
• being easily distracted,
  
• being easily irritated, or agitated,
  
• being delusional, having hallucinations, and disturbed, or illogical thinking,
  
• not feeling like sleeping,
  
• not eating, and
  
• doing pleasurable things which often have disastrous consequences, such as spending large sums of money on expensive and, sometimes, unaffordable, items.
  

All which can be fuelled by someone bright enough (and these drug barons, terrorists etc are!) to to use the illness.

 

 

I thought you highlighted the bits in red as you were going to say that DellDays was suffering from bipolar-disorder :smt043

[Thedelldays]

I don't think he is; I think he's just genuinely thick.

why..because I dont have much sympathy for him..

 

fuk you pr1ck

[Micky]

My two penneth. Was devestated to hear that the guy was executed - guilty or innocent. The crime did not warrant such radical punishment.

 

There appears to me to be numerous issues that have gone against Akmal during this case. I agree with Barney Trouble, irrespective of his adult status - if his illness was 'that' severe, surely somebody in his family should have been watching out for him.

 

It appears a little premature to cite these issues in defence when little was done to negate the gentleman from getting into difficult situations. A failing of the health authorities in this country, a failing of Akmals family and friends I don't know - but for my money somebody should have been watching his back.

 

The Chinese justice system is well known for it's severity of sentence - it is not a country to start your criminal career. I believe that Akmal was indeed doped into the crime, and that he had little idea of the ramifications.

 

Will any good come of this. For Akmals family probably no, but if it deters other 'would be' 'smugglers' from case carrying for a quick buck (which could lead to the death penalty) then perhaps all has not been in vain, and some positives might transpire from this barbaric act.

[benjii]

why..because I dont have much sympathy for him..

 

fuk you pr1ck

 

No because of your continual over-simplistic unnuanced views on virtually everything of any importance.

 

If you hold the opinion that the death sentence is a good thing for drug smugglers then that is up to you but your original thoughts were something like, "whatever, he should've known better" which is clearly the precise question at issue here. This leads on to consideration about whether the Chinese system can be defended when it doesn't even attempt to address the question (in this case).

 

Apologies for calling you thick; that was personal and unnecessary. Maybe it is your blunt posting style that gives that impression.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

 

Indeed, and why any legal system of a responsible standing would halt due process to afford any claimant the full chance to explore the claim. And then pass judgement with that evidence in mind.

 

 

In no fair legal system that I know of would legal judgements - especially those with such finality - EVER be taken without professional psychological reports, where there was even a hint of mental illness.

 

In the US, for example, as a result of a supreme Court ruling in 2002, you're not allowed to execute ANYONE with an IQ below 70.

 

I take on board both comments and thank you for the info re supreme court ruling, based on that, suprised executions remain so high over there !

[EastleighSoulBoy]

 

 

 

I take on board both comments and thank you for the info re supreme court ruling, based on that, suprised executions remain so high over there !

 

That's the crux of the argument and why voices are being raised against China's shambolic attitude toward human rights.

[Thedelldays]

No because of your continual over-simplistic unnuanced views on virtually everything of any importance.

 

If you hold the opinion that the death sentence is a good thing for drug smugglers then that is up to you but your original thoughts were something like, "whatever, he should've known better" which is clearly the precise question at issue here. This leads on to consideration about whether the Chinese system can be defended when it doesn't even attempt to address the question (in this case).

 

Apologies for calling you thick; that was personal and unnecessary. Maybe it is your blunt posting style that gives that impression.

no problem

 

thing is, some feel the need to get personal ASAP as soon as they dont like what I post...does it really bother someone that much that I dont have much sympathy, or not convinced totally about the climate change issue or thought burley was utter turd..

 

sick and tired of people think they know best, when in 9/10 they have as much info in the matter in hand as me..yet get personal as their opinion HAS to be the right one..

[sotonjoe]

no problem

 

thing is, some feel the need to get personal ASAP as soon as they dont like what I post...does it really bother someone that much that I dont have much sympathy, or not convinced totally about the climate change issue or thought burley was utter turd..

 

sick and tired of people think they know best, when in 9/10 they have as much info in the matter in hand as me..yet get personal as their opinion HAS to be the right one..

 

But I'd say you're a little guilty of that too to be fair!

[Thedelldays]

But I'd say you're a little guilty of that too to be fair!

indeed..but you can look back through the threads/posts...very rarely am I off the cuff...lately I have been as a reaction...

[EastleighSoulBoy]

In fairness,most of the time it is you who gets personal first by being rude and calling others idiots!

[Thedelldays]

In fairness,most of the time it is you who gets personal first by being rude and calling others idiots!

most of the time...no way...yes I am not perfect but I can say hand on heart...I have been reacting to personal digs...like the one the otehr day when someone wished me dead...

[hypochondriac]

no problem

 

thing is, some feel the need to get personal ASAP as soon as they dont like what I post...does it really bother someone that much that I dont have much sympathy, or not convinced totally about the climate change issue or thought burley was utter turd..

 

sick and tired of people think they know best, when in 9/10 they have as much info in the matter in hand as me..yet get personal as their opinion HAS to be the right one..

 

TBF TDD I think sometimes you deliberately seek to hold the opposite view of the majority. It can get quite tiresome at times (not saying you do that with every view you hold.)

[Thedelldays]

TBF TDD I think sometimes you deliberately seek to hold the opposite view of the majority. It can get quite tiresome at times (not saying you do that with every view you hold.)

no...I just stick to my guns mate..if think something is a turd..i will say it

[EastleighSoulBoy]

most of the time...no way...yes I am not perfect but I can say hand on heart...I have been reacting to personal digs...like the one the otehr day when someone wished me dead...

 

I had that too, but at least the fella PM'd me to apologise!

 

I wouldn't want you dead, or harmed even. Who the f**k would we have to try and wind us up? :wink:

[Dog]

Answer the question delldays.

[Verbal]

 

 

 

I take on board both comments and thank you for the info re supreme court ruling, based on that, suprised executions remain so high over there !

 

The quoting system seems to have gone a bit funny - the first of your quotes was from ESB, not me (just to be clear).

 

In any case, yes, you're right - just imagine the death toll without that ruling. Following that Surpreme Court judgement, at least one state have given up on the death penalty altogether - New Mexico (incidentally, about the poorest state in the Union).

[EastleighSoulBoy]

 

The quoting system seems to have gone a bit funny - the first of your quotes was from ESB, not me (just to be clear).

 

In any case, yes, you're right - just imagine the death toll without that ruling. Following that Surpreme Court judgement, at least one state have given up on the death penalty altogether - New Mexico (incidentally, about the poorest state in the Union).

 

One thing of note, from your earlier piece of info (I.Q. of lower than 70) and it made me ask How do 'they' reach what seems an arbitary figure? Would someone, as in this particular case we are debating, automatically have a low I.Q. because they have Bi-polar disorder? Or would the low I.Q. be as a direct result of a poor education caused by that illness?

[JackFrost]

My two penneth. Was devestated to hear that the guy was executed - guilty or innocent. The crime did not warrant such radical punishment.

 

There appears to me to be numerous issues that have gone against Akmal during this case. I agree with Barney Trouble, irrespective of his adult status - if his illness was 'that' severe, surely somebody in his family should have been watching out for him.

 

It appears a little premature to cite these issues in defence when little was done to negate the gentleman from getting into difficult situations. A failing of the health authorities in this country, a failing of Akmals family and friends I don't know - but for my money somebody should have been watching his back.

 

The Chinese justice system is well known for it's severity of sentence - it is not a country to start your criminal career. I believe that Akmal was indeed doped into the crime, and that he had little idea of the ramifications.

 

Will any good come of this. For Akmals family probably no, but if it deters other 'would be' 'smugglers' from case carrying for a quick buck (which could lead to the death penalty) then perhaps all has not been in vain, and some positives might transpire from this barbaric act.

 

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Deppo]

You soppy old sod.

[Micky]

I don't wish Delldays dead or any misfortune whatsoever - I just wish he would do longer & more frequent tours of duty...!

[Verbal]

 

One thing of note, from your earlier piece of info (I.Q. of lower than 70) and it made me ask How do 'they' reach what seems an arbitary figure? Would someone, as in this particular case we are debating, automatically have a low I.Q. because they have Bi-polar disorder? Or would the low I.Q. be as a direct result of a poor education caused by that illness?

 

IQ isn't related to mental illness necessarily. The best example of the opposite is John Nash, the brilliant mathematician whose story was told in A Beautiful Mind. (Actually, come to think of it, Nash's story is a very useful illustration for those who have difficulty in imagining the effects of mental illness)

 

Low IQ is however strongly correlated with poverty. Even conservative American thinkers like Charles Murray (co-author of The Bell curve) would accept that.

[EastleighSoulBoy]

 

IQ isn't related to mental illness necessarily. The best example of the opposite is John Nash, the brilliant mathematician whose story was told in A Beautiful Mind. (Actually, come to think of it, Nash's story is a very useful illustration for those who have difficulty in imagining the effects of mental illness)

 

Low IQ is however strongly correlated with poverty. Even conservative American thinkers like Charles Murray (co-author of The Bell curve) would accept that.

 

Thanks for the info, I wan't sure of my own reasoning that IQ wasn't neccesarily related to mental health. Indeed poverty is a drain on I.Q. which is why, when someone breaks free of that constraint, it should be celebrated for the achievement it is.

[Viking Warrior]

An interesying debate unfolding on here

 

I was wondering about this guy, I don't have much sympathy for him, He got caught with 4 KGs of Heroin. worth £250k . The Chinese population are not that rich. so consider the impact on the poor souls who would have been recipients of the heroin he was peddling.

 

The guy was 57 a declared bankrupt and would have known the risks he was taking in China especially as like singapore they have zero tolerance to drugs.

 

The questions I would like to know include was he a drug user. If he had Bi Polar and erratic behaviour patterns , why wasnt he known to the authorities or have our immigration officers bungled yet again.

[bridge too far]

An interesying debate unfolding on here

 

I was wondering about this guy, I don't have much sympathy for him, He got caught with 4 KGs of Heroin. worth £250k . The Chinese population are not that rich. so consider the impact on the poor souls who would have been recipients of the heroin he was peddling.

 

The guy was 57 a declared bankrupt and would have known the risks he was taking in China especially as like singapore they have zero tolerance to drugs.

 

The questions I would like to know include was he a drug user. If he had Bi Polar and erratic behaviour patterns , why wasnt he known to the authorities or have our immigration officers bungled yet again.

 

Not if he genuinely believed he was only carrying someone else's suitcase for them. He believed these people had arranged a record deal for him, so it stands to reason he'd believe anything he was told.

AFAIK it isn't a criminal offence to have bipolar disorder. And WTF have 'our immigration officers' got to do with it? They're apparently supposed to stop 'undesirables' entering our country, not preventing people from leaving it.

[INFLUENCED.COM]

The questions I would like to know include was he a drug user. If he had Bi Polar and erratic behaviour patterns , why wasnt he known to the authorities or have our immigration officers bungled yet again.

 

The drug useage, and if you mean health authorities are valid questions, not sure of the relevance of immigration officers ?

[St Steve]

Good article in the Daily Mail (this will wind alot of you up as I beleive the writer aimed it at you).

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/index.html

 

Sorry not to join the liberal wailing: heroin traffickers deserve to die

 

A country that reveres such junkies as Kate Moss, Pete Doherty and Amy Winehouse has no right to lecture China on its drugs policy, argues LEO McKINSTRY

THIS morning, barring an unlikely last-minute reprieve, convicted drug smuggler Akmal Shaikh was executed by firing squad, having been found guilty of trying to bring 4kg of heroin into China.

 

His case has prompted outrage in this country from politicians and from the trendy metropolitan elite, for whom drug use is a fashionable habit rather than serious criminal offence. Yet for all this orchestrated wailing, is it not possible that China is right to put Shaikh to death?

 

Indeed, I would argue that Britain’s enfeebled, self-destructive approach to narcotics has been graphically highlighted by China’s ruthlessness in tackling drug pushers. In contrast to New Labour’s policy of appeasement and surrender, the Chinese Government acts vigorously to defend its people from the misery caused by the drugs trade.

 

My regret is not over tough action by Beijing, but the fact that we in this country do not possess the moral clarity or strength of purpose to deal ruthlessly with drug peddlers and other enemies of our society.

 

A bankrupt with a chequered financial history, a tangled personal life, and an obsession with easy money, Shaikh was arrested with heroin worth a cool £250,000 in his suitcase. As the Chinese police point out, this is a big enough amount to have killed 27,000 people.

 

In China, the death penalty can be invoked against anyone carrying more than 50g of drugs — and that is one obvious reason why China, proportionally, has nothing like the drugs problem that we have in Britain. Serious dealers and abusers know they could be looking down the barrel of a gun if they are caught.

 

It is the height of hypocrisy for the Labour government, the human rights brigade and celebrity loudmouths to lecture China when Britain’s own strategy has failed so disastrously. Thanks to the climate of institutionalised leniency, our society is awash with drugs, bringing widespread crime, violence and family breakdown in their wake.

 

Dealers and users conduct their business knowing they have absolutely nothing to fear from our courts. Far from condemning cannabis and cocaine, our achingly liberal youth culture glamorises their possession.

 

When vacuous supermodel Kate Moss was caught using cocaine by undercover reporters, most of the fashion world rallied behind her with a sense of moral indignation, protecting her lucrative contracts and behaving as though she were a victim.

 

In showbusiness circles there was speculation for a long time that cocaine was not Kate’s only drug of choice — that she had also smoked heroin and crack cocaine.

 

Nor has Moss’s former boyfriend, musician Pete Doherty, ever received a meaningful sentence, despite repeated convictions for misuse and other criminal behaviour.

 

In 2007, for instance, he was spared jail over a string of offences and was even allowed by Judge Jane McIvor, who claimed to be a fan of his music, to delay a court hearing. Similarly, drug-addled singers Amy Winehouse and George Michael have been lionised by the music establishment.

 

British officialdom now adopts simpering indulgence towards drug abuse. Politicians line up to boast how much cannabis they smoked in their youth and downgrade the criminal classification of substances. Instead of locking up offenders, the Government wastes a fortune of taxpayers’ money on non-judgmental propaganda like the useless television adverts from the £2.2 million Frank campaign.

 

Public funds are lavished on rehabilitation schemes, all of which have failed to prevent a dramatic rise in abuse. Unlike China with its firing squads, the only ‘shooting galleries’ we have in Britain are state-run needle exchanges for junkies.

 

Outrageously, self-inflicted drug addiction is now regarded by the welfare state as a disability, entitling claimants to generous payouts of at least £110 a week. In effect, the Government requires taxpayers to subsidise criminal drug habits. It’s estimated no fewer than 267,000 serious drug users live on social security.

 

In contrast to China, our criminal justice system no longer treats offending seriously. Criminals walk free, community punishments are meaningless, jail sentences, even for murder, are derisory. Ordinary citizens are constantly bullied through a plethora of bureaucratic regulations, yet violence, burglary, theft and drug abuse carry no consequences.

 

One key factor behind modern Britain’s reluctance to uphold the law is the belief that criminals are really victims of society, motivated only by social disadvantage or mental health problems and that they need support not punishment.

 

We can see this clearly in the case of Akmal Shaikh. Campaigners on his behalf claim he was suffering from mental illness at the time of his visit to China and so should be let off. Such excuse-making is absurd. His record of infidelity, sexual harassment and dubious business conduct suggest he was amoral, selfish, and irresponsible.

 

He was once fined £10,000 for hounding a woman he had recruited as his secretary, while it is telling that his former first wife refused to join the campaign for a reprieve.

 

The hysteria over Shaikh’s death penalty echoes the preposterous outcry in 2002 over another British man who was executed by a foreign government. A career thug, drug addict and alcoholic, Tracy Housel was put to death by the U.S. state of Georgia for raping and killing a woman, Jeanne Drew, whose body was so badly battered she could be identified only by dental records.

 

Once again, there were the interventions by the Labour Government. Once again, there were the claims of mental illness, with Housel said to be suffering from brain damage and hypoglycaemia, though this hardly explained his record of extreme violence.

 

AND

 

ONCE again there was the tenuous nature of the defendant’s links with Britain, which hardly justified the energy the Government spent on his case. Housel, born in Bermuda, had never actually set foot in this country.

 

Similarly Shaikh, born in Pakistan, spent much of his adult life in the U.S. and Poland before going on his criminal odyssey to China. Neither of these men could demonstrate any real commitment or connection to Britain.

 

The British government, with its prattle about human rights, likes to think a refusal to use capital punishment is a badge of a civilised society. The truth is the willingness to execute dangerous criminals is a sign of compassion. It means a government is determined to protect the vulnerable and maintain morality.

 

It is no coincidence Britain was at its most peaceful and crime-free in the Forties and Fifties, when we still had the death penalty.

 

‘The gentleness of English civilisation is its most marked characteristic,’ wrote George Orwell during the war, a remark that seems laughable now, though we think of ourselves morally superior. Between 1950 and 1957, the number of murders in Britain never rose above 180. The annual average in recent years is over 900.

 

Overall crime has also shot up since we abolished capital punishment. Since the Fifties, the number of recorded crimes has increased more than tenfold, up from 438,000 in 1955 to 4.8 million in 2008.

 

This is because the removal of the death penalty has had a downward ratchet effect. Since murderers could no longer be hanged, sentences for all other crimes had to be lowered commensurately. The result is the near-anarchy we see today, where serial offenders continually escape custody and rates of violent crime soar.

 

There is nothing barbaric about the death penalty. The real barbarism lies in refusing to punish criminals.

 

The drug-fuelled, crime-ridden, welfare-dependent, fear-filled inner city housing estate in modern Britain is far more savage than any place of execution in China for a trafficker of human misery.

[aintforever]

When the Mail writes that garbage it just renforces my opinion that the Chinese government are barbaric scum.